same wax policy

http://www.nordicskiracer.com/cgi-bi...sp?NewsID=4314

Interesting - ALL racers must use the SAME WAX - ??!! Never heard of this
before. Tough to enforce but seems fair.

But what if they choose a wax to use that your skis have never seen before?
I have read and heard that if you use swix over and over and over and over
that your skis "accept" swix waxes better then and toko/star etc won't work
as well. True or propaganda?

JKal.

Yes, very interesting. The rule under 4 about no more brushing, etc.,
after the skis leave the wax room seems overcooked to me, unless I'm
misinterpreting it (perhaps it means only brushing in the wax room). The
rules are aimed at reducing costs and simplifying travel. However,
unless the same people are waxing all the skis with the same protocol,
there are bound to be differences.

From the standpoint of WC waxing practices and results, the one wax
brand claim seems to be propaganda than truth. That is, whatever gain
is realized with one brand is overridden by how the skis actually do on
snow in pre-race tests and during competition.

Gene


On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:23:16 -0500
"Jeff and Stephanie Kalember" wrote:

http://www.nordicskiracer.com/cgi-bi...sp?NewsID=4314

Interesting - ALL racers must use the SAME WAX - ??!! Never heard of
this before. Tough to enforce but seems fair.

But what if they choose a wax to use that your skis have never seen
before? I have read and heard that if you use swix over and over and
over and over that your skis "accept" swix waxes better then and
toko/star etc won't work as well. True or propaganda?

JKal.

On Dec 11, 6:23*am, "Jeff and Stephanie Kalember"
wrote:
http://www.nordicskiracer.com/cgi-bi...sp?NewsID=4314

Interesting - ALL racers must use the SAME WAX - ??!! Never heard of this
before. *Tough to enforce but seems fair.

But what if they choose a wax to use that your skis have never seen before?
I have read and heard that if you use swix over and over and over and over
that your skis "accept" swix waxes better then and toko/star etc won't work
as well. *True or propaganda?

JKal.

I seem to recall that, in the early '70's, at the national
championships the national team coaches would post their wax choices
for everyone to see. No one was obligated to follow the
recommendations, however.

This seems like a great step in the right direction (similar to
imposing a minimum weight on rowing shells to prevent an arms race of
ever-more exotic composites).

What about the idea that wax is third in importance, behind flex and
structure, for ski speed. True or propoganda?

Jon

I love it... this seems like a great way to find the best skiers...
not that wax usually makes that big of difference, but a good way to
make sure it does not.

The idea that wax doesn't make a big difference leaves the question,
difference relative to what? If the choice and application of wax
gains 5-8 mins an hour, is it worth it? Answer depends on a number
of factors: goals, cost, good skis, technique, resources to wax
properly, ability to make best wax choice or have someone who can.

Gene

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:11:33 -0800 (PST)
james kyes wrote:

I love it... this seems like a great way to find the best skiers...
not that wax usually makes that big of difference, but a good way to
make sure it does not.

On Dec 11, 6:11*pm, wrote:
The idea that wax doesn't make a big difference leaves the question,
difference relative to what? *If the choice and application of wax
gains 5-8 mins an hour, is it worth it?

I would only say 5-8 min per hour if someone screws up the wax job.
If you take a wax job that close to right and one that is dead on, how
much time do you think it can make...

i still like the idea of Universal wax.

That 5-8 minute estimate is a recollection from an article almost ten
years ago by John Downing of American XC Skiers (and coach of the
Oregon elite program). He was asking masters skiers to consider if
the gain is worth it for those very special races, such as the Birkie.
Short of cold, dry conditions, my experience is that the difference
between a condition-specific non fluro and high flouro over distance in
a race could easily be 5 minutes an hour (probably less for an elite
skier). For an hour, one can ski harder to compensate, but that's not
likely for two or more hours. All of which leads to the kind of
equalizing policy the biathlon federation is using, where even a small
advantage over several K can be a big deal. Of course, if just going out
to ski, almost anything will do.

Gene


On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:59:09 -0800 (PST)
james kyes wrote:

On Dec 11, 6:11*pm, wrote:
The idea that wax doesn't make a big difference leaves the question,
difference relative to what? *If the choice and application of wax
gains 5-8 mins an hour, is it worth it?

I would only say 5-8 min per hour if someone screws up the wax job.
If you take a wax job that close to right and one that is dead on, how
much time do you think it can make...

i still like the idea of Universal wax.

Great first step!

It would probably be better to disallow wax altogether. Especially for classic skiing.
I've been using some brushed-only skis off and on, and really, it's fine. How much faster a profi grind and wax job would have been, I don't know, but if my fellow competitors have identically prep'd skis, it will be good racing.

For racing, choose a single pair of skis, let it be marked at race registry. Then a wax crue from the race promotor, will undo your skis of any way, and give it a standardized bush job. Say, copper, nylon. Quick and dirty, but very easily standardized. Good to go for the whole weekend. Promotor will store the skis for you between races.
Stone grind would be the racer's way to find an edge. You'd need something generally good though, as you only get to use one pair of skis per race, or month.

What if the likes of Bjoendalen, as a kid, would always be using totally wrong skis? Not just wrong skis, but stupid wax to boot. His technique would have looked promising, but the speed wouldn't be there, compared to the super-serious local scene. Would a nation want a little Bjoerndalen to be put off from never winning, and go back to something like soccer, where winning might seem easier?
Level the playing field, until playing turns into business.

Another, fat-fetched, idea would be for racers in a weight group, to get to use other people's ski's. In Rally they do that, trading cars at the end of the season.
Clubs or promotors could nurture a stable of fast skis to offer talented, but seemingly underperforming athletes, to give a go. At selected races, as well as low-key events. Kids needs to experience their own potential on a level playing field. To get national heroes in Olympia, you need to fish from a large pool, and no fish must be scared out.

On Dec 11, 2:11*pm, james kyes wrote:
I love it... this seems like a great way to find the best skiers...
not that wax usually makes that big of difference, but a good way to
make sure it does not.

The rule seems silly to me. If the idea behind the rule is to make a
fair playing field and to eliminate cost, then make the racers wax and
test their own skis. Flex and grind along with wax application play
far to big of a roll in actual ski speed. Putting every skier on the
same wax will not level the playing field. The best they can do is
cut down the cost by not allowing team wax technicians to wax and test
multiple pairs of skiis for the athletes. They simply need to make
the skiers learn how to wax and select the correct skis for the
conditions.