Good news, everyone! Last time I threatened that this blog might deploy such uncalled-for crowd-control devices as trigonometrical functions and Greek letters. However, remembering that Stephen Hawking was told that every equation in “A Brief History of Time” would halve its readership (and so restricted himself to just one), I’ve decided to put the maths on hold for a while - only a stay of execution, not an unconditional pardon, mind! - and discuss something of perhaps wider interest.
So, albeit with cosine theta still poised like the Sword of Damocles above our heads, let’s look at what went on at my recent meetings with two of Unicorn’s star players.
Well, the first myth to dispel (yet again!) is that I - or, indeed, anyone else at Unicorn - in some way instruct, or even strongly suggest, which darts a sponsored player should use. In fact the barrels themselves are mostly made up to the players’ individual specifications based on what weight, length, diameter, shape and grip type they are used to or feels most comfortable to them.
If - and only if - the player is unsure about what barrel to use and asks my opinion will I then comment on the aerodynamic characteristics of candidate designs, but this is more to inform rather than actually recommend and so far has only led to one player changing their barrel type – and may I say much to my surprise, Mr Taylor!
No, with professional players my focus is mainly to help them find a shaft and flights combination that suits their chosen barrel and style of throw - if they aren’t happy with the combo they already have. If they are (which usually means they will also be getting the results), my motto is “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. In other words, don’t suggest change for change’s sake. I’m the first to say that a player feeling comfortable with their dart set-up is more important than theoretical aerodynamic improvements.
By the way, it’s worth noting here that just modifying the shafts and flights offers much more scope for getting a good set-up with professional players than it does with those of a lesser standard. This is because some barrel designs have such a high moment of inertia that no reasonable shaft/flights combination can give them enough stability to cope properly with the large yaw variations some amateurs induce when throwing. Luckily for their bank balances, professionals don’t tend to throw that way!
Meanwhile, back at the story, our professional is standing there poised in front of a practice board at Unicorn HQ with their barrel fitted with their existing shaft and flights set-up – the one they’re not quite sure about. What happens next?
Well, they throw some darts and I study their technique and exactly how they release a dart (luckily - if a bit depressingly - I have over 30 years of experience of doing that sort of thing). I might also take some slow-motion video and/or look at any Unicorn or I already have to double-check my conclusions. I then input my results as “initial conditions” for a computerised trajectory simulation which models the aerodynamics of the dart set-up and see if the simulation’s predictions in terms of board entry angles and general flight characteristics agree with what is happening before my very eyes.
Fortunately for my faith in both myself and Isaac Newton, so far the agreement has always been good!
The next stage is to discuss with the player which shaft and flight parameters they are happy to change and which they aren’t (say a disliking for long shafts because of pulling back to the cheek or eye or a preference for smaller flights because of the reduced visual profile of previous darts on the target) and what particular flight characteristics they are looking for (such as an improvement in vertical accuracy for treble and double tops or a horizontal entry angle to enable a better view of the target bed for follow-up darts).
I then run a sort of turbo-charged version of uniLab to find the shaft and flights combinations which give the desired flight characteristics and accuracy whilst staying within the parameters set by the player. The player will then try these combinations and decide if any of them, admittedly only on a necessarily brief trial, perform significantly better than their existing set-up. If they do, they will then go away and practice with them to decide whether they should change to them permanently.
So that’s it. When it comes to being “uniBoffined”, it’s very much a question of supporting rather than telling and double-checking the theory with plenty of practice. I could suggest the analogy of science providing the SatNav whilst the player is firmly in the driving seat, but the trouble with this is that we’ve all heard about SatNavs inadvisably suggesting narrow country lane shortcuts to drivers of 40-ton juggernauts!
On the other hand, though, SatNavs are good at preventing married couples (or maybe even players and managers!) having a bit of a barney about who said turn left when they should have said turn right!
Which brings me to an instructive (if somewhat irrelevant) finale as to the origins of the phrase “a barney" meaning an argument. Apparently it does not, as some think, derive from the Cockney rhyming slang for “trouble” as it pre-dates the invention of Fred Flintstone’s neighbour by at least a century. One suggestion is that it originated from the 1569 siege of Barnard Castle in the North of England, but if anyone has any better ideas, I’d be pleased to hear them!