• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Myths about UHMW Base Material and New Base Material Idea

skibob

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Posts
4,268
Location
Santa Rosa Fire Belt
To me, the question of whether to develop a new base doesn't revolve around questions of speed. The number of people who would pay for tiny incremental improvements is very limited. And a large improvement could make a ski a very difficult (and dangerous) thing to handle for most skiers.

Lower maintenance would be one thing. But you are arguing that waxing is wasted effort/money already with UHMW. So if we can have our current skis w/o bothering with waxing, you can't really offer lower maintenance than that.

Greater durability sounds good, but really only park skiers and those who really abuse them could actually benefit. And how durable can they really get?

So, after that, the only thing that could really drive it would be reduced cost (and simpler manufacturing, which ultimately translates into reduced cost).
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,894
Location
Behavioral sink
To me, the question of whether to develop a new base doesn't revolve around questions of speed. The number of people who would pay for tiny incremental improvements is very limited. And a large improvement could make a ski a very difficult (and dangerous) thing to handle for most skiers.

Nice post, but I don't see eye to eye with you on some of your above points.

First, the issue isn't about tiny incremental improvements in top speed on idealised snow - it's about large improvements in the force required for intermediate speeds and the ability to adapt to bad snow, including fresh manmade snow, including salted snow, including slush of wet-through type and the slightly dryer kind, including extremely dry snow, including new-fallen sharp flakes, and so forth.

Second, the moment it's clear that improved slide means improved traversal of catwalks and runouts at relatively slow speeds (and less poling) the number of people who would pay for improved feel becomes significantly larger.

Third, why dangerous? A freshly waxed and brushed ski is already pretty durn close to zero ground reaction force to most walking movements, but new skiers overcome that and learn to use edges for reliable push off. Sure it's counterintuitive for beginners, but we have here a community of people who have all overcome this difficulty.

As a subpoint here, no matter how good the surface slide, improved bases are not likely to get rid of snow compression. Thus even the most slidey bases imaginable will have forward-striding ability using the reaction force from snow compression.

So, ideally he'd have a ski that can accelerate to intermediate-skier speeds with less time in the fall line, be able to keep that freshly-waxed loosey-goosey feel past the first two runs, and be able to adapt to really atrocious snow. If improved durability means less damage from rock hits, I will call that a win-win-win.
 

skibob

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Posts
4,268
Location
Santa Rosa Fire Belt
Nice post, but I don't see eye to eye with you on some of your above points.

First, the issue isn't about tiny incremental improvements in top speed on idealised snow - it's about large improvements in the force required for intermediate speeds and the ability to adapt to bad snow, including fresh manmade snow, including salted snow, including slush of wet-through type and the slightly dryer kind, including extremely dry snow, including new-fallen sharp flakes, and so forth.

Second, the moment it's clear that improved slide means improved traversal of catwalks and runouts at relatively slow speeds (and less poling) the number of people who would pay for improved feel becomes significantly larger.

Third, why dangerous? A freshly waxed and brushed ski is already pretty durn close to zero ground reaction force to most walking movements, but new skiers overcome that and learn to use edges for reliable push off. Sure it's counterintuitive for beginners, but we have here a community of people who have all overcome this difficulty.

As a subpoint here, no matter how good the surface slide, improved bases are not likely to get rid of snow compression. Thus even the most slidey bases imaginable will have forward-striding ability using the reaction force from snow compression.

So, ideally he'd have a ski that can accelerate to intermediate-skier speeds with less time in the fall line, be able to keep that freshly-waxed loosey-goosey feel past the first two runs, and be able to adapt to really atrocious snow. If improved durability means less damage from rock hits, I will call that a win-win-win.
Some good points re: crap snow and cat tracks.

As far as dangerous, you can get a lot lower friction than a well-tuned ski (as they currently exist). I'm not saying anything like that is (or isn't) a practical alternative. But if consistency is goal (and its a good one) you wouldn't need to go all that far to have achieved a better mousetrap.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Tony Warren

Tony Warren

Me on the left, The Padre on the right
Skier
Joined
Jul 25, 2016
Posts
194
Location
I travel a lot.
Some good points re: crap snow and cat tracks.

As far as dangerous, you can get a lot lower friction than a well-tuned ski (as they currently exist). I'm not saying anything like that is (or isn't) a practical alternative. But inconsistency is goal (and its a good one) you wouldn't need to go all that far to have achieved a better mousetrap.

I disagree with the idea that you wouldn't need to go all that far for a better mousetrap.

UHMW is awesome stuff. It is incredibly tough and resilient. It is superior to almost everything else for handling bulk solids that are abrasive and difficult to cause to flow over most other materials. In some applications it lasts many multiples of what super hard steels do. It has great impact resistance, you can't break it at temperatures as low as -360 C. It does not easily take a 'set.' It is very difficult to get stuff to stick to it. Bitumen in slurry will not stick to it and build up. Colloidal clays slide right off if the velocity is right. It operates up to 180F on a continual basis. This stuff is the bomb.

To replace it you need a material with higher tensile strength and very high elongation. The material must have low creep properties. It must have better flexural modulus. It must be at least as tough. It must have a lower coefficient of friction, approaching wet ice on wet ice. It has to be harder. It as to be easily manufactured and it must be easily bonded by the type of adhesives used in the industry. It must be light and with a specific gravity close to 1. It must be anti-static. It must be easy to machine and easy to clean and of course it has to be cheap.

If you have that solution, I will be happy to help you to become a billionaire because the industrial applications would be mindblowing.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Tony Warren

Tony Warren

Me on the left, The Padre on the right
Skier
Joined
Jul 25, 2016
Posts
194
Location
I travel a lot.
I get the other parameters but why SG close to water?

I assume you mean COF. Friction is the enemy of all endeavors. It is always present and if we can control its impact on kinetic actions we make those actions both more efficient and more predictable. Skiing on a perfectly tuned ski is the most sublime part of skiing. We control speed with our edges, with our turns, a base that sticks adds another 'problem' to the ski turn equation that is not needed.
 

skibob

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Posts
4,268
Location
Santa Rosa Fire Belt
I disagree with the idea that you wouldn't need to go all that far for a better mousetrap.

UHMW is awesome stuff. It is incredibly tough and resilient. It is superior to almost everything else for handling bulk solids that are abrasive and difficult to cause to flow over most other materials. In some applications it lasts many multiples of what super hard steels do. It has great impact resistance, you can't break it at temperatures as low as -360 C. It does not easily take a 'set.' It is very difficult to get stuff to stick to it. Bitumen in slurry will not stick to it and build up. Colloidal clays slide right off if the velocity is right. It operates up to 180F on a continual basis. This stuff is the bomb.

To replace it you need a material with higher tensile strength and very high elongation. The material must have low creep properties. It must have better flexural modulus. It must be at least as tough. It must have a lower coefficient of friction, approaching wet ice on wet ice. It has to be harder. It as to be easily manufactured and it must be easily bonded by the type of adhesives used in the industry. It must be light and with a specific gravity close to 1. It must be anti-static. It must be easy to machine and easy to clean and of course it has to be cheap.

If you have that solution, I will be happy to help you to become a billionaire because the industrial applications would be mindblowing.
I agree with most of this, except the cf. I think you are comparing to raw UHMW, while I am comparing to a well prepped ski base at its best (vs at its average). In fact, I don't think it needs to be ANY better than this, so long as it is that good in all/most conditions and over time.

As for my thoughts, I have a lot of experience, interestingly enough, with a variety of polymers in various membrane filtration applications. Quite different from ski bases, but some familiarity with the properties and uses. The only improvement I can think of off the top of my head is extruding with PVDF.
 

mishka

Getting off the lift
Industry Insider
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Posts
341
I don't really know, and after lots of great input from so many people, I think it just has to be tried out.

I hope some of the readers on this forum may be interested in removing the bases from older skis and giving this new idea a try.

Cheers,

Tony

do you have new base material?

Removing the base from old skis not such a great idea easy said than done… minus well make new skis from scratch… I can help you with that if that what you want to do;)
 
Thread Starter
TS
Tony Warren

Tony Warren

Me on the left, The Padre on the right
Skier
Joined
Jul 25, 2016
Posts
194
Location
I travel a lot.
do you have new base material?

Removing the base from old skis not such a great idea easy said than done… minus well make new skis from scratch… I can help you with that if that what you want to do;)

Getting the base off is difficult for sure. When I get some preliminary work done, which I will post here, drop me a line and I will provide you with some base material to try on a pair of your own home-brew skis.

I have some ideas on that front relating to fiber materials and high-strength structures. I will be happy share those with you if you like.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Tony Warren

Tony Warren

Me on the left, The Padre on the right
Skier
Joined
Jul 25, 2016
Posts
194
Location
I travel a lot.
Not hard at all on edgeless XC skis, just pry and peel :)

Yeah but, who gives a rats patootie about those guys! ;) They will of course be a big market. I have some guys who I think will be able to help me out testing for the XC dudes.
 

mishka

Getting off the lift
Industry Insider
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Posts
341
Getting the base off is difficult for sure. When I get some preliminary work done, which I will post here, drop me a line and I will provide you with some base material to try on a pair of your own home-brew skis.

I have some ideas on that front relating to fiber materials and high-strength structures. I will be happy share those with you if you like.

Sure always interesting in something new

Now you know how to find me. let me know when you're ready.

Home-brew skis==== doesn't sound right:(
 

mishka

Getting off the lift
Industry Insider
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Posts
341
no need names just skip location lol

Homemade soup sounds delicious and compliment like. Homemade skis doesn't sound the same way.... maybe it's just me lol
 

mishka

Getting off the lift
Industry Insider
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Posts
341
on the subject....

when I had mass production skis I can square waxing helped and hot ironing wax was looks like better absorption into ptex. Now on my own skis ptex from Crown plastics waxing not the same. It stay on surface never "absorbed" and no noticeable improvement in sliding … At least I didn't notice aaaammm may be a little on a really REALLY wet snow.

forgot to mention on mass production skis I had structure on MadRussian skis did only belt sanding without structure don't own stone grinder
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
Tony Warren

Tony Warren

Me on the left, The Padre on the right
Skier
Joined
Jul 25, 2016
Posts
194
Location
I travel a lot.
on the subject....

when I had must production skis I can square waxing helped and hot ironing wax was looks like better absorption into ptex. Now on my own skis ptex from Crown plastics waxing not the same. It stay on surface never "absorbed" and no noticeable improvement in sliding … At least I didn't notice aaaammm may be a little on a really REALLY wet snow.

It's all the same stuff. Whether it is HDPE or UHMW PE the main difference is in the length of the molecule and how it crosslinks with other molecules of the same material. Wax cannot be absorbed into either material. Wax molecules are just too darn big to flow into the base.

My opinion is, when we see wax absorbed we are really seeing the VOC's in the wax vaporize and disappear into the air in the wax room and our lungs. He says coughing because he spent a lot of time in a wax room without an organic filter mask on!
 

Sponsor

Staff online

  • Dwight
    Practitioner of skiing, solid and liquid
Top