Universal Toko Wax as a basic layer

We need a chemist here. It appears the difference is that NA includes
natural and synthetic paraffins whatever they are (na=no fluoro or
graphite), as opposed to the hydrocarbon paraffin in Uniblock. That
probably accounts for most of the difference in price and quantity. But
I sure as heck don't know what advantage it offers.

Gene

Andrew Lee wrote:

The Uniblock is still in the Star wax lineup:
http://www.starwax.com/products/star...3/uniblock.htm

I've been using it since I started skiing because it is inexpensive, and has
been recommended for base saturation by people for years.

At my local shop, it is $18.95 for 400g. The NA is $14.95 for 60g in the
same shop. That's why I was curious about how the NA would perform compared
to the Ultratech. It is the Ultratech's replacement pricewise, if not
fluoro content -wise. I agree that testing is the only way to find out, but
as someone on a budget, I like asking around first...

So my test is inconclusive, whether Toko Moly all-in-one as an
underlayer kicked ass, or Star Tekno TF12 was so great, or both.
Noel said that Tekno TF12 is the best wax for spring dirty/wet
conditions. I had my doubts, as the stated humidity for TF12 was
50%. It was over 90% today, but it didn't seem to affect the glide.

After I was done skiing today, I applied 1 layer of TF12 (after
thoroughly brushing the base). No underlayer this time. I'll try again
tomorrow and see if
lack of Toko Moly all-in-one makes a difference. By the way, the
amount of dirt accumulated on my base today was very minimal.




Оk, so I did test this yesterday and here is what I found out:

Same wax without Toko Moly all-in-one worked slightly worse overall,
and didn't last as long as with Moly underlayer.

Conclusion: Toko Moly all-in-one makes a superior underlayer, which
seems to extend top layer's temperature range and works well across
different snow temperatures in -5C...+10C range.

Next weekend I am going to test Star MAP200 instead of Toko Moly
all-in-one to see if it performs differently (and it should: MAP200
contains graphite, not Molybdenum).

I already prepared my skiis:
1. Hot scraped using Star Uniblock Yellow
2. 2 Layers of MAP200
3. Layer of Star Tekno TF12

Next weekend I am going to test Star MAP200 instead of Toko Moly
all-in-one to see if it performs differently (and it should: MAP200
contains graphite, not Molybdenum).

I already prepared my skiis:
1. Hot scraped using Star Uniblock Yellow
2. 2 Layers of MAP200
3. Layer of Star Tekno TF12

I tested this combination and it did indeed perform differently. The
glide was slightly weaker than with Toko Moly as an underlayer. BUT,
dirt repellency was every bit as good as with Moly and base layer
durabitity was way better. After skiing 50km there was no difference
in performance.

Next day I decided to try Low Fluoro glide wax (Star Ultra-Tech1
+6C...-5C). That was a BIG mistake. First 15km it was almost as good
as high fluoro, but when snow started melting - it was terrible.
Never again!

Weather permitting, I'll be testing FastWax next weekend.

I've found the UltraTech + Tekno combo crayoned on to be relatively fast
and versatile across conditions.

Gene

TahoeXCSkier wrote:

Next weekend I am going to test Star MAP200 instead of Toko Moly
all-in-one to see if it performs differently (and it should: MAP200
contains graphite, not Molybdenum).

I already prepared my skiis:
1. Hot scraped using Star Uniblock Yellow
2. 2 Layers of MAP200
3. Layer of Star Tekno TF12

I tested this combination and it did indeed perform differently. The
glide was slightly weaker than with Toko Moly as an underlayer. BUT,
dirt repellency was every bit as good as with Moly and base layer
durabitity was way better. After skiing 50km there was no difference
in performance.

Next day I decided to try Low Fluoro glide wax (Star Ultra-Tech1
+6C...-5C). That was a BIG mistake. First 15km it was almost as good
as high fluoro, but when snow started melting - it was terrible.
Never again!

Weather permitting, I'll be testing FastWax next weekend.

Gene,

Did you mix UT with Tekno or did you use UT as an underlayer
for Tekno?

I did test FastWax (Salmon 0..-5C) on Saturday. Temperature range
that day was -2C...+10C. Since it snowed a little bit overnight,
there was an inch or two of powder. Glide was very good within the
wax range. Unfortunately, as soon as the snow started melting, this wax
performed pretty awful. I realize that it wasn't supposed to perform as
well outside of the 0..-5C range, but it wasn't performing at all and
I had to literally drag my skis. In fact, it was gliding worse than
any low fluoro wax would, even though this one
supposedly contains "the highest percentage of fluorine" compared to other
brands. I have a suspicion, that quality of this fluorine may be quite, eh,
different from other brands. Just a suspicion though...

Tried skiing on Star Tekno TF14 (medium fluoro) the next day -
skis were extremely fast. And the range for TF14 was -8C...0C. It
was gliding almost as fast when the temperature reached +10C.



Gene Goldenfeld wrote in message ...
I've found the UltraTech + Tekno combo crayoned on to be relatively fast
and versatile across conditions.

Gene

TahoeXCSkier wrote:

Next weekend I am going to test Star MAP200 instead of Toko Moly
all-in-one to see if it performs differently (and it should: MAP200
contains graphite, not Molybdenum).

I already prepared my skiis:
1. Hot scraped using Star Uniblock Yellow
2. 2 Layers of MAP200
3. Layer of Star Tekno TF12

I tested this combination and it did indeed perform differently. The
glide was slightly weaker than with Toko Moly as an underlayer. BUT,
dirt repellency was every bit as good as with Moly and base layer
durabitity was way better. After skiing 50km there was no difference
in performance.

Next day I decided to try Low Fluoro glide wax (Star Ultra-Tech1
+6C...-5C). That was a BIG mistake. First 15km it was almost as good
as high fluoro, but when snow started melting - it was terrible.
Never again!

Weather permitting, I'll be testing FastWax next weekend.

I wasn't racing, so it was faster to crayon one, then the other and then
run the iron. I especially like the NU02 and TF14 (or TF16) combo. My
notes, from the dealer in Grand Marais, MN, who has used Star for years
are as follows:
-NU01: wet snow, -5 to +6C with high humidity, but can also be used for
0C and low humidity
-NU02: 10-30F, esp 20-32, med humidity, coarse grain or icy tracks
-TF14: higher humidity, transformed snow toward melting

Gene

Gene Goldenfeld wrote in message ...
I wasn't racing, so it was faster to crayon one, then the other and then
run the iron. I especially like the NU02 and TF14 (or TF16) combo. My
notes, from the dealer in Grand Marais, MN, who has used Star for years
are as follows:
-NU01: wet snow, -5 to +6C with high humidity, but can also be used for
0C and low humidity
-NU02: 10-30F, esp 20-32, med humidity, coarse grain or icy tracks
-TF14: higher humidity, transformed snow toward melting

Gene

I tried TF14 last weekend and it worked great in melting snow
conditions. Started on icy tracks, but the temperature creeped up to
+10C. TF14 worked just fine, unlike NU01, which slowed down
considerably when the temperature (and humidity) increased. I also
like TF12 a lot, which worked amazingly well in melting snow. I
haven't tried using NU01 as a base layer for the Tekno waxes yet.
Interesting, that Star recommends NU(Ultra-Tech) waxes in higher
humidity than Tekno waxes (Low humidity), although Tekno waxes contain
more fluor.

Gene, what's your experience with TF12, TF18 and NU03? Unfortunately,
I couldn't find NU02, it is sold out everywhere. I imagine, TF14 and
TF16 are somewhat similar to NU02, but with higher fluorine content?

TahoeXCSkier wrote:

Gene, what's your experience with TF12, TF18 and NU03? Unfortunately,
I couldn't find NU02, it is sold out everywhere. I imagine, TF14 and
TF16 are somewhat similar to NU02, but with higher fluorine content?

I use that Alaska Pacific Univ chart by Jim Galanes as a guide, but have
been experimenting. An Atomic rep used NU02 for a demo day on
machine-made snow that went from about 25 to 36, it was very fast. I've
used the colder NU03 and TF18 together on machine snow and that seems
relatively fast in medium to low humidity, altho as the humidity rises
EC3 helps. Adding a Map Black treatment every once and awhile under
just about anything that's been cold seems to help. For NU02, have you
tried Jenex? Also, the Grand Marais shop I mentioned is Devils Track
Nordic Ski Shop (218)387-3373.

Gene

Thanks Gene.

What's the difference between UT-1 and NU01? Is it the same wax? Both
are called Ultra-Tech...
I also purchased some Star MAP 100 additive (white). Have you used
this one before? There is no temperature range on it, it is
recommended for wet snow conditions or falling snow and should be
rubbed on the base and melted at 50C (!).

Gene Goldenfeld wrote in message ...
TahoeXCSkier wrote:

Gene, what's your experience with TF12, TF18 and NU03? Unfortunately,
I couldn't find NU02, it is sold out everywhere. I imagine, TF14 and
TF16 are somewhat similar to NU02, but with higher fluorine content?

I use that Alaska Pacific Univ chart by Jim Galanes as a guide, but have
been experimenting. An Atomic rep used NU02 for a demo day on
machine-made snow that went from about 25 to 36, it was very fast. I've
used the colder NU03 and TF18 together on machine snow and that seems
relatively fast in medium to low humidity, altho as the humidity rises
EC3 helps. Adding a Map Black treatment every once and awhile under
just about anything that's been cold seems to help. For NU02, have you
tried Jenex? Also, the Grand Marais shop I mentioned is Devils Track
Nordic Ski Shop (218)387-3373.

Gene

TahoeXCSkier wrote:

Thanks Gene.

What's the difference between UT-1 and NU01? Is it the same wax? Both
are called Ultra-Tech...
I also purchased some Star MAP 100 additive (white). Have you used
this one before? There is no temperature range on it, it is
recommended for wet snow conditions or falling snow and should be
rubbed on the base and melted at 50C (!).

You've got me there. I'm not familiar with UT-1 (misnamed by someone?)
or MAP-100, which was replaced by Map200. The latter is mentioned in
Jenex's Galanes/Len Johnson pamphlet on applying Star waxes, as follows:
"Special fluoro - carbon molecule in a paraffin base. To be used over
Nordic Synthesis (older nonfluoro?) or Ultra-Tech. Used in coarse icy
snow and in melting and coarse snow conditions. With MAP100 the
fluorocarbon content of other waxes is increased. Map acts like F1 and
F2, but is much less expensive." They give two methods of application:
1)Drip on top of something like Ultra-Tech and melt the two together at
medium temperature, cool and horsehair; 2)Wax with Ultra-Tech or
Synthesis, rub on Map 100, horsehair brush. BTW, the pamphlet must be
pretty old, since nicely posed portraits of Torgny Mogren and V. Smirnov
adorn the back cover.

Having written that, I now find almost the entire pamphlet, updated to
2000, at the Jenex site: http://www.jenex.com/wax/index.html (V2-Star
Tuning Tips). All that's missing, or been replaced by commentary, is
the last part with specific application info, such as that cited here.

Gene