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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

On the "stone grind vs steel scraping" issue.

I did compare factory stone grind ski (new Fischer RCS, faultless and
smooth base surface, no visible hairs), paraffined with swix LF, after
some 20 km of a distance, and steel scraped bare ski of the same pair
(stone grind removed completely), at the end of the last season.
Scraped ski glided better. And I had skied on those bare new untouched
skis before that test - they just did not glide at all.

IMHO factory stone grind is so bad, that whatever is done, whether it
is waxing or scraping, it will do only good to ski glide. Yes I know,
new skis should be prepared with many cycles of base paraffine waxing
and removing, but isn't scraping cheaper, cleaner and maybe better?

The second question is : does paraffine add glide to *scraped* ski,
before and *after* some 10-s km of a distance *significantly*? I am
going to perform such a test this season (one ski bare, one waxed). But
whatever are the results I think it is not worth it paraffining the
skis after work in the evening before going to ski, stealing some 0.5-1
hours of one's sleep time.

I would love to learn about ways to make skis glide better with less
work and expense. I think there's obviously also a place for all kinds
of research---our own personal on-snow tests and fancy lab tests as
well as those that haven't found practical application, but I
personally look forward most to learning about on-snow results and
methods I can USE! : ) --JP