29 Nov 2006 07:12:23
What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

I've been noticing this Kuzmin discussion over the past year.

About how glide wax and stone grinding is not needed, slows your skis,
is a bad idea.

One thing that occurs to me is that he doesn't seem to compare actual
glide tests of skis, or any kind of use results (like over a long
distance). He sticks to theory. And by pure theory he may have some
points. Except that wax/glide theory seems to me to be full of
unknowns. It's a good field to explore, for sure. But it seems only of
interest to skiers in the end to include practical application.
Otherwise it's just part of ongoing NONAPPLIED science that might
someday be relevant. Or am I missing something? Has he actually shown
somewhere that dry, metal-scraped, manually rilled skis can be faster?

Basically he seems to be saying that wax is less hydrophobic and gets
dirtier than a dry ski base. He also says that stone-grinding is less
effective against various friction forces than metal-scraping. That's
just off the top of my head. But so much for talk and theory---anything
that actually works better in what he's saying?

I think that for sure it's something that science needs to keep
studying...along with kickwax, eh? But maybe there's nothing practical
in his ideas so far. It does seem like his research is provoked by
practicality: he says that ski waxing and prep has become way too
expensive and complex. Does he have a point at all beyond griping? I
mean, sure it's pricey---but aren't the skis faster as a result? Or has
everyone been fooling themselves... : )

--JP



29 Nov 2006 08:16:19
Edgar
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?


[email protected] wrote:
> I've been noticing this Kuzmin discussion over the past year.
>

>
>.... Does he have a point at all beyond griping? I
> mean, sure it's pricey---but aren't the skis faster as a result? Or has
> everyone been fooling themselves... : )
>
> --JP

See Ultratune Newsletter November 2006, page 2 for Mark' Waecher's
analysis of the Kuzmin concepts:
http://www.ultratune.net/news.html

Edgar



29 Nov 2006 08:19:51
Bjorn A. Payne Diaz
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

Jeff,
After reading the article (quite a while back), I got the feeling this
was a proposal. Maybe a proposal for a thesis project, e.g. submitted
at the two year point in a PhD program, or maybe a masters program. A
number of the ideas seemed premature, and I don't think most advisors
would accept this as a final thesis. I seem to remember some strawman
arguements and some assumptions not backed with data.

I got the real feeling that Kuzmin wants to be an iconoclast. It's fun
to knock down tightly held beliefs, but you better have some good
evidence that is bullet proof. You're right that he doesn't have (as I
remember) any data from on-snow glide tests. That would be the good
evidence and I would bet some other people have probably done glide
tests showing metal scraped skis are slower than waxed in all but some
very unusual conditions (like the '95 worlds).

One interesting sidenote. When I played with Cerax, it was really hard
to find when the stuff was fast or slow. I figured part of this
inconsistency was that Cerax did not wear off the ski like a
traditional wax does. The other thing was that a number of the coatings
(according to the scientist I talked with) were "not that hydrophobic."
(1,2, 3 and 5). So that brings up another interesting discussion.
Anyway, I'm betting that poor conditions for Cerax and for unwaxed skis
might be similar. (I think very new snow or wind blown snow would be a
problem for both.)


almost done being sick....

Jay

[email protected] wrote:
> I've been noticing this Kuzmin discussion over the past year.
>
> About how glide wax and stone grinding is not needed, slows your skis,
> is a bad idea.



29 Nov 2006 10:40:49
[email protected]
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?


> After reading the article (quite a while back), I got the feeling this
> was a proposal. Maybe a proposal for a thesis project, e.g. submitted
> at the two year point in a PhD program, or maybe a masters program.

per conversation with Kuzmin this WAS his thesis, and he was granted a
degree for it. I wonder what kind of a university could grant a degree
based on that type of research. In that conversation, Kuzmin was using
the fact that the degree has been granted to justify that the research
was of acceptable quality.



29 Nov 2006 14:28:40
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

Whatever gave you the idea that substantive quality of
research was a criteria for a degree? It's not even a criteria for
tenure.

"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

>
>> After reading the article (quite a while back), I got the feeling this
>> was a proposal. Maybe a proposal for a thesis project, e.g. submitted
>> at the two year point in a PhD program, or maybe a masters program.
>
>per conversation with Kuzmin this WAS his thesis, and he was granted a
>degree for it. I wonder what kind of a university could grant a degree
>based on that type of research. In that conversation, Kuzmin was using
>the fact that the degree has been granted to justify that the research
>was of acceptable quality.
>


29 Nov 2006 13:49:59
Bjorn A. Payne Diaz
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

For those that didn't see the earlier post on this:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.skiing.nordic/browse_thread/thread/e238229f489bcb89/d947789d0f37cc41?lnk=gst&q=kuzmin&rnum=1&hl=en#d947789d0f37cc41

or do a search in this group on "Kuzmin."

Jay



29 Nov 2006 15:18:34
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

A couple other places have recent Kuzmin action also.

What provoked me to post here was the new story at NordicSkiRacer.com,
where Kuzmin replies to that Mark person:
http://nordicskiracer.com/cgi-bin/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=1080.

Also in the "Cross Country Skier" magazine I got a few weeks ago I
think that Ian Harvey gives a try at refuting Kuzmin, but his points
seem disjointed. I'm thinking that some editorial grafting was
involved. Or maybe not involved enough! : )

I'm just really surprised that anyone making noises about ski
performance wouldn't try out their theories! It all seems like MALARKEY
to me. Total, 100% hogwash without actual on-snow testing.

It may be an attempt at analysis but if it has no relation to reality
it's irelevant. I know that there's not much great science about ski
gliding. But we do have EMPIRICISM! WHAT WORKS? That's all that
matters. If he thinks he has a critique of wax but it actually has no
bearing on reality then his theory is WORSE than existing admittedly
patchy theory.

But, ya know, if there are some kids flying around the woods with dry
rilled skis and they come whippin' past me sometime, I might try what
they got REGARDLESS of the theory behind it. As far as skis goes, what
WORKS leads the way.

OK, I guess that some unapplied theory might start a trend that leads
somewhere cool down the road, so there's that.

--JP
outyourbackdoor.com



29 Nov 2006 15:23:39
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

PS: But, hey, good questions are worth something. Pure science has its
place in ski research. It may lead somewhere WAY down the road. --JP



29 Nov 2006 15:26:53
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

PPS: Like wouldn't it be weird if ski wax works but not because of
hydrophobics, or static, or dirt-prevention? He seems to make good
challenges of these things. Yet wax still seems likely to work far
better than a dry metal scraped rilled ski in most conditions. So the
reason why might be something else not thought of yet. What could it
be? That's the mystery, allure and challenge of science....!!! --JP



29 Nov 2006 16:13:58
Edgar
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

[email protected] wrote:

> I'm just really surprised that anyone making noises about ski
> performance wouldn't try out their theories! It all seems like MALARKEY
> to me. Total, 100% hogwash without actual on-snow testing.

The implication that Kuzmin did not do on-snow testing is not correct.
The Kuzmin papers describe in detail his on-snow testing as well as his
laboratory examination of ski running surfaces.

Whether we agree with his conclusions or not, his papers certainly
provide sufficient details (his thesis is 70 pages long including cover
and appendices) for someone to try to test his theory. The Kuzmin
thesis "Investigation of the most essential factors influencing ski
glide" is a collection of two Kuzmin papers:

"Contact angle on the running surfaces of cross-country skis"

"Dirt absorption on the ski running surface - Quantification and
influence on the gliding ability"

As part of the second paper, Kuzmin describes glide testing on a
"controll slope", and illustrates the paper with a photo showing a
skier in a tuck position on the control track. He describes the
control slope as 170 M long with the first 70 M steep and the last 100
M less steep such that the skier's velocity was about 10 m/s in the
flat section.

I believe that Kuzmin's work is more in support of what we in the
States would call a Masters degree and is not in support of a Doctorial
level degree. As a Masters thesis, I suspect that his University
advisors were more interested in the quality of the research process
and documentation of his study than the results or findings of his
study. The papers describe his work in enough detail that others could
conduct similar test to see if Kuzmin's results can be replicated
over a wider range of conditions.

Until other researchers prove otherwise, I intend to keep waxing
because it seems to work for me.

Still waxing,
Edgar



29 Nov 2006 16:18:23
Edgar
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

If anyone wants to read the full Kuzman paper, here is a link to a PDF
file of the paper:
http://epubl.ltu.se/1402-1757/2006/03/LTU-LIC-0603-SE.pdf

or do a web search for:
Kuzmin AND "Investigation of the most essential factors influencing ski
glide"

Edgar



29 Nov 2006 16:42:37
[email protected]
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?


> Whether we agree with his conclusions or not, his papers certainly
> provide sufficient details (his thesis is 70 pages long including cover
> and appendices) for someone to try to test his theory. The Kuzmin
> thesis "Investigation of the most essential factors influencing ski
> glide" is a collection of two Kuzmin papers:

Have you actually **read** the thesis, not just merely scrolled to see
how many pages it has? The "scientific" arguments about the size of
molecules absorbed into plastic are of a high-school research project
at best.



29 Nov 2006 19:15:43
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

Zach Caldwell had a long critique of Kuzmin's thesis on his site,
www.engineeredtuning.net, but it doesn't seem to be linked at the
moment.

rm

"Edgar" <[email protected] > wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> I'm just really surprised that anyone making noises about ski
>> performance wouldn't try out their theories! It all seems like MALARKEY
>> to me. Total, 100% hogwash without actual on-snow testing.
>
>The implication that Kuzmin did not do on-snow testing is not correct.
>The Kuzmin papers describe in detail his on-snow testing as well as his
>laboratory examination of ski running surfaces.
>
>Whether we agree with his conclusions or not, his papers certainly
>provide sufficient details (his thesis is 70 pages long including cover
>and appendices) for someone to try to test his theory. The Kuzmin
>thesis "Investigation of the most essential factors influencing ski
>glide" is a collection of two Kuzmin papers:
>
> "Contact angle on the running surfaces of cross-country skis"
>
> "Dirt absorption on the ski running surface - Quantification and
>influence on the gliding ability"
>
>As part of the second paper, Kuzmin describes glide testing on a
>"controll slope", and illustrates the paper with a photo showing a
>skier in a tuck position on the control track. He describes the
>control slope as 170 M long with the first 70 M steep and the last 100
>M less steep such that the skier's velocity was about 10 m/s in the
>flat section.
>
>I believe that Kuzmin's work is more in support of what we in the
>States would call a Masters degree and is not in support of a Doctorial
>level degree. As a Masters thesis, I suspect that his University
>advisors were more interested in the quality of the research process
>and documentation of his study than the results or findings of his
>study. The papers describe his work in enough detail that others could
>conduct similar test to see if Kuzmin's results can be replicated
>over a wider range of conditions.
>
>Until other researchers prove otherwise, I intend to keep waxing
>because it seems to work for me.
>
>Still waxing,
>Edgar
>


29 Nov 2006 20:42:08
Edgar
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?


[email protected] wrote:
>
> Have you actually **read** the thesis, not just merely scrolled to see
> how many pages it has? The "scientific" arguments about the size of
> molecules absorbed into plastic are of a high-school research project
> at best.

Yes, I read the Kuzmin paper when it first came to the group's
attention last year.

I'll pass on comments regarding Kuzmin's contact angle study. Mark
Waecher's commentary (Ultratune November 2006 newsletter) seems to
address the contact angle paper quite well.

The dirt adhesion paper's conclusion that dirty skis are slower than
less dirty skis is consistent with my experience. However, I am not
prepared to support a no-wax approach to repelling dirt in that
structure to reduce suction also needs to be considered.

My experience with late season spring skiing at Royal Gouge in the
pre-fluro days matches Kuzmin's conclusion that dirty skis are
slower. I remember on high dirt day where my skating skis picked up so
much dirt that I could stride classic style up hills returning to the
day lodge after only 10+ K of skiing. However, those were also the
days when I used the Ski-go with silicone.

As Mark Waecher notes, three of Kuzmin's four cases were plus
temperature spring conditions (wet or corn snow) and the snow
conditions for the one "cold" case were -3.8C at 75% humidity.
Reviewing Kuzmin's "average glide speed" results, the not
surprising data shows that skis slowed with higher distances skied
(i.e. more dirt adhesion). Results did show that the fluro-waxes were
faster than the CH waxes.

Several points that Mark Waecher did not address were that Kuzmin used
clear bases, the steel roto-brushing of "hot-waxed skis and dry
skis" and sample size. Could the clear bases have contributed to
dirt attraction? Did steel roto-brushing adversely affect the
hot-waxed skis? Was Kuzmin's sample size too small to be
statistically relevant?

So, before blowing off Kuzmin, readers should offer criticism of why
Kuzmin's methodology or testing is not valid. As said, I am still
waxing.

Edgar



30 Nov 2006 05:00:49
Ken Roberts
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

Edgar wrote
> So, before blowing off Kuzmin, readers should offer
> criticism of why Kuzmin's methodology or testing is not valid.

I don't think it was the experimental methodology, or the specific results,
that got all the attention and emotion-laden response.

It was rather _conclusions_ from the experimental results reported in the
press -- even outside of cross-country sking publications -- conclusions of
broad generality which some cross-country skiers said went way beyond the
specifics of the experimental results.

Ken




30 Nov 2006 00:54:30
Anders
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?


Ken Roberts kirjoitti:

> Edgar wrote
> > So, before blowing off Kuzmin, readers should offer
> > criticism of why Kuzmin's methodology or testing is not valid.

> I don't think it was the experimental methodology, or the specific results,
> that got all the attention and emotion-laden response.

This would certainly explain the apparent widespread collective amnesia
about the existence of on-snow glide tests:-)


> It was rather _conclusions_ from the experimental results reported in the
> press -- even outside of cross-country sking publications -- conclusions of
> broad generality which some cross-country skiers said went way beyond the
> specifics of the experimental results.

I can understand that scientists can be irked by (apparently) bad
science, but it truly surprises me that skiers can be so easily
convinced that something (i.e. that Kuzminized skis glide better than
skis given a normal treatment) cannot be true (or can be true only in
very limited conditions), because the theory behind is faulty and the
science lacking.

If you guys could read Swedish, you would be able to read about the
on-snow experiments and experiences of open-minded and curious skiers
(including 1st wave Vasaloppet starters) who (for the most part) don't
give a rat's ass about the science.

OTOH good, experienced waxers can almost always come pretty close to
the performance of Luzminized skis, so you guys don't have anything to
worry, if you wish to stick to the tried and true as you've learned it
the hard way.


Anders



30 Nov 2006 12:55:32
Ken Roberts
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

Anders wrote
> . . . it truly surprises me that skiers can be so easily convinced . . .

If that surprises you, try reading the rec.bicycles.tech newsgroup, and find
out what sort of things bicyclists can be easily convinced of.

I will observe that the two American ski preparation _technicians_ who I
respect most both made very careful and thoughtful responses to Kuzmin's
work.

Ken




30 Nov 2006 10:39:40
Bjorn A. Payne Diaz
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

Ok, I went back and started reading the thesis again. First off, Kuzmin
starts off with a really bad conclusion, and I think that gets people
doubting all his work.


MANTRA 1 The ski base is porous and you have to melt waxes to
impregnate the ski base.
Conclusion: He says this isn't true because parafin molecules are
larger than water molecules and we've never have seen any indication
that a ski base absorbs water.

-First, a ski base is hydrophobic, so water molecules have a greater
affinity for bulk water than to separate and enter the ski. It's the
same reason water doesn't drip out of a eye dropper.
-If you want to test this idea, pick a solvent that is hydrophobic and
small, and test it. Don't just throw it out there without any data. (It
hard to imagine this getting past any kind of reviewer!)
-Wax companies have published photos indicating how far wax penetrates
skis bases
-If you wax a new ski with a highly colored wax, it will be "stained"
with that color. No amt of brushing will remove the color.

Kuzmin came back in the first discussion a year ago and discussed this
idea, but he seemed to be splitting hairs...he concedes wax goes into
the ski but says it's not absorbed.


MANTRA 2 Abrasion--Waxing protects the ski from abrasion.
Conclusion: The ski base is many times more abrasion resistant than any
glide waxes so waxing doesn't protect the ski base.

-Right at the end of the Mantra 1 section he states that wax covers the
ski as an adhesion film. I agree. So if the ski is covered with a film,
there's less chance of abrasion because the wax has to wear off before
abrasion can begin.
-His conclusion seems like a foolish idea because "elementary" logic
refutes the idea.
-I admit that I've skis for years on downhill skis without waxing them,
and many guys ski on their rock skis without waxing them. Can these
skis be fast when waxed? I don't know, because I haven't tried it.
-I tend to agree that importance of the abrasion arguement may be
overstated. I certainly agree that bases do not oxidize (this is not
part of his thesis).


MANTRA 3 Use graphite because prevents the generation of an electric
field.
Conclusion: The reason for a graphite base is a big mystery

-I wholeheartly agree that the electric field arguement made by wax
companies is total crap, but his conclusion doesn't follow the
arguement. Just because the electric field arguement is wrong doesn't
mean that adding graphite to skis/wax makes the skis/wax slower.
-Wax companies/techs have shown that graphite/moly/various lubes do
improve speed in spite of lowering hydrophobicity
-I believe ski companies have tested skis and shown that graphite bases
are faster in many conditions (except wet).
-The graphite probably has another factor in speed such as reducing the
amt of dirt absorbed or modifiying how quickly the wax wears off the
ski.


So in the first major portion of his paper, his conclusions are
_really_ questionable because they are based on poor logic and a lack
of data.

Then he launches into a bunch of ski and wax history, and I think this
is where most people (like me) stop reading. Hopefully I'll read the
rest later.

Jay



30 Nov 2006 20:14:24
Jan Gerrit Klok
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

I suppose with waxing it's like with everyone, you can't get the one
objective maximized without compromizing the other.
Speed and Wear.

Has anyone ever attempted to make ski's that self-lubricate with a
fast-glibing, quickly wearing wax? It would be poured in a reservoir, and
pushed through the porous base towards the surface to provide the glide, and
keep flowing (ever so slowly) to keep up with wear.
The foot's action could be the pup to get the wax through the ski. Like a
hoovercraft, in slow motion.

My gut feeling says there's gotta be a polymer material out there that
glides like a megnetic train over all kinds of snow, repells dirt and
doesn't get scratched up easily. I suppose nylon and teflon don't work for
ski's as those would seem to be the first things to try for a nutty glide
professor...

"Bjorn A. Payne Diaz" <[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]
> Ok, I went back and started reading the thesis again. First off, Kuzmin
> starts off with a really bad conclusion, and I think that gets people
> doubting all his work.
>
>
> MANTRA 1 The ski base is porous and you have to melt waxes to
> impregnate the ski base.
> Conclusion: He says this isn't true because parafin molecules are
> larger than water molecules and we've never have seen any indication
> that a ski base absorbs water.
>
> -First, a ski base is hydrophobic, so water molecules have a greater
> affinity for bulk water than to separate and enter the ski. It's the
> same reason water doesn't drip out of a eye dropper.
> -If you want to test this idea, pick a solvent that is hydrophobic and
> small, and test it. Don't just throw it out there without any data. (It
> hard to imagine this getting past any kind of reviewer!)
> -Wax companies have published photos indicating how far wax penetrates
> skis bases
> -If you wax a new ski with a highly colored wax, it will be "stained"
> with that color. No amt of brushing will remove the color.
>
> Kuzmin came back in the first discussion a year ago and discussed this
> idea, but he seemed to be splitting hairs...he concedes wax goes into
> the ski but says it's not absorbed.
>
>
> MANTRA 2 Abrasion--Waxing protects the ski from abrasion.
> Conclusion: The ski base is many times more abrasion resistant than any
> glide waxes so waxing doesn't protect the ski base.
>
> -Right at the end of the Mantra 1 section he states that wax covers the
> ski as an adhesion film. I agree. So if the ski is covered with a film,
> there's less chance of abrasion because the wax has to wear off before
> abrasion can begin.
> -His conclusion seems like a foolish idea because "elementary" logic
> refutes the idea.
> -I admit that I've skis for years on downhill skis without waxing them,
> and many guys ski on their rock skis without waxing them. Can these
> skis be fast when waxed? I don't know, because I haven't tried it.
> -I tend to agree that importance of the abrasion arguement may be
> overstated. I certainly agree that bases do not oxidize (this is not
> part of his thesis).
>
>
> MANTRA 3 Use graphite because prevents the generation of an electric
> field.
> Conclusion: The reason for a graphite base is a big mystery
>
> -I wholeheartly agree that the electric field arguement made by wax
> companies is total crap, but his conclusion doesn't follow the
> arguement. Just because the electric field arguement is wrong doesn't
> mean that adding graphite to skis/wax makes the skis/wax slower.
> -Wax companies/techs have shown that graphite/moly/various lubes do
> improve speed in spite of lowering hydrophobicity
> -I believe ski companies have tested skis and shown that graphite bases
> are faster in many conditions (except wet).
> -The graphite probably has another factor in speed such as reducing the
> amt of dirt absorbed or modifiying how quickly the wax wears off the
> ski.
>
>
> So in the first major portion of his paper, his conclusions are
> _really_ questionable because they are based on poor logic and a lack
> of data.
>
> Then he launches into a bunch of ski and wax history, and I think this
> is where most people (like me) stop reading. Hopefully I'll read the
> rest later.
>
> Jay
>




30 Nov 2006 16:17:26
[email protected]
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?


> MANTRA 1 The ski base is porous and you have to melt waxes to
> impregnate the ski base.
> Conclusion: He says this isn't true because parafin molecules are
> larger than water molecules and we've never have seen any indication
> that a ski base absorbs water.
>
> -First, a ski base is hydrophobic, so water molecules have a greater
> affinity for bulk water than to separate and enter the ski. It's the
> same reason water doesn't drip out of a eye dropper.
> -If you want to test this idea, pick a solvent that is hydrophobic and
> small, and test it. Don't just throw it out there without any data. (It
> hard to imagine this getting past any kind of reviewer!)

yes. once I got to this point, i could not take the whole thing
seriously (I did read the whole thing). Such "arguments" can be found
throughout the proposal. No references, no rationale, no justficaiton.
He really enjoys throwing in things like "nothing but a commecial
gimmic" here and there. Such wording/"arguments" do not belong to a
scientific work.



01 Dec 2006 08:50:35
Bjorn A. Payne Diaz
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

(Jan, the alpine guys slobber on Cera F as a lube for short races.)

PAPER 1
Kuzmin gives background theory that rough surface on skis should be
more hydrophobic than smooth. (This is counterintuitive to me.) He
measures roughness of 4 skis with different stoneground structure and
one steel scraped ski. He finds the steel scraped ski is pretty rough
(high structure) as compared to stone ground skis. (This seems
counterintuitive to me.)

-In the hands of someone that is good with steel scraping (I'm not),
I believe the steel scraping should leave a surface that has some long
valleys that can be seen with the naked eye, but under a microscope,
the surface should be relatively smooth compared to a stone grind (not
much micro-structure). This is why steel scraped skis are fast in cold,
new snow. So I don't understand how his steel scraped skis are rough
compared to stone grinds, even a "blank" grind.

-The measure of roughness all depends on the scale. If your roll an
imaginary ball with different diameters over the base, you'll get
different results depending on if the ball has a radius of 10, 100,
1000, or 10000 angstroms. So the correlation of roughness to
hydrophobicity depends on scale and it seems he hasn't even thought
of that.

-Kuzmin uses a Red Creek steel rotor-brush at 4000 rpm for base prep.
Wow, talk about a heavy handed approach. I've never used one of their
metal brushes, but a steel brush at 4000 rpm could leave the
base....well shredded, and I don't see any reason to introduce this
variable into the data. Obviously, I have a concern about this and how
it affects all the findings, and there should be micrographs in the
papers showing texture. I suspect he may have steel rotobrushed all the
skis, or maybe just the ground skis. I also suspect that the brushing
would have left the skis "hairy."

-The stone ground skis are more hydrophobic (higher contact angle) when
waxed with CH8 (one ski hardly changes). (So, cover up the hairs/fill
in some structure, and the ski is more hydrophobic-that's my
explanation). The steel scraped ski goes the other way.

-Anyway, his measurements contradict theory, so he concludes his
measurement of roughness doesn't estimate the fractal structure of
the ski. First, you can't just assume the theory is correct. Second,
get rid of the rotobrush. Third, show micrographs.



Jay



01 Dec 2006 09:53:17
delltodd
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

Dear Bjorn A. Payne Diaz,

Hey there Jay. Fun to watch the things that get you cranked up.

I've read your comments twice now that you don't believe in P-Tex
oxidation. If this is the case, then you do not put a layer of storage
wax on your skis in the off season, yes no ?

That is an interesting notion. I think you told us why you think
oxidation is bunk, but it escapes my recall at this time, not that it
matters, you think so for a reason which struck me as possibly quite
legit. But I still wax the skis for the summertime. How about you ?

And by the way, is there something else going on that is similar enough
to oxidation that we should continue to protect against with waxing ?
Possibly a semantical thing then, close to oxidation, but not
oxidation, but behaves like it ???

DT

PS - I sure hope the bald Kuzmins are faster than a steel roto-brushed
ski, for cryin' out loud.



01 Dec 2006 10:28:14
Bjorn A. Payne Diaz
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

I think when you wax a ski, there's a just a small amt of the wax that
penetrates the petex and the rest sits on the surface. It's pretty
clear that a coat or two of wax on new skis means the skis don't hold
wax well in abrasive conditions. So I think the wax that soaks into the
petex is pretty important. So yes, it's a good idea to leave wax on the
skis during the summer. I try to leave wax on the skis during the
winter (since I have probably 15 pair), but I'm not particuarly
obsessive about this. (I don't wax as soon as I get home, and it's
pretty common mid-season for a number of my skis to be "unwaxed.")

The reason for waxing is not oxidation. Chemically, I don't believe
petex can oxidize unless you have some wild free-radical chemical
reaction going on, and I just don't believe there's any significant amt
of free-radicals out there. I've bounced this off of the Fast Wax
developer, and he kind of chuckled at the idea also. (He agrees with no
oxidation.)

There's a lot of really bad science out there, so I'm holding up the
Kuzmin stuff just as an example of how wrong conclusions can be made
from biased interpretation of the data. Six years ago, we had some
great data with some really nice theory to back it up, and the
reviewers didn't want to believe the conclusions. So even when you're
correct, often you have to prove the other conclusions are incorrect
with additional data. BTW, I took a 2 min look at the Kuzmin's third
paper (all new material to me), and this looks like better material.

Jay

delltodd wrote:
> Dear Bjorn A. Payne Diaz,
>
> Hey there Jay. Fun to watch the things that get you cranked up.
>
> I've read your comments twice now that you don't believe in P-Tex
> oxidation. If this is the case, then you do not put a layer of storage
> wax on your skis in the off season, yes no ?
>
> That is an interesting notion. I think you told us why you think
> oxidation is bunk, but it escapes my recall at this time, not that it
> matters, you think so for a reason which struck me as possibly quite
> legit. But I still wax the skis for the summertime. How about you ?
>
> And by the way, is there something else going on that is similar enough
> to oxidation that we should continue to protect against with waxing ?
> Possibly a semantical thing then, close to oxidation, but not
> oxidation, but behaves like it ???
>
> DT
>
> PS - I sure hope the bald Kuzmins are faster than a steel roto-brushed
> ski, for cryin' out loud.



03 Dec 2006 14:33:51
Vladimir
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

On the "stone grind vs steel scraping" issue.

I did compare factory stone grind ski (new Fischer RCS, faultless and
smooth base surface, no visible hairs), paraffined with swix LF, after
some 20 km of a distance, and steel scraped bare ski of the same pair
(stone grind removed completely), at the end of the last season.
Scraped ski glided better. And I had skied on those bare new untouched
skis before that test - they just did not glide at all.

IMHO factory stone grind is so bad, that whatever is done, whether it
is waxing or scraping, it will do only good to ski glide. Yes I know,
new skis should be prepared with many cycles of base paraffine waxing
and removing, but isn't scraping cheaper, cleaner and maybe better?

The second question is : does paraffine add glide to *scraped* ski,
before and *after* some 10-s km of a distance *significantly*? I am
going to perform such a test this season (one ski bare, one waxed). But
whatever are the results I think it is not worth it paraffining the
skis after work in the evening before going to ski, stealing some 0.5-1
hours of one's sleep time.



04 Dec 2006 07:44:33
Re: What's up with the "No Glidewax, No Grind" Kuzmin stuff?

I would love to learn about ways to make skis glide better with less
work and expense. I think there's obviously also a place for all kinds
of research---our own personal on-snow tests and fancy lab tests as
well as those that haven't found practical application, but I
personally look forward most to learning about on-snow results and
methods I can USE! : ) --JP