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

mogsie

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Jan 17, 2016
Posts
69
Just read their kickstart page and don't know what the fuss is all about... This new product is just like the gliding wax I put on my waxless x-country skis that I use at the end of the season except that it seem to be the next generation: much more resistant and keeps its gliding property overtime... But like they say, it will be better than a universal wax but but it won't be as good as a good waxing job...
The thing that I like the most about it is the environment friendly part...
But I will still wax my skis...because I like to do it...ogsmile
 

Unpiste

Booting down
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 15, 2016
Posts
586
Location
California
This does [raise] a different question, is polyethylene the best base? Stainless steel? Teflon? Chrome? An ablative material like graphite pencil? Unobtanium!
Definitely waiting for unobtanium bases on my next skis…
 

RNZ

aka Ski Kiwi
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
169
Location
New Zealand
Ok, I’ll chime in...

We are gonna ski maybe 20 days a year as long as we live in Florida, LOTS more when we move to Utah.

We are going to be on a 12 days on skis trip in December, 37 days from now but who is counting :yahoo:

So, on a 12 day on the snow trip I would need to wax for sure. I don’t know doodie (notice I did not say sh!t) about waxing skis, much less taking the stuff with me. I like to travel light, as in VERY light. So a lifetime wax seems like a good deal. I did the Kickstarter 2 Pack, so I got two packs for $160, $80 per pair. I doubt it will arrive before we leave, but if it does, I will apply it to both pair of skis.

In the big scheme of things, it amazes me at the things people will put up a fuss about, and then waste money on other stuff. Personally I squeeze the last oz. of toothpaste out of the tube, but I look at the cost benefit of every purchase I make no matter how large or small. I am really into preventative maintenance and I am not skerd of buying once and crying once. I likely would have to pay to have two pair of skis waxed.... Over the course of those skis, the $160 is a freaking bargain.

Let’s see, $160.... $25 more than a 1 day lift ticket at Deer Valley.... 4 bottles of wine.... 3 tanks of gas.... 1/3 of a night for a ski in/ski out lodging

I potentially could be saving money
I potentially could have wasted money
I won’t know the freaking difference anyway this year :philgoat:
Mrs. 53 will be able to tell the difference by day 2 :Teleb:

Time will tell.

I'm in the same space as Jay.

We are proudly vacation skiers - of perhaps extreme proportions. We use our summer vacation time to head to the Northern Hemisphere to ski which is where most of our skiing is done. We do all of our skiing in one three week or so block, so need to get skis waxed while we are away. Such a simple thing has proved to be so problematic at times in the last couple of years, such as the overnight service that required you to drop your skis off before lunch and pick them up at lunch the next day - thus losing a days skiing. Last year we resorted to crayoning on wax and corking each morning but that is not a long time solution. So this year I am channeling @mdf and have sourced and bought a dual voltage waxing iron which will now travel with us so I can wax the skis in the condo basement or similar. And we travel light too, there is nothing like traveling internationally with sports gear to make you focus on what you pack.

But this would be a game changer for us and it would pay for itself in on 20 day vacation, or not even 1.5 50litre tanks of gas at our prices! Or three or four bottles of good Central Otago Pinot Noir etc
 

pchewn

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Posts
2,607
Location
Beaverton OR USA
Not sure I buy that. My understanding is that the modulus changes by about 10 to 20 percent. Makes sense if the tested steel is shaped like a composite panel with the hardened skin adding stiffness. My analogy fails with different shapes - that don't look like skis. Hardening a skin of a ski will change the stiffness.



This however makes the question of hardening bases irrelevant. Whatever skin exists in a ski ( especially carbon but even including wood) had better be a LOT stiffer than the polyethylene base - regardless of how it's been modified.

This does beg a different question, is polyethylene the best base? Stainless steel? Teflon? Chrome? An ablative material like graphite pencil? Unobtanium!

Eric

There is nothing to "BUY". It is a fact that steel does not change its stiffness when it is hardened. It is very easily tested by making a test sample and measuring the slope of the stress/strain curve under elastic conditions. Then harden the steel and measure the same property. You will get the exact same value.
 

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,166
Location
Gloucester, MA
So you knock a nice gouge into your ski that now requires a good size p-tex repair. You now have an untreated section of your ski base. Speed killer. What is the shelf life of this product? Is it a two part mixture? Is it a single solution?

They present wax like it is a surface treatment only. I've rarely had my skis get grippy and slow. We sinter ski bases so that wax can permeate. If this solution saturates your base as they say than any waxing you attempt on the skis afterwards would only be a very short lived surface treatment. Would it not?

They address p-tex repairs in the kickstarter info. Basically, you have to put new treatment on the repair site if you want the same properties. It would depend on how big a site if it is worth the money. They dont say how long the stuff is good for once the package is opened. I can forsee them selling small repair packages for cheap if this stuff catches on.

PisteOFF and Jacques discuss wax being on the ski versus in it. DPS describes wax as being on the ski. I think this is mostly semantics, and both are correct. It depends on your perspective. I did some wax research (I am a engineer) and spoke to people at Dominator. For the most part, wax does not chemically react with p-tex. Under a microscope, p-tex is full of holes and gaps, and if you texture it, even more porous. Wax works its way into all the porosity. A hot box helps that process and it gets deeper into the porosity. Temp and the viscosity of the wax are the keys. Even with a hot box, It still does not get through the entire depth of the p-tex base. Exactly how much, I am not sure. As stated before, as you ski the wax gets pulled or extrudes out of the pores. Basically this is a surface interaction with the snow, with some depth of penetration of the wax into the base.

What DPS is talking about, is their new stuff chemically interacts with the p-tex and does so through the entire depth of the base. It is NOT filling the pores, it is reacting with the p-tex and molecularly combining with the p-tex molecules and making a new compound. Call it DPS-tex. Does it alter the pores, maybe? They haven't discussed what the new base is like other to say it is blackish and shiny. We are not talking about a surface treatment, which is what wax is (surface vs molecular), we are talking about compound modification on a molecular level. DPS claims you can wax a treated ski, just as before. This would lead me to believe the pores aren't changed very much. If DPS-tex is more slippery to snow, it might be more slippery to wax, but again, DPs hasn't been specific about this and we won't know till we try it.
 

Marker

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Posts
2,352
Location
Kennett Square, PA & Killington, VT
Chemist lab coat on: P-tex (UHMWPE - Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene) is unique in its combination of low surface energy to repel water and adsorb wax, while having the tensile properties, abrasion resistance, and impact resistance to function as a ski base. If sintered rather than extruded, it is a mass of fused particles with some porosity to increase the surface area of the adsorbed wax. Apparently, the sintering process can be screwed up and ruin the porosity of p-tex. There are other materials with lower surface energy (teflon), but not with such outstanding physical properties to tolerate abuse. UHMWPE might be resistance to strong acids and bases, but not to oxidation and attack by organic radicals, which will lower its molecular weight and lead to loss of physical properties. I will reserve judgement until I see the chemical structures in their yet unpublished patent, but Phantom is unlikely to be that reactive, so this stuff is just adsorbing onto the surface of the p-tex particles like wax. I suspect the difference is in the "curing", which is a layman's term for cross-linking of a thermoset polymer. After cross-linking, the thermoset is no longer mobile like wax to exude from the pores, but it permanently lowers the surface energy of the ski base. Juice appears to be a thermoset polysiloxane cured with epoxy that has very low surface energy, but it remains to be seen what is the polymer used for Phantom. I guess I'm too much the chemist and would like to know the chemical structure and properties first.

Chemist lab coat off: I was waxing my skis on Sunday using Dominator prep-wax since they are well-conditioned with it. Next up is Zoom. When can we start skiing?
 

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,166
Location
Gloucester, MA
Very interesting post, Marker. What you say makes a lot of sense. It will be enlightening when DPS publishes more technical details about its new "magic sauce". I read the thread on porosity of UHMWPE and it was interesting. I can believe a small sample under a SEM shows no porosity. Its a little hard to believe that wax penetration is strictly due to the structure put into the base and its all on the surface.

My experience is my zoom glide wax used to wear off in less than a day. Based on that experience, I would believe that wax stays strictly on the surface. After talking to Dominator, they told me to hot scrape with base prep wax to clean the ski, and then hot wax with a generous amount of prep wax. After that put whatever glide wax on that I want. They suggesting mixing waxes depending on the temp. I typically use Bullet, zoom, hyperzoom, and butter (not hot waxed on). They said the base prep wax penetrates deeper, and glide wax sticks to base prep wax much better than p-tex. I followed their advice and now I typically get 3 days of skiing before I need glide wax again. Something got better and I am quite pleased, even if lacking a scientific explanation for it.
 

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,166
Location
Gloucester, MA
Here are some responses from the DPS CEO about Phantom from the Blister site:

Question:
You compare the performance of Phantom to an all temp wax. I assume you do that to say the “glide” is a similar level and stays the same over a wide temp range. Alll temp. waxes have a negative side, they get sticky in really warm temps (greater than 40F) and really cold temps (less than 15F) roughly. Does Phantom do the same thing, or does the glide stay the same at each extreme? It looks like you have information out that says its still good in warm temps, how about very cold temps?

Answer:
We benchmarked Phantom against brandname HC all-temp waxes. We have enjoyed and verified consistent performance from 10 degrees F all the way up to the warmest spring snow, and through a variety of humidities, grain types, etc. We are confident with HC wax performance equivalency in these temperatures ranges. As noted in the Kickstarter, we have not yet been able to test Phantom in conditions below 10F (hope to get some days later this month), simply because we have not had any such days in Utah from last March onward, nor this past season in either New Zealand or Chile. That said, typically nothing runs too quickly below 10F, and the days we have tested Phantom at 10F, including fresh pow have been great and successful, so there is nothing to indicate that going a bit below 10F will generate surprises. On the other extreme, Phantom has consistently exceeded HC all-temp wax in warm snow/spring conditions. Phantom is not as fast as LF/HF wax or a good temp specific wax that is running right in its designed operating range. That’s not the point of Phantom though; the goal is consistent, non-deteriorating glide everyday, every run for skiers and snowboarders who don’t want to wax every 1-3 days. Unless you are waxing that consistently, Phantom’s performance will exceed wax in reality simply because it’s always there and present; it’s not constantly sloughing off. In respect to race waxes, Phantom does NOT have any impact on the base’s ability to take on, or perform with any type of wax. Feel free to wax over Phantom for racing or specific conditions if you so chose. When the wax wears off, you will be happy to be on a Phantomed base versus a dry/slow base, which is a pretty great thing.

Question:
Is there any situation, any snow condition, any temperature, any crystal structure, etc, when a Phantom treated ski will glide WORSE than an unwaxed ski?

You describe a Phantom treated ski as: Not as slippery as a freshly waxed ski at “very slow speed” but “after gaining just a little bit of speed, Phantom delivers significant acceleration and achieves strong top-end glide”.
Please clarify:

a) How fast do you need to be moving before improved glide is first noticed?

b) At that initial “very slow speed” described does the Phantom treated ski glide worse (drag more) than an untreated unwaxed ski base? For example, when skating slowly up an incline does the Phantom treated ski drag more than an untreated unwaxed ski?

Answer:
+ There is no condition (grain type or temperature) we have found where Phantom performs worse than an unwaxed base. It is faster than an unwaxed base across the board, and the gap widens the warmer the snow temperature gets.

+ Phantom is not wax. It doesn’t have the same slippery lift line feel of fresh wax. It feels more akin to an unwaxed base under what I would say is about 2-3 mph, and that’s why we haven’t endorsed it for Nordic at this time. Once you cross that low speed threshold though, you feel it quickly come up to speed and the performance turns on.

+ Phantom increases the shore hardness of the base material (we will publish the lab data on this shortly); so the base will develop less hair, and be more resilient to impact. But over time, any base will roughen beyond the smoothness inherent in a freshly stone ground base. After season long testing in two zones, there wasn’t an appreciable drop in Phantom’s glide performance despite no stone-grinding, which is great, and something people will be super happy with. Stone grinding will refresh the abrasion/aesthetic element, but again is totally optional (but why not…fresh edges are a nice thing to have too). I can’t quantify how much additional glide performance is gained from refreshing the abrasion aspect of things as it’s relative to the condition and damage to the base prior to treatment.

We have seen a comment on forums touting how wax seals the base and protects it from abrasion. Sure, if you are waxing religiously every couple of days, then OK. That’s great, all the power to you. However, I’ll bet that the constant wax routine applies to the smallest tiny minuscule minority of core/everyday skiers and snowboarders as well as vacationers. I personally don’t, and don’t know anyone who does –– again, not to say those folks aren’t out there. Phantom is designed for all of us who don’t have the time and energy to deal with it constantly, but still ride seriously and frequently. Once and done; It’s not going to win a World Cup race on its own, but again, we aren’t trying to. With Phantom I can hit a long trip, or a long season, and know that I have a consistent, good level of glide all the way through; it’s going to charge through sun/shadow spots in the spring, avoid me kissing my tips in the mank, let me pass people on catwalks, and plane in deep pow. If I want to race, I can just wax over the Phantomed base with toxic LF/HF, but personally, knowing the chemical reality of wax, I just wouldn’t, and I am not a racer anyway
 

mogsie

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Jan 17, 2016
Posts
69
Hum... Phantom comes into plays at 2-3 mph... I wonder how it would perform when I go into bumps or go slower in trails that are more demanding to me?

They did an experiment at Ski magazine:
https://www.skimag.com/gear/dps-pha...il&utm_content=Story1&utm_campaign=110617_hed

And the thing I tought had the most sense is using the Phantom on skis that you use skins on... I could see myself using it on my skis that I use in trees and bumps (it harden the base) and spend more time waxing my carving machines... :)
 

Unpiste

Booting down
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 15, 2016
Posts
586
Location
California

dbostedo

Asst. Gathermeister
Moderator
Contributor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Posts
18,097
Location
75% Virginia, 25% Colorado

Polo

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Posts
70
Apparently a lot of people like the idea of not having to wax skis

I think a lot of people like the idea of it being easy and, often, the idea of easy supersedes good judgement. Good marketing along with ones laziness, can be a powerful selling tool.

As I said in a earlier post, it doesn't pass my sniff test so I'll pass but I can certainly see where it would appeal to many others.
 

Marker

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Posts
2,352
Location
Kennett Square, PA & Killington, VT
I think a lot of people like the idea of it being easy and, often, the idea of easy supersedes good judgement. Good marketing along with ones laziness, can be a powerful selling tool.

As I said in a earlier post, it doesn't pass my sniff test so I'll pass but I can certainly see where it would appeal to many others.

I can imagine this being said at the introduction of Head's composite skis and Elan's shaped skis. How'd that work out? Anyone still skiing on straight wooden skis with cable bindings and leather boots?

Unless you are willing to give it a try yourself, even through demos, you are going to be dependent on the opinion of others.
 

Polo

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Posts
70
I can imagine this being said at the introduction of Head's composite skis and Elan's shaped skis. How'd that work out? Anyone still skiing on straight wooden skis with cable bindings and leather boots?

Unless you are willing to give it a try yourself, even through demos, you are going to be dependent on the opinion of others.

You really see those things being the same as pitching a new cure all wonder drug???
 

TonyC

Contact me at bestsnow.net
Pass Pulled
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Posts
678
Location
Glendale, CA
I can imagine this being said at the introduction of Head's composite skis and Elan's shaped skis. How'd that work out? Anyone still skiing on straight wooden skis with cable bindings and leather boots?

Unless you are willing to give it a try yourself, even through demos, you are going to be dependent on the opinion of others.
+1 The avid ski community is extremely conservative IMHO about new technologies. This forum and TGR are precisely the places I would expect the most resistance to something like this. Most of us are in the "If it's not broke, don't fix it" camp. When the new skis came out in the mid-1990's, I was in no hurry to embrace shaped skis as I had put in the effort and mileage long ago to carve groomers. For powder skiing, where I had inconsistent results, I was much faster to try the new technology where I thought I needed some help.

Liz and I are rather lazy about ski maintenance, don't do it until edges or bases need work. In the good years with a lot of snow that can be quite awhile. So Phantom is a technology I'm predisposed to adopt if it works. Since longevity is the key attraction, it's hard to evaluate at introduction until independent gear heads like we have on PugSki have extended time to test. If those tests are successful, I suspect many of us will be lined up for Phantom application at the DPS demo at the Gathering.
 

dbostedo

Asst. Gathermeister
Moderator
Contributor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Posts
18,097
Location
75% Virginia, 25% Colorado
You really see those things being the same as pitching a new cure all wonder drug???

I don't see Phantom as being a cure all wonder drug - that sounds overstated. Waxing is a small-ish part of skiing, and just isn't that important to a large portion of skiers... if this helps and winds up being the equivalent to the seasonal wax job most folks get (if they get that) it will be an improvement.

If you're fastidious about waxing and using the right temperature, and doing proper base prep, etc. it won't be an improvement for you.

If you would rather not spend time doing all that, and maybe get decent results, it might be for you.

A wonder drug, IMO, would be something that claims to make you ski better! :ogcool:
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top