So, apologies that it’s been a while since I’ve been with you, but sometimes we research scientists have to lock ourselves away in the vaults of Minas Tirith to study ancient scrolls (OK, do some research!). This time, however, as I emerged blinking into the sunlight, I noticed that more time had passed than usual. So much so, in fact, that Spring is now here and it’s thus the time of year when a not-so-young flight dynamicist’s thoughts should turn to designing new darts for the winter catalogue.
Of course, as I try to explain to the Big Boss, the problem with designing scientifically optimised darts is that it’s hard to come up with improvements based on theory alone. Fortunately, though, darts is not a theoretical game and that all-important human element provides lots of scope for catering to personal preferences and prejudices. Last year such factors lead me to design Sigma 950s, which match the aerodynamic characteristics of the original 970s but offer a different grip and choice of weights.
I must admit it’s quite tempting to use a similar approach this year, but I reckon I might be able to do better. Materials technology is an area of science that is progressing at a rather faster rate than the time-honoured aerodynamic theory behind fin-stabilised projectiles, which raises the possibility of the darts for 2010 using an advanced metal alloy, composite material, or manufacturing technique that just wouldn’t have been practicable a year earlier. And I do have an idea where recent advances in these areas might be usefully exploited in a dart, but for the moment that has to remain a trade secret. Apologies for that, but I trust you will see the point (hint)!
So that makes a very short and sweet blog for this time, but that’s just as well because I’ve received a few interesting questions that I’d like to deal with at rather more length than usual in the Q&As. So keep reading and I’ll see you again next time.
Q & As
Warren, Ed H , Chris Ward, Andi, Steve M and Phil Taylor Phase 5s
Sorry I can’t answer definitively, guys, but the Phase 5 and 26gm John Lowe Hero barrels seem so similar that I’ve passed this one over to Unicorn for clarification. However, I have discovered that the barrel grip mods which I thought were required to adapt the Heros to Phil’s thumb-push grip were in the event obviated by adding knurls to his Sigma Pro shafts (well noticed, Warren – and pleased you enjoyed the last blog!). This, together with changing the finish and removing the tightening hole (which Phil simply didn’t like), turned the Sigma Pros shafts into Phase 5 shafts.
Now I do know that the Phase 4s barrels are, to all intents and purposes, identical to Sigma 970 barrels (because I designed them!), but there are nonetheless significant differences in the aerodynamic performance of the Phase 4s and Sigmas as sold with shaft and flights (which, in the case of the Phase 4s, I believe are standard Slim planforms, Warren). It may thus be the same for the Phase 5s and Heros, so I would just recommend you play with whichever you find suits you better. Even if the difference were purely psychological, it could still have a big effect on your scoring!
As to Andi’s question about why the Phase 5s are only available in 26gm, that’s because the whole idea is behind the “Evolution of The Power” series it to market the exact darts that Phil himself used. If you want a different weight in a very similar dart, both Sigmas and John Lowe Heros are worth a look.
Finally on this general topic, I’m pleased Steve is happy with his Sigma 970s and I’ve taken on board his point about points (hint: see above hint!). As to the Sigma and Phase 5 shafts, apart from the differences I explained above, they were originally nominally so similar that you would not notice much effect on flight characteristics. However, see the last sentence in my reply to Nick below.
FSK and Sigma Flight Characteristics
Lots of good points here, FSK, and I do understand what you mean when you liken using the Sigmas with the Pro flights to “removing a layer of cotton wool”. This is probably because of the lower lift and shape of the Pro flights reducing their yaw drag (or “yawn drag” as I called it a few blogs ago!). By comparison, the One flights (which you find “more effort to throw”) are relatively high-lift simply because they are designed to provide high stability. They would thus be more forgiving of that “poor throw” you mention, particularly for players who throw their darts hard. This is because, although speed in itself does not cause a change in a dart’s characteristic yaw wavelength, a faster dart with a flatter trajectory travels slightly less far on its way to the board and hence needs a shorter wavelength for optimal results.
As for a bevel on the leading edge of the Sigma barrels, as I’ve mentioned before, I thought (wrongly, as it turned out) that I’d got this problem cracked with the 950s. Promise I’ll do my best to fix it next time!
dianne s and Long Points on Sigma 950s
The 950s are a good choice for a thumb-pusher, Dianne, and although fitting slightly longer points will affect the aerodynamic optimisation a bit, this shouldn’t be crucial and it’s more important that your finger is comfortable! However, if you do find the standard Sigma shaft/flights don’t perform as well as you like with the longer points, let me know exactly the problem and I’ll suggest a modified combo for you to try.
nick seenstra and SlikStiks
Welcome back, Nick! No, I don’t believe the aluminium SlikStiks are as good as the titanium versions for the majority of good players throwing Heros or Sigmas (somewhat unfortunately for their pockets, bearing in mind the price of titanium!), but that doesn’t mean they’re better for everyone or with every type of dart. As to length, word has recently reached my ear that some experimentation with the length of the titanium portion of the SlikStiks has taken place in the bowels of the Dart Cave, but I’m not yet sure what the results are, if any
Glen Robert Huff and Silver Comets
Thanks for the positive comments, Glen, and no, Sigmas weren’t really inspired by Silver Comets, although you’re not the first to wonder about that. In fact the Sigma barrels design was originated using a purely mathematical formula linked to optimising their moment of inertia and balance point, whilst the flight shape was derived using well-defined but theoretical aerodynamic principles. As I’ve mentioned before, this was all done around a quarter of a century ago and probably the closest thing in an actual dart to an influence was the John Lowe darts of that time, which did provide me with some clues as to grip design. John himself was also instrumental in testing the Sigma prototypes (as well as using the Pro flights on TV!) and I would suggest that Sigmas may thus have heavily influenced the subsequent design of the modern John Lowe range – which makes both the similarities between them and Phil Taylor’s switch from one to the other unsurprising to say the least!
Finally, I must agree with you about Frank Lowy’s forward-thinking and innovative approach – an approach that no-one is better placed than I to vouch is being fully upheld by his descendents in Unicorn today!