So this was my dilemma (or should it be trilemma?) when choosing a subject for this blog: should I choose an academic theme and take a look at how much aerodynamic drag may (or may not) affect the flight of a dart? Maybe it would be better to be more topical and give an update on the Phil Taylor/Sigma darts story? Or what about trying to answer some of the questions and forum posts I’ve seen regarding uniLab?
In the end, some comments to my last blog from Bob and dianne s made me go for the last option, but if any of you folks out there have any preferences for next time..…
So, uniLab. One thing that Bob asked about was the eventual vision for it. Well, it’s certainly true that Unicorn see it evolving, but exactly how will, I expect, depend on the feedback from you guys. However, although it’s tempting to add all the whistles and bells people suggest, that wouldn’t necessarily be a good idea. Whilst it is important that uniLab offers the more experienced player a comprehensive facility, it was also one of the key development objectives that it be simple enough not to put off the casual user. Personally, I also believe it needs to stay true to the original concept of providing players with as scientifically-based a recommendation as possible.
For these reasons, I probably wouldn’t see uniLab incorporating the idea of allowing the user to optimise around their own selection of shaft or flights. Whereas the importance of the bio-mechanical interface can easily outweigh any aerodynamic considerations when choosing a dart barrel (see my “The Good, The Bad, and The Ungainly” blog), I don’t think that is really true of shafts or flights - apart, maybe, from the slight risk of facial injury with an over-long set-up!
Of course, a player who is being successful using, eg, Bob’s short, nylon shafts, may well not be impressed with any suggestion that they change to, say, aluminium SlikStiks. But, if they are being successful, why ask uniLab for a recommendation? Or, if things aren’t going so well, why are they so against changing their shaft type?
Now I know that’s a gross over-simplification and there’s a natural human desire to keep improving, but somewhere in there lurks a Catch-22 that we scientists often have to face. Come up with a result that people agree with and your efforts can be dismissed as a waste of time (“don’t need a PhD and a 3-year research grant to know that – it’s simple common sense!”). Suggest something counter-intuitive, on the other hand, and no-one believes you (“aluminium shafts with a pear-shaped flight? – what rubbish!”).
And, on that note, here’s an important point about uniLab that I’ve mentioned before but which I think needs to be re-emphasised. Put in your standard as “Novice”, or even “Average”, and uniLab will try to optimise mostly on stability, meaning that, without compromising aerodynamic accuracy too much, it’ll try to select for you the darts that will stick in the board as straight as possible given your “STs and SPs” (note that “straight” here does not mean horizontal, but rather in line with the downward angle of the trajectory). Alternatively, if you say you’re “Good” or “Pro”, stability will take a back seat to accuracy and uniLab will look for darts that can best use the Sigma Pro trick of employing the impact angle to nullify inaccuracy due to aerodynamic lift.
Now, as I’ve said before, when players optimise their darts using trial-and-error, they will usually go mainly on impact angle. Thus, if you rate your standard highly in uniLab and then find that the darts it recommends don’t stick in as straight as your usual set-up, don’t be surprised. One way then to test whether the program really is working for you would be to retain your other STs and SPs and put your standard down to “Novice”. If the new recommendation you get works well impact-angle wise, that should mean uniLab is calibrating OK for you and the original result may well give better accuracy (assuming you really are that good!). However, if the “Novice” recommendation isn’t good for impact angle either, it could be that there is some specific individuality in your throw for which uniLab hasn’t allowed.
By the same token, if you really are a novice, uniLab recommendations and the results of your own trial-and-error experimentation should hopefully match fairly well. But then how many novices want to spend the time and money needed to try out fully all the combinations of barrel, shaft and flights that the Unicorn range can offer?
And providing an easy alternative to doing that is what uniLab is all about, so please keep those suggestions for improving it coming. Even if we don’t adopt all of them, we really appreciate getting them!
Q & As:
dianne s and John Lowe Soft Tips:
Without knowing more about your throw it’s hard to make a firm recommendation, dianne, and bear in mind that if you find ordinary Grippers too long they are available in short and ultra-short. Even so, if your John Lowes were ordinary soft tips, uniLab would usually suggest something like the shorter XL+ shafts with “Q” Xtra shaped flights. However, the Converta points change all that (which is why a Converta point option is one possible uniLab upgrade) and the longer CheckOut shafts with CheckOut Plus or even Hi-Lites Slim flights might help your impact angle problems.
Warren and Bob and Future Sigmas:
I’ll certainly bear in mind your points about even weights and other mods for future Sigmas, guys (in fact, most of them were already on the drawing board, although I can’t yet guarantee they won’t be staying there!).
Bob and uniLab and Variable Release:
Thanks very much for all your suggestions for uniLab, Bob – even if, as I’ve said, I have my reservations about the shaft/flights selection one, the others about the FAQ page and Match Score explanation are certainly pertinent and provide good food for thought. As for your points about variable release and barrel shape, I certainly agree, which is why some of them were echoed in my “Sigmata” blog.