Smoothness of the braid in the Guides

[JasonGotaProblem]

So I'm swinging for the fences here. Isn't PE plastic hydrophobic to begin with? I thought most of what made wax worthwhile was the effect of smoothing out the surface by filling in micro scratches and crevices.

So the skis come with scratches added... so the wax adheres better? I'm just trying to understand.

[jurelometer]

So I'm swinging for the fences here. Isn't PE plastic hydrophobic to begin with? I thought most of what made wax worthwhile was the effect of smoothing out the surface by filling in micro scratches and crevices.

So the skis come with scratches added... so the wax adheres better? I'm just trying to understand.

As I noted before, I just waxed my skis because that was what we were supposed to do, so I don't have too much insight to offer here.

For one thing, if the snow is wet, skis with smooth bases will stick to the snow like a suction cup.  Hit a patch of super wet spring snow with worn-smooth bases. and your skis will act like you slammed on the brakes.  Unfortunately, your body will continue forward at the same speed.  Don't ask me how I know this.  The theory for colder snow is that the base structure helps create friction at the point of  contact with hard snow crystals.  This friction melts a tiny bit of snow, and the rest of the ski sort of hydroplanes on this thin layer of water.

The race techs know what scratch depths and patterns work best for which conditions. As to why, there are theories.

Not all PE types have the same properties, and the question is not just if a surface is hydrophobic, but how hydrophobic.

That article that I linked above talks about a bunch of this, plus it shows how they measure how hydrophobic a surface is.

Attached is a photo of typical alpine race ski structure with a coat of wax on top.

Feel free to jump in on this Boon.  I am at my limit on ski wax here.

-J

[boon]

The trick to optimising ski performance is getting the right amount of water on the bottom of the ski. Too much water and, as you touched on, you get a suction-like effect that severely limits glide. When I was skiing a LOT and only getting a couple of years from a pair of skis, we would put an extremely aggressive base grind on the skis in spring, but you can only do this for a couple of seasons before the base gets too thin. Conversely if you're skiing on very cold "dry" powder snow you actually need to encourage water to hang around on the bases, or they get "sticky" because un-melted snow is a surprisingly grippy surface.

Wax is an interesting one. There are hundreds of compounds, hardnesses, blah blah you name it, all with varying levels of effectiveness (and toxicity to local wildlife). For racers it is extremely important, because they care about 10ths of seconds, and their skis only need to do one race before getting tuned up. Even if the wax is completely gone by half way down the course, it has served its purpose if it made them 1% faster through that half. Accordingly top ski teams put a huge amount of time and effort into waxing, which I believe is part of the reason "regular" skiers look at it and think it's important.

There are all sorts of loopy versions of how ski wax works, with one of the more common ones being that heating the ski bases while ironing on the wax causes "pores" to open in the base and entrap wax, which is kinda patently ridiculous. If an enormous complex hydrocarbon could fit inside any pores in the base then water would slip right on in there and your bases would get waterlogged. The theory I think makes the most sense is that at a microscopic level the wax fills imperfections in the ski base/structure, slightly reducing COF, but also that when done properly (brushing/buffing after waxing) generally makes the base smoother and/or lets the structure function as intended.


Significant digression here, but I think the parallel to line conditioning products remains: I would imagine they are actually moderately effective, perhaps for a few casts, and therefore for competitive casters, or maybe someone requiring the utmost performance for throwing lures, they are useful. I would be fascinated to see how long the lubrication effect remains for.

[MexicanGulf]

I remember that many friends who use loop to loop, bimini, top shot, etc. connections use a specific wax to increase the smoothness of their connections. It should be this one in the photo I attach. For this reason I thought that the product of a large Japanese company like Varivas, which enjoys an immaculate reputation in all continents of the globe, could be a truly interesting solution. As far as I know, there is something silicone-based inside the Varivas spray.