A recent study concluded that waxing downhill skis has the effect of slowing them down. Wax attracts dirt, which slows down the ski. Looks like I have been better off from my years of lazy neglect.
The full article is in the technology section of this week's Economist.
Forget the Wax
Moderator: MK
Talking from a snowboard perspective, it seems that waxing helps a lot. Anecdotal evidence: I was riding last weekend and having a hard time to go. When I stopped, the underside of my board had huge chunks of ice and snow on it. I waxed the board over the weekend and on Monday the board sliding effortlessly on the snow. When I stopped, the underside was clean and smooth. The conditions were a little different on both days though, but I am really sold on a good coat of wax.
Having ski raced for a while, here's a little scatter-brained insight that might help...
Waxing helps, most certainly. It must be done right, though. Wax recommended temps are important. The base structure was very important, as well (how the base looks after being textured by a stone or by hand).
Strangely enough, brushing seemed to be the most important thing to do after all else was taken care of. Skis would certainly be faster than unwaxed even if you waxed with the wrong temp and brushed the hell out of them. Very fine-haired brushes work the best, after the ski is prepped with more coarse items/brushes/etc.
Leaving bases scraped but not brushed (but hitting the wax temp) makes skis only marginally faster.
The wax also 'protects' the base. Old, dried out bases are slower than waxed no matter what.
The cheap 'waxing' done at most ski shops is a joke. 'Race' wax jobs at shops usually involve a decent process, but vary depending on the shop.
Bottom line:
Waxing helps your skis, protects them long-term, doesn't mean much for speed if done sloppily, and can make a hell of a difference if done well.
Um, this applies to snowboards too, of course.
For kiting, just slap some wax on, scrape, and go. If you are ambitious like me buy one of those spinning-brush drill attachments and give your sliding stick a once over.
-Coach
Waxing helps, most certainly. It must be done right, though. Wax recommended temps are important. The base structure was very important, as well (how the base looks after being textured by a stone or by hand).
Strangely enough, brushing seemed to be the most important thing to do after all else was taken care of. Skis would certainly be faster than unwaxed even if you waxed with the wrong temp and brushed the hell out of them. Very fine-haired brushes work the best, after the ski is prepped with more coarse items/brushes/etc.
Leaving bases scraped but not brushed (but hitting the wax temp) makes skis only marginally faster.
The wax also 'protects' the base. Old, dried out bases are slower than waxed no matter what.
The cheap 'waxing' done at most ski shops is a joke. 'Race' wax jobs at shops usually involve a decent process, but vary depending on the shop.
Bottom line:
Waxing helps your skis, protects them long-term, doesn't mean much for speed if done sloppily, and can make a hell of a difference if done well.
Um, this applies to snowboards too, of course.
For kiting, just slap some wax on, scrape, and go. If you are ambitious like me buy one of those spinning-brush drill attachments and give your sliding stick a once over.
-Coach
I can back up Coach. Not sure where the economist got its info but it does not match reality, even remotely.
The best racers in the world use wax extensively to gain a competitive edge. I raced downhill competitively on a national level in the 70's. And have been involved with the my kids racing recently. At really cold or warm ski temps, the right wax usually means the difference between winning and losing races...... a huge difference. Racing teams on all levels currently spend a lot of effort on getting the mix of wax perfect for each race. At the international level race waxing is done by a specialist who spends years waxing and tuneing skis for a team, perfecting his craft. Coach is also right about protecting the P-Tex. If your P-tex is whiteish it is dried out and needs wax. It's just like conditioning a baseball glove. P-tex needs wax to keep the pores from drying out.
Around here, kiting on the lakes. On a warm slushy day at 35° or above red wax or a mix of red/yellow if warmer will make a big difference. Hot wax with an old iron & finishing with a scotch brite, like Denis said will do the job for kiting. You want a textured surface to break the adhesion of water to the ski bottom. A smooth finish is not what you want.
Kiting in warm weather in sticky snow......I would guess that a properly waxed board or ski would lead to better jumps, as you will have more speed going into the jump, as you load up the kite.
The best racers in the world use wax extensively to gain a competitive edge. I raced downhill competitively on a national level in the 70's. And have been involved with the my kids racing recently. At really cold or warm ski temps, the right wax usually means the difference between winning and losing races...... a huge difference. Racing teams on all levels currently spend a lot of effort on getting the mix of wax perfect for each race. At the international level race waxing is done by a specialist who spends years waxing and tuneing skis for a team, perfecting his craft. Coach is also right about protecting the P-Tex. If your P-tex is whiteish it is dried out and needs wax. It's just like conditioning a baseball glove. P-tex needs wax to keep the pores from drying out.
Around here, kiting on the lakes. On a warm slushy day at 35° or above red wax or a mix of red/yellow if warmer will make a big difference. Hot wax with an old iron & finishing with a scotch brite, like Denis said will do the job for kiting. You want a textured surface to break the adhesion of water to the ski bottom. A smooth finish is not what you want.
Kiting in warm weather in sticky snow......I would guess that a properly waxed board or ski would lead to better jumps, as you will have more speed going into the jump, as you load up the kite.
The study was done by Leonig Kuzmin, at Mid-Sweden University. He found that waxing makes a ski faster for a couple of hundred meters, then the buildup of dirt makes the ski slower than an unwaxed ski. So, for relatively short downhill runs, fresh wax might be faster, but for kite action, it sounds like it is slower. Kuzmin concluded that the substance used to make modern ski bottoms, ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene in most cases makes wax unnecessary, and actually slower after very short distances. He tested transparent skis, both waxed and unwaxed, and found the unwaxed glided faster after a couple hundred meters.
Sounds to me like you guys should rethink your position or show the flaw in the study.
Sounds to me like you guys should rethink your position or show the flaw in the study.
Most big downhill races out west are 2 miles long. Slalom runs are 45 to 60 secs. Mike the study is a science study. It is just not born out in the international racing scene. I subscribe to Ski Racing mag. and waxing is very, very important.The sport is so competitive. Downhills are won by a 100th of a second. If running a waxless bottom made you faster, then don't you think racers would take that advantage and run without wax. They certainly would. But they don't. Everyone waxes......because it's faster. Find me a quote off the net where a National team ski coach says "we're running waxless today". Then I will believe your study. The new Flourocarbon waxes (at $60 a bar) are used by top racers in MN. The science of wax is very technical, maybe the scientist used the wrong wax! 
-
Kevinousdigian
- Posts: 646
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 10:37 pm
Interesting chat. For work I've really gotten into designing and analyzing clinical studies or other analyses the last few years. A couple of observations are very pertinent to this discussion.
1) Sometimes experts gut instincts are wrong or things that are accepted as 'best practices' have never been 'proven' to be. By proven I mean a solid prospective randomized controlled study.
2) People can 'design' studies to prove lots of things. They often have some premise or motivation for tackling it in the first place (ie they are biased on what they want/expect the outcome to show). This is true of industry sponsored research (ie like me) or also true of a lot of crap that is published from universities where they were funded by a party who was hoping to show something. One has to go much deeper than the soundbite to understand how sound the methods were to make the conlusions. Also a lot of hypotheses are not easily studied even with the best methods and unbiased sources.
3) For research to be accepted as the new gospel it needs to be published in a peer reviewed journal (you know this Mike). Then one knows that at least the methods have been scrutinized by various experts. It would be interesting to get the pro wax experts to write an editorial and scrutinize the study. I'm sure after reading such a editorial there would be more doubt about the validity or there may be some agreement about points raised.
My boss and I were just talking about the recent cloning stuff which is an example of the things I mentioned above.
I'm not at all taking sides because I'm not at all a wax expert and haven't read the article so don't start cussing at me. It may be 100% accurate and real. I can tell you that my personnel experience with skate skis (x-country skiing) is that if I don't have wax or the 'right' wax for those temp and snow conditions I can easily tell a difference on my glide and how much work I need to do to keep me moving on flat or uphill surfaces. I don't like taking time to wax so I avoid it but can't help but notice it matters for X-country skiing.
Have a Merry Christmas!!
Kevin
1) Sometimes experts gut instincts are wrong or things that are accepted as 'best practices' have never been 'proven' to be. By proven I mean a solid prospective randomized controlled study.
2) People can 'design' studies to prove lots of things. They often have some premise or motivation for tackling it in the first place (ie they are biased on what they want/expect the outcome to show). This is true of industry sponsored research (ie like me) or also true of a lot of crap that is published from universities where they were funded by a party who was hoping to show something. One has to go much deeper than the soundbite to understand how sound the methods were to make the conlusions. Also a lot of hypotheses are not easily studied even with the best methods and unbiased sources.
3) For research to be accepted as the new gospel it needs to be published in a peer reviewed journal (you know this Mike). Then one knows that at least the methods have been scrutinized by various experts. It would be interesting to get the pro wax experts to write an editorial and scrutinize the study. I'm sure after reading such a editorial there would be more doubt about the validity or there may be some agreement about points raised.
My boss and I were just talking about the recent cloning stuff which is an example of the things I mentioned above.
I'm not at all taking sides because I'm not at all a wax expert and haven't read the article so don't start cussing at me. It may be 100% accurate and real. I can tell you that my personnel experience with skate skis (x-country skiing) is that if I don't have wax or the 'right' wax for those temp and snow conditions I can easily tell a difference on my glide and how much work I need to do to keep me moving on flat or uphill surfaces. I don't like taking time to wax so I avoid it but can't help but notice it matters for X-country skiing.
Have a Merry Christmas!!
Kevin
Kevin Ousdigian
Kevin, you raise some legitimate points. Thanks! Interestingly, the guy who is doing the research is a former cross-country racing champion, turned ski coach. So Tom, that pretty much meets your challenge about finding a coach who is recommending going waxless. Kuzmin is a doctoral student, so his research is probably yet to be published in peer-reviewed journals. This piece in The Economist will no doubt have them paying attention though.
I don't know whether the results will ultimately prove to be true, but preliminary findings at least suggest that the most significant advantage of waxing is psychological.
I don't know whether the results will ultimately prove to be true, but preliminary findings at least suggest that the most significant advantage of waxing is psychological.
Ok .....read the article in the Economist. The test was done on Xcountry skis, and the author "thinks" it will pertain to dowhill racing. Maybe, maybe not.
The search below searchs the domain of Ski Racing Magazine for the words "speed" & "wax" on the same page. If you run this search and than just search each article for the word "wax" you will see how important wax is to dowhill racing. The first link in the search is a good one to start on . Funny, because it quotes experts in Alpine and Nordic on how important a role wax can play in winning a race.
Google Search for wax & speed in Ski Racing Mag domain
Just from anecdotal view, it is so easy to tell the difference between a waxed ski and an unwaxed one in warm weather, that a test seems pointless. It is very obvious when spring skiing on corn snow that a waxed ski is faster & sticks less in slush.
The search below searchs the domain of Ski Racing Magazine for the words "speed" & "wax" on the same page. If you run this search and than just search each article for the word "wax" you will see how important wax is to dowhill racing. The first link in the search is a good one to start on . Funny, because it quotes experts in Alpine and Nordic on how important a role wax can play in winning a race.
Google Search for wax & speed in Ski Racing Mag domain
Just from anecdotal view, it is so easy to tell the difference between a waxed ski and an unwaxed one in warm weather, that a test seems pointless. It is very obvious when spring skiing on corn snow that a waxed ski is faster & sticks less in slush.
i've skied a couple Birkie's and the 57k Mora Vossa, on xc skate skis wax is necessary to hang with the lead pack under most conditions. if the snow is melting and air temp is very warm, there may be a scenario where waxless will give you the advantage over wax. i haven't heard of an elite racer on skates without wax, but a few years back one of the elites on traditional (in-line) was on waxless racing in 50 degree weather.
the right wax, application, scraping and brushing are everything. colder temps require harder glide wax because the snow structure would dig into the wax if it was too soft. the point of waxing is to get the wax into the structure of the ski not have it covering the structure. think of structure like honeycomb. you want wax in the pores, not in a layer over the the pores. if your iron is too hot, you can permanently ruin the structure by melting the pores closed. don't scrape when your wax is warm, unless trying to clean out the pores. don't scrape so hard that you are removing base material. brush well. the harder the wax, the finer the brush. brushing also helps to remove static electricity potential.
i've been talking about glide wax here, not kick, so it should apply to downhill the same way as it does to skate skis.
this was my first season of windsurfing in MN. i met and talked with a few of you at local lakes and really appreciate all the help and tips that i received along the way. my girlfriend got recruited to a job in portland and i took my job with me and am working remotely. we just got here a few weeks ago so no windsuring yet. but, i did buy a 3.6 meter ballistic trainer and tried that out this passed weekend in gusts to 40mph. it was a wild ride and now i'm hooked! i'm sure i'll have plenty of questions to throw out once i get more time to think about my next steps.
thanks for all the inspiration, hopefully i'll get back to MN sometime this summer for some action on Milly!
john kjolsing
the right wax, application, scraping and brushing are everything. colder temps require harder glide wax because the snow structure would dig into the wax if it was too soft. the point of waxing is to get the wax into the structure of the ski not have it covering the structure. think of structure like honeycomb. you want wax in the pores, not in a layer over the the pores. if your iron is too hot, you can permanently ruin the structure by melting the pores closed. don't scrape when your wax is warm, unless trying to clean out the pores. don't scrape so hard that you are removing base material. brush well. the harder the wax, the finer the brush. brushing also helps to remove static electricity potential.
i've been talking about glide wax here, not kick, so it should apply to downhill the same way as it does to skate skis.
this was my first season of windsurfing in MN. i met and talked with a few of you at local lakes and really appreciate all the help and tips that i received along the way. my girlfriend got recruited to a job in portland and i took my job with me and am working remotely. we just got here a few weeks ago so no windsuring yet. but, i did buy a 3.6 meter ballistic trainer and tried that out this passed weekend in gusts to 40mph. it was a wild ride and now i'm hooked! i'm sure i'll have plenty of questions to throw out once i get more time to think about my next steps.
thanks for all the inspiration, hopefully i'll get back to MN sometime this summer for some action on Milly!
john kjolsing
This may be a case of 'we're both right' in wax vs. no-wax camps.
Having also worked in a shop, it's amazing the crud we'd see building up on the bottoms of skis, mostly in the wax. Wax both wears out quickly and collects dirt. A lot of factors influence that, like the temp and how dirty the snow it.
As in Tom's point of view, it's a practiced fact that it makes a speed difference - not just anecdotal evidence. As for how much, that's anecdotal - but could easily be (and has been) studied. In measurable terms (Tom's probably done this), we'd take 3-4 pairs of downhill skis before a race, set up timing, tune and wax them a few different ways, and see what worked. In those cases there were measurable results and there was an obvious improvement for hitting the right wax/tune.
Like I mentioned earlier, it's not just the speed. If your skis 'dry out' they will get slower for a variety of reasons. not just the lack of wax, but the bases might warp, they'll get 'fuzzy', and more - which will definitely slow you down.
It's kinda' like skin care in many respects. You might get pretty and fast girls now, but if you stay out in the sun for too long you'll get wrinkly and bumpy and the girls will slow down.
-Coach
Having also worked in a shop, it's amazing the crud we'd see building up on the bottoms of skis, mostly in the wax. Wax both wears out quickly and collects dirt. A lot of factors influence that, like the temp and how dirty the snow it.
As in Tom's point of view, it's a practiced fact that it makes a speed difference - not just anecdotal evidence. As for how much, that's anecdotal - but could easily be (and has been) studied. In measurable terms (Tom's probably done this), we'd take 3-4 pairs of downhill skis before a race, set up timing, tune and wax them a few different ways, and see what worked. In those cases there were measurable results and there was an obvious improvement for hitting the right wax/tune.
Like I mentioned earlier, it's not just the speed. If your skis 'dry out' they will get slower for a variety of reasons. not just the lack of wax, but the bases might warp, they'll get 'fuzzy', and more - which will definitely slow you down.
It's kinda' like skin care in many respects. You might get pretty and fast girls now, but if you stay out in the sun for too long you'll get wrinkly and bumpy and the girls will slow down.
-Coach