If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?
I've been noticing this Kuzmin discussion over the past year.
About how glide wax and stone grinding is not needed, slows your skis, is a bad idea. One thing that occurs to me is that he doesn't seem to compare actual glide tests of skis, or any kind of use results (like over a long distance). He sticks to theory. And by pure theory he may have some points. Except that wax/glide theory seems to me to be full of unknowns. It's a good field to explore, for sure. But it seems only of interest to skiers in the end to include practical application. Otherwise it's just part of ongoing NONAPPLIED science that might someday be relevant. Or am I missing something? Has he actually shown somewhere that dry, metal-scraped, manually rilled skis can be faster? Basically he seems to be saying that wax is less hydrophobic and gets dirtier than a dry ski base. He also says that stone-grinding is less effective against various friction forces than metal-scraping. That's just off the top of my head. But so much for talk and theory---anything that actually works better in what he's saying? I think that for sure it's something that science needs to keep studying...along with kickwax, eh? But maybe there's nothing practical in his ideas so far. It does seem like his research is provoked by practicality: he says that ski waxing and prep has become way too expensive and complex. Does he have a point at all beyond griping? I mean, sure it's pricey---but aren't the skis faster as a result? Or has everyone been fooling themselves... : ) --JP |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?
wrote: I've been noticing this Kuzmin discussion over the past year. .... Does he have a point at all beyond griping? I mean, sure it's pricey---but aren't the skis faster as a result? Or has everyone been fooling themselves... : ) --JP See Ultratune Newsletter November 2006, page 2 for Mark' Waecher's analysis of the Kuzmin concepts: http://www.ultratune.net/news.html Edgar |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?
Jeff,
After reading the article (quite a while back), I got the feeling this was a proposal. Maybe a proposal for a thesis project, e.g. submitted at the two year point in a PhD program, or maybe a masters program. A number of the ideas seemed premature, and I don't think most advisors would accept this as a final thesis. I seem to remember some strawman arguements and some assumptions not backed with data. I got the real feeling that Kuzmin wants to be an iconoclast. It's fun to knock down tightly held beliefs, but you better have some good evidence that is bullet proof. You're right that he doesn't have (as I remember) any data from on-snow glide tests. That would be the good evidence and I would bet some other people have probably done glide tests showing metal scraped skis are slower than waxed in all but some very unusual conditions (like the '95 worlds). One interesting sidenote. When I played with Cerax, it was really hard to find when the stuff was fast or slow. I figured part of this inconsistency was that Cerax did not wear off the ski like a traditional wax does. The other thing was that a number of the coatings (according to the scientist I talked with) were "not that hydrophobic." (1,2, 3 and 5). So that brings up another interesting discussion. Anyway, I'm betting that poor conditions for Cerax and for unwaxed skis might be similar. (I think very new snow or wind blown snow would be a problem for both.) almost done being sick.... Jay wrote: I've been noticing this Kuzmin discussion over the past year. About how glide wax and stone grinding is not needed, slows your skis, is a bad idea. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?
After reading the article (quite a while back), I got the feeling this was a proposal. Maybe a proposal for a thesis project, e.g. submitted at the two year point in a PhD program, or maybe a masters program. per conversation with Kuzmin this WAS his thesis, and he was granted a degree for it. I wonder what kind of a university could grant a degree based on that type of research. In that conversation, Kuzmin was using the fact that the degree has been granted to justify that the research was of acceptable quality. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?
Whatever gave you the idea that substantive quality of
research was a criteria for a degree? It's not even a criteria for tenure. " wrote: After reading the article (quite a while back), I got the feeling this was a proposal. Maybe a proposal for a thesis project, e.g. submitted at the two year point in a PhD program, or maybe a masters program. per conversation with Kuzmin this WAS his thesis, and he was granted a degree for it. I wonder what kind of a university could grant a degree based on that type of research. In that conversation, Kuzmin was using the fact that the degree has been granted to justify that the research was of acceptable quality. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?
For those that didn't see the earlier post on this:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.s... 7789d0f37cc41 or do a search in this group on "Kuzmin." Jay |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?
A couple other places have recent Kuzmin action also.
What provoked me to post here was the new story at NordicSkiRacer.com, where Kuzmin replies to that Mark person: http://nordicskiracer.com/cgi-bin/ne...sp?NewsID=1080. Also in the "Cross Country Skier" magazine I got a few weeks ago I think that Ian Harvey gives a try at refuting Kuzmin, but his points seem disjointed. I'm thinking that some editorial grafting was involved. Or maybe not involved enough! : ) I'm just really surprised that anyone making noises about ski performance wouldn't try out their theories! It all seems like MALARKEY to me. Total, 100% hogwash without actual on-snow testing. It may be an attempt at analysis but if it has no relation to reality it's irelevant. I know that there's not much great science about ski gliding. But we do have EMPIRICISM! WHAT WORKS? That's all that matters. If he thinks he has a critique of wax but it actually has no bearing on reality then his theory is WORSE than existing admittedly patchy theory. But, ya know, if there are some kids flying around the woods with dry rilled skis and they come whippin' past me sometime, I might try what they got REGARDLESS of the theory behind it. As far as skis goes, what WORKS leads the way. OK, I guess that some unapplied theory might start a trend that leads somewhere cool down the road, so there's that. --JP outyourbackdoor.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?
PS: But, hey, good questions are worth something. Pure science has its
place in ski research. It may lead somewhere WAY down the road. --JP |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?
PPS: Like wouldn't it be weird if ski wax works but not because of
hydrophobics, or static, or dirt-prevention? He seems to make good challenges of these things. Yet wax still seems likely to work far better than a dry metal scraped rilled ski in most conditions. So the reason why might be something else not thought of yet. What could it be? That's the mystery, allure and challenge of science....!!! --JP |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|