I have been on sways for a while, although I had forgotten my password and wasn’t able to get another sent through to me because of technical hitches? Anyway I havn’t posted much, just some ideas on different types of concaves under the username roundthebend
I’m quite happy with my last build (6 1 x 19 1/4 x 2 3/8 single to double), works great in good surf, but feels a bit boggy in fat slow waves, I’m pretty sure its the continous rocker that i shaped in that hinders the performance in sluggish conditions.
. My next build is going to be a staged rocker shortboard, pretty much the same as my last one but with staged rocker, my question is how far can I go with the staged rocker and what are the negative results in going too far, I have found some archived threads but I can’t seem to get the level of detail that I’m looking for.
For example, How flat could be too flat in the centre of the board? Limits to location and how far to take the flat(ish) section of the board towards the nose and tail? obviously it needs to be blended in, but some general guidelines to prevent me from making any errors would be appreciated.
the Internet has a lot of surf history websites and surfboard company websites that feature rocker shots. Another good resource is blank catalogs. This is a great resource for seeing what has been done, and what others are doing.
I’m not sure there even is a concise and accurate way to answer your question, but you can find your own answer for your boards, your break, your surfing. Like gdaddy, I’m curious to see what others have to say.
Yes, that would be most interesting. Also good comment about the blank. I think its time to start taking more note of exactly what blank I need, and at least that should help a staged rocker get shaped in more naturally.
Does anyone have any advice on how flat is too flat through the centre of the board? I remember watching a youtube of a famous shaper (Can’t remember who it was right now) and he was making his boards entirely flat through a section when concave was taken into account. It got me thinking how much of a ‘flat’ area can work before getting problems
Look at video footage from old surf films, where the boards have almost no rocker at all. They did work in trim, but had limitations in turning, and in take-off.
You’re the designer, you have to go as flat or as curved as you choose. Old school fish had very little rocker, I think the same with the mini Simmons boards.
Rocker is designed in harmony with the other design elements, and the goals of the designer, and considering the way the board will be ridden, the waves, etc. a Malibu board would have different rocker than a teahupoo board.
Yes, I agree entirely. It’s just rocker distribution for staged rocker that I’m currently looking into, not so much the overall rocker measurements at the nose/tail (although of course thats just as important) A lot of top brand shortboards carry a flick of rocker in the tail these days, the very high rocker shortboards seem to have faded away somewhat in recent years which leads me to think that the flick in the tail is an attempt to keep as much flat(or be it concave) plaining area without losing out on too much manouverability, I presume the same is being done in the nose area although more difficult to notice.
sounds like you just need to define the sweet spot on the rocker you already use ?..it’ll be under your front foot or maybe a bit further up, depending on the board…abrupt accelerations in rocker curve don’t work so good IMO…
Re staged rocker, echoing mattwho above my favorite shortboard rocker’s from a CI rocker that was supposedly based on the Flyer. It’s got a flatter (more gradual) rocker through the middle, and then a bit more flip in the nose and a more sudden rocker in the tail than some other boards I’ve measured. Staying to this rocker, with concave bottoms, I’ve made the best boards I’ve ever owned as far as getting into waves (including the 30 or so I owned before I started making my own). Long story short, a buddy wanted me to copy a Whip for him, and I played around with the rocker and planshape, staying very close to the original rocker but translating it for my weight using foils/rails/thicknesses/volumes that were already working for me. Anyway the main message is that among the rockers I’ve measured, the Whip (compacted Flyer?) rocker is a bit flatter & more gradual further out to the nose and tail, and I really, really like the way it performs. So have the two friends I’ve made boards for with that rocker.
Yes Kayu, in a mathematicaly perfect world, three arcs is not an elips. But three arcs will give you a staged rocker. And after the shaper blends it together with a power plane, and then a sanding block, it is as perfect as a surfboard will ever be measured.
