# relationship between widest point on an outline and the rocker apex

Hi folks, now I’m not sure where I’m going with this question entirely but I’ve been trying to get my head round the relationship with the positioning of the widest point in a template and the apex of the rocker. If the rocker apex was centre and widest point at centre then it all lines up…but its puzzling me on the effect of a widest point being forward or aft of the rocker ‘peak’. Maybe I’m missing out on some basic fundamental or maybe I’m confusing myself with something that I shouldnt worry about.
Anyone shed light on this?
Cheers
Rich

The wide point is the wide point, but if you try the archives for rocker apex…  Ha!

There seems to be some consensus that we talk about rocker from the middle of the board - so everyone is on the same page.

I’ve often argured there is one true geometric apex - the point at which the nose and tail are the same distance “up.”  I think the guys using computers have to use this point.

To be sure there’s a relationship, but it doesn’t seem to be a make or break one.

I’m interested to hear some discussion too

Three variables actually, rocker low point, wide point and thickest part.

[quote="\$1"]

Three variables actually, rocker low point, wide point and thickest part.

[/quote]

And I don't think they have to correllate to each other according to some preset formula, i.e. widest part of board also thickest, or wide point has to relate to rocker in some formulaic way.  As far as I know, its a matter of rocker that works for the waves you ride, wide point for the outline you like, and thickest point for distributing volume / foil where and how you want it.  But if someone has another idea, I'm here to learn.

My take on the subject,

Width has to do with surface area, in a specific area.  Wider tail will support more weight than a narrow tail.  Moving the wide point back, widens the tail area, (where you stand on a short board, and suports your weight.  This can be good or bad.  More support or float means you will keep planing at lower speed, but will have a harder time turning at higher speed.

Rocker is the path your board will take when carving a turn.  Think of your surfboard as a car with a pre set turn to the steering wheel.  If you lean your board over at a given angle, it will turn with a given radius.  Lean it over harder, and the radius you are turning on doesnt change, until a different rocker curve tiouches the water.  That means if you lean a little, the nose is in the air, and the tail is in the water, so the tail rocker governs the turn.  Lay the board hard over, and weight your front foot, and the curvier entry rocker now touches the water.  Using the curvier area of your board will carve a tighter turn.  Watch Dane do one of his full rail engaged cutacks.  Entry rocker is burried, he turns on a spot, at full speed.

Thickness is all about float and flex.

They all affect the ride, for different reasons, maybe in harmony, or maybe not.

Wide point has something to do with where the board turns from when on rail.

To be sure - rocker has a lot to do with how the board turns, and we have changes in out line, as well as flex, fin -  placement, arraingment, type, etc…

In more direct answer to your question - in general I agree w/Huck’s assessment, I’d only say - think about how it relates for you…

I often think about the wide point being @ my front foot = my theroy is: If I’m surfing off my front foot at the time, like in a down the line pocket, then it makes sense for the wide point action to be there.

If I’m thinking about my back foot, I start a bit of a kick between my feet @ 4-6" in front of the front fins on my quads, and now I’m doing a bit of accelerated curve, like on some Merick thrusters I’ve seen, and from what Robin “Handshaper” Mair said, through the front fins to the front edge of the rear fins… Well, you may have seen the pics.

Anyway, my point is - think about the boards you’ve ridden and what features work how for you, and design your next one from there.

....see below [sorry about the double post , Rich !]

I keep rocker low point and wide point coincident (generally at centre). Most people move wide point forward for projection. I move thickness forward.

incorrect.  but thats ok.

Hey guys thanks to all of you for your comments and advice - I think you have clarified to me that I was getting my kninckers in a twist about nothing…it started as a feeling that I was was out of my depth/making fundamental school boy errors when trying to match up new rocker lines with exsisting templates.
Cheers
Rich

I never thought of foil as related to projection.I  think I like this thread,cool stuff

thirdshade dont say thanks yet , it was getting interesting,

i’ve seen a lot of alternative boards with rocker apex near or at the widepoint.

then again, where is the apex when you stand on the thing…?

I thinkthe apex when you stand on the board should relate to your stance. I have a very close stance, like less than my shoulders. My buddys dont like my boards ,not all of them just the ones that spread there stance. Hey Royal , my friend went to cali and cam back with one of your boards, awsome!! you do great work.

I’ve always wanted to do one where the apex was between your feet, on a really short board. So it would mimic being on a skateboard, with the pivot/rocking pnt right in front of your back foot and a bit further behind your front foot.

Hi Ben -

I recently had the opportunity to read the book and watch the DVD.  Really good stuff!

I liked the scenes where they put the board on the racks with sidelights and ran a straight edge along the bottom.  Also interesting was when they combined the shaping room shots with shots of actual rides while focusing on specific areas of the board and how they worked while it was being ridden.  I was surprised at the amount of roll in the bottom, how big the single fin was, and how far back it was installed.

I was also surprised at how much Michael Peterson sounded like Ozzie Osbourne in his TV series "The Osbournes."  HAHA - seriously, a great set that book and DVD.  One of the best things I've seen lately from the world of surfing culture.

Did I mention the great section on Mick Mackie and his far out sidecut designs???

http://www.andrewkidman.com/shop/category/films/

[quote="\$1"] Hey guys thanks to all of you for your comments and advice - I think you have clarified to me that I was getting my knickers in a twist about nothing...it started as a feeling that I was was out of my depth/making fundamental school boy errors when

trying to match up new rocker lines with exsisting templates*.

Cheers

Rich

[/quote]

hi Rich !

I'm interested ...can you please elborate on the part in [mine] italics , please ?

as an example ...

I have an old , nice outline 1970s single fin , I like the outline on it , the foil is forward [a lot of meat under the chest area when paddling ] , the rails thick. It has DEEP double concave , and is pretty flat , rocker-wise. It is

14 1/2 " nose x 6'4 x 19 3/4 x 13" tail ...

easily 2 3/4" thick

wide point ?

..... I measured it at a whopping 8" up [!!] , from the midpoint of the board

I have often thought / hoped / ? imagined?  that a thinner foiled , more rockered version of this could go a lot better , in terms of turning , not catching nose rail[s] , maybe other advantages ??

is this the sort of thing you were thinking of , when you mentioned  * "existing templates" ...are some of yours OLD [as in , 'single or twin fin' era templates ?  ]

just curious , because , obviously , the "tweaking " of "old" designs [eg:  'mals' , eggs , stubbies , fishes , mini simmons ] has maybe sometimes led to new feelings , 'improved performance' [or not?] , and further pushing of what any perceived limits or boundaries may have been , in terms of 'performance expected from a board' [eg: daniel thompson , dave rastovich , tom curren , slater  riding old style fishes [eg: skip frye , and other's] , at different locations around the world]

I often think ,

with a board I'm trying ,

I wonder if widening this ,

pushing the wide point forward / back

different foil

[besides fin setups too , of course !]

different [? more ?  less?] rocker

these factors ...

"  HOW will the board ride better / differently ?" , as a result .

No surprises there , I guess !

I would imagine most  [ if not all !] people that surf think along those lines , especially those that are good surfers and shapers . [ I just wish I was one of THEM ! Having ideas , but not the "whatever it is" [?proficiency?] to accurately and well , put them onto the foam , is frustrating , at times !]

This would be an interesting thread [it is already .... thanks Rich , for starting it !]

if people would / could post up pictures of their boards [deck , bottom , profile shots] ,

give the dimensions , the wide point , rocker numbers [?and apex?]

and explain

" WHY / what it is that they like so much / why the board works so well for them " ...

"Catfish" , I agree , mate !

....I too , have a pretty narrow stance , and I can't help but think , as you commented , that the boards that I like , my younger , wider stanced thruster riding brothers may not [like]

" different horses for different courses " , as they say , eh ?!

But it could be an interesting SEPARATE thread , perhaps ,

something along the lines of

"designing boards for older [ more upright and close-together stanced ], single fin surfers "

compared with

"boards for squat [shorter?] , wider-stanced [?younger?] thruster surfers "

...and ...

where do

kneeboarders

alaia surfers

kite surfers

and

...where do THEIR boards , fit , in the broad spectrum of design variations ? .... in terms of what your original posting mentioned [wide point , foil , rocker apex ]

cheers !

ben

re:

"rocker apex"   [I hope this is relevant / ?still contemporary ?]

The late Michael Peterson's [?in?]famous quote

"I could say , but I won't "

he years later apparently shed light on , when questioned further

"rocker apex "  ....

Andrew Kidman has him talking about it in the 'Lost In The Ether' movie of his , as a voice-over ,

while showing some interesting footage of him [kidman] surfing 'the M.P. board ' , in right hand points , on the Goldy ....as M.P did , in the original morning of the earth   ['M.O.T.E.']  footage , of course ....

M.P.'s comment about that , and other boards he made , was apparently

"it felt like cheating ...[where you stood on the board , in terms of where the rocker apex was ]...

****.....lean forward slightly to accelerate ,

lean back slightly to stall "  ****

[ apparently he was talking about kirra , the boards he designed for it , and his tuberiding ability , by the way ]

bear in mind , he had only shaped a few boards , at the time ...as he  was maybe around ? 18 years old ? , then ....

BUT ...

Even at that age ...

he certainly seemed to have THIS sussed , eh ?

.... just look at all the contests he won , over the early seventies period , when he was really on a roll !

Some at the time asked , "Is M.P. 'unstoppable' ?!" ....

history would show otherwise , rather quickly .

But he did mention , as did others at the time [his competitors ], that his boards gave him

'almost an unfair advantage'     [..... and , this , was BEFORE he came across the wayne lynch and gordon merchant inspired design refinements  , style , and the famous 'tucked under edge' , eh ?! amazing !]

The above  is info I gleaned from interviews , the M.P. book , and Rabbit's 'busting down the door ' book , as well as Nat Young's ['Nat's Nat , and that's that !" ] book , as , unfortunately , I was too young and in the wrong state [n.s.w , not queensland] , to have ever personally met or watched M.P. surf ...I think my brother DID , though , being five years older than me , and being the Tracks mag's photographer ,  in 1977 or so [? the year Michael Peterson beat M.R. ,  in the final of the epic Stubbies contest , at Burleigh Heads]

I will see if I can find where I have put the photos of that "Morning of the earth M.P.  board " , as in the 'Lost In The Ether movie , Andrew Kidman had very kindly measured it all up ... being the shaper he is , too ! Which is really good stuff , as people have often asked after that board , over the years ! that is FORTY years ago , now ...n hard to believe , eh ?!  [ I was only eleven years old , at the time ?! ]

cheers !

ben

good on you , John !

I never recommend films lightly

they have to be pretty good to impress , and a design surfing dvd ... that was why I put a thread up on 'lost in the ether' previously .

I said it then , I'll say it again now ...it should be compulsory viewing for every  swaylockian ...

ESPECIALLY the jaded old ones here who think they know it all, have shaped it all, and done it all ...  minds need to be OPENED here , sometimes  .....

glad YOU watched it and enjoyed it , John ..

we all have SO much to learn ... "  I pity the fool " [to quote Mr. T ] who thinks they know it all ....they stuck [their heads in their butts] back in the 1970s , and think because "it didn't work then" , it won't work now ??  haha idiots !  blanks and EVERYTHING in surfing has changed , since then [except their minds]

cheers

ben