DPS Phantom Kickstarter

[nemesis256]

I'm looking at this with some skepticism. There's no info on the kickstarter page about what it really is. There's some BS on there too, some of those chemicals they list aren't "cancer causing", and they also misspelled fluoro on that graph.

I don't mind waxing skis that much. If we could have edges that don't get dull however...

 

[fatbob]

Can anyone say Double Blind Study?

Big claims. Need to put a lot of days on similar skis to have meaningful results. Feels like one for the true believers for now.


Plus pricepoint seems kinda aspirational. That equates to almost infinite amount of home tunes or up to 10 belt waxes for the average punter.

 

[Don in Morrison]

I can buy a lot of wax for $100. I can do my whole quiver for years for that.

 

[Philpug]

I would like to see a video of the actual application process. I agree that a long-term test through the likes of @Pugski and/or Blister will go a long way to selling this product to those of us who are skiers (as opposed to people who ski) and worry about stuff like this.
I can't imagine that dealers who work on thin margins to begin with are going to be very happy about this development. The packaging of the products(s) look to be consumer-oriented. Plus the market price has been set. Is there going to be a wholesale price for dealers who want to offer this service?

I will be getting our samples soon and will be applying on our DPS demo skis.

 

[Polo]

Sorry, but this definitely falls into the, if it sounds to good to be true it probably is, category. I'll gladly eat crow if I'm wrong but this is a little to gimmicky for me.

 

[Philpug]

Not surprised that there is a significant amount of sceptism, there are some significant claims. I met the engineer..chemist and within 5 minutes my eyes glazed over when he started talking the chemical compounds. It all sounded good, until I get it on skis and on the snow. In the meantime, it looks like DPS is hitting their kickstarter goals so there are enough people who have confidence in Stephan and his team. And anyone who has been on a DPS product, have they enver not delivered on any of their claims?

 

[ScottB]

here is a url to go to for more info:

https://www.kickstarter.com/project...eatment-for-skis-an?ref=340306&token=5e40cea0

Somewhat limited test data on the site, but it has been used for a while and "some people" who used it are saying good things about it. I do believe it will help the environment from the stand point of less toxic wax byproducts getting into the ground water. Not sure how big a deal that really is, but its going in the right direction.

I for one, plan to give it a try on at least one pair of skis. I have a quiver of skis, but I have my "coaching" daily driver, so will probably put it on that pair. After trying it, I will see what I think.

If you buy more, there is a volume discount of up to about 30%

 

[Jacques]

I'm just not going there. I have had people ski my base prep. for almost thirty days with zero base burn. No grind needed, just prep. again.

In short here it is.

 

[crgildart]

I use wax to protect edges in storage and prevent bases from oxidizing both in storage and regular conditions use.. As for enhanced glide... mostly to keep bases from icing up in really cold or getting super sticky in really warm conditions. I don't see a win here for me anywhere..

 

[crgildart]

Just for the record, seedless watermelons also don't work for me.. Just don't taste as good to me as seeded ones do..

 

[Slim]

What makes me suspicious is that they pulled this off in a few months. You don't think SWIX and co have tried to come up with something like this?

 

[eok]

Late to the party on this thread. DPS's kickstarter doesn't surprise me. There's been lots of activity in materials science development related to hydrophobics. A major driver (and investor) in the research has been shipping industry interests. That's because even a moderate reduction in drag along a massive ship hull greatly reduces fuel costs. To be practical, a hydrophobic hull coating needs to have good hydrophobic properties (of course) and have excellent adhesive & durability properties. A steel ship hull is a fairly challenging surface to engineer such a product for. If a durable hydrophobic coating can be successfully engineered for a ship weighing 1000s of tons then I'd think it could be successfully engineered for skis carrying much less weight. ;^)

Aviation is investing in hydrophobic research as well because hydrophobics can resist ice accumulation on flight surfaces.

That said, I am indeed interested in DPS's product. BUT: I need to see real info on actual on-snow tests, skier experience, the effects on ski performance/glide and durability. Like many here, I do enjoy my routine tuning & waxing ritual. I would be willing to stop waxing my skis IF there is a significant performance/glide benefit for "going Phantom".

Now, if we see race teams start using something like Phantom (would current rules even allow it??), well, that could be a signal a shift in ski technology might be emerging.

 

[Wade]

What makes me suspicious is that they pulled this off in a few months. You don't think SWIX and co have tried to come up with something like this?

This seems like the LAST thing Swix would have tried to come up with - it could potenitally have a significant impact on their wax sales.

On the speed of bringing it to market, it does seem like they moved quickly on this. The Blister podcast on it was interesting in terms of the development and testing timelines, although I'm not necessarily convinced it's all it's made out to be just yet.

 

[eok]

What makes me suspicious is that they pulled this off in a few months. You don't think SWIX and co have tried to come up with something like this?

From what I've seen, there are already a number of durable super-hydrophobic coating products available. Possibly, DPS selected one and then worked with the manufacturer to tune the formulation for ski base use.

 

[Carolinacub]

Funny...I saw this on here this morning and so far I've had it come up three times in my news feeds....all on different computers

 

[Started at 53]

Watching

 

[Don in Morrison]

I'm never an early adopter of anything. I suspect that in time, the cost will come down to where it is a viable option for more people, and by then everyone will know whether it really works or not. For me, it needs to get down to about $20 or less.

 

[crgildart]

Is it better than Griswald's?

 

[ScottB]

I listened to the Blister podcast and read up a little on this stuff. I definitely want to give it a try on one pair of skis. I can see the limitations of it from what they say about it on the podcast. It is not "more slippery" than wax, kind of the equivalent to "all temp wax", think Dominator Zoom. It also isn't slippery when in a lift line, like fresh wax is, you need a little speed to get the glide. I guess that might be a good thing, but I get a kick out of the feel of slippery skis when at the bottom of the hill, especially when I have a long traverse to skate. The big questions in my mind is how will it do in really cold temp <15F and really warm temps >40F. Those are the times when I need to use different wax than a all temp Zoom type wax. It says it does really well in warm temps, so it might eliminate the need for Dominator Butter wax in the spring
.
Even if it eliminates about 80% of waxing, I think that will be a big plus and I don't think the price is that unreasonable, and should come down over time. Assuming of course, it lasts for 4 years plus.

Also, where can I get some National Lampoon Sled Wax?

 

[François Pugh]

So they're saying it's not as good as having the correct temperature wax for conditions? P-tex is pretty slippery all by itself, just not slippery enough.