Nov 8 Grind & Wax Test
Fairbanks AK
If you want good help, you need to find a good helper. If you want good wax testing help, you need to find a helper who is about 80% wax nerd, and about 30% just plain crazy. Yes, I know that adds up to 110%, but tired ball-sports metaphors notwithstanding; that’s what this job takes. It’s a rare breed, but we tend to end up being friends with a relatively large number of them. Maybe all of them, come to think of it.
This weekend, Erik Mundahl drove seven hours from Anchorage to Fairbanks in order to test grinds and wax. We suspect he may have had ulterior motives, but we’re not sure what they might be. I didn’t ask how many hours he spent prepping skis at home during the week to get ready, but we started setting up the test based on the forecast back on Wednesday.
The conditions in Fairbanks are chilly (shocker!) with very heavily used, old snow. I would say that it’s “cold”, but Fairbanks residents might scoff at that. The crystals are fully transformed, but without extensive freeze-thaw to make them coarse grained they’ve remained quite fine. Temps at testing time on Saturday morning were -9 rising to -7C, with snow stable at -12C. Erik reports that the snow is “squeaky but fast”.
Here’s the summary, with notes and observations following.
Grinds
Air: -9c, Snow: -12c
1) TB2n
2) TG1-2
3) L2-0S
4) TB2o
5) LS0B
6) TG1-1
7) TB1
8) TG-S
9) S1-0X
10) 258B
11) TB3
12) S2-1X
There is some interesting stuff going on here. Clearly the temps were on the cold side, but the old snow didn’t really appreciate the very coldest grinds. The wettest grinds were appropriately clusted at the bottom of the pack, but the surprising stuff was the positions 5 through 9 contained all of the coldest grinds. This isn’t a big surprise in old snow, though throughout much of the continental us the “same” situation would likely favor finer grinds.
The top four structures in the test form a very interesting group. TB2n and TG1-2 utilize exactly the same frequencies – they have the same “pattern”. But the TB2n is cut shallower, and made on the normal stone, while the TG1-2 is cut a bit deeper on the “green” stone. L2-0S isn’t a big surprise to find toward the top of the list – a couple of years ago I would have said that it would be a run-away winner in these conditions, and indeed it would have been without the newer prototype structures in play. TB2o utilizes the same primary frequencies as the L2-0S, but with an additional back-cut in the underlayer which is intended to provide some additional release.
Interestingly, both TB2n and TG1-2 are “intended” to handle newer snow and more moderate temperatures, while L2-0S and TB2o are supposed to be for older fine-grained snow. In this case it didn’t play-out quite that way.
All things told, it’s satisfying to see new work rise to the top of the testing for the second week in a row. We don’t assume that the new grinds are going to be best, but we always hope to be slowly moving the marker forward. It seems as though it’s working that way with these new TB series grinds. I have really high hopes for TB1 as we get into more normal mid-winter cold conditions and newer snow.
Paraffins
Air: -7c Snow: -12c
1) Vauhti HF Violet
2) Vauhti HF Blue/Yellow
3) Vauhti HF Green/Yellow
4) Star HFM
5) Vauhti HF Blue
I’ve been careful about overselling Vauhti HF Violet in the past because we’ve often felt that the HF Blue and HF Pink were very strong waxes that didn’t leave a lot of room for Violet to shine. Additionally, we’ve noted that the Blue/Yellow mix gives us great range in mixed crystals and higher moisture. However, we’ve seen the Violet really dominate testing in older cold snow several times now, and we need to be aware of a developing pattern. As far as I know the HF Violet is not specifically formulated for old snow the way some waxes ay (like Ski*Go HF Violet), but it seems to offer compelling performance in those conditions. We’ll keep a closer eye on this, and maybe check with the Finns on their experience.
The mixed waxes in the test are an effort to change-up the chemistry a bit. When you mix paraffin chain lengths you get a very different finish – the wax gets sort of “greasy” and acts funny on the skis, but can provide really different performance characteristics, which can be especially good in old snow. The hardness of a paraffin is primarily a matter of the length of the hydrocarbon chains. People often tend to assume that mixing paraffins gives you an average of the hardnesses of the two waxes, but it also creates an admixture of different chain lengths, which can be totally different from a “pure” wax of an intermediate hardness.
The initial test only had the green-yellow mix, and Erik added the blue/yellow afterward and retested. The blue-yellow mix is a standard, but I had never tried the green/yellow mix before. In hindsight, I wish we had run a green-pink mix, since the chain lengths are more divergent. Pink is the softest wax in the line-up, while Yellow (formulated for very wet, coarse, dirty snow) has the same hardness as violet with a higher fluoro content. Now that I mention it, I really wish we had run the yellow alone to see how that did against the violet! Missed opportunities. Next time…
Powders
1) Star FM Super
2) hfC15.1
3) hfC9.1
4) hfC15
5) C11
6) 330c
7) hfC21.1
The one really big surprise in this test is that the C11 CODE powder from Vauhti didn’t do that well. We have really come to rely on that wax in older cold snow or manmade snow, and it hasn’t let us down. The performance of Star FM Super, which is also reliably good in those conditions, only serves to underscore the question-mark on C11. We’ve set aside the C11 skis to track through additional tests, in case something is wrong with it. On a day like this we wouldn’t pick C11 to race on, but we definitely would retest it in the same conditions in the future, because it’s been really reliable.
One of the interesting projects we’ve got for this year is to test the new hfC formulations. While the 21.1 and the 9.1 are all-new waxes, the 15.1 is just a minor adjustment to the previous hfC15. Both are based on a mix of the 330C (cold dry) and the 125C (higher moisture), and the hfC15.1 has a bit more of the 125C. We’ve assumed that would mean a warmer range for the 15.1, and I’ve been a bit concerned that it might nudge the wax toward a narrower range for our market. So I’m really encouraged to see the 15.1 win this test and beat the regular 15 with snow temps down at -12C. We’ll keep an eye on this comparison, for sure.
It’s also interesting to see the 9.1 do well in this test. hfC9.1 is a new warm powder which was previously available as the C139 CODE powder. We’ve had phenomenal luck with this wax, and I suggested that we toss it into the test in cold conditions only because it has never finished worse than about third for us in ANY condition in which we’ve tested it. In fact, I can’t think of a time when it hasn’t been competitive. Well, the streak remains unbroken. hfC9.1 appears to be an extremely versatile wax.
Liquids
1) Vauhti 15.1L
2) Vauhti 9.1L
3) Vauhti 15L
4) Vauhti 21.1L
5) Vauhti Black
Last season the Vauhti hfC15 liquid came close to reinventing waxing for us. It had such a broad range of performance characteristics, and such an easy application and durable finish, that it became a very viable product for self-supported racers who don’t have a lot of time for testing, and who want an economical high-performance solution that allows them to avoid ironing fluoro powders. That is a BIG portion of our customer base. At the same time, the wax was doing well enough among Nor Am teams that we sold a ton of it at that level as well. So we were naturally a bit “concerned” to hear that it would be reformulated for this season. So the first 15.1 vs 15 liquid test was something we were really nervous about. hfC15 was a wax we could recommend with confidence in a wide range of quite cold conditions last year, and with the reformulation set-up to run a bit warmer, we were really nervous about a reduction in the range. So, it is a really big relief to note that the 15.1 was better with snow temp at -12C.
It’s also interesting to note that the 9.1 liquid seems to deliver comparable performance to the 9.1 powder, albeit in only one test so far. We’ve been super excited about the 9.1 liquid based on the success of the liquid carrying media and the success of the C139 glide formulation. The 9.1 liquid has a sort of thick, “milky” look; Mundahl used some different and more colorful terminology to describe it.
Erik wanted to be sure that we point out the incredible job the Nordic Ski Club of Fairbanks does producing outstanding conditions on only 5″ of snowfall. Fairbanks seems to be one of the very most professional outfits in the country; they take skiing seriously up there!