Reply From Innova Regarding Wrong Weights

[Eric Maurer]

I posted on the Innova FB site asking why they continually send out discs marked with the wrong weight. Here is their reply.

Our production staff individually weigh and measure each disc as it is produced. We put great care in this process. We zero and calibrate scales on a regular basis. We continue quality control as discs pass through hot stamping, warehousing and shipping. Even then, it is still possible that mis-marked discs can get through this process. Also, some plastics are hygroscopic, meaning they can lose or absorb moisture. This may cause a disc to gain or lose a few grams. Most players will not notice this effect.

However, if exact weights are extremely important, many retailers will allow you to weigh discs before purchase. Some retailers will even re-mark weights to the 100th of a gram. If you have purchased a new disc that is overweight, it can be exchanged.

Thoughts?

[Anthony Dembinski]

Makes sense. How much does it seem to vary in your experience?

[Trent Solomon]

a few grams= 3-5. 5 grams is a lot IMO. throw a 168 leo and then a 173 at barre and tell me you wont notice a difference

[Eric Maurer]

Eric Maurer Which of the plastics you sell are hygroscopic? I honestly don't think I have a single innova disc that has the correct weight on it.
2 hours ago · Like

Innova Discs Almost all contain some hygroscopic materials. Next time you get a disc, weigh it upon purchase. If it doesn't match marked weight, write the "correct" weight down. Then weigh the disc in two months, six months and a year and see what happens to the weight. It is not very likely it remained the same.
27 minutes ago · Like

[Eric Maurer]

Most of them seem to be about 2 grams off in either direction.

[Karl Molitoris]

A few random thoughts about this subject...

The process of plastics being molded at higher than ambient temperatures are rife with potential weight issues. When they're weighed (and marked that way) will make a difference. How warm they are will make a difference. If the scales are calibrated or not will make a difference. What composites of plastics are used will make a huge difference.

The "scopic" part refers to "taking on", i.e. water addition; "phobic" would refer to "giving off", i.e. water loss. Plastics can exhibit BOTH of these properties (in practical senses, not at the same time)...it just depends on what is surrounding the plastic at that time. Example: When suddenly immersed in water, I guarantee you the plastic is "taking on" water, yet if you throw the disc in the desert sun, it'll probably give off a gram or so.

Some dg'ers swear they can tell the difference between discs 1 gram apart. That's about 0.5% difference. And what's more important, is the fact that a certain disc flies a certain way and the same disc (except it's 1 gram heavier) flies differently by SO much smaller an amount than the average difference between 2 throws of the same person that it's not even funny. I just think that the player has more room for improvement than the disc. Kind of like giving Luke Donald a set of 1970 woods and irons - he'll still beat the pants off of any of us in ball golf.

Karl

[David Gipson]

After reading this i weighed a bunch of my plastic. The older stuff seems to be on in the weights but the newer stuff is off by 2-4 grams. Mind you these are my discs. I have a CE Eagle that is marked 172 bought it new when they came out 01-02. I am still throwing it have been since i bought it, scaled weight is still 172. My 11X Aviar I have been using for a few years marked 174 and still weighs 174. Now the 174 Champ leopard i have(bought last year) weighed in at a beefy 177 no even legal for play.

The losing a gram or two or gaining a gram or two in the cooling process makes sesne. Plastic from my understanding is tricky to mold, but can anyone explain why a Special Blend USDGC Roc could possiably weigh 191g. Yes you read that right 191g talk about a overstable Roc.

[Matt Stroika]

Thanks for posting the correct terms Karl. That was bothering me. Just shows that they have a bunch of hacks working there and not scientists and engineers.

[Karl Molitoris]

Just to clarify things a little more, the true opposite of "phobic" (shedding / shunning / fear of), and in our practical usage "giving off", is "philic" (liking, et al... and in our practical usage "taking on"). But even we in the industry (at least pharmaceutical) loosely use the "scopic" suffix as meaning "adding to" or "gaining".

Karl

[James Livingston]

Just to clarify things a little more, the true opposite of "phobic" (shedding / shunning / fear of), and in our practical usage "giving off", is "philic" (liking, et al... and in our practical usage "taking on"). But even we in the industry (at least pharmaceutical) loosely use the "scopic" suffix as meaning "adding to" or "gaining".

Karl

Holy hell. What kind of jibberish is this? I feel nauseous after reading that.

[Shawn Mullen]

I really think they are running a bunch of discs in a cetain plastic. Throwing that bunch on the scale and writing the average on the back of them all.