SKIING WITH A SMILE
The Rise and Fall of Fluorinated Ski Waxes
PART II OF IV
Did greed dig its own grave?
In the first part of our story, we returned to the days when fluorinated ski waxes changed the rules of the game.
We remembered the CERA F revolution, the extraordinary glide performance and the prices that seemed to belong to an entirely different universe from ordinary ski waxes.
Fluorine was everywhere. And better still – it worked!
It worked remarkably well, at least under conditions where fluorinated products offered significant advantages over conventional hydrocarbon waxes.
So what went wrong?
Where did the downfall begin, even during the golden age of fluorinated ski waxes?
And could the manufacturers themselves have contributed to their own downfall?
How to Dig Your Own Grave
First, let us clarify what we mean by the downfall of fluorinated ski waxes.
An important early step was European regulation restricting PFOA, its salts and related substances, including certain C8-based products.
This was not originally a complete ban on every fluorinated ski wax.
A broader turning point came with the prohibition of fluorinated waxes in FIS competitions from the 2023/2024 season.
A technology that once dominated racing ski preparation had gradually become part of skiing history.
But why would I suggest, in a rather provocative title, that the manufacturers might have helped dig their own grave?
If we make provocative claims, we should at least try to explain our reasoning.
So let's get started!
1. How Much Fluorine Do We Really Need?
Our first question is simple:
Does adding more fluorinated material always improve the performance of a ski wax?
In 2007, Isabelle Rogowski and her colleagues published a study investigating 19 mixtures of paraffin wax containing different concentrations of a fluorine-based additive.
The additive content ranged from 0 to 50%.
In this particular experimental system, maximum water repellency was observed at approximately 4% additive content.
Further increasing the concentration did not produce a continuous improvement in water repellency.
Of course, water repellency is not the same thing as actual skiing performance.
Glide depends on several interacting properties of the wax, ski base and snow.
The study therefore does not prove that high-fluorine waxes or fluorinated topcoats were unable to improve glide.
But it does raise an interesting question:
If more fluorinated additive does not automatically mean better water repellency, why should we assume that it automatically means better glide?
And this is where things start to get interesting.
Remember the enormous price differences between LF, HF and highly fluorinated finishing products?
The most expensive products often cost several times as much as ordinary waxes.
Was the actual performance improvement always proportional to the extra cost?
Were the recommended applications consistently supported by convincing independent tests?
Or were we occasionally being taken for a ride?
To be fair, highly fluorinated products could provide measurable improvements under certain conditions.
But that does not mean every increase in concentration or price delivered a corresponding performance gain.
And here our greedy hero enters the story.
More products and higher prices could generate greater profits.
At the same time, greater quantities of fluorinated products were manufactured, applied and eventually released into the environment.
This does not mean that every additional percentage of fluorine produced an equal increase in environmental risk.
Chemical composition matters.
But the broader question remains:
Would it not have been wiser to search for an optimal technical solution rather than continually promote more fluorinated products?
2. How Many Wax Layers Does a Ski Base Really Need?
Our second question may be even more interesting.
Remember the traditional recommendations for preparing racing skis?
First, a hydrocarbon or LF base wax.
Next, an HF wax.
And finally, the crowning glory: a highly fluorinated topcoat, powder or other finishing product.
Three steps.
Three products.
Three opportunities to sell something.
And, of course, three potential opportunities to improve glide.
But do we really understand what happens when these layers are applied one after another at the molecular level?
A Ski Base Is Not a Sponge
Modern cross-country ski bases are generally made of ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene, or UHMWPE.
The traditional image of a ski base containing a network of open pores that absorb wax like a sponge is misleading.
Wax interacts mainly with the surface and a very thin near-surface region of the polymer.
Research presented by Matthias Scherge examined the depth distribution of fluorinated components after different application methods.
In one tested powder application, fluorinated components were detected down to approximately 800 nm.
For the investigated spray, the corresponding depth was about 16 nm.
These are nanometres – millionths of a millimetre.
They are not universal penetration depths for every ski wax.
But they illustrate the extremely small scale of the surface region we are discussing.
Now let us return to our three-layer system.
First Layer: LF Wax
Imagine applying LF wax to the ski base, melting it in with an iron, allowing it to cool, then scraping and brushing away the excess material.
The wax interacts with the polymer surface and its very thin near-surface region.
The resulting surface condition depends on the wax formulation, the ski base material and the application method.
After scraping and brushing, our base preparation is complete.
And now comes the second layer.
Second Layer: HF Wax
We apply HF wax, heat the surface again and repeat the procedure.
But what actually happens to the previous layer?
Does the new wax partly mix with the old one?
Does it replace some of the existing material in the near-surface region?
Does it form a new mixture or a separate surface layer?
And what measurable improvement does this additional step bring to the ski's glide?
We cannot answer these questions merely by reading a product brochure.
We need controlled experiments and measurements under clearly defined conditions.
We certainly cannot assume that the second layer is automatically useless.
But neither should we assume that it is always essential.
And since we still have a third layer to apply, things are becoming rather entertaining.
Third Layer: The Fluorinated Crown Jewel
Now comes the most expensive part: the fluorinated topcoat.
Powder, block or another special finishing product.
Some products were melted into the surface. Others were applied cold.
But the essential questions remain the same.
How much active material actually remains on the surface after preparation?
How much is removed during brushing?
How quickly does the remaining layer wear away during contact with snow?
And how much does it improve actual glide compared with a ski prepared without it?
Experimental evidence confirms that highly fluorinated surface treatments could produce measurable performance benefits.
At the same time, wax-wear studies show that durability depends on snow conditions and material properties.
So what remains uncertain?
Whether the benefit was always worth the price, the amount of product used and the associated risks.
And that seems to me a rather important question.
Who Benefited from All Those Layers?
I am not suggesting that multi-layer waxing was nothing more than a marketing trick.
There is not enough evidence for such a sweeping conclusion.
But neither should we accept every procedure described in a manufacturer's catalogue as automatically optimal.
Manufacturers sold increasingly sophisticated, expensive and sometimes chemically problematic products.
Service technicians had to work with them.
Some of those substances were eventually released into the surrounding environment.
And manufacturers naturally earned money from sales.
The real question is whether commercial success sometimes moved too far ahead of demonstrable technical benefits.
And whether that approach could have contributed to growing distrust of fluorinated waxing technology.
The regulatory restrictions were primarily driven by health and environmental concerns about specific chemicals, not by proven commercial greed.
But that does not prevent us from asking an uncomfortable question:
Could the constant pursuit of ever more expensive products have made the problem worse?
Perhaps yes. Perhaps no.
Either way, it is worth thinking about.
What Comes Next?
In Part I, we followed the spectacular rise of fluorinated ski waxes.
In Part II, we questioned whether increasing additive concentrations, more complicated waxing procedures and higher prices always delivered corresponding benefits.
But our story is far from over.
In Part III, we turn to a much darker chapter.
Perfluorooctanoic acid.
PFOA.
C8.
And the uncomfortable question of whether some of the problems could have been addressed long before regulatory pressure made change unavoidable.
So stay tuned.
Or be afraid.
The worst may still be yet to come...
To be continued in Part III.