Is this is stupid idea?

What works best and How to

Moderator: Moderator Group

FeltBikeRider
xcskiforum 10K
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:55 pm

Is this is stupid idea?

Postby FeltBikeRider » Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:40 pm

I use a very very amazing wax at my work called Collinite 845 ... I use to to wax a fleet of 25 limousines... It is the most amazing wax I have ever encountered. It goes on remarkably easy, and wipes off even easier, best part is outlasts any other wax I have ever used by 3X... I apologize for this sounding like an advertorial for an automotive wax.... my question is do you think this will harm my skis?? I want to try them on my waxless Fischer S-Bound 78s... I have a couple bottles at work and figure it's worth trying so long as it won't damage anything.

Here is the product page.

http://www.collinite.com/automotive-wax/insulator-wax/

Loran
xcskiforum 20K
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:50 pm

Re: Is this is stupid idea?

Postby Loran » Mon Dec 01, 2014 4:42 pm

Considering how many stupid things people are doing trying to improve glide, someone who would consider it stupid could probably be easily nailed on what he IS doing routinely.
For instance, even at the World cup level, they hotbox skis. (I've just dismantled my homemade hotbox...)
Anyway.
So, it would be considered as stupid if a number of people had already tried it and ruined their skis OR if science could prove it stupid.
So, since nobody came up with an experiment, let's try the science way. Science says that UHMWPE is extremely inert and resistant to solvents. So it is unlikely that any arm would be done by a couple of tries with some liquid that is polished on car painting.
Science says that glide on snow is improved with wear resistance material, hydrophobia and appropriate structure/texture. So if your "wax" has better hyrophobia than UHMWPE (which is unlikely) and is wear resistant enough to last a few kms, then you've found something.
What if this glide becomes worst AND the coating is extremely wear resistant ? I mean, regular brushes don't go deep into the structure. So brushing again and again won't do the total removal job. So wax removers would be the way to go. If it is still in there (which is very unlikely, this is not cyanoacrylate nor MS-Polymer glue, is it ?), then you're done for a stone-grinding or a manual steel-scrapping.

At least you're not hot-boxing your skis... ;-)

Blah
xcskiforum 40K
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:43 am

Re: Is this is stupid idea?

Postby Blah » Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:04 am

I think using a wax that is meant for paint isn't likely to yield great results. That being said if it's not a great pair of skis then why not? I think it's unlikely to give much benefit unless temps are higher.
Regarding hot boxes I'm skeptical of Loran providing superior knowledge to that of wax techs that do this as a professional living. Wax boxes are a tried and true method of prepping fast skis and if it didn't yield good results on the World Cup then they wouldn't be doing it...

Chris
xcskiforum 40K
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:24 am

Re: Is this is stupid idea?

Postby Chris » Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:03 pm

If you try it I hope you let us know how it works.

I would suspect that if it does make the ski faster it would only be for a short amount of time. My understanding is a good part of the "magic" in high fluoro waxes involves getting the wax, which is intended to not be sticky, to bond to the base which is also intended to not be sticky and provide reasonable longevity. Sticky is a very unscientific term here, but I think you get the idea.

osloskier
xcskiforum 40K
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:28 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Is this is stupid idea?

Postby osloskier » Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:46 pm

Blah wrote:Wax boxes are a tried and true method of prepping fast skis and if it didn't yield good results on the World Cup then they wouldn't be doing it...


The Norwegian team has quit using hotboxes, I believe. I'll see if I can dig up a reference.

osloskier
xcskiforum 40K
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:28 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Is this is stupid idea?

Postby osloskier » Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:52 pm

http://www.langrenn.com/slik-blir-det-g ... -1743.html

Quote:

After grinding, the skis need an initial prep.
langrenn.com: How much time does the first prep take?
Nystad: That's quickly done. Maybe 45 minutes.
langrenn.com: Do you use a hot box?
Nystad: No.

Blah
xcskiforum 40K
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:43 am

Re: Is this is stupid idea?

Postby Blah » Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:35 pm

Interesting. That's just one team but I understand it's a team that is a frontrunner in skiing and waxing... Although they weren't very good at waxing in sochi :D My boss is friends with Nystad, I'll see if he can ask for details about it.

osloskier
xcskiforum 40K
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:28 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Is this is stupid idea?

Postby osloskier » Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:19 am

Blah wrote:Interesting. That's just one team but I understand it's a team that is a frontrunner in skiing and waxing... Although they weren't very good at waxing in sochi :D


True, but they did figure it out eventually :) Also, this article was from 2011, I think, so it's very hard to connect this to the Sochi fiasco.

My boss is friends with Nystad, I'll see if he can ask for details about it.


Please do and report back :)

Nystad has said so several times. He's also published something about it on his blog, in his huge ski prepping tips post, where he says that you may use a hot box for up to 8 hours at maximum 55 deg C if you wish and have access to one, but what little science exists indicates that a regular iron works just as well.

The latest craze in Norway is IR waxing - instead of an iron or a hotbox, you melt the wax onto (the manufacturer says into, but I'm not convinced) the ski base with infrared radiation. Waay better, obviously... The apparatus costs the equivalent of USD 6500. Nystad isn't buying. He commented "Well, at the level that we're fiddling with this stuff, we haven't felt the need to spend time on this". The sports shops say the national team is using it, but Nystad says "It works well, but we haven't had the time to prove that it's better. We've tested it, but we're not using it". So much for the "used at the WC level" argument. The national team will test all new stuff that appears, and whenever they have tested something, the shops will argue that they are using it. So basically, any expensive stuff that the national team has ever tested, the shops will try to sell as if it's essential at the WC level.

http://www.hegnar.no/sprek/artikkel107829.ece

Chris
xcskiforum 40K
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:24 am

Re: Is this is stupid idea?

Postby Chris » Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:21 am

http://www.swixsport.com/dav/babc49f803.pdf

This article has a graph showing the importance of time and temperature for wax absorption. Without having information on the exact materials used in ski construction it is tough to say what temperatures are safe. I don't operate my hot box over 55 dC, but this number isn't based on hard facts so much as gut feeling unfortunately.

The other big question I have is how important is to have wax diffused deeply into the base. While hot boxing a ski can help diffuse wax deeper into the base, this may not accomplish anything to make the skis actually faster. Think of the ski like a kitchen sponge. Does having soapy water absorbed all the way to the center of a thick sponge allow it to clean dishes any better than a sponge that just has the surface adequately covered in soapy water?

If the wax deep in the base works it way back to the surface as the surface concentration drops due to wear, maybe hot boxing does make a difference in ski speed in longer races. At the length of races typical in most World Cups this probably doesn't come into play. I would guess typical ironing works the wax deep enough into the base for 15K. When the World Cup does a marathon they are allowed to change skis, so again distance covered by a ski is shorter than in a citizen marathon. Point being what is done on the World Cup may not be entirely relevant to someone who wants fast skis in the Birkie or equivalent. I wonder what teams like United Bakeries or Coop do for skis on the non-World Cup marathon circuit.

MN Hoser
Ski Forum God
Posts: 1069
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:26 pm
Location: St. Paul, MN

Re: Is this is stupid idea?

Postby MN Hoser » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:10 pm

osloskier wrote:http://www.langrenn.com/slik-blir-det-gullski.4890098-1743.html

Quote:

After grinding, the skis need an initial prep.
langrenn.com: How much time does the first prep take?
Nystad: That's quickly done. Maybe 45 minutes.
langrenn.com: Do you use a hot box?
Nystad: No.


I heard something similar...new grind to final coat is quick. Taking a middle position means that hot boxes are not needed or are of limited use. I do think that cold snow like we have in MN is something unique that the Europeans don't have much experience with.

Jay

Loran
xcskiforum 20K
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:50 pm

Re: Is this is stupid idea?

Postby Loran » Fri Dec 05, 2014 3:42 am

Chris, if you're talking about this SWIX graph

http://laglissepureetsimple.files.wordp ... rbtion.png

I think it is truly defeating hotboxing.

Please someone let his skis for 2 hours into a 120°c hotbox and let us know the result. (I just remind you that a ski base melts at 135°c)

According to that graph, 2' or 3' at 120°c ( a typical iron temp) yields the same result that 6 hours at 70°c. Note that at 70°c your skis are already at real danger.

I let you extrapolate the result of hotboxing, say, 12h at 50°c. Peanuts, by Swix standard....

The question is then what kind of wax goes into the base (dilution process) and will it improve gliding ?

About ski base compared to a sponge....
Man, true porous UHMWPE does exist along with other kind of Slippery Liquid-Infused Porous Surfaces.. They are absolutely and definitely not in use for skiing. Even the zeolite additive, as marketed by Salomon, has been known for a very long time to improve wear resistance, not wax absorption. Moreover it's hydrophilic which is an adverse property.
At the last Olympics, after a disastrous start, Salomon ended up on white bases...

Blah
xcskiforum 40K
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:43 am

Re: Is this is stupid idea?

Postby Blah » Sun Dec 07, 2014 11:29 am

Message basically was if you have a fleet of techs then there is no reason to hot box. If you area retail store or understaffed team it probably saves some time. Also newer bases seem to take less wax to prepare for skiing. I'd agree with previous posters that really aggressive or cold snow or marathon prep may enhance the benefit of hot boxing.

Chris
xcskiforum 40K
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:24 am

Re: Is this is stupid idea?

Postby Chris » Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:43 am

Disclaimer: I am not an expert on ski bases since I don't know exactly the materials being used are, so what I am saying may not be 100% correct. The following is my understanding based on the best information I can find.

Loran wrote:Chris, if you're talking about this SWIX graph

http://laglissepureetsimple.files.wordp ... rbtion.png

I think it is truly defeating hotboxing.

Please someone let his skis for 2 hours into a 120°c hotbox and let us know the result. (I just remind you that a ski base melts at 135°c)

According to that graph, 2' or 3' at 120°c ( a typical iron temp) yields the same result that 6 hours at 70°c. Note that at 70°c your skis are already at real danger.

I let you extrapolate the result of hotboxing, say, 12h at 50°c. Peanuts, by Swix standard....


I would strongly recommend not ironing bases with a 120 dC iron for 2 or 3 minutes continuously. I would guess that this would build up too much heat in the ski and could damage the core construction used in the ski. In order to accumulate 2 to 3 minutes of the base at 120 dC safely with a 120 dC, or any temperature, iron would take many ironing and cooling cycles. In order to safely create the wax absorption shown in the chart for 2 or 3 minutes at 120 dC would take a lot more time from a tech than 2 to 3 minutes.

Out of curiosity I plugged in my Start iron and turned it down to the lowest setting of 90dC. With the iron temp showing about 50 dC on the display as it heated up Swix CH10 was already melting. By the time it was an indicated 75 dC the wax was flowing down the face. My point is that implying the same wax absorption as a hot box can produce can be easily done in 2 or 3 minutes with an iron is misleading. I would never heat up my base enough that a pool of CH10 exists for a continuous 2 or 3 minutes. Even if the wax was molten for that long, it is likely still far cooler than 120 dC.

I agree that similar results to hot boxing can be achieved with a standard iron. It just takes more time for the service person to achieve it.

Whether or not this level of wax absorption is really required is a whole different question that I don't know the answer to.

When I do use my hotbox (not very often) I don't run it higher than 55 dC at the hottest point. Keep in mind that there are temperature gradients through any "oven". I spent time to understand where my hot box was the hottest and put the controlling temperature sensing device at this location. Again, I don't have hard data to indicate this is an optimal temperature to achieve wax absorption without damaging skis, but it is what I am comfortable with based on the best information I could find.

Loran wrote:The question is then what kind of wax goes into the base (dilution process) and will it improve gliding ?

About ski base compared to a sponge....
Man, true porous UHMWPE does exist along with other kind of Slippery Liquid-Infused Porous Surfaces.. They are absolutely and definitely not in use for skiing. Even the zeolite additive, as marketed by Salomon, has been known for a very long time to improve wear resistance, not wax absorption. Moreover it's hydrophilic which is an adverse property.
At the last Olympics, after a disastrous start, Salomon ended up on white bases...


My understanding is modern ski bases are made up of crystalline UHMWPE and amorphous material sintered together. The wax is absorbed into the amorphous material. Wax is not absorbed into crystalline UHMWPE. Without knowing the exact UHMWPE used by the manufacturers, I would not make any claims as to what the melting point is of a ski base. The melting point found from a general internet search of UHMWPE may or may not be what it is for the exact material used in ski bases.

User avatar
nxski
World Cup
Posts: 568
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:44 pm
Location: Vancouver
Contact:

Re: Is this is stupid idea?

Postby nxski » Mon Dec 08, 2014 3:10 pm

Blah wrote:Message basically was if you have a fleet of techs then there is no reason to hot box. If you area retail store or understaffed team it probably saves some time. Also newer bases seem to take less wax to prepare for skiing. I'd agree with previous posters that really aggressive or cold snow or marathon prep may enhance the benefit of hot boxing.


Hotboxing is a very slow process, so it definitely doesn't speed things up for a shop, it slows things down.
"Live the life you love, love the life you live"

nes-design-construction.com

Nick Spurling

Blah
xcskiforum 40K
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:43 am

Re: Is this is stupid idea?

Postby Blah » Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:24 pm

I guess it would take a lot of shop time if you sat down and watched the hot box... but as far as labor time it doesn't use much.


Return to “Wax and Waxing”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest