We’ve all measured every aspect of our craft, kept records and judiciously inspected others hard work.
In this environment, where does the greatly variable rocker of the compsand fit in ?
I notice theres a fashion towards rocker tables that provide a set rocker for a variety of board lengths although some tweaking is done.
So where does that leave the exacting science of rocker ?
Is it an individual component essentially unique to each board or is it now accepted that a basic rocker will suit a range of sizes and that, under pressure, the deformation of the rocker is less important than the benefits of flex?
I know all boards flex but why carefully measure such things at rest, when in action the dimensions undergo largely unknown changes?
Maybe rocker is less important than we thought?
SF.
Good questions…and I have to agree with you that we should re-think how important rocker is relative to flex.
I have two simple thoughts in my head when considering rocker…
-
General variations in rocker are felt more when paddling and catching waves than at any other time. We all know this. Flatter boards catch waves better and paddle easier. So I make flatter boards for smaller surf or less fit surfers who don’t necessarily desire a board that “performs” as much as they desire a board that will help their wave count. There’s much, much more to it, of course, but these are simple concepts.
Along these lines, flex matters more at speed than when paddling or taking off. So flex considerations effect design with riding the wave in mind exclusively. Tube riding, pocket surfing, tight/powerful turns off the top or bottom… this is when rocker means relatively less than flex.
-
How the different rocker curves on a sigle board relate to each other is more important than how the overall “rocker” on one board compares to the “rocker” on another board. This is something we don’t often measure. I do it by eye, and I think a lot of other people do, too.
NJ, I see what you mean, I think…
if you have a 3 stage rocker with
-
an entry curve
-
a flat somewhere in the middle and
-
a tail curve
then its more important keeping the length and position of those elements in place
than how ‘flat’ the flat is and how ‘curvy’ the curves are.
Considering that theres only 3 variations of rocker combos ( convex/flat/concave) available then subtle differences are less important than keeping the basics flow in place ? Or did I get it wrong ?
I didnt think Id get a reply because
How can something so variable be heralded as better when we've all spent so much time building around a fixed curve ? It goes against all we've done, next we will be building boards with planshapes that Sway !!
( from side to side )
I’m a fan of Berts work, I want to take the time to understand the benefits of the application rather than accept it because it exists.
SF