I always wondered about the rocker between a Romany and Chatham 16. Today I decided to check it out. They’re on a tarp on a level deck, and I used the level to position the bows even with one another. The Chatham 16 is a couple inches longer overall, but they’re pretty close.
I placed a 2x3 on its side, on edge, and then stacked one on it’s side with one on edge on top, until they were just touching under the bow. As you can see, the Chatham 16 has more bow rocker at all these levels than the Romany Surf. At the stern, you can see that the Chatham 16 has considerably more rocker.
Probably more interesting to the general public if the Chatham 16 was still being made. But I just enjoy isolating a specific hull characteristic among different kayaks, and then trying to figure out how much that design characteristic contributes to overall performance characteristics. Then I can be better able to figure out other things at play in a design.
This is the Romany Surf and Current Designs Suka. The Suka’s take on a more Greenland style was to eliminate some freeboard - leave less boat above the surface. It’s one of those kayaks that people glance at or paddle and think there is little rocker because they don’t see a big above-surface rise in the bow.
The Romany has slightly more bow rocker at 1 1/2". The Suka has more bow rocker at 2 1/2". At the stern, the Suka has more at 1 1/2", and the Romany more at 2 1/2".
I’m too big for the Suka, but I fit in it well enough to give it a couple good runs and try it out in some surf. The Suka takes off on a wave much quicker and easier than the Romany Surf. I kept taking off at steeper points on the wave, feeling certain that bow would spear in and stall me. But it didn’t. It handled the surf waves much better than I expected. And for following seas, much like its big sister Caribou, it made it easy to ride along even in small chop. The Romany Surf will resist the bow burying even more with the big rising volume that’s normally above the surface. But I’m also met with resistance to gliding along with a wave at a higher level. There’s something other than just rocker at play. Perhaps volume distribution that does a bit more to keep the stern from squatting and bow from rising quite so soon, or perhaps just how the two bows part the water at the bow as it moves through.
In any case, a good example of a kayak that could be declared as having minimal rocker without close inspection. And quite the surprising performer.
More rocker gives you more and quicker maneuverability at the expense of tracking and speed for the same length boat as you have less wetted waterline. That’s why boats like Epic and QCC have vertical bows and sterns.
My wife’s 16’ QCC 600X has almost the same speed rating as my 18’ Necky Arluk 1.9. Both have no rocker, but my boat has an upswept bow reducing the effective length.
Similarly, I am surprised by how my Dagger Stratos 14.5s, with its shorter length and much less upturned bow (making it appeared less rockered), compared to my Sterling Progression’s 16’ plus length and very pronounced upturned bow rocker and nose, does almost as well in not burying into the trough on run down a steep wave face. It’s because the Stratos has a fatter nose (bow) that gives it volume and helps the bow in resisting digging too deep into the water. Looking at your pic of the bows, the Suka appears to have a bit more width and volume (although not height). This adds to volume to the bow and its resistance from digging into the trough. The Romany appears to have volume that is distributed through its higher upturned nose but under the height, it has a more pronounced “V” . That upturned bow won’t fully bury into a trough, but the sharper V will still cut into the water and “lock” the bow directionally into the water more. (Edging on side or the other will free up the bow and allow it to “plane”.) I suspect your Suka may feel “looser” in the bow while going straight down a wave face.
Just guessing based on limited data from two pics of the bow.
Yes, and that all makes sense to me. The Romany also has quite concave curves at the stern to form that narrow fin at the stern. I think this all serves its well-mannered nature in waves. You can just paddle along with minimal attention to directional control, and if you don’t want following seas to feel pushy, this feels very well-mannered. If you’re desiring a little more push and would like to ride along with the waves as much as possible, the Suka feels more fun and rewarding in that regard. I think we know from racing and more speed-designed hulls that while fine entry is good, and while that fin technically adds to the waterline length, it really doesn’t add what you might suppose to the effective waterline length in terms of achieving higher maximum speeds. I think it always has to incorporate some meaningfully increasing volume to be effective in terms of waterline length and speed, and a fin ends up just being a fin aiding in directional control. I think the fact that it’s slower to create stern lift in combination with some of the waterline length being less of a contributor to potential hull speed may both contribute to it feeling a bit sluggish in comparison to the Suka on less steep waves and swells. On the other hand, when a kayak starts to surf, the paddler needs to switch from mainly forward momentum focus into including much more directional control focus, and until you’re quite used to being propelled by a wave instead of by your own forward stroke input, it can feel unnerving and out of control. So for many, resistance to taking off with a wave is more of a positive than a negative - more well-mannered and less wild. As you become accustomed to it, riding waves can feel more controlled than not. Nothing calms a following sea like moving right along with the waves. The other side is that nothing makes a following sea feel wilder than feeling pushed around and repetitive broaching. And these are just two steps somewhere in the mix.
