Anyone want to alleviate the pros and cons of each method when marking out and measuring boards? I’ve always used the over curve when hand shaping because it seems easyer and more accurate. This has always confussed me as there are slight measurment differences in the two methods.
Are you talking about measuring the length? If that is the case, it’s customary to measure the length at the bottom rocker “along the curve”. It isn’t a true measurement of board length, but since that’s how everybody does it, you can compare different boards.
Yeah cheers, I was meaning the over curve of the bottom rocker.
True measure is on the deck, drawn tight, no sag. If everybody does it on the bottom, everybody is wrong. Two 9’ 0’’ boards, one flat, the other with exagerated rocker, will have different ‘‘lengths’’ if measured along the bottom curve.
Thank you Bill. Measuring the bottom of a board is like measuring the back of a wave. An equally ridiculous concept.
Some day I’m going to meet all of these surfers who ride the backs of the waves with their boards upside down.
Ok…thanks guys…
so you’d measure length on the deck, cut to lenght then flip the board and do all other measurements off the bottom.
nose, tail, wide point etc…?
Marsh,
Yes, sometimes. It depends on the style of board I’m making. Some I lay out on the bottom, others I lay out on the deck. There is a component of ‘‘what you are comfortable with’’ that is at play, with most shapers. Experiment, and see where it leads you, and what produces the best result for you.
Here is what I know:
-
from contact with Austraiian shapers(a few/Sydney area), they all measure board length by the bottom curve.
My sense of things was that Americans did it all the same way too, a standing height perspective. -
Since the 90’s and Greg Webber’s introduction of slight concave to more rockered or over rockered boards,
measuring over the rocker curve makes alot of sense to shortboarding. -
Surfboard CAD programs provide the measurements both ways. From a straight line perspective and
from the ‘over the rocker curve’ perspective. From this perspective its hard to make the argument of one
is more correct over another. However, one can be more preferable to due to custom or ease. -
When you gather a measuring tape and attempt to measure 12" from the nose or tail.
Do most measure over the rocker curve…most do.
Or do you actually hold it suspended in space, your eye over the nose or tail, then
your eye over the 12" mark, and then try to measure in 12" ???
My suspicion is that most do it the lazy (over the rocker curve) way, and to be
honest these measurements hardly differ no matter how you approach it…a mere 12" from the nose or tail. -
Contrary to public opinion, we actually ride the bottom of the board.
Its the part that interacts fully with the wave and is totally consequential to even small changes.
The top of the board, the flat/domed deck part, is appreciably inure to small changes and more.
The only time I’ve ever seen it matter was at a longboard contest where a board that had been measured along the bottom was disqualified after they measured the true length with the tape pulled tight on the deckside. It came up short by an inch or so apparently giving the cheating rider an illegal advantage.
for what its worth…
I do all my boards measurement on the bottom
but
I try to do the length first from the deck side if the owner is anal about exact length
if they say “about” 8.6 they get all from the bottom
I beg to differ. The water runs along the bottom of the board, not so much on the deck. So the board which measures longer on the bottom because of the rocker is a longer board as far as the water is concerned.
And as far as the back of the wave....today we had a tight nw wind swell with some south ground swell. Around here that means long lefts and short rights. The rights break towards the backs of the lefts. I got one overhead wave today, went right, did a top turn and came down with enough speed to carve a turn on the back of the left. It was a really cool feeling, something I've never done before. So I was riding the back of the wave, using the bottom of my board.
This is always one of the funniest ‘‘controversies’’ to get into. WRT longboard contests with minimum 9’0’’ sizes, it can lead to some highly entertaining disqualifications and temper tantrums. On shortboards it’s only about a half inch difference anyway, so who cares? I was taught to measure the ‘‘actual’’ length, which is tip-to-tip deck, as Bill says. But if a guy’s coming to me ordering a 6’0’’ and his present board is 6’0’’ on the bottom, I’ll give him what he wants.
As far as the methodology, in the old days it went something like this: Take the big fat excuse for a blank and eyeball in how far back from the nose you want to come to yield desired nose rocker, or at least a starting point for all the mowing to come. Mark that and cut off with handsaw. Then hang end of tape on that and pull tight on deckside to measure desired length. Mark that and cut off with handsaw. Now you have a large ugly block of foam cut to length. Attack viciously with planer to achieve foil and thickness yield. Draw your outline (deckside for some longboards with high rails, bottom for any downrailer), cut with saw of your choice; handsaw, jigsaw, sabersaw, worm-drive circular saw, chainsaw… From there it’s tuning, bottom contours, rail bands, etc.
I agree, the size of a board should be some characterization of its in-the-water response, imo, and measuring over the bottom curve is a crude measurement of planing surface, thats what I believe in. But convention trumps (my) logic, no doubt.
Also helps me to feel taller when I stand next to my 5’10" that im as tall as, at 5’8"…
Me too…
Length is measured from the deck. All other measurements are made on the bottom, because the difference is negligible. But a board’s length is like a fish’s length… stretch it out and measure it tip to tip… and squeeze that tail together, too.
TO THE READER: The above statement, by Mike Daniel, is a clear and accurate summary of the issue. (non-issue really) Well said, Mike.
Thanks guys,
I guess we can put this one to rest?
The stories of disqualification from Long board contests are gold!
Aloha Marsh
I tried to send this earlier but it didn’t go through. I don’t think the answer to your question is one of right way or wrong way. It isn’t that black and white. There are two ways to view length. One is true length in linear space and the other is actual length of a multi curved riding surface. The latter is generally the more popular method of measuring length among the shapers that I have encountered. It is also the way I measure length 99% of the time. I am pretty sure all good shapers know that latter method produces a slightly longer length then the straight linear method, even if many customers may not. Regardless, the difference between the two is very slight.
And history has shown that true length, really doesn’t matter all that much. (Longboard contest rules not withstanding) Surfing and surfboards are highly fashionable, subjective, qualitative things to most people and how a particular “true length” will actually feel to the riders is dependent on way more impactful factors than a half inch of overall length. How one shapes the bottom curves and contours will have an immense effect on how a board rides… including how “long” the board feels, regardless of the boards actual true length or the measurement system used. Of course, often more important than all this; the right brand, model name, logo design and colors, properly endorsed by the appropriate surfing media and a few cool dudes at the beach, can easily trump a better design any day!
Back in the “ole days”, boards didn’t have much rocker in the deck and were generally flatter rail to rail on the decks. At the same time, they often had very rounded bottoms rolling up to fat 50/50ish rails. And blanks as Mike metioned, were mostly big crude blobs of foam compared to today’s highly refined blanks. The template of the board then, was easier to draw and cut out on the flatter deck side. But once “down rails” and flatter bottoms rail to rail, became the norm, the template was easier to draw and cut out on the bottom because only the last 10% of the rail contained the template compared to years past when the template floated somewhere around in the middle of a much thicker rail. Add to this the increasingly domed decks since the 80s and you can see that there is now good cause to template boards on the bottom. So contrary to times past, when boards were mostly long, fat, straight logs, the goal today hasn’t been to arrive at an exact “true length” but rather a particular window of performance.
Contemporary surfboards are not straight line objects. They are an elaborate collage of compound curves continually flowing in and out of one another. Bottom rockers are like modified ellipses spiraling up more on one end then another and they have have to be viewed and measured accordingly. Just as there are various measurements to describe other compound curved objects; like diameters, radians, circumferences and a bunch of others that shapers knowingly or unknowingly interact with. There can be different ways to measure surfboard curves too. To presume that only one measurement is the “right” one to use, tends to ignore the need or validity of the others for use in describing a boards characteristics and ultimately its performance.
Beautiful Bill - Good to see you back and sharing your depth of knowledge and perspective.
I’m gonna confess I do almost all measurements on the bottom, save my deck belly rail steps, and “true curve apex” art.
From blanks like these to boards like these…
You’re close Mike. Except about the nose rocker. As you can see you had to shape in the nose rocker.
I took these black and white photos at the G & S factory in the spring of 1969. I made a up a sales book to take back to the East Coast when I called on the dealers.
On measuring from the top or the bottom:
The board I’m working on now shows a difference of 1/2" if measured one way or the other. (Walker 10’3 rocker) Not a big deal. I think though, and this goes back to when I first started working at a surf shop in the early sixties, customers and certainly in the showrooms measured boards on the top. We wouldn’t have thought of measuring on the bottom back then. The fin was in the way!
Cool photos BalsaBill!! I remember that truck. Was Darrell Diamond driving it back then?
Clearly in earlier days, there would be very little difference in the length between a top or bottom measurement. I just measured a 6’3" both ways and it came to a max of 3/4" difference. Not that 1" on a 6’0" doesn’t matter more then it does on a 9’0" but as long as the shaper knows what he is doing he will hit the performance window regardless of the exact length of the board. If boards get anymore rockered out we will eventually have to call the bottom measured length, the circumference!
Which reminds me of this extra bit of trouble… If a 6’2" board has a 1/2" wide squared off blunt nose… did the board start off as almost a 6’3" that the nose was cut off on or did the shaper draw the template as a normal 6’2" that he then redrew the nose tip out wider by flaring the lines to hit 1/4" off each side of the stringer so as to create the 1/2" squared tip? And does it matter anyway?