-40 wax

[GrimSurfer]

The premise behind temperature specific glide wax is that they offer just enough friction to create a microscopic layer of water. It is this water that reduces friction. Provided it isn’t thick enough to cause suction, you’re good to go.

Water conducts electricity really well. So I suppose an appropriate ski wax would reduce static build up too.

[Capercaillie]

From what I understand Swix V05 Polar has mostly synthetic components, and what I am guessing is going on is a phase change in one of those components to solid at around -30°C, which explains the sudden loss of glide. This is similar to how most general purpose greases freeze solid at around the same temperature. Pine tar has a much lower freezing point (otherwise pine trees won't survive winter).

Snow just does not change that much between -25°C and -35°C, compared to waxes. I really do not buy into the "cold snow" excuse.

Nobody races at these temperatures (Nordiq Canada cutoff is -20°C for races and -25°C for loppets), so it is not surprising that wax companies do not bother developing real "polar" waxes, and my local XC shop owner did not really have any recommendations. People pulling sleds in the arctic screw (!) full-length nylon (!) skins to their skis, so they don't care about wax either.

As was alluded to earlier, you're below the temps where friction heat would create water at the ski/snow interface so there's no need for water drainage / no concern with suction cupping to slow you down. The polar glide wax provides a perfectly smooth base (negating any inherent structure the base has) so that the hard, cold snow crystals have as few imperfections as possible to grab on to.

You can reduce drag from kinetic friction by lubrication (glide wax) or by reducing the contact surface area up to a certain point within limited bounds (surface area does not affect static friction in an ideal model, but does affect deceleration in real-world kinetic scenarios, otherwise no one would bother with skinny skis). It seems plausible that just like with kick wax, phase change in glide wax can turn it from a lubricant into whatever the opposite of a lubricant is. If a ski with a rough structure and token coat of liquid glide wax is faster than a ski with a smooth film of hard polar hot glide wax at less than -30°C, that would indicate the "polar glide" wax is not very "polar" or "glide" at those temperatures, and you might be better off without it. Thorough testing would involve a few different glide waxes, no glide wax at all, various grades of structure, and combinations thereof.

One thing that I’ve read about from the alpine ski racing side of things but doesn’t seem to ever get discussed is the potential effect of static charges being generated in very cold dry conditions. For alpine ski racing, ski bases are sometimes chosen to reduce the generation of static electric charge as a potential factor that may slow you down.

I assumed this is why XC skis no longer come with clear bases (black bases can/should have graphite added to reduce static build-up). I have a couple of older touring skis with clear bases that have the kick zone marked out with graphics, pretty handy.

[GrimSurfer]

Good points about Nordiq racing cut off temps and graphite bases.

Yeah, I suspect that there is a diminishing business case to develop glide waxes for much lower than -32C. Not many places get that cold. Fewer still would venture out in such temps. The RoI would be low.

[beeeweee]

I assumed this is why XC skis no longer come with clear bases (black bases can/should have graphite added to reduce static build-up). I have a couple of older touring skis with clear bases that have the kick zone marked out with graphics, pretty handy.

I kind of wonder why about half of the Asnes waxable LT skis have a clear base.

[GrimSurfer]

https://www.snowboardmaterials.com/inde ... e-material