Statistical differences in base composition

F

Flynn

Active member
I realise this probably isnt the site to ask but there are atleast a few smart people around and maybe one that will have an answer for me.

Does anyone have a site or some credible information that describes the difference between the different base compositions(durability,friction,porosity(that has to be a word)? And what the actual "chemical" or general makeup of the different base types with be.

I know the info from Tognar but im really looking for something more in depth and i figure there has to be a racing site around somewhere where some asshole actualy tested this shit.

 
POROSITY = The density of a substance and its capacity to pass liquids. The ratio of pore volume to total volume expressed as a percent.

 
and generally the more porus it is, (and with the help of carbon additives) with the right waxes you have a faster high performace base. More wax and less base = less fricition, and i might be wrong but it tihnk the carbon additives held with anti-static which in world cup times is a sorce of friction.

a less porus base is therefore denser and harder making it more durable, but slower because it can't absorb the wax as well, and you have more friction.

I am by no means a racer, but this is my knowledge, maybe someone wil enlighten us more in detail.

Dragon's Lair Member

Drop Cliffs, Not Bombs

Make Turns, Not War

Bomb Hills, Not People

Member #259

 
well i could go real deep into this but it would take like 4 hours to type it all out basically all you need to know is centered.

www.highsocietyfreeride.com

your a good friend...to throw rocks at. TL.

AWwwh you picked her up, I was gonna mount her. stu

 
Ehhh, that IMS site is more of an advertisement and doesnt give any real world data, just chemical makeup statistics. I was really looking for something more like a chart with impact resistance/friction/hardness on 2 axis/ect in a real world test situation of the base laminated to a core layer. Im just questioning this because it seems like some of the newer ceramic technologies would be much beter suited for a base material than extruded and sintered bases that are used on current day skis(similar to the racing sailboats hulls). Any data people have on this would be appreciated though, and i highly doubt any of it will be over my head on a level of understanding comparable to the person that actualy invented the shit.

 
The spec sheet gives you what you aked about. Specific numbers for different bases are given on durability (abrasion resistance) and porosity (wax absorbsion). On-snow friction is difficult to quantify since it depends on wax and snow conditions. I don't know where you would find anything else specific to ski bases. On a more general level, you should be able to find volues of data written on HMW and UHMW.

 
The site gives theoretic examples according to the chemical composition. And it is the catalog for a company that sells the product. Do you trust the foam core propaganda that salomon spews? In a lab the foam core is fantastic, in the real world for freestyle it sucks, but is improving.

I don't trust that the numbers they give are acurate for the elements they describe in the temperatures that most people ski in. Although the numbers they give can be useful, in the application of ski bases im almost entirely sure they are innacurate. So ill just do the tests myself unless someone had some independent tests done on the subject.

 
The numbers aren't theoretical. They're standardized. I don't believe everything that Salomon says, but I do trust that a 114mm tip width is indeed 114 mm.

 
Something to keep in mind, I believe there is basically one company worldwide that produces all the P-Tex that is used by the ski/snowboard industry.

My understanding is that there are mainly 3 standards (most used) for bases, Extruded, P-Tex 2000 and P-Tex 4000.

The biggest difference has to do with how many cells there are and their ability to hold wax/additives. An extruded base, will typically last longer (more durable), but it is harder to wax and will not take wax like a sintered base. Basically, tougher base material, less performance (slower ski)

P-Tex 2000 (which I believe is the most common base material in the past decade or 2) will take wax into the cells much better than an extruded base, but is softer and will take more damage (as well as cell damage, P-Tex hairs and general greying/drying of the bases).

P-Tex 4000, has twice (roughly) the cells that P-Tex 2000 has and will take the most wax in. I believe P-Tex 4000 is generally used as a race base. This will be a faster base than extruded or 2000, but will require more maintenance and will take more damage.

Remember, what makes a ski slide is the hydrophobic propetries of the wax/additives (in the cells of the base) and the base's abililty to create the proper level of friction (controling the proper amount of water between the ski and snow). Think about it this way, a P-Tex 4000 base will need to be waxed every time you ski, a P-Tex 2000 maybe once a week, and an extruded base probably every month (this is for example sake, not literally how often a ski should be waxed as there are too many variables as we all know). For all intensive pruposes, extruded bases are like hard plastic, P-Tex 2000 bases are like a hard plastic base that has been weakened by adding little air bubbles (that hold/release the wax allowing the ski to slide), P-Tex 4000 basically has twice as many bubbles as P-Tex 2000, so a greater ability to apply the wax/additives to the snow, but a much weaker structure.

life is too short to have any regrets
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top