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).
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).