or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The myth of ski wax??? - Page 10

post #271 of 310

Nope

post #272 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer View Post
 

Nope


Ha ha. You mean bump!  You bored now that the Northern side of the globe is pretty much done for the season.  ;)

post #273 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post
 

Amorphous and crystalline regions are both sold, but differ on the atomic scale.  The disorganized arrangement lets compatible molecules sneak in:

 

From http://www.majordifferences.com/2013/02/difference-between-crystalline-and.html#.VxUfwfkrK_4

 

The heat helps because on the molecular scale it is manifested as jiggling atoms, helping wax wiggle in.  The atomic spacing gets larger, also, which helps too.

No way is wax passing through the interstitial atomic spacing due to thermal-induced vibrations. The amorphous v. crystalline effect is on a macrostructural scale not atomic. Whether the material is amorphous v. crystalline contributes to the macroscopic properties that in turn effect wax absorption. 

 

Base burn is a surface effect resulting from the ptex reacting with oxygen under conditions of extreme friction-induced localized heat and the accompanying increase in pressure. A waxed base will protect the base surface from this effect by serving both as a barrier layer and a mechanism to dissipate heat.

post #274 of 310
@Doctor DWould you please clarify whether you understand the amorphous domains to actually adsorb wax or not. I cannot tell from your post.
post #275 of 310

The microscopic voids in the base material absorb the wax; wax is not absorbed into the actual molecular structure of the base material. Like a sponge takes up water without the water penetrating the actual sponge material. Thanks for asking.

post #276 of 310

What evidence is the for such voids? And to the extent these exist, is there any evidence that they form an "open cell" vs a "closed cell" structure? Sintered base material is made under significant pressure...hence the "high density" bit...

post #277 of 310

Simply put, it's a fact that wax gets absorbed and it has to go somewhere & it isn't diffusing through atomic spacing. I have a PhD in chemistry and honestly it is common sense if you know polymer chemistry and have a feel for molecular diffusion. I don't need (and have no time to) write a manuscript on it and you're welcome to your own ideas, but that is what happens. I was tired of seeing this thread and thought I would put it to bed, but I guess not. It's all yours, enjoy, I have to build a new website (launching soon BTW with a big sale). Back to work....

post #278 of 310

Last word. I was a bit too loose with the sponge analogy. It was to push the concept of how wax goes into the base. I didn't mean to imply that the base was spongelike throughout the depth profile of the base. In fact, the wax is only able to penetrate a very short distance.  

post #279 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor D View Post

Last word. I was a bit too loose with the sponge analogy. It was to push the concept of how wax goes into the base. I didn't mean to imply that the base was spongelike throughout the depth profile of the base. In fact, the wax is only able to penetrate a very short distance.  

So the molecular properties of P-Tex change with depth?
post #280 of 310

Nope.

 

Let's try Swiss cheese.  You can have a surface that has holes/voids exposed but they only go so deep. There are lots more voids deeper into the cheese but the wax can't access them. So taking another slice of the surface (as in a fresh base grind of your ski) cuts off what you see but exposes new holes on the freshly-made new surface.

post #281 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor D View Post

The microscopic voids in the base material absorb the wax; wax is not absorbed into the actual molecular structure of the base material. Like a sponge takes up water without the water penetrating the actual sponge material. Thanks for asking.

Well I'm a PhD organic chemist myself and sponges made from cellulose do adsorb water into their molecular structure as well as into the voids or pores that we more commonly experience in everyday use. Solid nylon fibers adsorb water, which drops the Tg of the amorphous domains below room temperature to allow for their superior crush recovery. The adsorption may be small in percentage but it has a significant effect on physical properties. I suspect that hydrophobic ptex (polyethylene) will adsorb a hydrocarbon wax to some degree at the surface but it cannot penetrate too deeply as you point out due to the slow kinetics of molecular diffusion in polymers. I agree that the surface pores in sintered ptex adsorb most of the wax.
post #282 of 310

I'm well aware of the diffusion of small molecules but as you state, they don't equate to large polymers. For the sake of discussion and the intended audience, it would serve only to muddy the discussion by comparing the two. Better to stick to the point than to list the entire realm of possibilities.

post #283 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor D View Post

I'm well aware of the diffusion of small molecules but as you state, they don't equate to large polymers. For the sake of discussion and the intended audience, it would serve only to muddy the discussion by comparing the two. Better to stick to the point than to list the entire realm of possibilities.

I'm sure I'm not the only technically knowledgeable poster on this site, although I admit this is on the border of my knowledge. I'm much more comfortable in the synthesis of new molecules. However, my curiosity has been peaked due to my love of skiing. I've bought many of my tuning and waxing supplies from your website! smile.gif

If wax is simply filling the surface pores, why would the molecular weight of the wax, which influences its hardness, matter that much for difference waxes? Base prep wax with lower hardness and molecular weight is said to penetrate deeper into the base and enable harder waxes to be adsorbed by the prepped base. Hot boxing is said to allow the wax to penetrate deeper into the base than hot ironing. These seem to imply that the ptex itself can adsorb some wax into its amorphous domains at the surface of the base and that they are used to ameliorate the slow diffusion of wax into the base. If wax was only filling surface pores, then these would seem to be excessive treatments.
post #284 of 310

Only reason I grind my skis every 25-35 days is for structure.  I don't wax for speed, I do it because it protects the bases from burn.  White edges for those of us that are always on edge.  Besides its a great reason to have a few beers and roll a mean tyrone apres!

post #285 of 310

Revisiting this after a long time... Doctor D's thoughts echo my own regarding the wax/ski bond.

 

Regarding XLTL's question about importance of wax molecular weight -- I think this has more to do with viscosity of the wax and perhaps surface tension/cohesion. The 'thinner' the wax is when molten (low molecular weight), the easier it flows into the tiny pores in the ski base plastic.  Once the base layer is established, subsequent layers of wax are adhering to a smooth wax base, not the irregular plastic surface.  So the subsequent wax layer can be tailored to the snow conditions (as this new wax is bonding to a smooth wax layer, not the ski base).

 

Regarding the hot boxing question - this may have more to do with even heating and cooling rate and maintaining a consistent temperature throughout the ski while cooling.  If some areas of the ski cool significantly faster than others, the wax may set up differently.  If multiple types of wax are involved with different melting temperatures and thermal expansion characteristics, I can see how controlling the cooling (use of hot box) could become even more critical.* Another benefit may involve allowing time for the air in the base to migrate out of the ski and allow wax to take its place.

 

*disclaimer - I have never hot boxed a ski, so I may have this all wrong.  I am assuming the ski stays in the box until it is done cooling.

post #286 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexSkier View Post
 

Revisiting this after a long time... Doctor D's thoughts echo my own regarding the wax/ski bond.

 

Regarding XLTL's question about importance of wax molecular weight -- I think this has more to do with viscosity of the wax and perhaps surface tension/cohesion. The 'thinner' the wax is when molten (low molecular weight), the easier it flows into the tiny pores in the ski base plastic.  Once the base layer is established, subsequent layers of wax are adhering to a smooth wax base, not the irregular plastic surface.  So the subsequent wax layer can be tailored to the snow conditions (as this new wax is bonding to a smooth wax layer, not the ski base).

 

Regarding the hot boxing question - this may have more to do with even heating and cooling rate and maintaining a consistent temperature throughout the ski while cooling.  If some areas of the ski cool significantly faster than others, the wax may set up differently.  If multiple types of wax are involved with different melting temperatures and thermal expansion characteristics, I can see how controlling the cooling (use of hot box) could become even more critical.* Another benefit may involve allowing time for the air in the base to migrate out of the ski and allow wax to take its place.

 

*disclaimer - I have never hot boxed a ski, so I may have this all wrong.  I am assuming the ski stays in the box until it is done cooling.


Yes. Soft (small molecule) first, then move to harder waxes.  Better bonding, more base burn protection.  Slow long heating.  No areas that cool super quick as with ironing which are near the edges as the metal edges are a heat sink.  This assumes a ski without an edge high condition when ironing.  If edge high it is possible to overheat the edge plastic if the iron is super hot etc. 

Wax does not need to get more than about 150 F to be effective if held for a long period of time.  For SUPER hard wax one needs an iron.

post #287 of 310

Hello all,

 

New member here. I've been skiing for a while, used to work in a ski shop back in the 80's and am thinking about getting back into tuning my own (and family) equipment. Anyhow, in deciding what tuning equipment I might purchase I came across a new product that is just coming on the market called "Juice". Google Looknowax and it should bring you to their site. I'm not sure if widely available, but I'm curious if anyone here has gotten their hands on it and has an opinion.

 

I'm in my mid forties and have little need for wax that is going to make me faster (I can make longer or fewer turns in most cases to accomplish that), but do appreciate a little extra glide on certain mountains that force you to traverse essentially flat trails to access other parts of a ski area. I am interested in keeping my equipment in good shape and wax helps in that regard, this product seems interesting, but I'm a skeptic at heart when it comes to inventions that are trying to sell something.

 

Traditional waxing is expensive and/or time consuming and alternatives are always welcomed.

 

Any thoughts?

post #288 of 310
My thoughts are that I'm always skeptical of people whose first post is about a "new product".
post #289 of 310

Fair comment. But as stated, I'm just a guy looking to get into tuning my own equipment and looking at kits that include wax and irons etc. and when searching the web for info came across this product. I have no financial interest or affiliation with the stuff.

post #290 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by NealD View Post
 

Hello all,

 

New member here. I've been skiing for a while, used to work in a ski shop back in the 80's and am thinking about getting back into tuning my own (and family) equipment. Anyhow, in deciding what tuning equipment I might purchase I came across a new product that is just coming on the market called "Juice". Google Looknowax and it should bring you to their site. I'm not sure if widely available, but I'm curious if anyone here has gotten their hands on it and has an opinion.

 

I'm in my mid forties and have little need for wax that is going to make me faster (I can make longer or fewer turns in most cases to accomplish that), but do appreciate a little extra glide on certain mountains that force you to traverse essentially flat trails to access other parts of a ski area. I am interested in keeping my equipment in good shape and wax helps in that regard, this product seems interesting, but I'm a skeptic at heart when it comes to inventions that are trying to sell something.

 

Traditional waxing is expensive and/or time consuming and alternatives are always welcomed.

 

Any thoughts?

IMO, some people take this way to seriously. I've been doing my own tuning for over 16 years. I use Dominator Hyperzoom. I have tried some others but nothing gives me the glide on the flats like it does.  I ski 50+ day's a season and a 100g block last me a long time. The snow has been so good this year, I have 13 day's in and only waxed once. I know others will hate this, but I haven't brushed after scraping the wax off. It will ski off over time.

post #291 of 310

Hyper

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity View Post
 

IMO, some people take this way to seriously. I've been doing my own tuning for over 16 years. I use Dominator Hyperzoom. I have tried some others but nothing gives me the glide on the flats like it does.  I ski 50+ day's a season and a 100g block last me a long time. The snow has been so good this year, I have 13 day's in and only waxed once. I know others will hate this, but I haven't brushed after scraping the wax off. It will ski off over time.

 

Dom Hyperzoom is good stuff.

post #292 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NealD View Post
 

Hello all,

 

New member here. I've been skiing for a while, used to work in a ski shop back in the 80's and am thinking about getting back into tuning my own (and family) equipment. Anyhow, in deciding what tuning equipment I might purchase I came across a new product that is just coming on the market called "Juice". Google Looknowax and it should bring you to their site. I'm not sure if widely available, but I'm curious if anyone here has gotten their hands on it and has an opinion.

 

I'm in my mid forties and have little need for wax that is going to make me faster (I can make longer or fewer turns in most cases to accomplish that), but do appreciate a little extra glide on certain mountains that force you to traverse essentially flat trails to access other parts of a ski area. I am interested in keeping my equipment in good shape and wax helps in that regard, this product seems interesting, but I'm a skeptic at heart when it comes to inventions that are trying to sell something.

 

Traditional waxing is expensive and/or time consuming and alternatives are always welcomed.

 

Any thoughts?

IMO, some people take this way to seriously. I've been doing my own tuning for over 16 years. I use Dominator Hyperzoom. I have tried some others but nothing gives me the glide on the flats like it does.  I ski 50+ day's a season and a 100g block last me a long time. The snow has been so good this year, I have 13 day's in and only waxed once. I know others will hate this, but I haven't brushed after scraping the wax off. It will ski off over time.


Ha ha ha.  You should have brushed.  Other than that it goes to show the longevity of Dominator waxes when properly applied.

post #293 of 310

I could definitely buy that skis could perform sans wax (though the ability to wax gives more versatility).  I'm not sure how much I buy the idea of 'base burn'.  I definitely put dents into my wax layer on a typical day of skiing, so in addition to creating a glide surface, I think of it as protection.

post #294 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbly View Post
 

I could definitely buy that skis could perform sans wax (though the ability to wax gives more versatility).  I'm not sure how much I buy the idea of 'base burn'.  I definitely put dents into my wax layer on a typical day of skiing, so in addition to creating a glide surface, I think of it as protection.


Ha ha!  You should never have "dents" in your wax!  Your base geometry will be a bit off with all that wax.  Super slow in cold snow too.

post #295 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbly View Post
 

I could definitely buy that skis could perform sans wax (though the ability to wax gives more versatility).  I'm not sure how much I buy the idea of 'base burn'.  I definitely put dents into my wax layer on a typical day of skiing, so in addition to creating a glide surface, I think of it as protection.


Ha ha!  You should never have "dents" in your wax!  Your base geometry will be a bit off with all that wax.  Super slow in cold snow too.

well, whatever it's getting in, they are gone after having them re-waxed.  It's often the guy who built them who does the work on them so perhaps he's doing more, but on a few that concerned me he commented "nothing I'll have to repair, a rewax will do it."  A few times he's said he'd just scrape them out while he was doing other work.  His background is racing so I doubt he's making rookie mistakes, but I very well may misinterpret or he may give a "dumbed down" explanation.  He's pretty clear when he has to do base work though.

post #296 of 310

I wonder what the ski tuners and tech guys on this thread think of Wintersteiger's and Montana's (identical machines) new infrared waxing system?

 

The infrared heat coming off the lamp as it makes several passes over the skis apparently penetrates into the ski, taking the previously rubbed on wax with it. I have experienced the results of infrared waxing and they are outstanding in terms of both performance and longevity.

 

Example: Last spring I had my skis infrared waxed, first rubbing on a universal shop wax and then submitting the skis to the infrared lamp on a track as it makes several passes over the skis. I then went to Whistler for 2 days in mid May followed by 2 days at Mt. Batchelor. I have some $100/bar rub on spring wax with me (good for about one or two runs/application) but never use it.

 

So, on the 4th day on the infrared waxed skis I run in to John Webb who normally skis faster than me, except I keep passing him on the flats. He finally asks me what I have on for wax and I reply, "It isn't the wax, it is the infrared wax machine".

 

One more thing about infrared: I have a dry sauna that is heated by infrared heat panels and it says in the literature that comes with the sauna that the infrared heats penetrates into your body.

 

Thoughts, anyone?

post #297 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT View Post
 

I wonder what the ski tuners and tech guys on this thread think of Wintersteiger's and Montana's (identical machines) new infrared waxing system?

 

The infrared heat coming off the lamp as it makes several passes over the skis apparently penetrates into the ski, taking the previously rubbed on wax with it. I have experienced the results of infrared waxing and they are outstanding in terms of both performance and longevity.

 

Example: Last spring I had my skis infrared waxed, first rubbing on a universal shop wax and then submitting the skis to the infrared lamp on a track as it makes several passes over the skis. I then went to Whistler for 2 days in mid May followed by 2 days at Mt. Batchelor. I have some $100/bar rub on spring wax with me (good for about one or two runs/application) but never use it.

 

So, on the 4th day on the infrared waxed skis I run in to John Webb who normally skis faster than me, except I keep passing him on the flats. He finally asks me what I have on for wax and I reply, "It isn't the wax, it is the infrared wax machine".

 

One more thing about infrared: I have a dry sauna that is heated by infrared heat panels and it says in the literature that comes with the sauna that the infrared heats penetrates into your body.

 

Thoughts, anyone?


Heat is heat.  Be it an iron, a hot box, or from a light.  The thing is, the infrared machines may be safer to use as no iron in the wrong hands touches the skis.  Also the shops don't need a person to iron the wax.  Eventually, they recoup the investment in the machine.   Build a rack to place in your dry sauna.  If you can get 120 F that will work for softer waxes.  If you can get 145 F, you can use harder waxes.  Leave the skis with a good coat of wax for 3 to 6 hours.  Skis should be flat with bases up.  If you can fit a pair in there, try it.

post #298 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques View Post
 


Heat is heat.  Be it an iron, a hot box, or from a light.  The thing is, the infrared machines may be safer to use as no iron in the wrong hands touches the skis.  Also the shops don't need a person to iron the wax.  Eventually, they recoup the investment in the machine.   Build a rack to place in your dry sauna.  If you can get 120 F that will work for softer waxes.  If you can get 145 F, you can use harder waxes.  Leave the skis with a good coat of wax for 3 to 6 hours.  Skis should be flat with bases up.  If you can fit a pair in there, try it.

 

The sauna won't do the job as it does not have have infrared elements or tubes that heat up, instead it has panels that do not glow red and do not get hot enough, only about 50C which is about 60F. But a infrared heat lamp passed 3-4" over the skis might work.

 

Not only does the shop not need to have anyone iron on the wax, there is no scrapping involved and way way less wax is used. So, wax is rubbed on the ski, skis placed on a rack and infrared machine turned on, shop rat goes and does something else or nothing, and after the ski cools it is power buffed. The machine doesn't eventually recoup the investment, it pays for itself in a few months.

 

But it is the results on the snow that are most impressive about infrared waxing, leading me to believe that heat is not heat and that infrared heat is different.

post #299 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques View Post

 

Heat is heat.  Be it an iron, a hot box, or from a light.  The thing is, the infrared machines may be safer to use as no iron in the wrong hands touches the skis.  Also the shops don't need a person to iron the wax.  Eventually, they recoup the investment in the machine.   Build a rack to place in your dry sauna.  If you can get 120 F that will work for softer waxes.  If you can get 145 F, you can use harder waxes.  Leave the skis with a good coat of wax for 3 to 6 hours.  Skis should be flat with bases up.  If you can fit a pair in there, try it.

The sauna won't do the job as it does not have have infrared elements or tubes that heat up, instead it has panels that do not glow red and do not get hot enough, only about 50C which is about 60F. But a infrared heat lamp passed 3-4" over the skis might work.

Not only does the shop not need to have anyone iron on the wax, there is no scrapping involved and way way less wax is used. So, wax is rubbed on the ski, skis placed on a rack and infrared machine turned on, shop rat goes and does something else or nothing, and after the ski cools it is power buffed. The machine doesn't eventually recoup the investment, it pays for itself in a few months.

But it is the results on the snow that are most impressive about infrared waxing, leading me to believe that heat is not heat and that infrared heat is different.

50C is 122F
post #300 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post


50C is 122F

 You are correct. I didn't do a math calculation, I just looked at a thermometer and this being winter I Iooked at the minus numbers, duh.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tuning, Maintenance and Repairs