Does ski base material contains pores?

[highangle]

Um... if your null hypothesis is a straw man, it isn't good science. Just sayin'.

demonstrate your claim that Kuzmin's null is a straw man, please
otherwise, you are simply making another unsupported assertion, which can be dismissed

Also, arm waving and actual testing are not the same thing. What Ian is doing may not be the most scientific testing but if you consisder all the variables involved in how a ski performs, it is plain to see that although Kuzman eliminated many of them, in the process of doing so, he also created an experiment that is not representative of what is happening when a person is sliding down a mountain on skis.

Toko Wax salesman Ian's statements are completely unsupported by evidence, anecdotal, and were made in the context of a ski wax dealer trying to bullshit his way around Kuzmin's work

if you think Ian's words are more scientific than Kuzmin's work, then you have no idea what science is, and should stick with religion

Finally, I am not a competitive racer and do not care about hundredths of a second over a two minute downhill. But I do ski for the *feeling* it gives me. And I *feel* a lot better about how my equipment is performing when I prepare my bases with a little wax, a good scrape, and a brass brush followed by a nylon brush.

thank you for sharing your feelings

i think it's sad that you have to declare measurements invalid to cling to your faith
twas ever thus with people who prefer faith to reality


since feelings, hopes, and wishes are superior to measurements in determining the fastest ski base prep,
maybe we should drop measurements altogether and concentrate on emotions?

maybe the World Cup and Olympics should just go with the skier's feelings about his run instead of his run time?

[telepariah]

Well, he states it all right up front. He deliberately ignores 3 of the 5 coeficients presented by Colbeck and Langevin. He dismisses Colbeck with a wave of the hand. He sets up common practices of ski waxing as a mystical process, which he misrepresents in order to knock it down. He deliberately ignores changes in chemistry and structure due to heating. This is the entire justification for his hypothesis.

So who are these gold medalists who didn't use wax?

[highangle]

since we've dropped measurements in favor of faith, i guess it doesn't matter that Kuzmin's 2006 paper came out after the last Olympics

no Olympic Gold Medalists ever used wax
i hold this as a matter of faith, a much higher standard than reality

[runethechamp]

Compared to sports like soccer and football and basketball and such, skiing, both downhill and cross country, is a small sport. But Norway and other European countries put a lot of prestige and money into skiing. And if Kuzmin's theories were as groundbreaking as he claims, they would all be racing on non-waxed bases whenever it would give them better results. I think it can be summarized as simple as that.

[Dexter Rutecki]

could you quote the statement you keep referring to?

I quoted it almost immediately below what you quoted from my post. Here it is again:

From Kuzmin's thesis:

Yes, waxed skis have a higher initial velocity (except Case 2 CH8), but after quite a short distance this advantage disappears. Perfluorocarbon powder FC8 keeps its advantage longer (3.8 km) than (2.35 km) old-fashioned CH8

Case closed.

i think you may be putting too much weight on an error of translation or some clunky syntax that doesn't work in English like it does in Swedish

I thought there might be an error as well, but in interviews he has admitted the same. There is really no need to discuss further--what you and others are claiming is true is not, and even Kuzmin concedes this (bizarrely still claiming the opposite at times). Properly waxed skis are faster. End of story.

and no experiment or measurement is irrefutable or infallible
your attachment of those words to my statements shows that you don't understand what i'm trying to convey about measurements in general

I get your point about measurements, but you don't understand what I'm trying to point out about your wholesale acceptance of Kuzmin's results, despite many obvious flaws in methodology and logic.

the cards speak for themselves
measurements done the right way are better that those done more casually, prima facie

I would say Kuzmin's measurements, from what I've read, were not done in anything close to the right way for what we're discussing.

why has no one seriously looked into this, particularly wax makers?

my personal theory is that they know that wax doesn't do much for speed, but they don't want to give up the goose that lays the golden eggs

if they know beyond a doubt that their waxes make UHMWPE slicker and faster, then they would have wasted no time demonstrating this conclusively

If Kuzmin is right and the wax people are wrong you would be right--but everyone else in the industry is really only concerned with fast skis. Someone would be using new, unwaxed bases to get more speed--ski techs would insist on it for the athletes if this worked. I would say the reason no one is doing it is it would destroy any chance of being competitive.

sounds like Kuzmin's goal was to remove all the wax from the ski bases, no?

and in order to make sure he accomplished this, it was necessary to remove some of the base to make sure all the wax was gone, right?

Then what the hell was he testing? Of course if you remove base material the effect of waxing will be destroyed. If I did that I'd wax several times before using the skis (and scrape and brush if I really cared about glide). The question isn't 'do skis that once had wax but have now effectively had all base material with wax removed perform better than unwaxed,' the question is 'does a well prepared base outperform a base with no wax.' It seems Kuzmin didn't test this, but then based on results of doing the first test claimed he had results for the second.

To me what he did was the equivalent of removing all the tread from a tire, and then based on testing that treadless tire he made a claim about how the tire would work with treads. Useless.

i see some other techniques like shaving the wax off and exposing virgin base with a special razor have been developed since Kuzmin's inital paper

is that more valid than removing waxes with a steel brush?

I don't know, but if you want to know if his prep is better than a normally prepped pair then you need to test that, and not scrape off all the treated base. Who cares how the base material that hasn't been waxed performs? Irrelevant.

I emailed Swix to ask if they have glide test results comparing unwaxed bases to those that have been prepared--no response today, but maybe someone will get back to me. As you said, a little testing should easily put this to rest.

[GeezerSteve]

So who are these gold medalists who didn't use wax?

I recall that, back in the 1970's, two or maybe all three podium spots in a long XC event went to guys on hairies in twilight zone conditions. Anybody ever win a gold on zeroes?

[highangle]

I don't know, but if you want to know if his prep is better than a normally prepped pair then you need to test that, and not scrape off all the treated base. Who cares how the base material that hasn't been waxed performs? Irrelevant.

so in order to compare waxed vs unwaxed bases, it's necessary to have some wax on the base of the unwaxed ski, or else the experiment's flawed?

jesuss fkn christ

[Dexter Rutecki]

Are you serious? I never said anything about having wax on the unwaxed skis--but he removed all the wax (and base material with wax) from the waxed pair. So his experiment made no meaningful comparison! It was useless. He essentially returned the 'waxed' skis to their original, unwaxed state.

To compare waxed vs. unwaxed you need wax on the waxed ski--you just pointed out that what he did was to remove not only all the wax, but all the affected base material!!

This huge flaw shouldn't be so hard to see.

edit: slide seven here demonstrates this particular flaw. http://www.kuzmin.se/docs/apcst2005_presentation.pdf

If you wax skis and then remove any trace of waxing, why bother at all? Ridiculous.

[runethechamp]

I decided that I needed to start reading this thesis to have a feel for all the claims presented here, and my head hurts now. The de-mythification of the Mantras is some of the biggest loads of crap I've ever read. If he actually got a PhD based on this I think I lost some respect for the Swedish educational system.

[highangle]

Are you serious? I never said anything about having wax on the unwaxed skis--but he removed all the wax (and base material with wax) from the waxed pair. So his experiment made no meaningful comparison! It was useless. He essentially returned the 'waxed' skis to their original, unwaxed state.

To compare waxed vs. unwaxed you need wax on the waxed ski--you just pointed out that what he did was to remove not only all the wax, but all the affected base material!!

This huge flaw shouldn't be so hard to see.

edit: slide seven here demonstrates this particular flaw. http://www.kuzmin.se/docs/apcst2005_presentation.pdf

If you wax skis and then remove any trace of waxing, why bother at all? Ridiculous.

he took the wax off the skis after he tested the "waxed" group
then he retested the unwaxed performance of the exact same ski


i don't think anyone's stupid enough to think you can strip the wax off a ski and then use it for a baseline "waxed ski" measurement

if this is what you think happened, no wonder you have a few problems with this study

[highangle]

I decided that I needed to start reading this thesis to have a feel for all the claims presented here, and my head hurts now. The de-mythification of the Mantras is some of the biggest loads of crap I've ever read. If he actually got a PhD based on this I think I lost some respect for the Swedish educational system.

people started waxing skis for more speed when ski bases were made of wood
they continued waxing skis when nylon and PE bases came around
they continue waxing skis now that bases are made of UHMWPE, even though it's well known that UHMW is almost exactly as slick as the best ski waxes


was throwing down the gauntlet in his introduction a flawed approach? i don't know
but then again, it wasn't like he was disrespecting volumes of data and lifetimes of work on the subject

and it's disingenuous of his detractors to claim that he has dis'd all the wonderful unselfish public minded ski techs and wax makers that have paved the intellectual road for the good of the skiing public

this is the classic red herring resort of the religious apologist

Galileo was called "Rude" and "Arrogant" because his numbers disagreed with geocentric religious dogma

[runethechamp]

When Kuzmin is throwing out sentences like "why ski makers only produce x-c skis with a graphite base is one of the biggest mysteries in the ski business" and "It is uncertain why skiers stopped using a kick wax along the full length of the skis, but instead began to use glide wax on the front and back of the ski", I think he automatically discredits himself a lot. If he is to write a paper on skis and ski waxing you would think he knew at least a little bit about the subject beforehand.

After reading most of that thesis I think it is safe to say that his studies are not applicable to any kind of competitive ski racing, where the preparation of the skis is far past what he is doing in his tests. The test applies to cross country skis, in relatively high temperatures, on a prepared track with a relatively hard surface.

I wonder who it was from either Swix or Toko or any of the big stonegrinding machine manufacturers that screwed him over sometime in the past?

[doughboyshredder]

Try skiing in spring slush with unwaxed bases - you don't get very far.

nonsense. Wax has less benefit in slush than in any conditions. Structure is what matters in slush more than anything. That and spring snow has a bunch of grease and grime in it, so cleaning your bases each run will have an even greater effect.

[runethechamp]

nonsense. Wax has less benefit in slush than in any conditions. Structure is what matters in slush more than anything. That and spring snow has a bunch of grease and grime in it, so cleaning your bases each run will have an even greater effect.

But you can't use a steel scraper, like Kuzman likes, to get a good base structure under your ski. And if you use a machine to get that nice structure under there, his studies show that wax improves the performance a lot.

[doughboyshredder]

do they make a special grass ski wax?

[Beo81]

Why concentrate on Kuzmin? There is much more science available.

The first paper making these claims came in 1982 from norway.

SLOTFELDT-ELLINGSEN, D. & TORGERSEN, L. (1982) Gliegenskaper til skisåler av polyetylen. Oslo, SINTEF.

The second thesis already posted:
http://www.primateria.se/PDF/Peter_S...idfriktion.pdf

Ask some of these guys:
http://www.primateria.se/about%20us.htm

Are they all crazy madmen lurking around in the swedish forests trying to trick me?

[khyber.pass]

Thx for pointing me toward this, which, as I am merely interested in what works best and have no comment on this ridiculous argument as it does not do much for real world testing, does, however, make clear that Kuzmin has monetized his research, marketed his name as a brand, and is consequently as 'biased' as research from Toko/Swix or anyone else. He has something to sell.

And anyone who believes that science is somehow distinct from the market in this regard better get on to reading some philosophy and history of science, or what is known as STS -- science and technology studies. Universities are all about 'transfer' of 'targeted research', monetization of results, and PPP (private/public/partnerships). So: that is said and done. Everyone has something to sell.

So let's move on to real world testing.

This thread is useless without TGR tests.

I am merely concerned with what will work best.

I already know that waxed bases propel me faster on cat tracks than unwaxed, and that over time, the wax dissipates and I go slower, and thus I must rewax. So wax does have an effect. I know this because I run over people like Lee who doesn't wax.

The Q is whether the waxed glide effect on the flats/traverses is equal to, better than, or worse than steel-scraped unwaxed bases.

If equal or worse, than unwaxed bases glide along as good or better on cat tracks / traverses with less cost / muck / pollution involved. Then waxing appears to be some kind of huge ideology we are all subservient to (well nearly all of us).

But then my next Q is, do waxed bases protect the ski better than unwaxed?

This I am unclear about. When I prepare bases, I apply a hard wax as a second layer to stave off scratches. This appears in my experience to work, as the wax gets scratched, but not the base. Even this thin layer decreases friction and appears to reduce the damage from rocks etc.

So the real test --> go over rocks with properly waxed skis vs. go over rocks with steel-scraped unwaxed skis.

I think we need some old, good condition skis to do proper testing here, as said skis are going to get thrashed.

In all this data, I still see no tests like this. Am I missing them?

Has anyone here been running unwaxed bases as their usual setup? Pray tell.

[Dexter Rutecki]

he took the wax off the skis after he tested the "waxed" group
then he retested the unwaxed performance of the exact same ski


i don't think anyone's stupid enough to think you can strip the wax off a ski and then use it for a baseline "waxed ski" measurement

if this is what you think happened, no wonder you have a few problems with this study

You need to go back and read what he actually did, as it seems you do not understand what he was doing (I'm not sure anyone understands WHY he did this stuff, as it doesn't make sense, but what you're describing is not what Kuzmin describes). Look at 2.2 (p.37) of his thesis, or the presentation slide I referred you to earlier. He clearly states that before any measurement was taken he used the steel rotary brush at 4000 rpm--which is crazy and obviously invalidates any measurements then made.

And I am still curious to hear you or anyone else explain how the insistence that waxing makes no difference jibes with Kuzmin's own admission that waxing does make skis faster (even if for a limited time).

And we haven't even addressed the numerous other problems and limitations with his testing methodology.

I think you may be too fixated on the fact that he provides numerical data--data gathered through a faulty process is probably worse than no quantifiable data at all.

[Dexter Rutecki]

nonsense. Wax has less benefit in slush than in any conditions. Structure is what matters in slush more than anything. That and spring snow has a bunch of grease and grime in it, so cleaning your bases each run will have an even greater effect.

I think you're not entirely correct. While structure may be the most important factor in wet snow, a good high-fluoro wax will also make a significant difference, which is what I think was being referred to. High moisture content snow is sort of fluoro's raison d'etre (or maybe it's fluoro's maison d'etre, but either way fluoro is good in wet snow).

[sfotex]

I think you're not entirely correct. While structure may be the most important factor in wet snow, a good high-fluoro wax will also make a significant difference, which is what I think was being referred to. High moisture content snow is sort of fluoro's raison d'etre (or maybe it's fluoro's maison d'etre, but either way fluoro is good in wet snow).

Structure is important for sure, But for the wax not mattering at all debate high-fluro in high humidity snow can make a difference.

[sfotex]

Here's some interesting quotes from the tognar site:

SWIX WAX SPEED TESTING
We do most of our wax testing in conjunction with Salomon and Rossignol ski companies. We test alpine skis at speeds of about 60mph, and nordic skis at about 15mph. Interestingly, we find that the results of these two different speed tests usually correlate with each other. We think this might be because the surface area on an alpine race ski at 60mph creates similar friction and heat as a nordic ski with less base surface at 15mph.
Slow speed testing may really be all that's necessary for alpine racing, but we're still doing high speed testing just the same because, at the World Cup level anyway, no one's screwed up quite the courage yet to completely trust slow speed test results for the big alpine races. But it may just be a matter of time before they do.
-Rob Kiesel, Swix Wax Tech

SNAKE OIL?
Watch out Dr. Science...the black magic of waxing is still alive and well! A heavy thaw and extremely dirty snow conditions at the 1995 Nordic World Championships in Thunder Bay, Ontario had veteran wax experts completely baffled. Regular ski waxes didn't work since they let too much dirt build up on bases. Before one race, technicians went running to find alternatives. What'd they try? Automobile windshield washer fluid, 2-cycle snow-mobile oil (Esso was the brand of choice, we hear), car wax and diesel fuel! Ski bases still became so filthy that towels soaked in wax remover were laid down during the race in tracks to wipe away some dirt as racers skied over them. Question about the legality of this were ignored since all competitors did it. One ski manufacturer even drilled holes in the tops of their skis and poured wax remover into the core, hoping the solvent would seep into the sintered p-tex base and help remove dirt. Swix did more testing during the 1995 Nordic World Championships (over 2500 test runs through the speed trap) than ever before in history. Snow conditions were about the most bizarre anyone had ever experienced or heard of before.

SPEED TESTING
Randy Graves of Rossignol spends lots of time experimenting with base structures and performing glide tests. He told us that (similar to what we've been told by speed skier Jeff Hamilton) they test waxes and structures on racing skis at low speeds on a long track. There's several reasons Randy gives for this. First, acceleration of skis out of the starting gate in a race is as important, if not more so, than ski velocity on the course...and slow glide testing allows them to measure acceleration very well. Secondly, high speed glide testing is much riskier...there have been accidents and even a death recently while testers have been glide testing skis at race speeds.

[Beo81]

Khyber.Pass: You acctually believe wax helps protect you skis? Haha, sorry for laughing. You will find those result in the Kuzmin thesis as well, but it does not take much to think this one out yourself. In short: No. It does not under any circumstances protect your base from anything. The base is harder than any wax, thus making it impossible.

Dex, if you do not know what Kuzmin are doing, please send him an e-mail. He will gladly point this one out for you. I do not think you quite see what is being done here.

Go ahead and read the thesis and work by Primateria as well. Think they are all wrong too? And Ian Harvey is God?

Sfotex: Good post

[doughboyshredder]

Structure is important for sure, But for the wax not mattering at all debate high-fluro in high humidity snow can make a difference.

I agree if the snow is clean. But for resort riding in spring conditions even high fluro can be a bad thing because of the dirt and grease that wax attracts.

Even swix mentions it in the c&p that sfotex posted.

What is the funniest thing to me is that most of the people that really worry about this kind of shit can't ski for nothing. I guess that's because wax really matters on green circles?

[sfotex]

What is the funniest thing to me is that most of the people that really worry about this kind of shit can't ski for nothing. I guess that's because wax really matters on green circles?

I really didn't give a shit about wax until I started skate skiing. I suck at skating, but the difference between bad glide and ok glide is pretty noticeable even for a shitty skier.

[GeezerSteve]

For alpine/tele skis, glide aint much of an issue for me.

But turning is an issue. Waxed skis turn better than unwaxed skis in soft snow, wayyyyy better in sticky wet PNW snow. Can anyone reasonably dispute that? I don't know how one can do a controlled experiment on that matter.

Exception is when pollen and dirt can build up in late spring conditions. IME, unwaxed skis are usually less prone to dirt build up in late May thru July PNW conditions, firn, neve, dirty corn, etc. I've experimented with Hertel Spring Solution for high pollen conditions -- the jury is still out, but my preliminary anecdotal take is that SS works better than an unwaxed ski for pollen-fouled snow.