Wistful wonderings about a wax-free world...

Thanks Chris, exactly my sentiments as a not-yet-skier. I'd love to have
waxless ski's that simply do the job, and do it as well as the next guy's
with a maxman working all night to prep them for the race ahead.
I'd like to see waxless races or categories. Would be interesting to see how
much difference there really is, and if maybe undersponsored athletes make a
step forward on equal gear.

I'd love to be involved in developing a base that does all that a good
waxjob does, should be super interesting.

J

"Chris Cole" schreef in bericht
...
Hi,

While the arcane and complex art of "structuring" and waxing one's skis
is intruiging, a waxless backcountry touring skiier is led to wonder why
someone can't produce a smooth structureless ski base that incorporates
a very high degree of hydrophobicity that obviates the need for both
grinding and waxing? Can it really be that hard? Are there fundamental
technical reasons why the qualities we desire from waxing can't be
engineered into the base material to start with?

Structuring and waxing just seems to be a terribly labour intensive,
inefficient, and wasteful way to achieve the desired result of fast skis.

It's a gross oversimplification, but basically why can't we just get out
there and ski on bases of (a robust cousin of) Teflon? =)

Cheers,
Chris

Hi,

While the arcane and complex art of "structuring" and waxing one's skis
is intruiging, a waxless backcountry touring skiier is led to wonder why
someone can't produce a smooth structureless ski base that incorporates
a very high degree of hydrophobicity that obviates the need for both
grinding and waxing? Can it really be that hard? Are there fundamental
technical reasons why the qualities we desire from waxing can't be
engineered into the base material to start with?

Structuring and waxing just seems to be a terribly labour intensive,
inefficient, and wasteful way to achieve the desired result of fast skis.

It's a gross oversimplification, but basically why can't we just get out
there and ski on bases of (a robust cousin of) Teflon? =)

Cheers,
Chris

I think the factor that makes wax fast, is that it wears as you ski.
Alpine skiers cork and brush in Cera F just before a run with the
intention that is lasts only one run. For xc, there is ironing and
rotocorking that makes the wax wear slower, but I think it still wears
as you ski. I think a "teflon" ski could come close, and would be very
good in some snow conditions, but that wax would clearly be faster in
some conditions like new snow and cold snow. What I found with Cerax (a
"wax" that was supposed to have very high durability) was that it could
be very fast on occasion, but it was unpredictable when it was going to
be fast, and it might be slow at certain points on the course such as
wind blown snow.

Jay Wenner

I think this is maybe the basic concept:

Wax acts like a changeable extension of the ski-base molecules.
Ski-base is hydrocarbon, so is wax. We add a layer of molecules with
certain properties that allow easy gliding when in contact with snow
crystals of certain properties. The goal is to match the properties.
The need for variable wax (or any other base treatment) is because of
the variability of snow. Wet old snow is VERY different from cold fresh
snow. How to find a base that glides equally on both kinds of snow?

Or maybe as JGK suggests: we could have a category for Nowax. How to
easily verify that all bases are equally bad? : ) Nowax skis are
easily waxed.

--JP

Hi,

What you're looking for is the "lotus" effect.

see
http://www.botanik.uni-bonn.de/syste...fect_html.html

Years ago when I asked them about a similar effect for skis, they
redirected me to Nanowax Cerax...

I've been using Nanowax since and I'm very happy with it and I believe
that I have rocket skis in almost all conditions.
My brother is using fluoro powders and we made several races done in
pair over the years. I've never been slower than him (talking about
glide..), despite being a bit lighter than him.

(He finished 121 overall of the 2006 Transjurasienne and I believe he
knows how to wax properly.)


Laurent.


see docWebVO.getDeleteAttachment()
Chris Cole wrote:
Hi,

While the arcane and complex art of "structuring" and waxing one's skis
is intruiging, a waxless backcountry touring skiier is led to wonder why
someone can't produce a smooth structureless ski base that incorporates
a very high degree of hydrophobicity that obviates the need for both
grinding and waxing? Can it really be that hard? Are there fundamental
technical reasons why the qualities we desire from waxing can't be
engineered into the base material to start with?

Structuring and waxing just seems to be a terribly labour intensive,
inefficient, and wasteful way to achieve the desired result of fast skis.

It's a gross oversimplification, but basically why can't we just get out
there and ski on bases of (a robust cousin of) Teflon? =)

Cheers,
Chris

schreef in bericht
oups.com...

Or maybe as JGK suggests: we could have a category for Nowax. How to
easily verify that all bases are equally bad? : ) Nowax skis are
easily waxed.
Offer your ski's to the Jury before the race (night before?). They'll
service your ski's for you, being making them absolutely shiny clean of wax.
also, when they find tracs of wax on your ski's, you get a time penalty. Buy
nowax skies, and keep them that way. Like yesterday's EPO in your blood also
disqualifies you tomorrow.
Ski's are all stored under the same conditions, and released to an athlete
only ~5mins before the start. No touching or spraying the ski's allowed. As
you get the ski's, step on them and take your place on the grid.

Now how much slower, in a one-hour race, would you experts rate nowax of
pro-waxed, for both skating and classic? Would the racing be less
attractive? I can only imagine that the best skiers spend the most
time/money on waxing. Finish times between winner and slowest finisher
should come down? By about the difference between a really good wax job, and
a bad one. Big advantage : must less expenses to be in the sport, more
time/money to focus on racing, easier access to newbies, bigger race fields,
more ski's sold, etc. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

Part of the history and strategy of skiing is the waxing. Those with a
lot of experience tend to do better at waxing and in particular, kick
waxing. I actually like the waxing aspect of xc skiing. It's kind of a
chess game within the sport.

Jay Wenner

Something similar exists in cyclo-cross. Handmade tubular tires on carbon
rims, not for sale in shops. Without it you can't win, you need many
different sets and tires can't just be changed, you just carry dozens of
$$$$ wheelsets around. Gives the sport something magical for spctators, but
also keeps the sport really small in number of active participants. The
mos-viewed televised races attract only 3-4 dozen racers, while many
thousands of cycling licence holders qualify to just enter. So, it's now
mostly a spectatorsport. Hardly anyone is many money selling cyclo-cross
bikes. I hope this future doesn'y happen for XC ski. But the opposite might
not be a bad this to strive for, especially in countries where there are few
participants.
I just found out our national ski federation only has a few supported
biathletes and rollerskiers, not even a single xc skier. Our country may be
a bad example, but over here it wouldn't hurt if one could just purchase
some ski's and have a fair chance based on fitness and technique.
Evenone pro-wax is considered a volunteer to prep my ski's if I even find
myself enlisted for a race local to them :-)

Sorry if I'm not sensitive to the sport's tradition YET, as a newbie I don't
deal with that, just with what it means enter the sport.

Happy trails,

J

"Bjorn A. Payne Diaz" schreef in bericht
ups.com...
Part of the history and strategy of skiing is the waxing. Those with a
lot of experience tend to do better at waxing and in particular, kick
waxing. I actually like the waxing aspect of xc skiing. It's kind of a
chess game within the sport.

Jay Wenner

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:00:55 +1000, Chris Cole
wrote:

Are there fundamental
technical reasons why the qualities
we desire from waxing can't be
engineered into the base material to start with?

Yes. Snow varies.

JFT

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

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:40:22 +0100, "Jan Gerrit Klok"
wrote:

Something similar exists in cyclo-cross. Handmade tubular tires on carbon
rims, not for sale in shops. Without it you can't win, you need many
different sets and tires can't just be changed, you just carry dozens of
$$$$ wheelsets around.

No. Without the best stuff you can't win at a high level. People win
low-leverl cross races without the best stuff. Brian May who used to
post in this group won a good regional ski race on the cheapest wax
and very old poles.

Gives the sport something magical for spctators, but
also keeps the sport really small in number of active participants.

What evidence do you have that the cost of ski wax keeps people out of
ski racing, or even that the cost of handmade tubulars keeps people
out of cycle racing? The real price of racing bikes and racing
equipment (adjusted for inflation) has probably fallen over time. And
the real costs to racing bikes and ski racing are the costs of time.
And for racing bikes in the US (and ski racing in continental Europe)
the cost of travel.


I just found out our national ski federation only has a few supported
biathletes and rollerskiers, not even a single xc skier. Our country may be
a bad example, but over here it wouldn't hurt if one could just purchase
some ski's and have a fair chance based on fitness and technique.

Are you saying that if the cost of top-end racing skis was lower that
more people in the Netherlands would ski? That is nonsense. The
reason people don't ski the Netherlands is there is almost nowhere to
ski.

JT

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