Has everyone read the Ski magazine article on this stuff that I posted a URL for? The guys at Ski Mag. skied three pairs of DPS skis, one waxed, one "nude", and one with Phantom. They gave their detailed impressions of each ski's performance. The Phantom wasn't perfect, but it was pretty close to the waxed ski. This wasn't an in depth scientific test, but it proves its not snake oil. (If you can believe what you read in Ski Mag)
I also factor in the University of Utah Professor(s) that are involved. Most colleges are not going to let their name get associated with some shady deal. It isn't a guarantee, but I have confidence that some real science was involved here.
In my opinion, this stuff has promise and one way to find out what it can really do is for people to use it. DPS compares it to an all temp wax. I use Dominator Zoom all temp wax and it has limitations. In really cold and really warm the stuff doesn't glide. It looks like the Phantom works in the warm, because it is very hydrophobic. I am curious if it will work in really cold temp's (<15F). They don't have any specific info on this that I can find. I will probably email them to see what they say.
A few points, if I may.....
1) One article in Ski Mag won't sell me or a lot of old schoolers for that matter. Blister's editor in chief has a hard time accepting it as well. It's going to take some time for this to be either proven or disproved and if if proven it will take some time to get good traction.
2) There's been millions of pages of junk science that have been promulgated by universities since time immemorial.
3) And you nailed this.....lack of specific data, controlled testing, double blind, etc. That info is needed and needed from multiple sources for comparison.
4) To simply say this will change skiing forever, never wax again, lasts forever, etc., without A LOT of information to back it up is a weak presentation and will be subject to ridicule. I estimate, plan, and execute multi million dollar projects for a living. I've been doing it for decades and I can guarantee that if I ever went to my customers with claims of this nature and didn't have some serious data to back it up I would be torn to pieces.
5) All the fanfare that is hitting the net over this product, all the interviews, podcasts, articles, etc. all have one thing in common......lack of specific data. They say it's backed by a bunch of data but make no effort to provide that data. They say it's better for the environment but offer nothing to back it up other than calling wax a bad guy.
6) You mention the one way to find out what it can really do is to use it. That requires me spending $90 and risking a pair of skis. I've seen no warranty or guarantee. They're not even offering a money back if not satisfied on just the product. No, you gamble. You gamble with not only the cost of the purchase but potentially the replacement cost of your equipment if not satisfied.
6) My ultimate fear is how this could potentially and negatively effect my skis. That's really my only concern. I honestly don't care how they fund or it why. It seemed odd to me is all. I get the marketing angle achieved through a kickstarter campaign and accept that as their reason easily.
So my skepticism is based on all the aforementioned points. The product "sounds" remarkable. If true I'd consider it on daily drivers. I'd definitely use it on some of my skis. The race skis will always be waxed. The biggest problem with the whole Phantom thing isn't necessarily the product, but rather how it's been rolled out. Criticism, ridicule, and disbelief will continue until enough information is presented or enough time goes by to assuage such things.
I want to believe, but I'm from Missouri..........(not really, you get the point......)
