Jump to content
6th May 2024: End-of-season message ×

snow_hippie2

SnowJapan Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    21

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by snow_hippie2

    Wax on / wax off - waxing your 'board / skis.

    in Snow talk, trip reports, Japan avalanche & backcountry

    Posted

    Drip the wax onto the board off the iron (I found I use FAR less since using the paper) pop the paper onto the dripped wax and iron the wax through the paper. Once the wax begins to melt and the paper fills upS with wax it's really easy to slowly drag the paper with the iron on top, across the board.

    Just to make sure I understand you correctly, you're only dripping wax onto one area and then waxing the whole board with that? I use paper too because, as you say, there's less scraping to do after. I might try your method.

     

    Another way to save on wax, which I haven't tried, is re-use the scrapings. Re-melt them into a block or sprinkle on the base and put it in a hotbox, or a hairdryer might work if it doesn't blow them all away.

     

    One thing I can attest to for saving wax is, melt it a litte on the iron then draw the hot corner crayon-style onto the board instead of dripping.

     

    Another thing I haven't tried is, at the beginning of the season hot-scrape with base wax 3x to remove dirt, then more base wax and leave to cool, scrape, then do a layer of super cold (-15C) wax to hold in the base wax, then apply the correct temperature wax for each day you go riding. The idea is the super cold wax is also super strong, so it holds in you base wax for the whole season. Your riding wax is then only a thin layer on top, not wasted on quenching the thirst of the bibulous pores of the base.

     

    SUPER TIP is - find out if your skis/board base is sintered or extruded. If it's the latter you don't ever need to wax because it doesn't absorb the stuff and might even make you go slower. But I'll be waving goodbye to you as I fly past you on the cat tracks because my waxed sintered base is like a Ferrari to you extruded Micra.

    Libtech Skunk Ape

    in Snow talk, trip reports, Japan avalanche & backcountry

    Posted

    If you read the spec comparison I did above you will see they are perfectly matched for comparison. The effective edges are almost the same and the total nose/tail length is almost the same. The hovercraft just takes length off the tail and adds it onto the nose which works. If you went to 169 on the skunk ape you would still only get a 245mm nose length because its a twin. If you are a directional rider then a twin shape is going to suck in powder compared to directional shapes

    Yes, the effective edge for the 160 Hovercraft and 161 Skunk Ape are almost the same - 1220 versus 1210. So you'd expect the Hovercaft to do better on pow. But the 169 Skunk Ape's effective edge is 1270, and for the 180 it's 1370. I'm guessing that means the bigger Skunk Apes have more surface area than the 160 Hovercraft, which would help float on pow. So a heavyish person might be better off on it. I know there are other factors but I don't think effective edge should be completely discounted.

     

    I agree if you never ride switch, a twin shape needlessly adds some length. I'm not super technical and I've never ridden a powder board so I've got to admit I don't know what effect nose length has. But on my 172 Skunk Ape (I weigh 100kg) the nose never stuck and I was amazed how the board kept moving on almost flat powder.

    Libtech Skunk Ape

    in Snow talk, trip reports, Japan avalanche & backcountry

    Posted

    I found a 172 Skunk Ape great on Japanese pow but I haven't tried the Hovercraft to compare it with.

     

    I get the impression you shouldn't be comparing a 161 Skunk Ape with a 160 Hovercraft. 160 is the biggest size Hovercraft make, whereas Skunk Apes go up to 180. For your weight a 169 would be good. You might find it out-performs a 160 Hovercraft in powder. I'm dubious about whether shorter powder-specific boards can really give as much float in pow or stability on the runs as a much longer board.

    Unwaxed skis work better?

    in Snow talk, trip reports, Japan avalanche & backcountry

    Posted

    afaik it also makes a difference depending on the base you have

    google for some stuff about sintered vs extruded bases

    Thanks man, good info. I've just checked the spec for my Lib Tech and it's sintered UHMW (whatever that is).

     

    I'm kind of relieved all of that all that waxing last season wasn't a waste of time. But on powder does wax make no difference even with a sintered board? The thing that impressed me most about that board was how it kept moving forward even on almost flat powder. It's like it had an engine! Would that kind of behaviour not be helped by wax, even thought it's on powder?

    Unwaxed skis work better?

    in Snow talk, trip reports, Japan avalanche & backcountry

    Posted

    I came across this article http://www.gizmag.co...k-better/15402/ about research at a Sweedish university which says modern skis glide better without wax . It says the base alone is the best surface to make contact with the snow, and that wax attracts dirt which increases friction. They recommend just cleaning the base with a metal scraper.

     

    I've always had the impression I go faster with a freshly waxed board. But the article makes a good point about it being difficult to objectively assess because snow is a constantly changing surface. It says using wax is a throwback to wooden skis, when it was necessary, and still carries on partly thanks to being promoted by wax companies and partly due to a mystique surrounding the "art" of waxing.

     

    Has anyone experimented riding without wax?

The independent guide to skiing and snowboarding in Japan
Online since 1999
snowjapan.com

DAILY SNOW REPORTS

×
×
  • Create New...