I'm sure this thread will seem naive to some, but I've always wondered just how permeable our plastic ski bases are. I've read all about how it's manufactured as a powder that is compressed into sheets, and this leaves microscopic pores/spaces that can be filled with wax, dirt, whatever. While I can mentally picture this as sort of like a microscopic ball pit, particularly when it comes to products like DPS Phantom it leaves me wondering just how deeply liquids can penetrate into this material.
I decided to try a fairly simple experiment. I don't have a lab or proper tools that could perform microscopic measurements or detect unseen variables, but I wondered if it might be possible to simply stain some ski base material, look at the back of the material, take a cross section, and see how deeply it penetrated. Further, I had some DPS Phantom on hand and wondered if 1) The phantom could act as a carrier for dye that might indicate how deeply it penetrates (perhaps it would be better than dye alone), and/or 2) There may be some obvious change in the ski base material that would be apparent via a cross section of treated and untreated material.
Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I'm not attempting to conclude whether or not DPS Phantom works as claimed. This is a pretty unscientific test. My thinking going into this was that my little test might show straightforward evidence of penetration into the ski bases, but if it doesn't, that doesn't necessarily mean there's nothing there or no change has occurred. It could be that the dye molecules are larger or get filtered out as the Phantom penetrates, or something else that simply isn't visible to the naked eye.
I purchased some blue resin dye to tint the Phantom, a box of DPS Phantom, some 4001 and 7000 ski base material, and also a generic sheet of 'UHMW' (unsintered equivalent). The plan was to install Phantom on my skis and at the same time use a few drops of leftover Phantom to run my tests. I had one section that was dye-only, one section that was un-tinted Phantom, and another that was tinted Phantom.
Part A application - I applied dye, tinted Phantom, and un-tinted Phantom using the same small swirling method. One thing that was immediately obvious on the dye application was the capillary action of the plastic bases, it was clear that the dye was soaking in. Another thing that was immediately clear was that the generic UHMW polyethylene had no capillaries, the dye was just beading up. This sort of illustrates, I think, a mental block some of us have in thinking of plastic as being impermeable, but the ski base material confirms that this doesn't have to be the case. Manufacturing process makes all the difference. While there's some very slight evidence of residual staining after thoroughly trying to rub in the beads of dye into the UHMW, I pretty much decided to drop the UHMW material from proceeding in the test at this point, I didn't think there'd be anything more to learn here.
Part B application - after a long soak in the sun, it was time to clean the bases and apply part B. I think I left the phantom on a tad thick, but it seemed to dry and cure well. You'll notice that in my laziness I accidentally swapped the materials in the photo, for part A the 4001 was on the left, and in part B the 7000 is on the left. After a good scrubbing, we have what look to be some pretty solid stains on our bases. I don't have pre-cure photos after applying part B.
Finished product - Still stained, of course. There's no obvious bleed completely through the base. I have to admit that a tiny part of me was hoping for some color, or "water stain", or something showing it soaked completely through.
Inspection - I cut a sample (with scissors) to look at how the Phantom might have changed the material within the base. I did not see any visual indication that any change had occurred or that any dye or Phantom was present beyond the immediate surface. I scratched the surface with a razor to see how deeply the dye penetrated. There was clearly penetration, as the plastic I scraped off was colored, but it didn't go much farther down than a 'deep scratch' (sorry, again I don't have fine measuring tools).
I cut a second cross section using a razor to try to get a clearer edge. Still no obvious change in the plastic under the immediate surface... bummer.
I also tried to clean off the areas thoroughly to see if I could remove the dye from the pores. I used 'Goo Gone', a citrus based cleaner. I did remove some superficial surface leftovers, but after five minutes of scrubbing I was unable to meaningfully remove the dyes to any degree, I think once the pores are filled in this material it's going to be tough to remove much of anything short of a base grind.
Final thoughts - While I'm a bit disappointed that I didn't encounter any sort of obvious indication that ski base material soaks up Phantom (or dye) like a sponge, I'm still glad I did this experiment, as it illustrated to me just how porous ski bases are, and how important it is to ensure those naked pores are filled with something other than dirt. As for Phantom, I'm a fan and will probably continue to use it, but for me the mystery remains about whether this is really a treatment that penetrates and lasts for the life of the bases, or if it's just a placebo.
I hope this post was informative, or at least amusing for some
I decided to try a fairly simple experiment. I don't have a lab or proper tools that could perform microscopic measurements or detect unseen variables, but I wondered if it might be possible to simply stain some ski base material, look at the back of the material, take a cross section, and see how deeply it penetrated. Further, I had some DPS Phantom on hand and wondered if 1) The phantom could act as a carrier for dye that might indicate how deeply it penetrates (perhaps it would be better than dye alone), and/or 2) There may be some obvious change in the ski base material that would be apparent via a cross section of treated and untreated material.
Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I'm not attempting to conclude whether or not DPS Phantom works as claimed. This is a pretty unscientific test. My thinking going into this was that my little test might show straightforward evidence of penetration into the ski bases, but if it doesn't, that doesn't necessarily mean there's nothing there or no change has occurred. It could be that the dye molecules are larger or get filtered out as the Phantom penetrates, or something else that simply isn't visible to the naked eye.
I purchased some blue resin dye to tint the Phantom, a box of DPS Phantom, some 4001 and 7000 ski base material, and also a generic sheet of 'UHMW' (unsintered equivalent). The plan was to install Phantom on my skis and at the same time use a few drops of leftover Phantom to run my tests. I had one section that was dye-only, one section that was un-tinted Phantom, and another that was tinted Phantom.
Part A application - I applied dye, tinted Phantom, and un-tinted Phantom using the same small swirling method. One thing that was immediately obvious on the dye application was the capillary action of the plastic bases, it was clear that the dye was soaking in. Another thing that was immediately clear was that the generic UHMW polyethylene had no capillaries, the dye was just beading up. This sort of illustrates, I think, a mental block some of us have in thinking of plastic as being impermeable, but the ski base material confirms that this doesn't have to be the case. Manufacturing process makes all the difference. While there's some very slight evidence of residual staining after thoroughly trying to rub in the beads of dye into the UHMW, I pretty much decided to drop the UHMW material from proceeding in the test at this point, I didn't think there'd be anything more to learn here.
Part B application - after a long soak in the sun, it was time to clean the bases and apply part B. I think I left the phantom on a tad thick, but it seemed to dry and cure well. You'll notice that in my laziness I accidentally swapped the materials in the photo, for part A the 4001 was on the left, and in part B the 7000 is on the left. After a good scrubbing, we have what look to be some pretty solid stains on our bases. I don't have pre-cure photos after applying part B.
Finished product - Still stained, of course. There's no obvious bleed completely through the base. I have to admit that a tiny part of me was hoping for some color, or "water stain", or something showing it soaked completely through.
Inspection - I cut a sample (with scissors) to look at how the Phantom might have changed the material within the base. I did not see any visual indication that any change had occurred or that any dye or Phantom was present beyond the immediate surface. I scratched the surface with a razor to see how deeply the dye penetrated. There was clearly penetration, as the plastic I scraped off was colored, but it didn't go much farther down than a 'deep scratch' (sorry, again I don't have fine measuring tools).
I cut a second cross section using a razor to try to get a clearer edge. Still no obvious change in the plastic under the immediate surface... bummer.
I also tried to clean off the areas thoroughly to see if I could remove the dye from the pores. I used 'Goo Gone', a citrus based cleaner. I did remove some superficial surface leftovers, but after five minutes of scrubbing I was unable to meaningfully remove the dyes to any degree, I think once the pores are filled in this material it's going to be tough to remove much of anything short of a base grind.
Final thoughts - While I'm a bit disappointed that I didn't encounter any sort of obvious indication that ski base material soaks up Phantom (or dye) like a sponge, I'm still glad I did this experiment, as it illustrated to me just how porous ski bases are, and how important it is to ensure those naked pores are filled with something other than dirt. As for Phantom, I'm a fan and will probably continue to use it, but for me the mystery remains about whether this is really a treatment that penetrates and lasts for the life of the bases, or if it's just a placebo.
I hope this post was informative, or at least amusing for some