> Sounds a little like NotWax a liquid teflon wipe.
Indeed, the information is there, at CPS (Formery Gurit, formerly IMS)
A total of 1,2g (!!) goes into a whole P-Tex 4000 ski base.
So even if a sizable amount out of that 1,2g wears out the base, I
don't think it's something I will rely on.
Unless someone comes out and demonstrate that this very small amout of
wax act as catalyst or something alike.
Moreover, having seen racers at the 50km Olympic skate race allowed to
change up to 4 times their skis, the entire world now knows that high
performance wax does not "wear" out the base, it simply goes out quite
I learn from you jay, the waxing paradox which is trying to bond a
highly repelent component (fluor) onto another highly repelent
,done by mean of "wax", which in return is not so good in le long run
(non abrasive resistant, prone to capture dust and less
I'm not chemist but Kuzmin's idea to achieve a fluoro coating w/o wax
is something promising, until we get full FP bases.
> > >http://kuzmin.se/pgs/fp_drum_en.html
> > Sounds a little like NotWax a liquid teflon wipe.
Just order a roll of single-sided Teflon tape from McMaster and tape
it to the bottom of the skis if you want a teflon coating w/o waxing.
>>> Sounds a little like NotWax a liquid teflon wipe.
> Oh, no. Pseudoscience is back again.
> Just order a roll of single-sided Teflon tape from McMaster and tape
> it to the bottom of the skis if you want a teflon coating w/o waxing.
So if a small amount of 1.2g sounds a lot to you, OK fine. I prefer
not to rely on that.
BTW, my kuzmin-preped bases never show the 'classic "dry base white
Maybe good stone grinders exists, but I have not one at hand and I
like to do things myself.
So, I've thrown away my custom-made hot-box and swapped for a pair of
At least I've gained a lot of room in my garage.
Mr Urs Geissbhler has been quoted by Leonid Kuzmin and also there by
Alan Shepard : http://www.escnordic.org.uk/ (Myths, then pores)
Here are bits and pieces I found:
Strange: http://www.ims-plastics.com/ comes up as a page in Asian
characters and lemon slices. It seems to be a foreign
http://www.compositesconsultants.com/cats/Quick.php?MID=244 lists IMS
Kunstsoff in Austria, as being Part of the Gurit Composite Technologies
Group of Gurit-Heberlein and having the same (above (hijacked?) website.
http://www.escnordic.org.uk/myths/pores.htm is circa 2007
This page has no listing for wax absorption for extruded P-tex
This page for sintered P-Tex does list wax absorption to P-Tex
The data sheets on these pages show the same thing (no absorption
listing for extruded)
This seems to indicate sintered P-Tex absorbs wax, while extruded does not.
Perhaps the name "pores" is incorrect? It seems that sintered P-Tex does
indeed absorb wax (at least the 1.2 grams previously mentioned.)
I guess the question then is: Is the absorbed wax actually doing anything.
A simple example from my own experience in using a variety of xc skis
(some with quite old plastic bases) is that if they are completely
unwaxed, they end up having ice stick to them, so it seems that wax is
doing something useful.
> Yes it is.
> Mr Urs Geissbhler has been quoted by Leonid Kuzmin and also there by
> Alan Shepard : http://www.escnordic.org.uk/ (Myths, then pores)
>> Urs Geissbhler
>> Chemical Engineer
>> Research& Development Manager
>> IMS Kunststoff AG
>> Rtimoosstrasse 5
>> CH-3076 Worb
>> in which he said,
>> "there are absolutely no pores in press sintered UHMWPE base material."