Unicorn Blogs

Quick Search Posts
Quick Browse Posts

Cycle to Work

Posted by UniBoffin at 10:00 on 14th February 2008 in UniBlog

Cycle to Work

Hi, everyone. It’s good to see that the spirit of scientific enquiry is alive and well amongst dart players, which means that there were again some good comments and questions after my last blog - and it’s no surprise that Sigma darts were the main topic.

As usual, I’ll respond to most of the questions in the Q&A section at the end, but it so happens that one of them was actually going to be today’s subject anyway. Neily B wanted to know why Sigma darts are more consistent for the average darts player.

To answer this, we first need to appreciate that, when darts are thrown from a standard 2.37m oche, the length of their flight path doesn’t vary from person to person quite as much as one might think. Don’t believe me? OK, let’s look at the factors involved:

Firstly, there will clearly be some variation in the position of different players’ release points due to their individual stance and throwing technique, but, for serious “dartists” who don’t generally lean so far forward they over-balance or so far back they need telescopic sights, this doesn’t often amount to more than a few centimetres.

The next factor to consider is speed of throw. A slower dart will have a more curved flight path and hence have further to go, but again the difference will generally be fairly small (by the way, despite what you might have read, this curve is not strictly a parabola, which is only an approximation that neglects aerodynamic effects).

Ah, I hear you say, but what about a player’s height? Your pal Lofty who plays down the pub is 2m (6ft 7) tall. How can his darts have as far to travel on their way to the treble twenty as the darts of his mate Little Len, who’s only 1.5m (4ft 11)?

Well, of course they don’t, but probably not by that much. Although Lofty’s arms are (hopefully) longer than Len’s and he might lean a bit further forward, their height discrepancy alone does not make all that much difference (and, for a similar reason, neither does whereabouts on the board they aim). This is all due to a Greek guy.

Let’s take Lofty’s longer arms out of the equation for a minute and imagine that both guys release their darts a convenient 37cms in front of the oche (convenient as that’s exactly 200cms from the board). How much further do Len’s darts have to travel to hit the 60, some 50cms above his release point but level with Lofty’s? 25cms? 30, maybe? No, the actual answer is only about 6cms. Because (as Pythagoras would tell us if he were rather less dead) 200 squared plus 50 squared is 206.15 squared.

Hence height, in itself, doesn’t alter flight path length hugely, and, although speed of throw, length of arm, and individualities in stance and release point will make some difference, for “the average darts player” (to use Neily’s phrase) throwing from a standard oche, their darts are usually going to travel somewhere near 2m. Now this is a useful piece of information for an enterprising dart designer, because the yaw cycle of a dart can then be tuned so that its wavelength is related to this distance.

But why should tuning the yaw wavelength to the flight path length help? (if you’re new to these blogs, or have forgotten about yaw cycles and wavelengths, see my earlier “Yaw Choice” blog). Well, most reasonable players can release a dart pointing fairly straight, but it’s much harder not to give it a yawing “rate” (to use the correct term) when so doing. This means that the dart starts off at low yaw, but this then increases up to a maximum after one-quarter of the yaw cycle. The yaw “pendulum effect” then causes the dart to pass through a minimum yaw point after a half-cycle before it hits another maximum (only in the opposite direction) at three-quarters. After a full wavelength, the cycle would be complete and the yaw back to a minimum.

Thus if the yaw wavelength is the same, even approximately, as the flight path length, the dart will hit the board pointing more-or-less in the direction it’s going, whatever yaw rate it was given at release. The dart’s point will hence tend to be in-line with the CG, which (remembering that only the CG has to stay on the thrown trajectory) is much better for consistent scoring than if the dart impacts at a variety of large angles.

Unfortunately, although this might seem like a great idea to help that “average player”, most darts have a yaw wavelength of much more than 2m, which means the match with flight path length is not achieved. But it can be if the dart has a very low moment of inertia barrel. And the perfect shaft. And aerodynamically-optimised flights. In fact, it can (finally getting to part of the answer to Neily’s question) if it’s a Sigma One.

Now that is only part of the answer because there’s still much else to explain, such as why a yaw wavelength of half-a-cycle wouldn’t work in the same way, and why the yaw wavelength of the Sigma Pro is something different again to achieve an effect (to quote Blackadder) “so cunning you could stick a tail on it and call it a weasel”.

But I think that’s enough trade secrets out of the bag for this time!

Q & As!

Chris, Irina Armstrong’s darts and Sigma barrels:
This makes me feel old, but the truth is the general design for Sigma dart barrels was formulated well before Irina had even left school! It’s just taken this long for the technology to come along so that they could be both made and marketed properly!

Z71pinkcadillac, abe and Warren on Sigma flights and shafts:
The bad news is that unprecedented demand for both Sigma Ones and Pros (which share the same barrels, abe) has caused spares to run low and the high-tec shaft materials means it’ll be a few weeks before new stocks come in. However, I’m told Mad on Darts (www.madondarts.co.uk) do still have some stock. It’s worth waiting for the real deal because it’s almost impossible to achieve a set-up with the same accuracy - at least as the Sigma Pro - using trial and error (for why have another look at my last blog, Warren). Just in case you get desperate, though, herewith my second-best recommendations for the aerodynamically closest alternative set-ups:
Sigma One: longer Checkout shaft (eg no 78565) / Maestro Xtra flights (eg 68253)
Sigma Pro: longer Aliflex II shaft (no 78247) / Hi-Lites Slim flights (eg 77346)

There are 10 comments to this post

Posted by Red at 15:28 on 16th February 2008

POST PART 2
Finally it occurs to me that a facility like the UniLab has to make a number of fundamental assumptions to function in its current form. Some players release their darts at an angle i.e. not with the point directed at the board, in my observation of some quite good team players as much as 45 degrees from the horizontal. Also some players release their darts with what I can only describe as a component of angular velocity i.e. they are imparting rotational energy to the darts at the point of release at 90 degrees to the direction of travel. Do these factors cancel out or simply do not count over the limited distance and limited range of velocities encountered in darts?
Also it must disregard peculiarities of grip or style that are individual to players. i.e. some grip the dart right at the front or right at the back. Some players need a specific barrel shape for a dart to feel comfortable in their hands and so impose limitations on the choice of an ''ideal'' dart.

The UniLab selector given free range suggests that I should be using a John Part hero grip dart. This would appear to be some distance from my personal preference.

The UniLab optimiser also recommends that I should use a CheckOut Medium stem 78565-8 and a maestro slim flight. I tried this setup but I did not get on well with it. Is this a case of personal preference overriding the science, or is it a case of the UniLab in its current form being unable to take account of all the variables? For instance I throw the dart from immediately below my right eye and the use of a long stem requires that I do not bring my arm back as far as usual when throwing. There is no way that in its current form UniLab could take account of that. Must the science be diluted to take account of the bio-mechanics, or should I try to put the temporary inconvenience of my ''feeling'' of awkwardness of making such a change to one side and take the recommendation in the interest of greater long term scientifically verifiable accuracy?

Posted by Red at 15:29 on 16th February 2008

POST PART 1
Though I have not posted on this blog for a while I have been following the posts with great interest. I therefore have several questions I would like to put to the UniBoffin.

Firstly how long ago was this work originally done?
I recently ran low on my usual pear shaped flights just before a singles competition and searching through my collection of flights and stems I found an acceptable substitute - two sets of Sigma one flights (pink ripstop fabric ones - not I think called Sigma flights at the time) which I believe I purchased sometime over 8 or 9 years ago. I remember them coming out and then disappearing. I thought at the time that they were unicorns version of a kite shaped flight something with aerodynamic qualities somewhere between a standard and pear shaped flights.
Also I remember seeing John Lowe on television using a flight that looked exactly like the Sigma pro flight (these were reflective silver) with his normal darts and silver slik stems. I also seem to recall seeing him using longer than standard points around the same time. I asked John about the longer points years later and he said that they were to slightly alter the centre of gravity of his darts and to allow better grouping. I don''t know if that was his personal experimentation or the work of the UniBoffin, obviously at the time the existence of a UniBoffin would not have occurred to anyone.

Secondly taking into account the contents of the previous posts technical explanations I would like to ask for some comparative analysis.

For instance lets take the example of what I would regard as an excellent dart pre Sigma.
(Yes this is my personal setup so this is not a very hypothetical question)
John Lowe Golden World Champion 21g 10491
Aluminium slik stems 74441
Maestro xtra flights 68195

Given this as the setup what is the aerodynamic advantage (if any) of a player changing to a Sigma dart?

I wanted to ask the above particularly as it relates to my final question about the UniLab so:

Posted by Jon at 10:43 on 17th February 2008

UniBoffin
What is the difference between the Sigma Pro Side Load Shaft and the Slik Stik? Visibly they look identiacal, price wise (6 pounds / 1.50 pounds) they are not.

Posted by Kev at 09:26 on 18th February 2008

Its interesting you say you cannot acheive the same accuracy with any other set up on the sigmas because i could not acheive the accuracy until i changed the set up to shorter shafts and standard shape flights and they are incredibly accurate i have to say and has improved my game considerably, also i noticed taylors set up is different from the standard. with the set up supplied with the pros i found them too long and ungainly, now they are just right.

Posted by Valspar11 at 00:00 on 20th February 2008

I was wondering why my darts fly in a up then down pattern? They do not wobble side to side only up and down. They all stick in the board at the same angle. I used all weights, flights, shafts and even my release points. Help please.

Posted by Chris at 19:57 on 22nd February 2008

If you are as smart as we all think you are, please tell Phil Taylor that he needs to ditch the "missile engineered" chunks of scrap that he''s currently using, Phil has traditionally always used a slim pencil type barrel and if you are able to win 13 world titles using such a barrel using a completely different barrel ain''t gonna work is it?

Phil''s ideal setup was always a purist barrel, long stem and slim flight, the troubles he''s had whilst using purists have been down to messing around with stems, when he used a long stem he had accuracy and placement, then he tried a short stem and he missed the T20 bed much more, then whether it was down to Phil or Unicorn, in Vegas he used a spinner stem, his darts landed at a better angle for Phil but they were just to tail heavy.

If anybody at Unicorn actually gives a flying monkeys about Phil get him to user what works!!!

Posted by Red at 16:48 on 24th February 2008

Well I couldn''t read Chris'' post without replying. I am guessing that Chris is a dedicated Phil Taylor fan who is longing for Phil to regain his top form and dominate darts as he has done in the past. First let me say that I am sure that all at Unicorn give more than a ''flying monkeys'' about Phil Taylor, as far as I can see as an outsider Unicorn have gone out of their way in a manner that few companies would to accommodate Phil Taylors changing requirements including: changing flights stems grip finishes etc. I cannot believe that the most recent changes in Mr Taylors setup are down to anyone other than Phil Taylor.

Over the years the setup used by Mr Taylor has changed on more than a couple of occasions. i.e. As far as I remember he began his professional career using a 22g Eric Bristow dart with which he won his first world championship. So obviously this is the perfect setup for him after all he just became champion of the world with them so it would be madness to change right? Then he changed to a 24g Datadart with a much thicker barrel and won the championship again so obviously ''this'' is the perfect setup for him right? It would be madness to change wouldn''t it? Then he changed to the first Unicorn Phil Taylor signature dart which was thicker and longer with a shorter fiesta stem with which he then went on to win the worlds again so obviously this is the perfect setup for him right? It would be madness for him to change. He then changed his stems to very long thick ones, and err won again so that was perfect right? Oh then he had the grip on his darts changed, dunno why I mean you don''t change a winning combination do you? Of course he won again and again with them, totally bonkers but still... Umm then he changed the way he threw the dart to get it stacking as he liked so that was perfect right, madness to change. Then he changed to a slim flight! Insane a pear shaped flight has always been his ''traditional'' setup, oh but he carried on winning didn''t he? Then he changed stems again!! How crazy is that? And err carried on winning.

My point really is that Phil Taylors setup has not really remained static over the years as Phil Taylor himself has constantly sort to improve his setup and his game. I sincerely believe that this is driven by Phil Taylor and not by any interference from Unicorn. I am guessing here that Mr Taylor feels that he has pushed his development with his old setup as far as he can and is looking to take his game further with his new setup. Almost all players experiment, pretty much everyone is looking for a little fine tuning to give them a little extra edge. John Lowe once told me that he was constantly on the lookout for anything new that would be an improvement, his setup had not appeared to change for years because he hadn''t really found anything but he said that if he did find something he would change his darts tomorrow!

Finally: If Phil Taylor thinks these darts are better than his previous setup then who are any of us to say what he ''should'' be using? Fellow 13 time world champions who can speak from a position of personal experience? Nobody knows Phil Taylors game better than the man himself. With 13 world titles already to his credit Phil Taylor is clearly the greatest player of all time, and win lose or draw in the future he will always remain so, except in the incredibly unlikely event of someone eclipsing his achievements to date.

Posted by Chris R at 20:19 on 24th February 2008

From now on, I''ll post using the first initial of my last name as I don''t want to be confused with the other Chris'' rant!

Posted by Bob at 03:23 on 25th February 2008

You mention in your blog that a yaw wavelength that matches the flight distance results in the dart striking the board pointing "more-or-less in the direction it''s going". Is that really true? If I''m not mistaken, it should actually strike the board more-or-less in the direction it was pointing when released. That is, if the dart were released at a 15 degree horizontal angle to the board and passed through one full wavelength, shouldn''t it have returned to the angle it started from rather than having straightened out and strike the board at about that same 15 degree angle?

Posted by Chris at 17:32 on 25th February 2008

I''m sorry Red and Chris R if my comments caused offence, it was an angry post. The last PL display from Phil was awful, i''m a massive Phil fan and to see him playing so poorly led me to post, once again i''m sorry if I caused offence.

Leave a comment
Please leave your details and message below.
Name 

Email (this will not be published) 

Message