I’m making a 6’2" thruster and thinking about a different rocker up front. In the past I’ve used 5" nose, 1 1/2 at one foot and 5/16" at two feet. After looking at a lot of current designs, I see they are using a different curve. More like 5" nose, 1 5/8 at one foot and 3/8" at two feet. At first I thought the extra rocker at one foot would push more water but the more I thought about it I realized that the newer rocker is actually flatter when you only look at the entry rocker of the board. Comments from the enlightened?
My secret, so dont tell anyone! Take a tape measure, and drive a nail in the floor. Lay your 1/8" plywood on the floor. Draw a 6’ radius onto the plywood. Cut on the line. There’s your last foot nose rocker template. on a different piece draw a 12’ radius. There’s your transition rocker template. Draw a 30’ radius. There’s your mid point rocker template.
On my next build thread, I’m going to go into more detail.
Nice technique everysurfer but my question is a little different. I’m wondering about the pro’s and con’s of a gradual nose rocker curve as compared to a curve that has more kick in the last foot but both having the same tip rocker dimension.
If you draw your rocker up in CAD you can see radii all the way through. What you're asking about is the more ''constant curve'' rocker, you'll see (if you draw it up) that the first entry you mentioned leads to a flatter mid-section, while the second puts more curve through the center. Nuances of contemporary rockers are way too complex to get into here. In a nutshell, if you go with rocker #2, you're going to have to power the board more yourself (more pumping, keep it on a rail).
everysurfer's technique is as old as boatbuilding, almost. At first they just looked for timber that had a curve.
If my technique of graduated radii being set tangent to one another in order to create a smooth, measured and quantified yet accelerated curve is as old as boat building, then why do I have so many boards from real “professional” shapers that have segemented curves with flat spots? Maybe if the pros were taking the time to be a touch more accurate, I would never have needed to get into board building myself.
I guess I’l go back to measuring points off a rocker stick every 12 inches with no regard to the smoothness between like the big boys do! But wait, the big boys can’t even come to agreement to where the apex of the curve is… But no… I’m not bitter =)
man, I thought I was the only one who was going to know the true secret of rockers…what a jip.
As long as you don’t know the secret handshake…
‘On my next build thread, I’m going to go into more detail.’
Your swaylockian siblings eagerly await the build thread for this ancient yet deadly acurate method of rocker template building which will put ‘real “professional” shapers’ to shame.
When your making longboard templates do you need to pace 100’ into the car park with this method?
[img_assist|nid=1053058|title=Radius Close up|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=640|height=358][img_assist|nid=1053057|title=Radius Overview|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=640|height=407]Marsh… stop it, you’re making me sound like Roy! No 100’ tape measure for me, I use AUTOCad. But yes, a 100’ tape from Home Depot for $15.00 and an early morning in the parking lot works.
Three circles, each smaller than the other. In this example the first and second are tangent about 2’ from the nose. The second two are tangent about a foot from the nose.
I’m trying to say two things. One to Mike Daniels, This isn’t a new concept, but to boardbuilders, it is. I remember Mike about a year ago writing about wood bender board to create template outlines.
Second thing is that a lot of board builders screw over their customers by throwing out shapes as quick as they can. Something about a race between two well known shapers was posted here by one of the racers. Something about 30 to 45 minutes to complete a shape. I’ll bet he took a lot of time to make sure that board was the best it could be! I get pissed because I was the poor dope who ended up with that board at 16 years old. Back when I could only afford one board a year.
If you’re going to sell it to someone, make sure its the best you could do.
I fail to see how your method provides superior reproduction or refinement of rocker curves.
The KISS principle comes to mind.
Reprodiction because you keep the rocker template for future use.
Refinement because of accuracy. Think like this, as you pressure into a turn, the more consistent the rocker progression, the smoother the turn. No “sticky” spots. Flat spots in the rocker cause a hesitation in the turn.
I really can’t think of a simpler way to create a smooth curve.
Quoting Deadshaper in the rocker apex thread, “Finally suffice to say, that if you are NOT using a rocker stick, you
are either following the blanks you get or shooting at a target in the
dark. Your success will be spotty, no matter how good you think your eye
is. If you use templates, why would you NOT use a rocker stick? You
need a flashlight on a moonless night…”
No hard feelings, good debate, everybody does it differently. I use Barnfields method, cad programs and a rocker stick. Happy days.
Oh, I thought you were saying your more complicated method somehow resluts in something better. I’ll stick with the simple (Barnfield) method.
And I don’t agree with regard to flat spots and rocker. When you combine the two common curves (rocker and concave), there will always be an angle that makes a flat spot. In order to not have a flat spot you need to have a convex bottom, or concave with a negative rocker.
OB, not to argue the point, because I’m not. Any method that makes you happy.
How do you decide what to set your rocker stick measurements at in order to create a smooth accelerated rocker. You don’t just copy another board do you?
Here is an interesting passage:
"If you cannot decide what rocker to use, consider five inches at
the nose tip, and two inches at the tail end. An easy way
to form a useful rocker on any surfboard is: Divide by 2.5.
Divide the total nose end or tail end rocker by 2.5. This
will give the rocker at one foot from the nose or tail ends.
Dividing this new number by 2.5 will give the rocker two foot from
the nose and tail ends. Example:
5" divided by 2.5 = 2" at one foot point.
2 " divided by 2.5 = .8" at two foot point.
The curvature can be easily free handed between these points.
Any facets on the template or foam can be easily removed with sanding
blocks. The 2.5 curvature will create a larger planing area in the
middle of the board, compared with production boards. For
a rocker that is similar to production boards divide the nose measurements
by 2.25 and the tail measurements by 1.75."</em>
Resource:
Does this work equally well for a 5’-8" board, a 6’-6" board, how about a long board. Mavericks Gun? Ideas like this might keep it simple for Obproud, but it makes for really bad surfboards.
Settle down everysurfer. The method for creating a formula for dividing nose and tail measurements is not too dissimilar to yours. If you drew a circle between the last foot of your template, for the first divison in the example it may very well have a radius of 6’ (or there abouts) second divison maybe 12’’ and so on. It’s a formula the same as yours that worked for someone. How do you determine how far out into the car park you run with your piece of plywood, string, nail and pencil? Your 6’,12’, 30’ method wont work for all surfboards either and da5id posted it as an interesting exert which it was…not Obproud so ease up on the ‘everybody else makes shit surfboards’.
I’m off this one, surfs been pumping all week and I’m hitting the road for a few days.
I am just a garage guy who is making boards for himself; so I start with a concept (which is based upon someone else’s design I have ridden), and then try to blend all of the design aspects to fit that concept. So if the last board pearls on reentry from a vertical turn I will accelerate the nose rocker on the next one, or if it tracks on backside bottom turns I will change the tail template, or tail rocker, or both. For me, it is just a process of discovery that I enjoy.
I understand your process, but what I don’t understand is how it is different than taking interval measurements with regard to replicating or modifying an existing rocker. When using interval measurements, if you want to accelerate the nose rocker you increase the tip measurement, whereas with your method you decrease the most fore radius. If you want to decrease the entry rocker you decrease the measurements 1 or 2 feet back, rather than increasing the radius of the curve further aft.
If your concern is the possibility of incorrectly blending the curve between the measurement intervals, I would say that is more a shaping technique problem rather than a design problem.
If I’m trying to re-create a rocker from an existing board, I’ll measure at 2’, 1’, 6", 3", and tip, for both the tail and the nose. Most rocker curves I’ve liked over the years have been the ones that have a smooth accleration, and not an exaggerated “flip” at the ends. So… the more the curve accelerates, the closer your measurments have to be to replicate that curve accurately. You can come up with an equation that expresses this rate of acceleration, and extrapolate it to different length boards, but that’s good for only one type of curve… and that’s what I’m seeing discussed here. There are lots of different ways to get great rocker curves, but they don’t work well producing different types of curves.
The rockers that you find in good blank catalogues have most likely been refined over years and years… perhaps even generations… of expert board builders who have gotten feedback from professional surfers. I don’t think I can improve much on that. So believe there’s nothing wrong with following the blank for your general rocker curve, if you’ve selected the right blank, and then just tweaked it to you or your rider’s specifications, making sure it’s a fair curve that hits the numbers.
Still looking for that ideal peice of aluminum. My rocker stick is a straight, lightweight peice of wood, painted with a few coats of white paint so it will last a little longer before it starts to warp (and so you can see your marks easily), and stored on a smooth, flat concrete surface. After a while you need to go get a new one, but it works well enough.
Hey Mike - so far you’ve got the award for actually responding to my question. If I follow you, the second rocker, which results in more curve at 2 feet, will force the rider to make his own speed. So if both curves had 5/16" at 2 feet, which is what I should have posted originally, then the second curve would be more subtle and possibly push less water as one paddles for a wave, helping early entry. The reason I’m curious about this is to find the best front half rocker for early entry and fast up to speed. My experience is that entry rocker only comes into play on take-off seeing as the first half of the board is out of the water ‘most’ of the time when riding. I’m getting older and looking to get increased wave catching ability without adding more foam or taking away from performance. So far I’ve made gains by changing to a narrower nose, wider tail, less fin toe in, more cant, a little more foam 18" from the tail, a little less foam 18" from the nose, and a little more tail rocker. Also with the first curve I’ve come down the face and occasionally had the board at about the one foot mark ‘slap’ the wave face and cause the board to stall. I think with the second curve, the smoother curve would be less likely to do that.