New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rain X or WD40

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
OK I am not a racer and while I wax my own skis--there are days when it is raining or the snow is very slushy and I have not waxed. On these days I use some very expensive liquid drops---4-8 drops are usually good for 2-3 runs and it works GREAT. But it is expensive.


Would Rain x or WD40 work just as well? I can test it myself, but wanted to see what the forum said. Also, can it damage my bases? How, Would they be just fine after my next good waxing?


I would think Rain X would work better?
post #2 of 23
WD-40 works VERY WELL. However it only lasts for a run or two and will dry out the base a bit, but nothing that a fresh hotwax cant take care of. Oh and dont worry about its effects on the enviroment, there is enough tree huggers out there to counter act any oil you may be introducing to the snowpack
post #3 of 23
Ivory soap.
post #4 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex
Ivory soap.


Serious?
post #5 of 23
Try it with glass.
post #6 of 23
Why not just get a little can of the Swix F4 wipe on paste? It comes in handy little packets too ...

And at least its made for the job unlike the other stuff which is also pricey and has solvents.
post #7 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex
Ivory soap.
Word.
post #8 of 23
Remeber Zardox????? all that crap was really just a small vial of your run of the mill teflon.
post #9 of 23
Zardoz "Not Wax" .... but nice to have some in your pocket between runs through the gates.
post #10 of 23
I dont know if I would ever put WD40 on my race board... GoGo Toko Jetstream
post #11 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbakerskier
Remeber Zardox????? all that crap was really just a small vial of your run of the mill teflon.
Zardox is not chemically the same as teflon. It is from a different class/family of chemicals. It is a polymer of a fluoro ether (chain of carbons with oxygen every so often), whereas teflon is a polymer of a fluoro alkane (chain of carbon atoms).
post #12 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by RACEWAXdotCOM
Zardox is not chemically the same as teflon. It is from a different class/family of chemicals. It is a polymer of a fluoro ether (chain of carbons with oxygen every so often), whereas teflon is a polymer of a fluoro alkane (chain of carbon atoms).
NOPE, you beter go back and check your chemistry. Teflon is a Fluoropolymer (Specifically (PTFE) Perfluoroethylene) Essencially chains of :
F F
-C-C-
F F

And is known for its Solvent resistance, non-stick, and non-burning properites, and is chemically INERT. Teflon is Duponts trade name for it.

While on the other hand Ether's are VERY reactive, and thus are ussually used as foaming agents in polyurethans etc. BTW Polyether can refer to a LARGE group of polymers. Prety much any that has a ether linkage (Somewhat common).

So here is theproof that Zardox is a a flouropolymer, 1. The label on the package stated that is was a totally Inert polymer. 2. Try to light it on fire. It doesnt burn. Asside from a few VERY Expensive polymers I.E. polybenzimidazole Nearly all polymers are flamable. The only exception that would be cost effective enough to use as a wax is flouro polymers wich do not burn.


I amy not be a Chemist, but I do know a thing or two about polymers and polymer compounding.
post #13 of 23

Nothing wrong with DrD's chemistry so far.

5624713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Ramer
The inventor of the present invention unexpectedly discovered that a single application of a small amount of a non-functional perfluoropolyether (PFPE) on a sintered base of a snow ski substantially increased lubricity of the ski over more than 10 days of skiing which included temperatures of 5 DEG F. to 15 DEG F. Abrasion of the treated ski bases after 10 days of skiing was substantially prevented.

Preferred non-functional PFPEs for use in the method of the present invention are liquids having a boiling point of greater than 200 DEG F. and a pour point of less than 5 DEG F. The preferred non-functional PFPEs range in average molecular weight from 1,000 to 15,000, with a most preferable average molecular weight of 1,500. Preferably, the non-functional PFPE is a liquid at and above -4 DEG F., that is to say it is a liquid which does not appreciably evaporates at room temperature and ambient pressure. Preferably, the non-functional PFPE has a surface tension of about 14 dynes/centimeter@2, or less.

The preferred non-functional perfluoropolyethers include, but are not limited to non-functional perfluoropolyethers containing --OCF2 --, --OCF2 CF2 --, --OCF2 CF2 CF2 --, --OCF(CF3)CF2 --, and combinations thereof and the like.

More particularly, the preferred non-functional PFPEs include (1) F[CF(CF3)CF2 O]n CF2 CF3 (where n is from 5 to 90), referred to as poly(hexofluoropropylene oxide) and available from Monte Edison SPA of Milan, Italy, under the tradename Krytox.TM.; (2) CF3 O[CF(CF3)CF2 O]p (CF2 O)q Rf (where p+q is from 8 to 45, p/q is from 20 to 100, and Rf is selected from the group consisting of CF3, C2 F5 and C3 F7), available under the trade name Fomblin Y.TM. from Monte Edison; (3) F(CF2 CF2 CF2 O)n CF2 CF3 (where n is from 5 to 90), available under the tradename Demnum.TM. from Monte Edison; and (4) CF3 O(CF2 CF2 O)r (CF2 O)s CF3 (where r+s is from 40 to 180 and r/s is from 0.5 to 2.0), available under the tradename Fomblin Z.TM. from Monte Edison.
Of course, the original formulation had no rust blockers.
post #14 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbakerskier
NOPE, you beter go back and check your chemistry. Teflon is a Fluoropolymer (Specifically (PTFE) Perfluoroethylene) Essencially chains of :
F F
-C-C-
F F

And is known for its Solvent resistance, non-stick, and non-burning properites, and is chemically INERT. Teflon is Duponts trade name for it.

While on the other hand Ether's are VERY reactive, and thus are ussually used as foaming agents in polyurethans etc. BTW Polyether can refer to a LARGE group of polymers. Prety much any that has a ether linkage (Somewhat common).

So here is theproof that Zardox is a a flouropolymer, 1. The label on the package stated that is was a totally Inert polymer. 2. Try to light it on fire. It doesnt burn. Asside from a few VERY Expensive polymers I.E. polybenzimidazole Nearly all polymers are flamable. The only exception that would be cost effective enough to use as a wax is flouro polymers wich do not burn.


I amy not be a Chemist, but I do know a thing or two about polymers and polymer compounding.
No kidding teflon is a fluoropolymer, I said it was one. I was trying to keep it simple. I omitted the fluorine atoms from the discussion because Zardoz and PTFE/teflon both are saturated with fluorine atoms. I was pointing out the DIFFERENCE between them, which lies if the carbon chain that is the backbone of the polymer.

To be exact PTFE starts with this basic repeating molecule/unit:
.. F. F
F-C=C-F
.. F. F

[Note: the "periods" above are just added for spacers; the forum deletes my extra spaces for some reason.]

The "ethylene" in PTFE means it has a double bond (note the "=" between the C's). When it polymerizes the double bond opens up and they all link together, like this:
.. F. F F .F F .F .F F .F F
F-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-~
.. F. F F .F F .F .F F .F F

Now it is no longer an alkene, it is an alkane, because it has no double bonds.

I said Zardoz was a poly fluoro ether. I don't know the exact number of carbons in the basic repeating unit, but it would "basically" look like this.
.. F. F F ....F .F .F ....F F
F-C-C-C-O-C-C-C-O-C-C-~
.. F. F F ....F .F .F ....F F

Where, as I said, there are oxygens in the backbone every so often.

Teflon is a fluoropolymer.
Zardoz is a fluoropolymer.

But the basic backbone of Teflon/PTFE is all carbon (an alkane), and that of Zardoz is an ether, a chain of carbons with oxygen bridges.

Yes, an ether is very reactive (in general), but string them all together into a very long chain and saturate it with fluorine and it becomes unreactive.

Teflon is from the alkane class, the same as octane that you burn driving to work. String all the octanes together into a very long chain and saturate with fluorine and you have teflon. Octane burns, teflon doesn't (until you get over 300 C).

So just because the class of compounds are reactive doesn't mean the final product is. The class or family of compounds (alkane or ether) refers to the general composition of the basic backbone; it says nothing about the reactivity of the final compound. That is determined by its structure (e.g., straight chain, branched or ringed), other constituents (e.g., fluorine) and the length (small number of carbons versus polymer).
post #15 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by RACEWAXdotCOM
No kidding teflon is a fluoropolymer, I said it was one. I was trying to keep it simple. I omitted the fluorine atoms from the discussion because Zardoz and PTFE/teflon both are saturated with fluorine atoms. I was pointing out the DIFFERENCE between them, which lies if the carbon chain that is the backbone of the polymer.

To be exact PTFE starts with this basic repeating molecule/unit:
.. F. F
F-C=C-F
.. F. F

[Note: the "periods" above are just added for spacers; the forum deletes my extra spaces for some reason.]

The "ethylene" in PTFE means it has a double bond (note the "=" between the C's). When it polymerizes the double bond opens up and they all link together, like this:
.. F. F F .F F .F .F F .F F
F-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-~
.. F. F F .F F .F .F F .F F

Now it is no longer an alkene, it is an alkane, because it has no double bonds.

I said Zardoz was a poly fluoro ether. I don't know the exact number of carbons in the basic repeating unit, but it would "basically" look like this.
.. F. F F ....F .F .F ....F F
F-C-C-C-O-C-C-C-O-C-C-~
.. F. F F ....F .F .F ....F F

Where, as I said, there are oxygens in the backbone every so often.

Teflon is a fluoropolymer.
Zardoz is a fluoropolymer.

But the basic backbone of Teflon/PTFE is all carbon (an alkane), and that of Zardoz is an ether, a chain of carbons with oxygen bridges.

Yes, an ether is very reactive (in general), but string them all together into a very long chain and saturate it with fluorine and it becomes unreactive.

Teflon is from the alkane class, the same as octane that you burn driving to work. String all the octanes together into a very long chain and saturate with fluorine and you have teflon. Octane burns, teflon doesn't (until you get over 300 C).

So just because the class of compounds are reactive doesn't mean the final product is. The class or family of compounds (alkane or ether) refers to the general composition of the basic backbone; it says nothing about the reactivity of the final compound. That is determined by its structure (e.g., straight chain, branched or ringed), other constituents (e.g., fluorine) and the length (small number of carbons versus polymer).


Correct, I guess I shouldt be reading chem at 1 am. I could have swore that you had writen polyether. When I read the post.
post #16 of 23
I seem to recall reading somewhere (not sure, so don't quote me) that the Zardoz ether was a ringed structure of carbons (with fluorine attached) with an oxygen in the ring, and that these units repeat and are strung together like beads on a necklace. If true, this contributes to the stability no doubt.
post #17 of 23
http://www.zardoznotwax.com/

This goes on easy, lasts for 2 powder days or one spring day.
post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by RACEWAXdotCOM
I seem to recall reading somewhere (not sure, so don't quote me) that the Zardoz ether was a ringed structure of carbons (with fluorine attached) with an oxygen in the ring, and that these units repeat and are strung together like beads on a necklace. If true, this contributes to the stability no doubt.
Check there site. It even uses Dupont's Teflon Trademark now.
post #19 of 23
Zardoz works very well on wet spring snow. It's fast and and it does not pick up the dirt from the snow like wax does. Spring iron-on waxes containing molybdenum or graphite also work very well.
post #20 of 23
Regardless of its chemical composition, I agree with JimL that NotWax does work very well in wet spring snow. It only lasts a run or two in really wet stuff, but it's quick to reapply.

My gut feeling is that WD40 would not work well at all, although I must admit that I've never tried it. And I'm not likely to, either, at least on any skis I care about! But Rain-X--hmmm--haven't tried that either, but I wouldn't be surprised if it made skis slippery in wet snow.

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #21 of 23
I tried Rain-X , it was not as slippery as Zardoz.
post #22 of 23
For the record ethers are a relatively unreactive chemical species in standard organic chemistry (although more reactive than saturated hydrocarbons). Of course this depends heavily on reaction conditions and there are exceptions. Strained epoxides (ring ethers) are quite reactive and under extremely acidic conditions regular ethers can be reactive. As pointed out they can be used as foaming agents for polymers but so can water and water isn't considered reactive. It is the inert behavior of diethyl ether (common name ether) that makes it a good cheap organic solvent for a host of reactions that can't be performed in water.

Regardless of the hairs that can be split over organic chemistry, the performance of a wax has next to nothing to do with its chemical reactivity. Under your skis there aren't chemical bonds being formed or broken since hydrocarbons, fluorcarbons, and ethers (fluorinated or not) are inert under these conditions. Wax performance depends on dispersion, dipole, and induced dipole forces on the atomic scale between water and the wax.

Rainx is designed specifically to chemically bond with glass and stick a hydrophobic tail out from the glass surface making it repel water. Unless your ski bases are glass, I wouldn't expect Rainx to perform the same way it does on a glass window.
post #23 of 23
wet snow? try turtle wax paste/rub on whatever,,,,works for the world cup...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tuning, Maintenance and Repairs