Dave Feldberg wants to "Fix" the basket's... Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tek Zeus
    started a topic Dave Feldberg wants to "Fix" the basket's...

    Dave Feldberg wants to "Fix" the basket's...

    I would have to agree with him. Thanks Dave for sharing your input. I know the powers that be are listening....
    Last edited by Tek Zeus; March 11th, 2011, 10:19 AM.

  • jonverbarg
    replied
    I'm a little late here but, as far as I see it...
    We have a pdga standard for basket diameter. Why not have a standard for chain length, placement, top and bottom connections, and most important... gauge and weight of the chain.
    If the chains are the same, the putts would be the same across the board.
    I putt on Cool Shoes, DGA, and Innova on a regular basis. Granted I know how they are all going to catch, but it is definitely a factor.
    The other part of the basket that should be standardized would be the top edge of the basket. Some have nubs around the top to stop a slide out, some don't.
    In the meantime... I'm gonna keep practicing on the meanest basket i know... If I can stick it 90% of the time, I'll do just fine... That or I need to try putting from more than 15'.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Course Bro
    replied
    One more random thought:
    What about using bicycle chains? Just for one part of the overall entrapment structure. I've always been intrigued by the thought of chains that flexed on one axis but was rigid on the other.

    Now another thought- what about one-way chains? The disc hits the basket, the chains do (more or less) their standard thing but the chains on the sides/back somehow offer more resistance going "the wrong way".

    Now, someone has to figure out a way to do thing without pushing basket prices up to 600 bucks due to extra engineering/metal work/materials costs.

    We are waiting.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Course Bro
    replied
    .02

    The best baskets on the market are heavy!!! Try picking up a Mach3 or 5 :b(like at Riverside and Stielly, right? )and then do the same with a temp/portable like the M-14 or the DB-5. Much lighter. Especially the M-14. One of the reasons the permanent baskets cost so much is the materials are sold by weight. Building a basket isn't hard for a metal shop, but buying the bar stock and chains is a significant expense.
    I have been screwing around with my old M-14 for a while now in the Lab.
    The M-14 come with a single ring of chains.
    1. Removed stock chains.
    2. Replaced stock chains with thicker gauge chains (I didn't bust out the calipers but I tried to match the new chains to what's on the Mach3s at North Park).
    2. Added inner chains. Inner chains are almost twice as heavy as outer chains. I putt harder than I should so I gave the basket some more mass dampening at the pole. I also set the lengths so the bottom ring of the outer chains are above the ring for the inner chains (have both sets of chains on the same ring makes no sense to me) so the sweet spot for the outer ring is wider as the chains can slide up and grab that waaay too far to the right/left putt still has a chance to grab metal but if the disc gets to the inner ring of chains, the inner ring on the inside chains slides up and picks up the weight of the outer chains as well to help slow the disc.
    3. Add third set of chains that are attached to the same rings as the outer chains but run at 45 degrees to the pole. This set of chains is an attempt to a. close the hole between the two chain sets where they run parallel closer to the top of the basket (works pretty good but sometimes redirects the disc right the *&%^ out of the basket) and b. to force the disc into to go "nose down" if I hit the chains high. I've had and seen many seemingly perfect putts hit just a little high and flat/nose up suffer needless (and heartbreaking!!) rejection.

    Now looking at Cubby's disc trap (I swear I've gone crabbing with that thing when I was a kid!!) maybe there something to an outer ring of chains that somehow mimic the trap aspect of Cubby's trap. I guess I want a basket that works like a roach "motel" trap (discs check in, they don't check out!!!). But just having a row of loose chains hanging seems weird.

    Maybe adding some metal bars into one of the rows of chains would add some trapping rigidity w/o impeding the catching area.

    The best baskets are just that: THE BEST BASKETS!!! But there is nothing in the PDGA specs about chains or entrapment elements so why not figure out if there is a way to make the Best Baskets Better.

    If anyone else has done any experimenting, I would love to hear/see what you've done. I'll try and get some pics up of my modded basket.

    My mods are designed to be additive to existing baskets. Converting a POS basket over to something better is not cheap- but it's cheaper than buying a new basket.

    Cheers,
    Bro

    Leave a comment:


  • JMan
    replied
    you can't un-ring a tone pole, counts on the weak side or strong

    Leave a comment:


  • The Ombudsman
    replied
    Baskets have ruined this sport

    Leave a comment:


  • Mayumoogy
    replied
    I am not sure that the basket needs to be fixed. I agree that if everyone shoots at the same basket then it is probably fair. Then there are the plastic options. I use an R-pro Rhyno, and never discs cut through, hitting the left side of the chains and having it roll out... thats another story.

    However, baskets have evolved over the years, I remember when baskets had only the one set of chains, then the center chains were added. I think the next obvious step is smaller strings of chains, but more of the strings.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bruce
    replied
    I'm with Denny here. I've been reading this thread since it started without chiming in, but here goes. I feel like baskets on the professional level needs to be the same in tournament play (Major's and NT's especially.) It will bring consistency to our sport, which is needed in some aspects but perhaps not all.

    I feel the same way about McIver every round I play there, 3 different styles of Discatchers. While it may not make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things, different styles of chain configurations, cage depth, etc. does make a difference in the mental game.

    Just my feelings on things though, evolution of the sport is bound to happen, we can either be complacent and shoot down ideas left and right; or roll with the punches in hopes that things will become better, for everyone.

    Leave a comment:


  • Denny
    replied
    Originally posted by cefire View Post
    You are talking about two different things here:

    1. Innovation
    2. Standardization

    I'm all for the continual innovation of the sport; improve baskets, make new creative designs - but don't mandate a standard that all baskets must be the same...
    I believe one day.... there will be one basket to rule them all.

    Leave a comment:


  • cefire
    replied
    Originally posted by Denny View Post
    I personally think improvements and innovations to our targets and discs are a good thing.

    Think about the difference between an M14 practice basket and a Mach V

    Which would you rather play on?

    I think that bullseye really hit the nail on the head and I would love to see that become the standard, or at least the new trend.

    It's not about fair and unfair because in tournaments we all have to play the same baskets.
    I think it's more about the overall enjoyability of the game,
    wouldn't you have more fun with fewer spit outs or maybe if that ace run actually stuck instead of 99% of the time spitting out
    because it was going to fast and the target was too weak to catch it?

    Just like in any sport as our athletes became stronger and faster our equipment is going to have to evolve with them.
    Just think if leather helmets in football were still the standard, also they did not initially play on the basketball rim we know today.

    You are talking about two different things here:

    1. Innovation
    2. Standardization

    I'm all for the continual innovation of the sport; improve baskets, make new creative designs - but don't mandate a standard that all baskets must be the same...

    Leave a comment:


  • Matt B.
    replied
    I love how someone posts a video from 2009 and people are all worked up to the point of addressing Feldberg as if he's reading this! The rest of the discussion about basket standardization is pretty interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Minordiety
    replied
    Originally posted by Chuck Kennedy View Post
    I wasn't talking about standardizing courses but the equipment on them, primarily baskets, how OB is marked, tee pads. All of those different ball golf courses have holes the same diameter.
    Oh come on Dave! Change the baskets. WTF? You missed a putt. Does this really mean that baskets need to be changed?

    Or does this really mean you have to change the way you putt?

    We all have putts that spit out. It's part of the freaking game. It happens. Get over it. Move on. It happens...

    Leave a comment:


  • Chuck Kennedy
    replied
    There are many types of PRO level golf courses played on the PGA. Our sport could learn a couple things from ball golf... if not embrace all the stuffiness. Anyway, they have shown that different styles of courses can be very fun for both the golfers and the spectators. Strict standardization of the courses seems a bit overboard and silly.
    I wasn't talking about standardizing courses but the equipment on them, primarily baskets, how OB is marked, tee pads. All of those different ball golf courses have holes the same diameter.

    Leave a comment:


  • jshrack
    replied
    Originally posted by Chuck Kennedy View Post
    That point of view is just another reason this sport should probably revert to 100% amateur level competition with no pro level. Non-standardization of throwing and field components is just one of several elements that do not support having pro level competition.
    There are many types of PRO level golf courses played on the PGA. Our sport could learn a couple things from ball golf... if not embrace all the stuffiness.
    Anyway, they have shown that different styles of courses can be very fun for both the golfers and the spectators.
    Strict standardization of the courses seems a bit overboard and silly.

    Heck, when it comes to equipment, the PGA still outlaws certain types of putters, drivers, or balls in competition.
    Our sport has similarly put in place a set of specifications which our throwing and target components must meet during competition.
    I don't see any of these guidelines holding much weight in all amateur setting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ol' Bob
    replied
    Originally posted by WestsoundBT View Post
    Office chair upside down with dangling power cords. Yet it also doesn't demonstrate radial symmetry. What... haven't played the "back" back nine behind your local Staples store?...
    Then it's not a three-balled octopus? I was worried about that.

    Leave a comment:

Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Working...
X