Now the New Year is traditionally a time for resolutions, so I guess it’s appropriate I begin this one by resolving some issues left over from my last uniBlog of 2009. Future offerings can then happily revert to my more customary fare of new darts technology, old flight dynamic theory, and appalling puns. Bet you can’t wait!
So, let’s get a festive irrelevance out of the way first. From the complete lack of response, I sense widespread indifference to my unsubtle attempt at introducing a seasonal tone to my last blog by shoe-horning in six quotes from “A Christmas Carol”. However, just in case anyone out there is vaguely interested, my very last para (to be found after the Q&A section) explains further – but I’ll try and take the hint and steer clear of literary allusion in future (not promising, though!).
Right, that off-topic business dealt with, on to darts (I hadn’t forgotten that’s what I’m supposed to talk about, honest!). Specifically, on to answering the entirely dart-related comments that did appear to my last blog. Most of these are dealt with in that Q&A section, but one, from Matt, raises such a pertinent issue (as well as such an opportunity for another appalling pun!) that I’m going to discuss it now.
Matt understandably asks why, if Sigma darts are all I say, Phil Taylor is the only pro to use them. A fair question and one of the issues I talked about at the start which definitely merit a resolution!
First, a couple of points of fact. Andy Hamilton used Sigma barrels for a while and his current darts are more-or-less the same design. In contrast Phil only played with them for a relatively short while before changing to the broadly similar John Lowe Hero and then to his current Phase 5s, which are basically a modified Lowe (unfortunately, as you can see from the title, I found tenuously linking “Lowe” with “resolution” irresistible. No? OK, please yourself! So I’ll leave out that bit about Phil having more than a dash of that Lowe resolution!).
Anyway, more can be found on the story of Phil’s darts after he put down his Purists and picked up the Sigmas in my “Unlucky for Some” blog, but what’s relevant here is that the subsequent changes mostly concerned the type of grip he wanted. And so when I said that, in my opinion, “the deadliest piece of ironmongery in the trade in aerodynamic terms is a Sigma 970 or 950” the key phrase was “in aerodynamic terms”. I didn’t say that their grip, shape, or even weight range will necessarily suit any particular player, but, if they do, I believe their fundamental flight characteristics are the best available.
So there we are. Just because a dart is aerodynamically optimised doesn’t mean it will suit your throw, Matt’s throw, or even Phil Taylor’s throw. But it does mean that, all other things being equal, it does stand more chance of giving good results across a wider range of players than any other. And that, in simple terms, is the guiding principle behind Sigmas.
And, with that thought and many thanks to Matt as well as Warren, Hays and Del for their New Year wishes, here we go into those Q&As. See you again soon!
Q&As
Matt and Fatter Barrels:
In addition to asking why more pros don’t play with Sigmas, Matt also asked if fatter barrels, which he finds easier to throw, have any intrinsic disadvantages apart from the obvious limitations on very tight grouping. And I would say the simple answer is no. Aerodynamically speaking, drag on the barrel will be greater and interference with the air flow over the flights increased, but for normal dart diameters these factors will be negligible. What can be important, however, is the lower moment of inertia of fatter, shorter dart barrels as this allows the stabilising effect of the flights to work faster – a factor which Sigmas are designed to exploit. And, because barrel weight goes roughly as length times diameter squared, to compensate for the grams lost in decreasing the diameter of a barrel from 8mm to 7mm the length would need to increase from, say, a reasonable 49mm to a pretty unwieldy 64mm. So, as I don’t imagine there will be many occasions when that extra 1mm would wreck Matt’s chances of a 180, I’d advise him to stick with those fatties (within reason, of course)!
Hays Paterson and Canadian Suppliers:.
Unicorn tell me their products can be obtained from Billiard & Darts Canada, at
35 Bleams Road, Ontario, N2C 2G1, Kitchener. Telephone 519 748-1105 or e-mail Branko Brkovitch at bb@bwpool.ca. Good luck with getting what you want, Hays!
Del and Vortex Flights:
Thanks for the info about Mini Vortex flights, Del, and hope those Sigmas meet your expectations.
Steve and Flight Differences:
Sigma 950s and 970s are specifically designed to have the same flight characteristics, both between each other and, uniquely, across their entire weight ranges. I suggest the differences you’ve noticed are thus a function of the different way you release them – especially as you have some cold-beer-related grip problems. I thus wonder if it’s possible that the slightly fatter grip on your 26gm 950s compared to the 24gm version is actually catching slightly on your finger tips as you release, causing the dart to yaw more and benefit from a lighter shaft/flight (which aid stability). Your original 970s would suffer less from this. Anyway, hope that explanation is good enough to save those brain cells of yours and sorry that cold beer is interfering with hot dart results (what a terrible dilemma for anyone!), but many thanks for the related insight into the advantages of side-loading shafts!
Guss and Sigma Pro Shafts:
The Sigma Pro shafts are being manufactured with screw-in tops like the Phase 5s, Guss, but may not have found their way to all suppliers yet.
Ian Stigar and Deflections:
Take your point about deflections, Ian, and different Sigma flight materials have been/are being looked at, although care needs to be taken that the reduction in flight weight doesn’t adversely affect the aerodynamics. As to reducing deflections and the possible effect of the slight flat on Sigma barrels, I certainly do have ideas on how to reduce the problem – not sure when and if they’ll come to fruition, but watch this space!
Finally, more on those “A Christmas Carol” quotes from last time…..
Apart from that famous “Bah! Humbug!” (which, incidentally, like many famous “quotes”, never originally appeared in that exact form), the quotes in question can all be found at the start or end of Dickens’ “Ghostly little book”. My last blog’s title, “Ghost of an Idea”, is in the preface whilst “intercourse with Spirits” is in the very last para of the main text, “dreadfully cut up” in the third, and “coffin-nail” in the second. There can also be found “deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade”, which is thus the answer to my widely ignored misquote conundrum as I changed “deadest” to “deadliest” for purposes of enhanced dart-relevance. Oh well, at least I liked it!