MountainFLOW founder, Peter Arlein, on How Ski Wax Works; its Environmental Impact; Ceramic Nano Technology; & More (Ep.175)

by
On GEAR:30, we discuss the environmental impacts of ski wax (and how ski wax actually works); Peter’s appearance on Shark Tank; the upcoming ban on fluorocarbon waxes at the highest levels of ski racing; and Peter unveils mountainFLOW’s brand-new product.
mountainFLOW athlete, Aleksander Aamodt Kilde (photo by NTB)

Blister Outdoor Gear review Crested Butte

MountainFLOW is disrupting the ski and snowboard industries by producing high-performing products that are also biodegradable and more sustainable than conventional products in their categories. And if you’re skeptical about all of this, then you definitely ought to listen to this conversation with mountainFLOW founder, Peter Arlein.

We talk about the environmental impacts of ski wax (and how ski wax actually works); Peter’s appearance on Shark Tank; the upcoming ban on fluorocarbon waxes at the highest levels of ski racing; and Peter unveils mountainFLOW’s brand-new product, which we think is going to have another significant impact on the ski industry.

TOPICS & TIMES:

  • Background of mountainFLOW (3:39)
  • Wax & its environmental consequences (10:13)
  • Going on Shark Tank (14:43)
  • Ski wax misconceptions (19:56)
  • ‘Deck of cards’ analogy (21:53)
  • More interest from backcountry or resort riders? (23:57)
  • Ban on fluorocarbons (25:42)
  • Ceramic Nano Technology (27:15)
  • New Product Reveal (30:47)
  • MountainFLOW bike chain lube (36:15)
  • What We’re Celebrating (38:42)

RELATED LINKS

On GEAR:30, we discuss the environmental impacts of ski wax (and how ski wax actually works); Peter’s appearance on Shark Tank; the upcoming ban on fluorocarbon waxes at the highest levels of ski racing; and Peter unveils mountainFLOW’s brand-new product.
mountainFLOW founder, Peter Arlein, in Blister HQ (Mt. Crested Butte, Colorado)

6 comments on “MountainFLOW founder, Peter Arlein, on How Ski Wax Works; its Environmental Impact; Ceramic Nano Technology; & More (Ep.175)”

  1. JE !!! i also raise my glass to “being stoopid enough…” ! as a tele skier, i can say , stoopidity is a key ingredient to success. hope y’all had great fun and nothing other than someone’s pride was injured{ i also hope you trimmed yer toenails beforehand…) !

    and thanks for another great Gear 30

  2. When you reference your wax layer as a deck of cards how thick of a layer are you actually talking about?
    A recreation scrape and go vs. a race finish that’s been brushed to the enth degree? Must be talking microns here either way. Thanks for the heads up on the environment!

    • If you just scrape your wax and don’t brush it out then you are arguably better off not applying it to begin with. Under all but the coldest and driest conditions the structure of the ski (the pattern applied during grinding) is more effective at reducing drag than the wax itself. If you don’t brush your wax out then you leave the structure filled in, and it doesn’t help any more.

      Also ski wax serves multiple purposes depending on the conditions. The “deck of cards” analogy describe what we call on wax to do in dry, fresh, clean snow that has sharp crystals. In wetter conditions we instead rely on our waxes to be hydrophopic and move water out from under the base, and on old or chemically treated snow we need it to be oleophobic to repel dirt and contaminants. Perfluorinated waxesexcel in these last two respects, and nothing else is really competitive. This is why the FIS ban had to be repeatedly delayed until they could implement “wax doping tests” at all of the venues.

      Nanometallic/nanoceramic waxes like MountainFlow do very well as “decks of cards” for dry and clean conditions though.

  4. Going to try some. I never thought about where all the wax goes.

    Also, what are those white and green skis on the wall behind Jonathan’s hat? They look fat, straight, and long.

  5. I agree with the fluoro ban and the move to these new waxes, but the claim that the new waxes perform better than perfluorocarbons sounds about as credible as Lance Armstrong claiming (before he was caught) that he hand’t doped because it didn’t help much.

    I’ve used fluoros a lot in the past, and I’ve also used the new nanoceramic/nanometallic waxes from a variety of vendors including MountainFlow. The new non-PFC waxes are better than in the past, but nothing to date can compete with PFC in terms of water removal in wet conditions or dirt/chemical resistance. The newer waxes are also more finicky in terms of selection and application. If you read test results from nordic types they consistently report similar things – there are some situations where properly applied NF waxes are competitive, but also some others where they aren’t.

    If fluoro weren’t advantageous then the FIS wouldn’t have had to delay the ban over and over again until they could deploy FT-IR spectrometers to every venue to catch cheaters (they use these: https://www.opticsblog.bruker.com/fluoro-wax-ban-ft-ir-analyzer/). The ban is finally supposed to take effect at the World Cup level for the 23-24 season, but I’ll believe that when I see it, given how many times it’s been delayed up until now.

    I honestly think that it would be better to be honest about the situation and handle PFC waxes like pharmacological doping: Acknowledge that the banned waxes do offer better performance in many circumstances, but be very clear that they must be and are banned because of their harms.

Leave a Comment