Talk:Ski wax

message: Does klister derive from the Norwegian word klister? In that case, it is understandably that it is sticky, since it literally means "glue" (or "paste"). I think it's very likely that this is the case, but for the moment, I'm trying to find hard proof.
:The norwegian newspaper Aftenposten published an article about the history about klister in 2003, see the google cache Aftenposten:An ode to Klister (in english)  --Berland 15:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Klister

message: WaxFax An Article by Terry Hertel explaining research and development of the most high tech ski waxes available.
Why is my link to the WaxFax article continually deleted? There is a lot of valuable information in there. I'm not spamming the Wikipedia text with references to my wax. Although the article contains references to our company, it is more an informative article discussing the most advanced ski wax in existence. When describing the science and advancements in ski wax, its almost impossible not to mention our technology and achievements in the field. -Hertel Wax
-while I wasn't the one deleting your links, I think its entirely plausible to talk about ski wax technology without mentioning your company. Ultimately wax is a pretty simple animal, a hydrocarbon chain with temperature specific saturation (anyone that has taken a semester of organic chemistry can tell you that). Yes you put surfactants in there, but so does everyone else, there is nothing surprising or revolutionary contained in your pdf that demands it be a matter of public record. I'm not going to remove your links (I'll leave that to people more accustomed to dealing with such matters), but I will defend their decision to do so.--FlamingoChavez (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WaxFax

message: Under Hot Waxing:
:This method, albeit tedious, offers the best performance.
versus
:Liquid and spray waxes in particular provide better coverage than solid wax applied with an iron, however to achieve the same durability as hot waxing an iron is used after liquid or spray wax application to maximize penetration of the wax into the base.
Can anyone clean this up and add references?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plhofmei (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict

message: I read this, and I have real problems with its assumptions.  Talbot, the author, separates kick and glide waxes; my experience for thirty years (OMG!) is that cross-country ski wax does both depending whether or not you are pressing down on it.  Talbot also claims that the camber of the ski prevents the middle of the ski from touching the snow when weight is evenly distributed; this easily proves he has never cross-country skied!
To clarify, I use the wax rated for the temperature range for the entire ski, then add the next higher temperature-rated wax to the underfoot and, optionally, the ends; this latter is the "kicker."  If snow is fresh and cold, kicker is probably not needed.  Older icy snow and/or higher temperatures require higher temperature-rated waxes and often a very liberal smearing of soft, sticky kicker wax.
The theory, as it has been explained to me, is that cross country skiing depends on water for grip, that water has a higher coefficient of friction on wax than snow does.  Pressing down on the snow, or compressing it, creates the thin layer of water for grip that Talbot claims allows slide.
Either way, the above waxing strategy has worked for me for longer than I can remember!  I will further attempt to clarify the phenomena, and if Talbot proves to be wrong as I think he is, I will remove the link.--John Bessa (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Science of Ski Waxes''

message: The difference between a kick and glide wax is temperature and, to a lesser degree, other snow conditions.  A glide wax at warmer temperatures is a kick wax at lower temperatures.  A wax that is a kick wax at a lower temperature is useless at a higher temperature as it will "ball up" the snow under the skis, and has to be scraped off.
--John Bessa (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Kick and glide wax

message: Kickwax contains both grip and glide components. This is true for current and older kickwaxes (and klisters).
The method of coating the entire ski base from tip to tail with kickwax is a method that was used with wooden skis to improve their glide. For competitive skiers prior to the early 1970's the glide zones of wooden skis were coated with a colder, harder kickwax to increase glide. With the introduction of synthetic (plastic) ski bases grip application was reduced to only the kick zone because the plastic bases had better glide properties than kickwax. The camber of the kick zone is to raise the kickwax out of the snow to further reduce drag -- this comment is applicable to wooden skis too. A properly selected ski, modern or wooden, will close the camber of a ski when a complete weight shift happens thereby physically engaging the kickwax.
Kickwax does NOT engage grip with liquid water. Glide is engaged with a very thin film of liquid water. The structure of solid water (snow) presses into the kickwax creating a solid physical interaction. When snow crystals cannot penetrate into the kickwax enough then the physical interaction will break free under load. When snow crystals penetrate too much then the crystals cannot be released from the kickwax leading to "clumping" or sometimes icing. The correctly selected kickwax to match the conditions will have enough crystal penetration depth for grip, yet be shallow enough to easily be freed during the glide phase.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barking (talk • contribs) 19:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to John Bessa

message: I have commented out the following passage, pending discussion:
:A University of New Hampshire undergraduate named Evelyn French estimates of the amount of PFOA in ski wax released to the environment at a ski resort approximates that 1 million skiers visit the resort in a year, each using ¾ of an ounce of wax, resulting in 46,875 pounds of PFOA deposited in the surrounding soil and water systems. To extrapolate to the US as a whole, the ~60 million ski visits each year result in ~2.8 million pounds of PFOA being released to the environment.French, Evelyn. "Waxing for a Greener Tomorrow." Ski Wax and Snowboard Wax. 2010. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. <http://www.purlwax.com/home-page/waxing-in-environmental-news/>. French's arithmetic, however, has been challenged. Because of its expense, no wax company uses more than a 1% concentration of FHCs in any bulk wax, so even if all American skiers used FHC wax every day, the total FHC burden would be on the order of 28,000 pounds (about 13 metric tonnes). Moreover, the bulk of those FHC materials go not into the watershed, but onto the waxing room floor in the form of scrapings, to be bagged as landfill trash or recycling.Masia, Seth. "History of Ski Wax" http://skiinghistory.org/history/grip-and-glide-short-history-ski-wax
I find two things highly improbable: 1) that any X-C ski resort would have one million visitors, much less each one having that many and 2) that a significant fraction of them would have PFOA waxes on their skis. —User:HopsonRoad 15:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: PFOA is clearly an environmental issue, but the according to Norwegian research the amount to released to nature has resulted in negligible concentrations. Looks like one exception is Holmenkollen where there is notable pollution in the ground. The environmental protection authorities wants to ban PFOA. I have heard that in the Oslo forest (Nordmarka) some tons (maybe 10,000 kgs) of ski wax/klister are left behind in the tracks during the winter, Nordmarka is possibly the most visited "X-C resort" in the world. Most of the wax used in Norway is conventional Swix. I think this controversial calculation by an undergraduate student can safely be remove from the artilce.--— Erik Jr. 11:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improbable assertion