questions about waxing

directions on how to make a hotbox for 25 dollars.
also keeps pizzas warm.

http://www.tognar.com/waxing_tips_ski_snowboard.html

Of course there is a small layer of wax on top of the Ptex.
And to maximize the structure benefit, nothing better than a layer of
liquide wax, such as Nanowax Cerax.
I've been using it for years and I'm not afraid to say that it povides
either same or better glide than pure fluoro powder.

www.nanowax.com

Laurent

You might also be interested in the new claims that steelscraped skis
without glides roughly as fast (except for the first few kms or so) as
'well-waxed' skis, discussed in other threads here (such as
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.s...read/974c94e1=
ce9b0271/1caeae1f19655e4b?q=3DKuzmin&rnum=3D2#1caeae1f19655 e4b
)=2E From what I've read about it so far, the general conclusion seems
to be that the reasoning and explanations in the thesis ( available at
http://epubl.ltu.se/1402-1757/2006/0...IC-0603-SE.pdf ) are far
from flawless from a scientific point of view, but seems to work in
practice at least in te sense that as long as you don't ski in the
world cup, olympics etc, one steel scraping can get you some 10000 km
with roughly the same glide as your best waxing friends.

I don't know if Kuzmin's own stteel scraper (or whatever you call it in
English) is better that what you can find in a local store, but for
those interested, it can be ordered from the e-mail address given at
http://www.kuzmin.se/index.php?action=3Dbestall and detailed instructions
(only in Swedish so far, though) on how to do the scraping is given at
http://www.kuzmin.se/index.php?action=3Dhur .

(I haven't tried myself yet, due to work in a snowless country abroad,
but have ordered a steel scraper for trying out next winter and judging
from others who tested this winter (for example in Vasalopet and =F6ppet
sp=E5r) it seems to be a very simple way to get very good glide that
lasts for very long with very little work or expenses (once you have
bought the steel scraper and perhaps a roto brush).

/ Niklas
wintermutt wrote:
hi. i have never waxed skis before except with the liquid stuff.
i skate ski have rs 11's. i have always had sierra nordic wax my skis
once a year.
usually ski royal gorge california
some questions for the group. "how to wax".
1. you get the wax on. OK.
2. why do you scrape it off?
3. do you take the wax you scraped off and re-use it or toss it?
4. why do you put more layers on? since you just keep scraping it off?
5. can you damage the bottoms of the skis scrpaing them?
6. after you scrape you brush? why do you brush ? why not just polish
them?
7. then you polish the skis. OK i got that one figured out also.
=20
TIA.

lolix wrote:
Of course there is a small layer of wax on top of the Ptex.
And to maximize the structure benefit, nothing better than a layer of
liquide wax, such as Nanowax Cerax.
I've been using it for years and I'm not afraid to say that it povides
either same or better glide than pure fluoro powder.

www.nanowax.com

Laurent

I don't think that Cerax or similar products maximize benefit of
structure any more than properly applied and brushed waxes or powders.

Camilo a écrit :
lolix wrote:

Of course there is a small layer of wax on top of the Ptex.
And to maximize the structure benefit, nothing better than a layer of
liquide wax, such as Nanowax Cerax.
I've been using it for years and I'm not afraid to say that it povides
either same or better glide than pure fluoro powder.

www.nanowax.com

Laurent


I don't think that Cerax or similar products maximize benefit of
structure any more than properly applied and brushed waxes or powders.

I do think so. And it's so much easier.

I've made sevral marathon races donce in pairs, together with my brother
(ranked 121 at this year Transjurassiennne worldLoppet). He put fluoro
powder, I put Nanowax. I've always had same glide or better than him.

Of course, proper wax grounding, base prep, is still necessary.

Laurent.

You might want to read Ian Harvey's extended discussion of Kuzmin at
http://www.skinnyski.com/gear/display.asp?Id=3D4430

Thanks!
Without having had time to read Kuzmin's thesis myself, what I've heard
from those who have is exactly that there are some (or several?) flaws
in the explanations from a scientific point of view and that more tests
in more different conditions need to be done to give statistically
sound conclusions about what glides best in different weather
conditions.

I don't think that anyone yet has done such large-scale tests (except
perhaps the different national team waxing teams, who won't tell us
about their results, because for them it's trade secrets), so I guess
it's upfor those who are interested to do enough tesths to concince
themself or others.

I have no personal interest in which method that becomes the dominating
one in the future, so my post here was mainly for sharing with others
what I found interesting.

Personally I have double interests in this field:
1) The skier in me just want to have the best possible glide with the
minimum amount of work, without caring whether anyone really knows for
sure and can explain why method A gives better glide than method B.
From what I've heard from others who tested and from the Vasaloppet-
and =D6ppet sp=E5r-results of a friend of mine, I feel convinced that
Kuzmin's method doesn't give bad glide and I will therefore try it out
myself next winter in traning and in less important races, and if that
convices me that Kuzmin is right in claiming that skis prepared in 'his
way' glide fast, then I'll try it in Vasaloppet also.

2) The scientist in me woul also like to have deeper and scientifically
sound understanding of why which method is better than the other in
certain weather and conditions. There is much left to be done there, I
think. I have still not seen any convincing scientific or statistical
evidence that one of the two glide surface preparations is clearly
better than the other, so in the choice of waiting for others to find
out or trying myself, I found the results so far good enough for
deciding to try myself. And to give a tip about it to others, which I
have done now.


/ Niklas

the scientist in me is wondering why we don't have ski-snow interfaces
like my non-stick cooking pans.
why not a teflon bottom or whatever they are putting on the cookware
nowadays.
it must be durable considering the soap and heat and rubbing cookware
is
exposed to.

On 9 Apr 2006 16:54:09 -0700, "wintermutt" wrote:

the scientist in me is wondering why we
don't have ski-snow interfaces
like my non-stick cooking pans.
why not a teflon bottom or whatever they
are putting on the cookware
nowadays.

Because snow is variable, and the best glide comes from matching the
hardness of the ski with the hardness of the snow.

JFT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************