Unicorn Blogs

Quick Search Posts
Quick Browse Posts

Unlucky for Some

Posted by UniBoffin at 18:00 on 12th January 2009 in UniBlog

Unlucky for Some

It may not be a very original subject for a darts blog, but, following his incredible 14th World Title, it would be positively perverse of me to make the topic of my first effort of 2009 anything but the phenomenon that is Phil “The Power” Taylor.

Almost a year ago I wrote (in “Sigma to the Power of One”) of how Phil had surprised everyone at Unicorn HQ – not least myself – by changing from his old 24gm Purist “Phase 3” darts to the then new 25gm Sigma Pros. However, as much as he liked their optimised flight characteristics, the finer grip of the original 97% tungsten Sigma barrels (now known as “Phil Taylor Phase 4s”, or Sigma 970s to distinguish them from the 95% coarser-gripped Sigma 950s) didn’t really suit him that well. He also found the sharper trailing edge of the Sigma Pro flights off-putting when he drew the dart back towards his eye.

Therefore it wasn’t long before Phil started to experiment, first by changing the shaft and flights and then by swapping the Sigma barrels for some generally similar but coarser-gripped John Lowes which, apocryphally at least, had belonged to his wife.

With the help of Q, Unicorn’s engineering wizard, Phil then had the 26gm John Lowe barrel modified, combining them with his usual Slim flights and a version of the Sigma Pro shaft to produce the “Phil Taylor Phase 5s” which he employed to stunning effect throughout most of 2008 and his quest to add to his 13 World Crowns. And though 13 is unlucky for some, this time it was only for the other players in the draw!

And so to the question that I – and probably quite a few others – have pondered concerning this “Evolution of the Power” (to use the The Big Boss’s phrase). How much of Phil’s latest success is a matter of improved dart aerodynamics and how much is just due to a renewed focus and determination in the man himself?

Well, I might be a flight dynamicist, but I still reckon that, taken in isolation, only a small fraction is down to his darts. Even given improving standards (witnessed by the fact that Barney’s 101.18 average in losing 7-1 has only been exceeded by one player other than Phil in any WDC/PDC World final - see my PS if you’re interested in who), a man who has won 13 titles would almost certainly stand a reasonable chance of winning another without changing the darts he has used for some time.

However, although a darts player of legendary incompetence myself, I have enough personal experience of competitive sport to know that ultimate performance is achieved holistically. Everything needs to be right, from the obvious like equipment and physical condition, to background matters such as practice schedules, diet and sleep patterns. And paying attention to all these things gives you an added advantage – the confidence that your preparation has given you the edge over your opponent.

And I believe that’s exactly the edge that has allowed Phil to achieve the renewed success he has enjoyed over the last year. So, whilst changing his darts may not, in itself, have made that much difference, it could well have been a small but important - possibly even crucial - piece in the jigsaw.

So, having said that, let’s take a look at just how much of a change it was. We’ll start with the 24gm Phase 3’s that Phil was using at the end of 2007. The barrel itself was 53.3mm long and 6.8mm in diameter with a high MI (see previous blogs!) of around 5000 in the associated units. This, combined with the relatively heavy XL titanium shaft and lower-lift Slim flights, meant the yaw wavelength (previous blogs again!) was very long and the dart thus very unforgiving of anything but a near-perfect throw.

When Phil and I met around that time, the main purpose was for me to take a close look at his characteristic throw (on which maybe more another time) and suggest a new shaft/flights combination to reduce the yaw wavelength and make his darts land in the board more horizontally and less “pointing up”. But then he grabbed the Sigma Pros, the barrels of which are 8.0mm in diameter and only 41.5mm long with about half the MI of the Phase 3s, resulting in a much shorter yaw wavelength.

By comparison, the 26gm Phase 5s he now uses are 40.9mm long and 7.9mm in diameter (so pretty similar to the Sigmas – the reason they are 1gm heavier despite a 2% lower tungsten percentage is that the barrel is less curved in the middle section). The yaw wavelength is halfway between that of the Phase 3s and the Sigma Phase 4s.

Using the equations that “power” uniLab allows me to produce “Match” percentages for each of these darts for a player with Phil’s “STs and SPs”. Interestingly, the Phase 3s score 95.9%, the Sigma Phase 4s 97.9% and the Phase 5s 97.4%.

In the context of uniLab Match scores, 2% - even 1.5% - is a significant difference. However, the 0.5% discrepancy between the Phase 4s and 5s was clearly not enough to compensate for the grip on the 4s not suiting Phil as well as that on the 5s.

Now, if I were extremely unscientific, I could compare the 1.5% difference between the Phase 3s and 5s with the 9% difference between Phil’s and Barney’s averages in the World final and draw some specious but entirely erroneous conclusion concerning how much of his victory we can attribute to his new darts. However, I hope you know I would never be so intentionally misleading!

Apart from anything else, it would leave me with some tough explaining to do should Phil, in his never-ending quest for improvement, successfully change darts again - but to ones with a much lower Match score!

Q & As

FSK and Different Weights of Sigmas
Thanks a lot for the feedback that the theory behind all weights of Sigmas having the same flight characteristics works in practice – nice to know! The 22gm 950s with slim flights and Slikstiks (I’ve assumed medium length Als) will indeed be closer to the Pro set-up that the One and your comment that the latter is effectively “too stable” is interesting – I’ll take note that our customers are obviously of generally high standard!

PS: Denis Priestley averaged 101.49 when losing 4-6 in 1996. Phil averaged 98.52 in winning that year, but chalked up 103.98, 107.46 and 106.74 respectively during his victories in 1998, 2001 and 2006 as well as this year’s record breaking 110.94.

There are 11 comments to this post

Posted by Ed H at 21:37 on 12th January 2009

You mention that Phil had the 26 gram John Lowe barrel "modified." How does the Phil Taylor Phase 5 barrel differ?

Posted by Warren Ackary at 10:01 on 14th January 2009

Hi UniBoffin, all the best for 2009 and what a great start with this blog! However as I was reading down and saw the momentum of Phils travels through the "UniCave Bowels" I started to think "hang on, phil holds his darts to the rear as always, then I noticed the fansteel cuts on the shoulder of the shafts, is that where Phil holds the phase 5s now? Also I like the shape of the fights as they are similar to the thin flights but a tad wider at the rear.

Just a couple of thoughts that has been "playing on my mind"

Posted by Chris Ward at 22:47 on 22nd January 2009

From my experience Ed the Taylor phase 5 is longer and straighter at the back end of the barrel than the John Lowe barrel.

Posted by FSK at 17:21 on 1st February 2009

UniBoffin, you flatter me. I''m certainly not of a particularly high standard, but the short Sigma shape and low-lift Slim flights just seem to suit me a lot better (by the way - the Slikstiks I use are actually the regular all-plastic ones, in medium length I guess the aluminium ones would be more Pro-like). The dart is very direct and I soon got comfortable with the lower throwing effort and flatter release trajectory compared to my previous John Part Heroes (does it make sense to liken it to removing a layer of cotton wool...?). Trying the Ones after that, they just seemed like a whole lot more effort to throw (and to get them to land at the right angle). Having said that, I have given a few other people a go with the Ones and they seem to suit the players that throw quite hard.

The one thing that is a challenge with the Sigmas is that they are VERY unforgiving of a poor throw, especially the strength/speed of the arm action. So often I would unintentionally throw slightly slower with the third dart and barely realise until the dart had dropped an inch and a half lower than the others. I''m guessing this is a result of the lower lift afforded by the Slim flights? Anyway, that meant it was quite a long time before I threw my first 180 with them, but now I wouldn''t swap them for anything.

If only the leading edge were bevelled a touch, and the trailing surface matched up with the Slikstiks a little better - at the moment they get clipped quite a bit by the following darts because the diameter of the barrel is fractionally larger than that of the shaft.

Posted by dianne s at 12:24 on 7th February 2009

im planning on buy a set of 18grms 950 sigma pros and was wondering how putting long points in them will effect them im a thumb pusher throwing wise and i use my third finger to steady the dart therefore need long points

Posted by nick steenstra at 13:33 on 8th February 2009

Am interested in more info on the length of the slikstick shafts...am throwing the John Lowe Golden Hero darts, 25 gram....are the aluminium ones as good as the titanium... or the regular sliksticks?

Posted by Glen Robert Huff at 18:09 on 9th February 2009

Hi Uniboffin ! All best for 2009, and I really enjoy your articles. Keep up the excellent, and informative work.

I wonder if the "Sigma 950''s " and "Sigma 970''s" were inspired partly by the original "Unicorn Silver Comets" ? I''ve got 2 sets of "John Wisden Silver Comets", and 3 sets of "Unicorn Silver Comets) one from 1939 with feather flights on a toothpick like spigot that slide down into the slotted shaft. The other Comet sets have paper flights that are in 2 V like halves. Anyway, looking at the design of the Comet''s with a tapered nose, integral shaft and flight, how forward thinking Frank Lowy was, and how forward thinking Unicorn engineers continue to be today ! :-)

Posted by Andi at 21:41 on 2nd March 2009

hi! just a little question: why do the "phase 5 darts" exist only in 26g? has that to do something with the aerodynamics? and it seems to me, that the barrel of the "phase 5 darts" is somehow a little bit more slim than the "john lowe hero darts". true or false?

greetings!

Posted by Steve M at 17:20 on 6th March 2009

Wanted to know what the difference between the Phase 5 shaft and the Sigma One may be? I have a set of 970''s pro''s and I would benifit from the added grip found on the phase 5 shaft but did not know how the OD, weight and length of the phase 5 shaft match up to the stock sigma pro''s. Do not want to upset the very plesant dart flight I am seeing with the Sigma pro shaft.

PS the Sigma 970''s are fantastic. Did find the stock point itself could be improved. Such a great dart desirves the best point.

Posted by dianne s at 05:34 on 7th March 2009

g''day uniboffin im wondering how much changing my sigma pro 950 points to a longer point will effect thier performance

Posted by mike campbell at 17:46 on 3rd August 2009

i waswondering are the sigma 970s a thicker barrel to the sigma 950s i have a set of 950s and cant really get on with them

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

Email (this will not be published) 

Message