Fastest possible ski base

[Poikenz]

So I imagine by now everyone knows of Rustoleum's Neverwet, if not here is a video:

/images/flash_video_placeholder.png

It has been brought up for outerwear, but breathability concerns obviously arise.

Today I was thinking that it would be cool to put on my topsheets so I don't have as much snow sticking to them at the bottom of a run, and then it hit me, what if this product could be used for bases?

Current technology still involves friction for movement, but what if this product removed all friction? It seems to do that to water on other items so why not skis on snow?

So what if we had hydrophobic bases or a hydrophobic material that didn't require wax or maintenance? Also I am not overly scientific so some insight would be nice.

 

[Sam__M]

I have had the same thought, but a cheaper more cost effective

way for me is to spray my bases with a can of WD40 on a slushy day.

 

[phiberawptik]

Or you could just realize that with the money involved in World Cup ski racing, if there was abetter alternative to what is currently being used, then it would be the standard.

 

[Poikenz]

I'm not saying there is a current better alternative, but there could be.

It's the same way ski boots are being improved by atomic, and bindings are being improved by various companies, ski dimensions are always being changed, and different materials are being used in the building of skis.

It is not a perfect system so improvements can always be made.

 

[tomPietrowski]

I like the way you think but if there was a better method to prep bases you would know about it. The additives used on race ski bases cost a fortune. Some cost more weight for weight then gold. If there was a cheaper chemical alternative it will have already been tried. But yeah all manufactures are working towards the next generation of products so who knows what we will see in the futre.

 

[Crispy.]

 

[onenerdykid]

Thanks for the Atomic shout out, glad you are noticing! Part of what makes a base fast is not simply how hydrophobic the base material is but also the structure (pattern) put onto the base itself. The structure breaks up surface tension. As you glide over the snow, your skis literally melt the snow and create a lot of suction between the water and your base. Base material and wax help the ski glide efficiently and the structure prevents the ski from literally sticking to the melted snow.

 

[Poikenz]

So what you are saying is that you need the friction to melt the snow because you can't glide on snow but you can glide on a thin layer of water such as a skim board.

So maybe, speed has reached it's limit, but the base material could be changed to give a more consistent ride in all conditions rather than basing it off of waxing.

 

[NinetyFour]

Give this a read:

https://www.newschoolers.com/ns/forums/readthread/thread_id/700870/

And this article that was posted in the thread:

http://epubl.luth.se/1402-1757/2006/03/LTU-LIC-0603-SE.pdf

Some interesting stuff in there. Plain, unground base is more hydrophobic than ground, structured, and waxed base. But like Onenerdykid is pointing out, without the proper structure, suction will happen, and then hydrophobic action won't work properly.

 

[Poikenz]

Oh god all of those variables makes it difficult to pick out what is important and what should be skimmed over. Also these following questions aren't just for you so don't feel overwhelmed.

He made it sound like density is the end all be all in a sense of only having UHMWPE base material to work with. But in the other thread and as many state that a higher density means more maintenance even though the article kind of alludes to it being tougher and more resistant to dirt. So that's a conflicting idea that I might have just read incorrectly in his article.

Also if dirt is the biggest concern a harder material with the same hydromorphicity would produce a better glide over time with less maintenance, even though he implies that no maintenance is really needed anyway. And if no maintenance is needed why do people complain about keeping your bases "in good condition" when the only difference being the amount of dirt on them?

If nothing more is needed other than water to provide lubricant and a non-waxed base is the fastest what does this mean for "dry bases", by that I mean visibly black bases turning white- does it mean that the snow wasn't properly melting because of colder conditions? I assume that because they tested in warm conditions. is it because the snow can cause micro-cuts or whatever you wish to call it?

I understand the purpose of the hot scrape to remove dirt, but is that the best method if you don't want a waxed base but you wish to remove dirt? Maybe just some sort of manual grind is sufficient.

I really hope Kuzmin is still perusing that subject as there are a lot of unanswered questions and I am not even digging through the surface on mine.