Fluro wax for the base part 2

Question
QUESTION: Hi Ron, i was reading one of your answers regarding waxing the first time a snowboard. there was one comment that you said which caught my attention. i will quote you:

"I wax my new gear with a base layer of the hardest (cold temperature) wax I can get- with NO Fluoro. Toko or Swix Blue, MACH II Blue from KUU sport, or Hertel Super Hot Sauce will all do the job. Then I leave them base-up on saw horses in my furnace room, to let the wax sink in overnight. Then I wax with for conditions (wax rarely lasts more than a day or two when you carve a lot, 3-4 if you ride flat). I most often use Holmenkol Red, or Hertel Racing 739 until spring- when I switch to a softer wax with graphite in it to repel grease and dirt."

You emphasized that the first waxing job should be done with a wax that has no fluoro in it right. what i can suspect is because once i read that wax with fluoro clogs the pores of the base. so you don't want that to happen deep in the core of your base right. you also said that the Hertel Hot sauce is good for the base job, which is the first waxing job. i presume because it has no fluoro. then you said that for the rest of the waxing jobs you can use the Hertel FC739 racing wax. i presume because it has the fluoro and now the wax with the fluoro will stay upon the one without fluoro right. now almost everywhere i read the techies suggest to do like this, which is they agree with you. first no fluoro then fluoro wax. but what surprised me is that Hertel say to do the other way round. which is first you give your new board a good FC739 wax job. then use the normal Hot Sauce for daily use. im asking the question because you seem to be familiar with that particular brand.

Regards

Joe

ANSWER: Hi Joe,

I have not been in touch with Terry Hertel in a long, long time, but I really think he knows his stuff. Terry is one of the pioneers in the chemical vs mechanical wax evolution; chemical waxes allow the hydrophobic quality to be mostly independent of the wax hardness, mechanical waxes have a direct correlation between the hardness of the wax and it's water-resistance. I'd hate to disagree with Terry... but I still do. The only caveat is this- if you ride early morning, you'll wear through your hard wax fast, and by mid-day be into the fluoro- in that scenario, Terry's right- but I'd still want a hard layer underneath.

That said, I called Chris Taylor, the wax tech for the majority of the winning x-gamers over the past few years. This is the guy who is continually sliding into the person ahead of him in the lift line, 'cause his skis are so fast. I asked Chris his take, and if the notion of fluoro clogging the base is still considered valid. Chris actually adds the following steps to my own- on any new board he waxes warm (like a yellow hydrocarbon wax), and hot-scrapes (i.e. scrapes the board while the wax is still soft and warm). This process utilizes the "shedding" characteristics of wax to pull any oils and remaining solvents put of the base before loading your first wax. Chris then waxes warm as his base layer, and then cold, and then his final. He feels that cold, hard wax placed too deeply into the bases amorphous areas never shed, and the board or ski can lose some of the lubrication benefits of the wax too soon. Think of the razor commercial where the hair follicle pulls out of the skin, and the second blade cuts the hair- the wax (like that hair)breaks off may be too far from the surface to be useful. So Chris goes warm first, then cold and the two create what is essentially a three layer base of warm nearest the core to progressively cold (or hard), and then finally the wax-du-jour. Chris' argument against fluoro anywhere but the topmost layer is for a slightly different reason. He feels that, because fluoro does not bind to the hydrocarbon carrier (well, in all but a few very expensive specialty waxes), fluorocarbons shed at a much faster rate than the hydrocarbon carrier itself. This is why fluoro waxes have different temperature ratings (beside perflouralkane content) to properly match the shedding rate with the loss of fluoro. In the base, where the fluoro is rubbing against the HDPE, it can result in excessively rapid shedding- at least in contrast to simple hydrocarbon waxes.

In the past, I have said that Zardoz can be an effective base prep to enhance shedding- Chris does not agree- he feels that it changes the predictability of wax loss, and can lead to wax migration and buildup (where shedded wax remains on the base creating high friction zones).

So that's the story; you have to wax around how the conditions will vary during your day, or series of days, before rewaxing.  

Ron

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hi Ron thanks a lot for the reply. Would like to discuss this issue a little bit more with you just to confirm that I understood well. It seems that there are 2 theories regarding waxing snowboards. First Terry抯 theory, that is to put a good coat in the base of the snowboard using his highly fluorinated FC739, and then apply daily the non fluorinated or fluorinated to the base. Then there is Chris theory that is to put a mix of soft and hard wax starting from the soft close to the base going out.

Now before you replied to me, Terry抯 theory made perfect sense because giving the base a good coat of high quality racing wax and then give a daily maintenance to that coat using normal non fluorinated wax was the right way to go. This is because once the daily coat wears out you need a good protection layer at the base. But after you replied, the issue of the fluorinated wax clogging the pores came back. I was aware of it, in fact I asked Terry about it. And he replied that Hertel fluorinated wax does not clog the pores of the base. Contrary they are made to work with the base not against. In view of this it makes sense to use Terry抯 theory. Especially when using his wax, cause he knows his wax and how it works. But then again Chris theory also makes perfect sense because the deeper the wax goes the softer it has to be to come out. Now here I might seem a bit crazy but I think there could be the possibility that both of them are right.

i will explain my idea. If what Terry states is true, that is their fluoro does not clog pores, then it makes sense to put on the base a good coat of FC739 and then maintain it with Hertel normal Hot Sauce non fluoro (or else keep using FC739) because whenever you hot scrape you will remove the fluorinated wax from the bottom, hence no clogs. I have to admit, Terry also suggested cleaning the base using both hot waxing and solvents (which may be one reason why Terry says you will not have fluoro stuck in the base, because solvents are more aggressive in cleaning the base). Where else Chris I think uses only hot waxing. Now from what you wrote I understood that Chris doesn抰 use Hertel wax because Hertel wax comes only in one hardness. So that抯 why it makes sense that both of them are right. it doesn抰 make sense to use Chris theory on Hertel wax, because Hertel wax comes only in one hardness. But for the other brands with colors and different hardness yes, it抯 the way to go. Also if what Terry said is true, that is the FC739 does not clog pores while the other colored fluorinated wax does, then it抯 a proof that both of them are right. Terry is right when he says that you must first start with the FC739 in the core of the base and then go up at your choice using either non fluoro Hot Sauce or the FC739 (given that the fluoro of the FC739 doesn抰 cause problems). While Chris is also right when using other brands that have multiple grades. This is because you have to push the soft wax inside the base, not the hard wax or fluorinated wax. This way the wax is not only cleaned better and does not clog pores (in case of multi graded wax), but also it is released on the snow easier once it is deeply stuck in the base. Hard wax supports the most abrasion. And since it抯 the first one to wear out you have no problems that it will clog the base. What do you think, does it make sense?

If you don抰 mind, try asking Chris again to see if he has ever tried out Hertel wax like they suggest on their website. Maybe this particular brand does have the properties claimed. And if so it makes perfect sense to use it the way they said since they have no hardness scale in their wax, and their fluoro does not clog.

So basically in short terms what I抦 saying is, does it make sense to use Hertel wax the Terry way, while other multi grade, multi colored wax the Chris way?

There is also one part that I didn抰 understand well. It抯 the part where you said that fluoro wax and hydrocarbon wax don抰 bind to each other. Chris doesn抰 use fluoro wax because it doesn抰 bind well with hydrocarbon wax or vice versa? And since he doesn抰 want any fluoro stuck in the base he doesn抰 use them. Not sure if understood this part well.  

Also I have a question regarding cleaning the base with solvents. Terry suggested me to use Chevron 350B for cleaning the base. Problem is that I cannot find it here. Can I use a kitchen citrus cleaner like Mr. Muscle or some other type of solvent more easily found?

You also mentioned Zardoz. I was considering to mix a bottle of Zardoz with a bottle of Hertel Liquid Hot Sauce and use it only on top of a normal hot wax what do you think? This way it won抰 go deep down into the core of the base.

Another small thing, in the beginning you said that 揟erry is one of the pioneers in the chemical vs mechanical wax evolution; chemical waxes allow the hydrophobic quality to be mostly independent of the wax hardness, mechanical waxes have a direct correlation between the hardness of the wax and it's water-resistance? I presume because Terry抯 wax is not multi grade while other waxes focus on the hardness of the paraffin right?

Another question is regarding cleaning well the base. You first use the solvent then you hot scrape, or vice versa? Which is you first hot scrape then use a solvent?  

Thanks a lot again Ron.

Best regards

Joe


ANSWER: Hi Joe,

Thanks for the reply, it's great to hear from someone who really seeks to know this stuff, and it's fun for me to review my old research.

We should probably first attack the issue of Fluoro clogging a base. Because perfluorocarbons are so slippery, they can get places that other elements cannot. When racers first began waxing with high-fluoro add-ons like WetJet, Cera F and Q, they were REALLY being misapplied. Hot application was leading to the release of carrier-related toxins into unventilated workshops (in fact, perfluorocarbons are so good at penetrating lung tissue, some pharmaceutical companies have explored their use as a means of drug delivery), and some techs felt that if a little was great, a lot must be better. But packed bases would lose the ability to hold wax, and here is the important part- riders would find fluoro in their wax in conditions where fluoro was exactly the wrong thing to have. I was in Banff once, and it was so cold everyone was sticking on minor grades- many of the participants argued that no wax at all was the only solution, but Mach II blue worked, and worked really well.

This is why I still disagree with the idea of using any fluoro as a base layer, if it comes down to the wax that抯 搇eft?in your base, wouldn抰 you prefer that it was the most universal stuff you could get, and that it had the most staying power to protect the base? Fluoro waxes move the temperature scale up too much to be a base layer. If you chelate (or encapsulate) fluorocarbons, don抰 they lose their water-repellency? Chelation of carbon/graphite makes sense, because the static-absorbing quality remains, but is the same true for fluorocarbons? I don抰 think so.

Regarding Hot Scraping- if a base has become packed with fluoro, hot scraping is only going to partially solve the problem- because the hydrocarbon wax is not going to fully intermesh with the remaining perfluorocarbons, and the temperature necessary to create suspension would invite other base problems. A magazine called Chemtech (volume 29, number 10), says the natural and desirable qualities of perfluorocarbons are that they can get into places that other materials cannot- including hydrocarbon waxes and solvents. So the problem is that they can get places where it's too tough to get them out. I am not saying Terry is wrong, but I wonder if his idea of HF is different than others. Since the fluorocarbon component is only effective within a specific temperature range, other temperatures along the spectrum may respond to different hydrophobics, surfactants, and lubricants included in Terry抯 product. Terry may not be using a ton of fluoro (comparatively), simply because his waxes are universal. As to whether you should still layer with FC739 and then Super Hot Sauce, what is the benefit of the Super Hot Sauce other than to 損ut off?wearing to the fluoro until the day has warmed up?

By Chris Taylor抯 logic, shedding will not occur if the wax is too hard or brittle to be drawn out of the base rather than simply snap. If the wax is breaking off, the base temperature will rise as friction increases, and the wax will soften enough to begin shedding again, but meanwhile the damage will already be done to the exposed p-tex. I don抰 see in Terry抯 response an answer to this problem. But I do know that it抯 tough to execute Chris?methodology, because the temperature necessary to layer hard on-top of soft often makes the two mix, or draws the soft towards the heat anyway?this is why he gets the big bucks at the X games. Oh, Chris often uses Fluoro waxes- but as the final layer (making four) or overlay.

Regarding cleaners and solvents- Dr. Thanos Karydas (the Dominator guy) never really speaks of solvent use in ski prep. Since Perfluoropolymers (I think that is what Fluorine and Carbon represent) are themselves solvents, finding an applicable co-solvent that won't harm your base is a challenge. Once you've used the solvent, you have to get IT out before you can wax again effectively. So most solvents are an issue in themselves. I have used base cleaners and orange solvents, but not frequently. If my base is really coated with pollen, I'll do a surface wipe, but usually just to the point that the base is clean, not to remove the existing wax. I try to keep the solvents away from my base, because I think they do more harm than good. If you are going to use solvents- I'd use the solvent and then hot-scrape.

If you cannot find Chevron 350B (I抳e never used it), you might be able to get some Eccosolve- also a Chevron product. Try your local dry-cleaner, I understand hydrocarbon dry cleaning solutions are common. Along those lines, I'm interested in finding out if anyone has tried using liquid (or Supercritical) CO2- Terry should know a great deal about it, as it a by-product of the same process by which he gets his wax.

If you've used liquid waxes before, you know that the solvent has to evaporate before the wax is effective, and that the surface layer often hardens before the suspension in the base can completely off-gas. This is why liquid universal waxes can appear dry and seem fast, but then get slow pretty quickly- contrary to their being marketed as quick and easy solutions, they really take a while to lose their solvents, and are not a great option. For instance, SWIX f4 liquid, in contrast to the paste version, takes much longer to reach a useful state. I think Hertel suggests using their liquid the night before to be sure it has completely off-gassed it's solvent.

Hot Scraping is just a better solution than solvents or cleaners. Hot scraping can also remove the emulsion residue left after stone grinding. Since the emulsion is specifically intended to suspend the material ground off of a base, while lubricating the grinding process, that material can remain suspended near the surface of the base after the grind is complete. Depending upon the regularity of filter cleaning and replenishment of the emulsion at your shop, this can dramatically impact the purity and cleanliness of your final wax. Solvents and cleaners may break-down and evacuate the emulsion, but a hot scrape is more likely to extract the materials carried within it.

Regarding Zardoz, I have to admit I'm not a big fan of the product, but I am intrigued by the idea of mixing an agent intended to remain wet, with one that is intended to dry. I'd be sure I did not do it before a race, and that I experienced it over a range of snow temps and textures... What property do you feel it will add to the Hertel Liquid? Since Zardoz does not add to a bases density, and I have experienced a limited useful range with the stuff, I limit my use to when I need a quick fix for dry bases, or as I mentioned, when I want to enhance shedding of a harder wax. I've never, ever had a day where I said "wow, that stuff is awesome". It's not a bad choice for sidewalls. If you are looking for a start layer, try creating x's on your base with F4 bars and then buffing them in with a cork, or scratch in a little ivory soap. Neither will last past the first few gates, or very far down the half-pipe, but you'll notice the difference.

Finally, I wanted to speak to Terry's assertion that a universal hardness is preferable to "colored" waxes. He may be right- snow quality varies so much, depending upon moisture content, temperature, aspect of the slope, speed of the skier, dirt, pollen and other pollutants- it's almost impossible to wax correctly for an entire run. Look at Picabo Street's winning run in Nagano Japan, where it was blizzard conditions at the top of the run, and sun-melt at the bottom- all in one course. For conditions such as this, Terry is spot-on. In fact, most cross country races involve courses that have shaded sections, open sections, climbs and descents, north, east, south and west aspects- again- it would be impossible to wax for all of those conditions with "colored" waxes. FC 739 could be an ideal solution.

Could be?but I still say that for supremely cold, sharp snow, KUUSport Mach II blue is much better. For new, packed snow and eastern conditions generally, Holmenkol red is really, really fast. Even LF can be too much fluoro if the crystals are sharp. For wet conditions, I tend to use Dominator graphite. However- I have often made wax errors, and they usually seem more detrimental than the potential gain of the 搑ight?wax over universal- fast and faster are relative- but snow stuck to your bases just sucks.

So that抯 my long winded reply- I hope it answers your question!


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hi Ron,

Great tutorial it抯 great to read these advices, loads of info. Now I do understand the importance of having the most universal staff as close to the core as possible.

There is only one phrase that is still unclear from what you said. I cannot figure exactly what you meant by 揂s to whether you should still layer with FC739 and then Super Hot Sauce, what is the benefit of the Super Hot Sauce other than to 損ut off?wearing to the fluoro until the day has warmed up??

You meant fluoro wax can be protected by a non fluoro wax till the day heats up? Or that Terry抯 wax has a blend of surfactants and fluoro so it makes it useless to use Hot Sauce on top of FC739? Not sure if I understood this statement well.  

Regards

Joe


Answer
Hi Joe,

I meant the second choice- I believe that there is an argument for layering hard, non-fluoro wax like Super Hot Sauce on top of the FC739. Living in Utah, which is an arrid climate, means that the snow from 8:30 a.m. until about 9:30-10:00 a.m. is definately of a different moisture content (it gets pretty firm) then it becomes later in the day. This is especially true for south facing slopes, whereas there is much less variation on north facing aspects. If the snow is fresh, it's this time of the morning that it will penetrate, and stick to the fluoro componant of your FC739. Granted, you'll wear though the surface layer pretty quick at your edges, but it'll avoid any morning clumping on your base. Once the sun has done it's work on the snow for an hour or so, you'll hopefully shed enough of the surface wax to expose the now-useful fluoro. Unfortunately, snowboards wear much differently than skis do, and I can't say if this type of layering would work in your favor.

That's my take on it...

Ron