What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

If anyone wants to read the full Kuzman paper, here is a link to a PDF
file of the paper:
http://epubl.ltu.se/1402-1757/2006/0...IC-0603-SE.pdf

or do a web search for:
Kuzmin AND "Investigation of the most essential factors influencing ski
glide"

Edgar

Whether we agree with his conclusions or not, his papers certainly
provide sufficient details (his thesis is 70 pages long including cover
and appendices) for someone to try to test his theory. The Kuzmin
thesis "Investigation of the most essential factors influencing ski
glide" is a collection of two Kuzmin papers:

Have you actually **read** the thesis, not just merely scrolled to see
how many pages it has? The "scientific" arguments about the size of
molecules absorbed into plastic are of a high-school research project
at best.

Zach Caldwell had a long critique of Kuzmin's thesis on his site,
www.engineeredtuning.net, but it doesn't seem to be linked at the
moment.

rm

"Edgar" wrote:

wrote:

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.

The implication that Kuzmin did not do on-snow testing is not correct.
The Kuzmin papers describe in detail his on-snow testing as well as his
laboratory examination of ski running surfaces.

Whether we agree with his conclusions or not, his papers certainly
provide sufficient details (his thesis is 70 pages long including cover
and appendices) for someone to try to test his theory. The Kuzmin
thesis "Investigation of the most essential factors influencing ski
glide" is a collection of two Kuzmin papers:

"Contact angle on the running surfaces of cross-country skis"

"Dirt absorption on the ski running surface - Quantification and
influence on the gliding ability"

As part of the second paper, Kuzmin describes glide testing on a
"controll slope", and illustrates the paper with a photo showing a
skier in a tuck position on the control track. He describes the
control slope as 170 M long with the first 70 M steep and the last 100
M less steep such that the skier's velocity was about 10 m/s in the
flat section.

I believe that Kuzmin's work is more in support of what we in the
States would call a Masters degree and is not in support of a Doctorial
level degree. As a Masters thesis, I suspect that his University
advisors were more interested in the quality of the research process
and documentation of his study than the results or findings of his
study. The papers describe his work in enough detail that others could
conduct similar test to see if Kuzmin's results can be replicated
over a wider range of conditions.

Until other researchers prove otherwise, I intend to keep waxing
because it seems to work for me.

Still waxing,
Edgar

wrote:

Have you actually **read** the thesis, not just merely scrolled to see
how many pages it has? The "scientific" arguments about the size of
molecules absorbed into plastic are of a high-school research project
at best.

Yes, I read the Kuzmin paper when it first came to the group's
attention last year.

I'll pass on comments regarding Kuzmin's contact angle study. Mark
Waecher's commentary (Ultratune November 2006 newsletter) seems to
address the contact angle paper quite well.

The dirt adhesion paper's conclusion that dirty skis are slower than
less dirty skis is consistent with my experience. However, I am not
prepared to support a no-wax approach to repelling dirt in that
structure to reduce suction also needs to be considered.

My experience with late season spring skiing at Royal Gouge in the
pre-fluro days matches Kuzmin's conclusion that dirty skis are
slower. I remember on high dirt day where my skating skis picked up so
much dirt that I could stride classic style up hills returning to the
day lodge after only 10+ K of skiing. However, those were also the
days when I used the Ski-go with silicone.

As Mark Waecher notes, three of Kuzmin's four cases were plus
temperature spring conditions (wet or corn snow) and the snow
conditions for the one "cold" case were -3.8C at 75% humidity.
Reviewing Kuzmin's "average glide speed" results, the not
surprising data shows that skis slowed with higher distances skied
(i.e. more dirt adhesion). Results did show that the fluro-waxes were
faster than the CH waxes.

Several points that Mark Waecher did not address were that Kuzmin used
clear bases, the steel roto-brushing of "hot-waxed skis and dry
skis" and sample size. Could the clear bases have contributed to
dirt attraction? Did steel roto-brushing adversely affect the
hot-waxed skis? Was Kuzmin's sample size too small to be
statistically relevant?

So, before blowing off Kuzmin, readers should offer criticism of why
Kuzmin's methodology or testing is not valid. As said, I am still
waxing.

Edgar

Edgar wrote
So, before blowing off Kuzmin, readers should offer
criticism of why Kuzmin's methodology or testing is not valid.

I don't think it was the experimental methodology, or the specific results,
that got all the attention and emotion-laden response.

It was rather _conclusions_ from the experimental results reported in the
press -- even outside of cross-country sking publications -- conclusions of
broad generality which some cross-country skiers said went way beyond the
specifics of the experimental results.

Ken

Ken Roberts kirjoitti:

Edgar wrote
So, before blowing off Kuzmin, readers should offer
criticism of why Kuzmin's methodology or testing is not valid.

I don't think it was the experimental methodology, or the specific results,
that got all the attention and emotion-laden response.

This would certainly explain the apparent widespread collective amnesia
about the existence of on-snow glide tests:-)


It was rather _conclusions_ from the experimental results reported in the
press -- even outside of cross-country sking publications -- conclusions of
broad generality which some cross-country skiers said went way beyond the
specifics of the experimental results.

I can understand that scientists can be irked by (apparently) bad
science, but it truly surprises me that skiers can be so easily
convinced that something (i.e. that Kuzminized skis glide better than
skis given a normal treatment) cannot be true (or can be true only in
very limited conditions), because the theory behind is faulty and the
science lacking.

If you guys could read Swedish, you would be able to read about the
on-snow experiments and experiences of open-minded and curious skiers
(including 1st wave Vasaloppet starters) who (for the most part) don't
give a rat's ass about the science.

OTOH good, experienced waxers can almost always come pretty close to
the performance of Luzminized skis, so you guys don't have anything to
worry, if you wish to stick to the tried and true as you've learned it
the hard way.


Anders

Anders wrote
. . . it truly surprises me that skiers can be so easily convinced . . .

If that surprises you, try reading the rec.bicycles.tech newsgroup, and find
out what sort of things bicyclists can be easily convinced of.

I will observe that the two American ski preparation _technicians_ who I
respect most both made very careful and thoughtful responses to Kuzmin's
work.

Ken

Ok, I went back and started reading the thesis again. First off, Kuzmin
starts off with a really bad conclusion, and I think that gets people
doubting all his work.


MANTRA 1 The ski base is porous and you have to melt waxes to
impregnate the ski base.
Conclusion: He says this isn't true because parafin molecules are
larger than water molecules and we've never have seen any indication
that a ski base absorbs water.

-First, a ski base is hydrophobic, so water molecules have a greater
affinity for bulk water than to separate and enter the ski. It's the
same reason water doesn't drip out of a eye dropper.
-If you want to test this idea, pick a solvent that is hydrophobic and
small, and test it. Don't just throw it out there without any data. (It
hard to imagine this getting past any kind of reviewer!)
-Wax companies have published photos indicating how far wax penetrates
skis bases
-If you wax a new ski with a highly colored wax, it will be "stained"
with that color. No amt of brushing will remove the color.

Kuzmin came back in the first discussion a year ago and discussed this
idea, but he seemed to be splitting hairs...he concedes wax goes into
the ski but says it's not absorbed.


MANTRA 2 Abrasion--Waxing protects the ski from abrasion.
Conclusion: The ski base is many times more abrasion resistant than any
glide waxes so waxing doesn't protect the ski base.

-Right at the end of the Mantra 1 section he states that wax covers the
ski as an adhesion film. I agree. So if the ski is covered with a film,
there's less chance of abrasion because the wax has to wear off before
abrasion can begin.
-His conclusion seems like a foolish idea because "elementary" logic
refutes the idea.
-I admit that I've skis for years on downhill skis without waxing them,
and many guys ski on their rock skis without waxing them. Can these
skis be fast when waxed? I don't know, because I haven't tried it.
-I tend to agree that importance of the abrasion arguement may be
overstated. I certainly agree that bases do not oxidize (this is not
part of his thesis).


MANTRA 3 Use graphite because prevents the generation of an electric
field.
Conclusion: The reason for a graphite base is a big mystery

-I wholeheartly agree that the electric field arguement made by wax
companies is total crap, but his conclusion doesn't follow the
arguement. Just because the electric field arguement is wrong doesn't
mean that adding graphite to skis/wax makes the skis/wax slower.
-Wax companies/techs have shown that graphite/moly/various lubes do
improve speed in spite of lowering hydrophobicity
-I believe ski companies have tested skis and shown that graphite bases
are faster in many conditions (except wet).
-The graphite probably has another factor in speed such as reducing the
amt of dirt absorbed or modifiying how quickly the wax wears off the
ski.


So in the first major portion of his paper, his conclusions are
_really_ questionable because they are based on poor logic and a lack
of data.

Then he launches into a bunch of ski and wax history, and I think this
is where most people (like me) stop reading. Hopefully I'll read the
rest later.

Jay

I suppose with waxing it's like with everyone, you can't get the one
objective maximized without compromizing the other.
Speed and Wear.

Has anyone ever attempted to make ski's that self-lubricate with a
fast-glibing, quickly wearing wax? It would be poured in a reservoir, and
pushed through the porous base towards the surface to provide the glide, and
keep flowing (ever so slowly) to keep up with wear.
The foot's action could be the pup to get the wax through the ski. Like a
hoovercraft, in slow motion.

My gut feeling says there's gotta be a polymer material out there that
glides like a megnetic train over all kinds of snow, repells dirt and
doesn't get scratched up easily. I suppose nylon and teflon don't work for
ski's as those would seem to be the first things to try for a nutty glide
professor...

"Bjorn A. Payne Diaz" schreef in bericht
ups.com...
Ok, I went back and started reading the thesis again. First off, Kuzmin
starts off with a really bad conclusion, and I think that gets people
doubting all his work.


MANTRA 1 The ski base is porous and you have to melt waxes to
impregnate the ski base.
Conclusion: He says this isn't true because parafin molecules are
larger than water molecules and we've never have seen any indication
that a ski base absorbs water.

-First, a ski base is hydrophobic, so water molecules have a greater
affinity for bulk water than to separate and enter the ski. It's the
same reason water doesn't drip out of a eye dropper.
-If you want to test this idea, pick a solvent that is hydrophobic and
small, and test it. Don't just throw it out there without any data. (It
hard to imagine this getting past any kind of reviewer!)
-Wax companies have published photos indicating how far wax penetrates
skis bases
-If you wax a new ski with a highly colored wax, it will be "stained"
with that color. No amt of brushing will remove the color.

Kuzmin came back in the first discussion a year ago and discussed this
idea, but he seemed to be splitting hairs...he concedes wax goes into
the ski but says it's not absorbed.


MANTRA 2 Abrasion--Waxing protects the ski from abrasion.
Conclusion: The ski base is many times more abrasion resistant than any
glide waxes so waxing doesn't protect the ski base.

-Right at the end of the Mantra 1 section he states that wax covers the
ski as an adhesion film. I agree. So if the ski is covered with a film,
there's less chance of abrasion because the wax has to wear off before
abrasion can begin.
-His conclusion seems like a foolish idea because "elementary" logic
refutes the idea.
-I admit that I've skis for years on downhill skis without waxing them,
and many guys ski on their rock skis without waxing them. Can these
skis be fast when waxed? I don't know, because I haven't tried it.
-I tend to agree that importance of the abrasion arguement may be
overstated. I certainly agree that bases do not oxidize (this is not
part of his thesis).


MANTRA 3 Use graphite because prevents the generation of an electric
field.
Conclusion: The reason for a graphite base is a big mystery

-I wholeheartly agree that the electric field arguement made by wax
companies is total crap, but his conclusion doesn't follow the
arguement. Just because the electric field arguement is wrong doesn't
mean that adding graphite to skis/wax makes the skis/wax slower.
-Wax companies/techs have shown that graphite/moly/various lubes do
improve speed in spite of lowering hydrophobicity
-I believe ski companies have tested skis and shown that graphite bases
are faster in many conditions (except wet).
-The graphite probably has another factor in speed such as reducing the
amt of dirt absorbed or modifiying how quickly the wax wears off the
ski.


So in the first major portion of his paper, his conclusions are
_really_ questionable because they are based on poor logic and a lack
of data.

Then he launches into a bunch of ski and wax history, and I think this
is where most people (like me) stop reading. Hopefully I'll read the
rest later.

Jay

MANTRA 1 The ski base is porous and you have to melt waxes to
impregnate the ski base.
Conclusion: He says this isn't true because parafin molecules are
larger than water molecules and we've never have seen any indication
that a ski base absorbs water.

-First, a ski base is hydrophobic, so water molecules have a greater
affinity for bulk water than to separate and enter the ski. It's the
same reason water doesn't drip out of a eye dropper.
-If you want to test this idea, pick a solvent that is hydrophobic and
small, and test it. Don't just throw it out there without any data. (It
hard to imagine this getting past any kind of reviewer!)

yes. once I got to this point, i could not take the whole thing
seriously (I did read the whole thing). Such "arguments" can be found
throughout the proposal. No references, no rationale, no justficaiton.
He really enjoys throwing in things like "nothing but a commecial
gimmic" here and there. Such wording/"arguments" do not belong to a
scientific work.