A Snow and ski forum. SkiBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » SkiBanter forum » Skiing Newsgroups » Nordic Skiing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Kuzmin No-waxing thesis



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 31st 06, 11:47 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kuzmin No-waxing thesis

Zach may be too busy to post his response to the Kuzmin paper on steel
scraping being better than waxing. The paper's abstract says that
stonegriding and waxing are not as good as an alternative treatment.
Kuzmin theorizes that steel scraping is better than waxing because it
picks up less dirt.

Zach's website has an interesting experiment and commentary cahllenging
the Kuzmin thesis.
http://www.engineeredtuning.net/Basematerialdemo.htm

Peer review reports should be interesting.

Edgar

Ads
  #2  
Old February 1st 06, 01:06 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I read all of Kuzmin's thesis. It did inspire me into further reading
(it had bibliogrpahy) but otherwise it's prety weak "reasearch". His
arguments are mostly pseudoscientific, for example, the argument on
penetration of large molecules of wax versus penetration of small
molecules of water. Many reasons can be found why water does not
penetrate the base (the most trivial one is that the base is
hydriphobic), and, in fact, he does not show what experiments he did to
demonstrate that water does not penetrate the base. I wonder what kind
of "thesis" the writing is. It could possibly qualify as a junior
college research assignment.

  #3  
Old February 1st 06, 04:36 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I've looked through Zach's experiments, too, and they were not
conclusive, either. E.g., I was not convinced the wax did not leak
around the seal that he made around the ribbon. Also, it's not clear
how thick the ribbons were, and how consistent the thickness of the
ribbons is.

I think the right question to ask is not if the wax penertrates or not
(an all-or-nothing kind of question), but how deep the wax penetrates.
A garage type experiment may not address this. Say, the penetration is
1 micron. Then, one will need 0.5 micron thick ribbons to detect
penetration by Zach's method. I am not mentionning that roughness of
the surface of the ski is probably on the order of 100 microns which
makes this all even more complicated.

One could dissolve a fluorescent dye in wax, wax the skis, then make a
slice of the ski and see the gradient of the fluorescence. But this is
not a garage type experiment.

  #4  
Old February 1st 06, 02:25 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I hope I didn't make the claim that I was doing anything like "science"
with my little demonstration. I did my experiment to satisfy my own
curiosity on the matter, not to create any indisputable proof. As
Andrey has pointed out - there is huge room for error in my "garage
type" experiment. That's a very apt description of what I did. For
goodness sake, I used electrical tape and printer paper - just what was
lying around. I had to make quite a number of attempts to satisfy
myself that I wasn't simply getting wax leaking around the edges of the
ribbon. I started with just masking tape - and that surely wasn't doing
the job. I ended up with a pretty convoluted layering set-up involving
sandwiching the edges of the ribbon between two sticky surfaces, and
then taping the whole thing down - it reminded me of making roof
flashing. Anyway, it's surely not science, but I'm satisfied for my own
purposes that I saw wax go through the base material.

I realized pretty soon after I started working on skis professionally
that there is a lot of room for applied science in the ski preparation,
but that trying to be truly "scientific" about the development of new
methods, grinds, and treatments is a pandora's box. We don't work in a
controlled environment - there are far too many variables at play. The
best we can do is to work on an empirical model and test variables as
the opportunity arises. In my view Kuzmin's work falls far short of
science for several reasons. It is clear that he has started with
conclusions (which he started to form, by his report, at the 1995 world
championships in Thunder Bay). Then he has selected the variables he
wants to test, ignored the rest, and presented his findings as
indicative of the need for a paradigm shift.

I don't claim to have the ability to explain scientifically the way
that skis work. I do, however, have a pretty large head start on the
scientists out there who approach this work theoretically without any
tactile working knowledge of the materials in use. One micron is what -
a hundredth of a hundreth of a mm? In my experience that's at least an
order of magnitude smaller than the scale that we're actually working
at. The thickness of the ribbon that I tested was 0.02mm as measured on
a digital caliper - suggesting that it was in truth someplace between
0.01 and 0.03mm. I'm sure that, measured on the scale of microns, there
is a great deal of variability in the thickness of the thing. But
experience tells me it doesn't matter too much. If wax is penetrating
one micron it might as well not be penetrating at all. We're not
talking about molecule-size pores in the actual UHMWPE here - we're
talking about sintered structure. Len Johnson has poked a small needle
into one of the 'pores' in a ski base, working under a microscope. I've
measured weight gain in a ski due to what I assume is wax saturation on
the order of 0.7-1.0 grams (using a heatbox). You're not going to get
that out of 1 micron penetration, or a film on the ski base, etc. We
truly needn't get too carried away here.

I've had quite a number of people tell me that I approach the ski prep
business very scientifically. And I've had another handful claim that
I'm totally unscientific and that I should be running computer models,
measuring in microns, etc. I think this is a reflection of a
fundamental misunderstanding of, on the one hand, what science is, and
on the other hand, what ski preparation is.

Zach

  #5  
Old February 1st 06, 03:27 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Zach,
You should ask the ski manufacturers if they can send you some
longitudinal slices of base material of different depths of say .1 mm
increments ( would have to be a pretty good bandsaw :-) ). Then you
could repeat your "garage" experiment to see how far the wax actually
can penetrate. I think if you got up to 1 mm you can safely rebuke his
thesis.
And if Kuzmin's theory is based on flimsy premises, I also wonder how
bad or anachronistic his ski testing methodology is?
What is the current state of the art for testing glide at the WC level?

Chris

  #6  
Old February 1st 06, 03:56 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

1mm of wax penetration? Keep dreaming! at risk of sounding
non-scientific (!) I can "feel" how deep the wax goes when I'm metal
scraping good base material. I'd say we're talking about several
hundredths of a mm - probably not even 0.1mm.

In fact, I believe that Toko (and probably other wax companies) have
done actual scientific tests to determine how deeply wax saturates the
base. I'm sure Ian Harvey would be happy to comment. Or you could try
looking up the Toko Tech Manual which is actually a fairly useful
document. Plenty of propaganda, but also plenty of good information.

There is no state of the art of glide testing on the world cup. Speed
traps are used, but everybody recognizes their limitations. The major
issue with glide testing on the world cup is that there is very little
opportunity for controlled bench-mark testing because most of the
process is geared toward race skis. It's a question to coordinating the
confluence of lots of different variable, the most important in most
cases being ski selection. The skis really have to be skied for feel.

Anyway, Kuzmin has used accepted ski testing methodology. No problems
there. But by the same token his data is pretty thin, and most people
with experience running speed traps would want to see much more.

Z

  #7  
Old February 1st 06, 03:58 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Totally agree that there are many holes in Kuzmin's research (I've also
read it). But no one has addressed the most important question to a
racer: Is a structured and waxed ski faster than a steel-scraped and
unwaxed ski? And does the difference in "fastness" change over the
course of a race?

Rather than figure out if a ski holds wax, perhaps the test should be
to compare sets of skis just after they are waxed/not waxed and after
they have been skied in. For example,

1. Multiple glide tests (the before test) of structured/waxed skis and
scraped/unwaxed skis are performed, with an average & standard
deviation taken.

2.Both sets of skis are skied on.

3. Periodically - every 5km? - the skis are glide tested.

The results would show which set of skis was faster or slower at the
start (when most racers test glide) AND which skis got faster or slower
relative to the other set over time.

Simple test - although there are lots of variables that would be
difficult to control. Do enough tests, and patterns begin to appear...

Mike

  #8  
Old February 1st 06, 04:30 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Believe me Mike - I'm working on it. As you say, it's a relatively
simple test. But you need data. So far the information I have is
anecdotal - not enough hard numbers involved. However, the metal
scraped skis have been very, very far from competitive. When/if I come
up with anything I can call "data" I'll share it, for sure.

However, anybody in their right mind would be crazy not to question my
findings. Talk about a conflict of interests! Having tested hand
structures based on metal scraping as part of my regular testing over
the past four or five years I'll say up front that I'm extremely
skeptical. When I bought a stonegrinder I had already had plenty of
experience working with hand stuctures, and I didn't spend all that
money because I thought that grinding MIGHT be faster.

I would suggest that anybody who feels that Kuzmin's work is convincing
should run their own tests. Competition testing is always the best way
to get good information in any case. It can be hard to determine what's
"significant" in benchmark testing. Less hard at the mid-point of a
marathon. I'm really looking forward to hearing the Birkie stories from
the people that do the metal-scrape/no-wax treatment. Naw THAT will be
some data!

Zach

  #9  
Old February 1st 06, 05:11 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Though I can't find Kuzmin's paper anymore, a couple of notes. First, a
licentiate dissertation is typically a third year graduate paper, the
equivalent of a masters thesis in the U.S. It's rare that the quality
of research at this level can make it past an "Interesting," and then a
specialty library shelf. My experience was that these are more useful
for their bibliographies than their substance.

It's normal to start with a hypothesis, which is anywhere from a hunch
to a conclusion, to be tested (in this case, it's the null hypothesis
that's at issue). Fishing expeditions (data mining) without hypotheses
are not research, tho many economist's models are built that way. The
key is whether the methodology and variables chosen allow for results
to come out either way, or are highly stacked toward the a favored
conclusion. I have to take a pass here.

I do think it's essential to distinguish between two kinds of tests and
claims. The first, and most important, was a skiing test: Does adding
glide wax to skis vs. some nude condition make a difference in the
field? I understand Kuzmin reported a variety of results. The second
are any tests or explanations for the causes of those results. In
speaking to Kuzmin's claims, I think many comments are tending to
overlook the first and jump to the second, i.e., "It can't be true
because it doesn't make any sense according to existing theory or my
lab experiments..."

Gene



"Zach Caldwell" wrote:

I hope I didn't make the claim that I was doing anything like
"science" with my little demonstration. I did my experiment to
satisfy my own curiosity on the matter, not to create any
indisputable proof. As Andrey has pointed out - there is huge room
for error in my "garage type" experiment. That's a very apt
description of what I did. For goodness sake, I used electrical tape
and printer paper - just what was lying around. I had to make quite a
number of attempts to satisfy myself that I wasn't simply getting wax
leaking around the edges of the ribbon. I started with just masking
tape - and that surely wasn't doing the job. I ended up with a pretty
convoluted layering set-up involving sandwiching the edges of the
ribbon between two sticky surfaces, and then taping the whole thing
down - it reminded me of making roof flashing. Anyway, it's surely
not science, but I'm satisfied for my own purposes that I saw wax go
through the base material.

I realized pretty soon after I started working on skis professionally
that there is a lot of room for applied science in the ski
preparation, but that trying to be truly "scientific" about the
development of new methods, grinds, and treatments is a pandora's
box. We don't work in a controlled environment - there are far too
many variables at play. The best we can do is to work on an empirical
model and test variables as the opportunity arises. In my view
Kuzmin's work falls far short of science for several reasons. It is
clear that he has started with conclusions (which he started to form,
by his report, at the 1995 world championships in Thunder Bay). Then
he has selected the variables he wants to test, ignored the rest, and
presented his findings as indicative of the need for a paradigm shift.

I don't claim to have the ability to explain scientifically the way
that skis work. I do, however, have a pretty large head start on the
scientists out there who approach this work theoretically without any
tactile working knowledge of the materials in use. One micron is what
- a hundredth of a hundreth of a mm? In my experience that's at least
an order of magnitude smaller than the scale that we're actually
working at. The thickness of the ribbon that I tested was 0.02mm as
measured on a digital caliper - suggesting that it was in truth
someplace between 0.01 and 0.03mm. I'm sure that, measured on the
scale of microns, there is a great deal of variability in the
thickness of the thing. But experience tells me it doesn't matter too
much. If wax is penetrating one micron it might as well not be
penetrating at all. We're not talking about molecule-size pores in
the actual UHMWPE here - we're talking about sintered structure. Len
Johnson has poked a small needle into one of the 'pores' in a ski
base, working under a microscope. I've measured weight gain in a ski
due to what I assume is wax saturation on the order of 0.7-1.0 grams
(using a heatbox). You're not going to get that out of 1 micron
penetration, or a film on the ski base, etc. We truly needn't get too
carried away here.

I've had quite a number of people tell me that I approach the ski prep
business very scientifically. And I've had another handful claim that
I'm totally unscientific and that I should be running computer models,
measuring in microns, etc. I think this is a reflection of a
fundamental misunderstanding of, on the one hand, what science is, and
on the other hand, what ski preparation is.

Zach

  #10  
Old February 1st 06, 05:56 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hey Zach,

You might consider comparing freshly ground skis with and without wax.
That would be limiting the variables to adding wax, and the change in
base structure that occurs because of scraping and brushing. You could
scrape and brush the unwaxed ski, but you have to make sure to have a
new brush and clean the scraper so you don't introduce wax.

Another test (hate to keep adding work) would be to test steel scraped
skis with and without wax. (Same reasoning as above.) It sounds like
you're testing steel scraped without wax vs. ground with wax. I think
the other tests would fill in the "holes" (not a scintering pun) of
it's really the wax making the difference or the ski base structure.

I started reading the thesis and it already seems like an editorial
rather than a scientific paper. I think the wax companies are probably
correct with ideas like wax penetration and that waxing a ski prevents
abrasion, but probably don't really know why. I don't think there's any
reason to worry about "oxidation" of a ski base, but I'll read further
and comment later.

Jay

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My boss suddenly claims that waxing is unnecessary... Rob Snowboarding 5 March 8th 04 07:23 PM
Ski waxing question No.2 JP European Ski Resorts 18 March 2nd 04 06:49 PM
waxing tips? Scott Lindner Snowboarding 1 February 11th 04 03:27 AM
quick waxing question Scott Lindner Snowboarding 3 January 7th 04 01:41 AM
Questions about waxing SebB Nordic Skiing 10 December 8th 03 06:47 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.