Dimensional Relationship Between the Groove and the Brush
The difference between the ground profile and the functional profile is clearly illustrated by the geometric relationship between the groove and the brush fibres.
Consider a symmetrical V-shaped groove with a pitch of 500 micrometres and a depth of 50 micrometres. At half its depth, it is approximately 250 micrometres wide. A steel fibre with a diameter of 120 micrometres corresponds to the groove width at a depth of approximately 38 micrometres. This model deliberately disregards elastic deformation of both the fibre and the wax and therefore represents a rather optimistic estimate of the attainable depth.
Below this level, the groove is narrower than the fibre itself. The fibre therefore cannot directly enter the bottom approximately 12 micrometres, or roughly the lower quarter of the model groove. Actual access to the bottom will also be influenced by the applied pressure, the contact angle and whether the fibre is in fact guided in the direction of the groove.
The brush therefore cannot remove wax equally from all depth levels. The peaks and the upper portions of the sidewalls are worked intensively, while an area remains in the lower part into which the fibre cannot geometrically fit.
Actual Structures Are Even More Complex
The model is based on a single regular linear V-shaped groove. Real racing structures, however, are often cross-hatched, chevron-shaped, interrupted, combined or multi-level. Multi-level patterns may contain several overlapping groove systems, so that access to one part of the profile is blocked by surrounding peaks or sidewalls.
They contain local depressions, intersections, sidewalls and tighter angles that are less accessible to the brush. The more complex the geometry, the less uniform wax removal can be expected to be.
A pitch of 500 micrometres is also only an approximate midpoint. Finer structures may have pitches of 300, 200 or 150 micrometres. Although they tend to be shallower, their cross-section narrows towards the bottom, and the diameter of a conventional steel fibre may be comparable to a significant portion of the groove’s total width. In structures with a pitch of 200 or 150 micrometres, direct contact with the lower regions may therefore be limited to a very small part of the profile or may not occur at all.
The nominal fibre diameter is not the only decisive factor. With use, the fibre tip becomes rounded and is often worn asymmetrically in the brushing direction. The actual contact geometry is therefore less capable of penetrating narrow lower regions than a simple calculation would suggest. Moreover, a worn tip does not create a single point of contact, but a broader asymmetric contact area that bears against the groove sidewalls sooner.
The fibres also work in bundles, interacting with one another, bending and deflecting. They do not always enter the grooves individually or at right angles, and in fine or multi-level structures they may pass over the upper portions without reaching the bottom. Although the flexibility of the bundle allows some adaptation to the surface, it also limits the precise guidance of individual fibres into narrow and irregular depressions.
The Brush Does More Than Remove Wax
After scraping and brushing, the wax is therefore not removed uniformly from the full depth of the structure.
The peaks and upper groove sidewalls are exposed most strongly, whereas more wax remains in the lower regions. Depending on the structure geometry, the type and wear of the brush, and the properties of the wax, the lower quarter or third—or, in fine or complex structures, an even larger portion of the original depth—may be less accessible. This is therefore not merely a passive residue of wax, but also the result of its mechanical redistribution during the preparation process.
Where the fibres can no longer penetrate deeper, they do not necessarily only remove wax. They may also act as smoothing or compacting tools: they displace the wax by shear, smooth it along the sidewalls and partly press it into inaccessible areas.
Compared with the geometry created by the stone, the functional profile is consequently shallower, more rounded and less pronounced. The peaks remain largely exposed, the transitions are softened, and the lower parts of the grooves are filled to varying degrees with residual wax.
In coarse, open and simple linear structures, the difference may be smaller. In fine, cross-hatched or multi-level structures, it may be substantially greater because their lower and lateral regions are less accessible to a conventional brush. The functional profile also continues to change with every subsequent waxing cycle, cleaning procedure and skiing session, so even after the initial break-in it is not a definitively fixed state.
Conclusion: The Ground Structure Is Only the Beginning
The central thesis is therefore confirmed: the structure created by the grinding stone and the structure that actually interacts with the snow while skiing are not identical.
The grinding machine creates only the initial geometry in the UHMWPE. Brushing, waxing, scraping, break-in and wear transform it into a functional profile whose shape results from the original grooves, the material properties, the geometry and wear of the brush fibres, the properties of the wax and other preparation procedures.
The finer, more complex and more multi-level the original structure, the greater the difference may be between the structure stored in the grinding machine’s program and the surface that ultimately glides over the snow.
Examining the structure immediately after grinding therefore captures only part of the reality. Measurements of groove pitch, depth and shape describe the geometry created by the stone, but not yet the surface after waxing, scraping, brushing and break-in. For meaningful comparisons of structures, the conditions of the subsequent preparation process should therefore be defined and reproduced as accurately as possible.
To understand how a structure functions, we must examine its condition after the complete preparation process. Otherwise, we are analysing the structure produced by the grinding machine, not the structure on which the skis actually glide. Any examination that does not take the effect of wax into account therefore reveals only part of the truth.