Ski wax revolution?

snowpocalypseI asked a bunch of questions on the kick-starter and FB page including why they chose to launch on other peoples dime. All vanished and they kicked me off the their FB. Can't stand some questions.... hmmmm

VinnieFThat's hilarious. Probably because they didn't want to risk their own money on re-branding existing products.

a_pla5tic_bagPlus how do they know it actually soaks into the base? Perhaps they do know and just don't tell us. Even then, if the surface layer wears off does that mean some comes out of the base to replace it? It would wear out eventually then.

GGreeneSeems like an interesting concept.
I have a few questions:

2) how does skin glue affect this stuff? I can see this being a sweet product for touring skis if every time you take your skins off the wax isn't coming off onto the skins. Would make skin glue last longer & eliminates one more accessory when traveling into the backcountry.

.lenconOr because they just want money. They've made over 115k in a few days out of a 35k goal. Still a month left. They're gonna make bank.

CaseyPeople are legitimately paying DPS to buy an existing product from China and slap a DPS logo on it so they can then turn around and buy it from them. Amazing.

SharkoFixed it for you

.lenconOr because they just want money. They've made over 115k in a few days out of a 35k goal. Still a month left. They're gonna make bank.

BrawnTrendsI've done rush hours returns at my shop when on a Friday afternoon everyone brings their skis back during peak season, and not having to wax the skis would have saved a TON of time.
That said, I do enjoy waxing my own skis so I wouldn't use it on my personal gear. But I can see the benefit for a shop that has 500+ rental skis on rotation.

MitchWAndrewYa know I respect you 100% for this because you know what’s up. Lots of people act like small things are bad for the environment but really it doesn’t do much.

IsitWinterYet17Kinda makes me wanna watch your hour long videos....maybe

hemlockjibber8https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ski-wax-chemicals-buildup-blood/
quite the contradicting research

.lenconbut they are still a legit company.

PoikenzI like to think that ski wax is bs. When plastic ski bases came out for both dh and xc it fucked over an entire sector of the industry, so obviously they said, "Hey!, you need to wax this shit too!". Ignoring that, if epoxy can't create a decent chemical bond to uhmwpe without a properly flame treated side, how is ski wax going to hold to a flat, smoothed out side that is exposed to wear? Because it absorbs into the base? We would be talking microns, and because you haven't created a good hold it would get removed from skiing on it. We are talking ultra high molecular weight polyurethane, not a sponge you picked up from dollar tree.

But what about racing and the desire to win? Do you think that coaches are chemical engineers or some shit? No, they just eat whatever wax companies feed them, then when they get good results they believe that it is based on the wax job and not the performance of the racer.

If you really want a ski wax revolution you should invest in one of those MIT lasers that can surface any material to be an ultra-hydrophobic material then run all of your purchased uhmwpe through that. If your base gets slow, you just resurface it, no wax, fuck the industry.

DominatorJacquesNice try. Some good points.

In truth microns make the difference.

Let us not forget that wax CAN penetrate into a sintered plastic that is made to a spec. that allows that to happen.

Here are a few examples of UHMWPE use as filtering media. http://www.chinaporousfilters.com/cp_UHMW-PE%20POROUS%20FILTER.html

PoikenzI'm aware that it can, but no one uses poroyal. They buy durasurf from crown plastics or ptex from international mountain sport, neither fit the poroyal specs, so why link it? And like I said, it does penetrate on a minimal level, but do you think it will hold to a ski for more than a few runs? I ask you to try it yourself, don't wax your skis, just scrape them with a metal scraper and see if you can notice a difference. It's all in your head. 9/11 and aliens and shit. To further discredit you, you are the guy who believes that "sin-truded" bases are a real thing and not just a marketing ploy to sell more skis with a lower grade sintered base. With that said, you seem like a nice guy, but sometimes you can be gullible just like the rest of us.

DominatorJacquesWell, no. If you listened to my video when I said that some companies (ski makers) tout things like a Sintruded base, I went on to say if it's not sintered it's not sintered at all. So really, you are incorrect in saying things about what I have said.
In a way though, if you look at the Crown Plastics method of creating a sintered base plastic, it's almost like extruding. Their process is unique to the industry.
Isosport claims a wax absorption number for their extruded running bases.
I only threw out the link about sintered plastics as filters etc. for those that don't believe a sintered UHMWPE running base can absorb wax.
As far as steel scrapers, I've been doing that for years. I do that more than stone grinding for sure.
Yes, I believe a properly prepared sintered base can hold wax for several days, let alone a few runs.
I do it all the time.
Anyway, bla bla bla.

VinnieFA bit of searching and I think it might be related to this patent:

http://google.com/patents/WO2016042323A1?cl=en


Which claims the proper chemical can soak into a sintered base and form a permanent hydrophobic coating that will be as effective as wax and even if the base is ground or damage will still be effective since it soaks throughout the entire base.

They claim certain silica based chemicals would work and specifically mention poly[3-((2-aminoethyl)amino)propyl]methyl(dimethyl)siloxane as one that would be adequate.


So I'm guessing this new product is a chemical exactly as described in this patent.

Also turns out you can buy this stuff in bulk direct from China on sketchy websites for $1/kg.

http://www.lookchem.com/product_Supply-high-quality-low-price-Poly-3--2-aminoethyl-amino-propyl-methyl-dimethyl-siloxane-hydroxyl-terminated-Purity-99-/15229579.html

PoikenzYES! Sintering is sintering, it is a process, you can't sinter and call it almost extruding, because they are two entirely different processes. You have one or the other. Iso sport claims 1.75 mg/cm^2 (on the high end), which is about a dime sized weight of wax to an average single ski of 12cm x 176cm. It can be assumed (99.9% fact) that they use cm squared over cm cubed because the wax doesn't penetrate beyond the single micron level. If the wax did they would measure with mg/cm^3, because the other wouldn't make sense. I said absorption happens, but it is very minimal. I do not believe that you have any way of measuring the wax content of your base after a couple of days of skiing, so how can you be certain since we are now on an atomic level? I know you wax skis for money, but that doesn't prove anything other than your obvious bias. Remember, ski wax can't melt through steel beams.

**This post was edited on Nov 4th 2017 at 5:42:55pm

DominatorJacquesHa ha! You are awesome for real. I'm not saying that to be funny. Almost nobody talks like you here on NS.
I have over the years based my results from a few things.
When I as a light 130lbs. easily sail past a 180lb. or more person on a flat or cat track.
I also base my results on skiing the same run over and over and over again in all conditions with multiple wax set up's and base structures. Sometimes I might take up to five pairs to the Mt. on a given day.
Then I base my results on feed back given from those who have skis serviced by me.
For me the bottom line is that microns make a difference. I believe that with each heating and cooling cycle the waxes can go deeper each time. This makes for a lasting "wax job".
Let us keep in mind the way they test for absorption. I don't believe they test in the way a super anal dude waxes a race ski multiple times before it ever hits the snow.

Anyway, like I said, I predict that the Phantom will be okay for the weekend skier etc.
It's not going to replace waxing for serious skiers that want max glide speed or for speed events.
It might not even beat out a good broad range hydrocarbon such as Dominator Graphite Zoom.

DominatorJacquesHa ha! You are awesome for real. I'm not saying that to be funny. Almost nobody talks like you here on NS.
I have over the years based my results from a few things.
When I as a light 130lbs. easily sail past a 180lb. or more person on a flat or cat track.
I also base my results on skiing the same run over and over and over again in all conditions with multiple wax set up's and base structures. Sometimes I might take up to five pairs to the Mt. on a given day.
Then I base my results on feed back given from those who have skis serviced by me.
For me the bottom line is that microns make a difference. I believe that with each heating and cooling cycle the waxes can go deeper each time. This makes for a lasting "wax job".
Let us keep in mind the way they test for absorption. I don't believe they test in the way a super anal dude waxes a race ski multiple times before it ever hits the snow.

Anyway, like I said, I predict that the Phantom will be okay for the weekend skier etc.
It's not going to replace waxing for serious skiers that want max glide speed or for speed events.
It might not even beat out a good broad range hydrocarbon such as Dominator Graphite Zoom.

driftsWhat do you think about the hydrophobic treatment in combination with wax?

PoikenzBut I think you are missing the point I am trying to make, nothing you are doing is properly scientific, you are comparing yourself to others with no control over what sort of base they are running, you can't possibly know why they are slower and it could very well be edge, form, ski size related, etc. Even when you let yourself or others "test" various grinds and wax combos there is no real control, people are just picking what feels faster and at that point it's either a placebo effect because they know what was done to each ski or their choice is meaningless because there are plenty of other factors that come into play. You can't possibly feel if a ski is 0.001s faster over a 2 minute run. No racer can recreate the same run twice. Is it the racer's fault they are 1.002 seconds slower on the second run, or was it because that set of skis wasn't prepared properly? Maybe a gust of wind hit them out of the starting gate which slowed their acceleration,they made up for it on the 3rd turn, but they ran over a leaf that blew onto the course on the 5th turn, the variables are endless. I understand that in racing fractions of a second matter, but you can't put every winning millisecond on base prep, there are a lot more variables involved, as you know, including ones you can't control. I get that setting up proper tests is time consuming and not as fun as skiing, but it's the only way to fully learn the effects of what you are doing. I know drugs are fun and all, but there comes a point when the wax fumes wear off and you have to face reality.

driftsWhat do you think about the hydrophobic treatment in combination with wax?

PoikenzBut I think you are missing the point I am trying to make, nothing you are doing is properly scientific, you are comparing yourself to others with no control over what sort of base they are running, you can't possibly know why they are slower and it could very well be edge, form, ski size related, etc. Even when you let yourself or others "test" various grinds and wax combos there is no real control, people are just picking what feels faster and at that point it's either a placebo effect because they know what was done to each ski or their choice is meaningless because there are plenty of other factors that come into play. You can't possibly feel if a ski is 0.001s faster over a 2 minute run. No racer can recreate the same run twice. Is it the racer's fault they are 1.002 seconds slower on the second run, or was it because that set of skis wasn't prepared properly? Maybe a gust of wind hit them out of the starting gate which slowed their acceleration,they made up for it on the 3rd turn, but they ran over a leaf that blew onto the course on the 5th turn, the variables are endless. I understand that in racing fractions of a second matter, but you can't put every winning millisecond on base prep, there are a lot more variables involved, as you know, including ones you can't control. I get that setting up proper tests is time consuming and not as fun as skiing, but it's the only way to fully learn the effects of what you are doing. I know drugs are fun and all, but there comes a point when the wax fumes wear off and you have to face reality.

KneeDropHave you ever done ANY wax testing yourself?

DominatorJacquesI hear you, but at this point I must ask what is your point?

My point was that Phantom won't replace wax. You seem to just want to troll me with arguments.

I already understand your statements.
I get your arguments all the time from folks like you, or maybe it's always you.

For me, when I feel it I know. I feel it under mt feet.

PoikenzHumans can't accurately interpret speed, it's a scientific fact

crawleyPost a link to this scientific fact or STFU.

IsitWinterYet17Can you tell if you're going faster?

IsitWinterYet17Can we please end this argument!?

crawleySo I have this amazing device known as a stopwatch and it times things. So like many little kid racers you find a even slope and you time how long it takes to glide down. It's called a wax race and it's ski racing 101. .

PoikenzTo insinuate that I am incorrect because of a lack of authority is an ad hominem. I've done plenty of research, but no real lab testing myself. If I had access to lasers and lab microscopes I'd love to, but until that day comes I'll read what those that do have to say. I used to be an avid waxer and was paid to do it for a while, I only scrape now and see no difference (not that self observation is very scientific).

crawleyPost a link to this scientific fact or STFU.

KneeDropYou don’t even seem to understand that it’s not ‘wax vs no wax’, but ‘wax vs other wax vs other wax vs no wax’...
I don’t need lasers and microscopes to know that wax works.
You get on Dom for his ‘biases’ while you argue from a place of (seemingly) complete ignorance

Poikenzhttp://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2122159
Here is one example, I don't think you understood what I was saying, since this is very basic stuff.



Look I get that and I understand that things like graphite work because they help to create a more anti-static surface, but that isn't wax in my mind, it's graphite (that's my ignorance for you). Most testing that wax companies do are wax vs wax, with no control so how can they say that their methods are for sure faster? There is information out there that suggests that not grinding or waxing skis produces the best result, obviously this needs more research and has to be repeated multiple times for the statement to hold true, but at the current moment I am completely fine with not waxing and saving a few bucks. Which is where this thread was going right? Why spend $90 dollars on a product that won't give you a noticeable difference? I just went one step further to why spend a couple bucks and waste hours waxing in the first place when dirt is the biggest variable in slowing you down? Remove the dirt, and that's the most noticeable result you can get.

IsitWinterYet17https://www.skimag.com/gear/dps-phantom-test?utm_source=WedNewsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Story1&utm_campaign=110617_txt

RousedWitsIm going to let other people be the guinipigs for it first... If there is a really positive response and it stays positive for like 2 or 3 years I might consider it. If it truly is permanent, I dont want to permanently fuck up my skis. For now Ill stick to wax... Just bought a little scraper set, gonna try scraping the wax off instead of leaving it all caked on.

IsitWinterYet17What do you mean caked on? Do you not already scrap and brush after you iron on the wax?

RousedWitsHaha I honestly never learned how to wax correctly for the past 5 years (which is embarrassing because I am now a clueless race coach for a university).. I always just dripped the wax on and smoothed it all out with the iron. The wax man with the tie-dye logo here on ns told me I should re-evaluate how I wax, so I'm giving it a shot

RousedWitsIm going to let other people be the guinipigs for it first... If there is a really positive response and it stays positive for like 2 or 3 years I might consider it. If it truly is permanent, I dont want to permanently fuck up my skis. For now Ill stick to wax... Just bought a little scraper set, gonna try scraping the wax off instead of leaving it all caked on.

Rum_HamBump was waxing my skis for this season and thought of this stuff. Anyone thinking of getting it.