Review: DPS Phantom Permanent Base Glide Treatment

[PisteOff]

I’ve been running Phantom on three pair of skis for 3 years now. Is it a fresh application of Hertel? No. But it’s great in my opinion. I had one pair cured at Jackson Hole. The other 2 I did myself. The summer Texas sun cures it very easily and very thoroughly. I don’t have any problems on the flats or cats as has been mentioned. It will stick from a dead stop in really cold snow but as soon as you get moving things loosen right back up. It has saved me countless hours on the bench. This next application will make the 4th pair in my quiver with Phantom. Just waiting for the skis to ship.

 

[Flint]

hi I'm new here!
Anybody has success with DIY application of the new one-part formula curing with direct sun light?
I went though this thread and seems like most folks here had great success with the phantom 2.0 with two parts formula either DIY or applied professionally at a ski shop.
I took the plunge and got the new one-part formula and applied on my skis but it just seems like it doesnt want to cure after two full days of direct exposure under california sun..
It was a record breaking heat over the superbowl weekend, should have been enough to cure with minimum of 1 hours according to the instructions.
I applied a very thin layer and wiped off the excess but it was just still wet when i touched the bases.

 

[ScottB]

I use it on all my skis. The last time I bought it, I think I got the one part formula. It was a year or two ago and don't remember. I have not had any issues curing it with outdoor sun. You are judging cure by "wetness" and mine might have been a little tacky after curing. I think I wiped it off with a paper towel per their instructions. My best advice is call DPS and tell them what you are experiencing. They are usually great to talk to. If yours aren't cured, they will probably send you a new batch and advise you what to do.

 

[PisteOff]

I use it on all my skis. The last time I bought it, I think I got the one part formula. It was a year or two ago and don't remember. I have not had any issues curing it with outdoor sun. You are judging cure by "wetness" and mine might have been a little tacky after curing. I think I wiped it off with a paper towel per their instructions. My best advice is call DPS and tell them what you are experiencing. They are usually great to talk to. If yours aren't cured, they will probably send you a new batch and advise you what to do.

This

 

[dovski]

I use it on all my skis. The last time I bought it, I think I got the one part formula. It was a year or two ago and don't remember. I have not had any issues curing it with outdoor sun. You are judging cure by "wetness" and mine might have been a little tacky after curing. I think I wiped it off with a paper towel per their instructions. My best advice is call DPS and tell them what you are experiencing. They are usually great to talk to. If yours aren't cured, they will probably send you a new batch and advise you what to do.

When I first experimented with Phantom, before they had shops set up with lights to cure it for you, I had issues with my first batch due to poor PNW sun. They sent me a free replacement and I waited until Summer to cure them properly and the process worked. That said it was a pain ... granted this was Phantom 1.0 and I believe the process has improved since then as has the formula.

I also tested a European product that used to compete with Phantom and wrote a detailed comparison of the two. Bottom line is that these permanent wax solutions work ok, I find the work better with an aggressive structure, but I also found that if you tuned your skis a 4-5 times they lost their efficacy despite claims to the contrary. Personally I have gone back to waxing my skis with temperature/condition appropriate wax as this seems to give me the better on snow performance here in the PNW, but for those who do not wax their own skis or do not get their skis waxed regularly this is a great option.

 

[Doug Briggs]

Without scrolling through 46 pages of comments, I'm still curious to get feedback on how well Phantom is at preventing base burn in the long term. That is one of the primary reasons for waxing (preventing it) as well as grinding skis (removing it). Have the long term adopters avoided base burn?

 

[dovski]

Without scrolling through 46 pages of comments, I'm still curious to get feedback on how well Phantom is at preventing base burn in the long term. That is one of the primary reasons for waxing (preventing it) as well as grinding skis (removing it). Have the long term adopters avoided base burn?

Look I had 4 pairs with Phantom and another no wax solution. These solutions do not prevent the bases from drying out. So over time if you do not wax they get grey and stringy. Sure a tune fixes that but then you are removing material from the base and as I discovered with one pair of skis that received a horrible uneven tune while on vacation (had to run them through the machine several times to get them flat) if you tune your ski 4 to 6 times the Phantom loses its efficacy. My recommendation if you do Phantom is that you continue to wax periodically and store skis with storage wax to protect the bases. If extreme warm and cold conditions you may want a temperature specific wax even with the Phantom and there is nothing to stop you from continuing to wax your skis after applying Phantom. Personally I have been pleasantly surprised by the new liquid waxes that you can just spray on. I still hot wax but much less frequently, but use the liquid wax regularly. Just my two cents worth hope that helps

 

[ScottB]

Without scrolling through 46 pages of comments, I'm still curious to get feedback on how well Phantom is at preventing base burn in the long term. That is one of the primary reasons for waxing (preventing it) as well as grinding skis (removing it). Have the long term adopters avoided base burn?

I think I have enough time with Phantom to answer this question. My answer is it is not offering any protection for base burn. After 3-4 years of skiing several Phantom skis that have not been reground, I decided to put storage wax on over the summer because the base burn was getting very noticeable on all the skis. The skis I still wax look a lot less ragged on the base and less oxidized looking. I did grind one Phantom ski and it came back looking like new and still was gliding as well as before or maybe a little better. The grind had a pretty smooth structure.

I have decided to do a little waxing occasionally and on my skis that get the most use. Up until now I have not been doing any waxing at all on a Phantom ski.

 

[GB_Ski]

) if you tune your ski 4 to 6 times the Phantom loses its efficacy.

I'm confused. I thought you can wax the Phantom treated ski normally if you want.

 

[pchewn]

I'm confused. I thought you can wax the Phantom treated ski normally if you want.

Yes, you can wax over Phantom. A "tune" removes base material by file or grinding. That is what @dovski was referring to, I think.

 

[GB_Ski]

Yes, you can wax over Phantom. A "tune" removes base material by file or grinding. That is what @dovski was referring to, I think.

According to DPS: Even when the ski or snowboard goes into a shop for stone grinding, the next fresh layer of PHANTOM is exposed – ready to glide.

 

[DanoT]

According to DPS: Even when the ski or snowboard goes into a shop for stone grinding, the next fresh layer of PHANTOM is exposed – ready to glide.

So what @dovski is saying is that the DPS Phantom solution only penetrates into the ski base so far....about the depth equivalent to the thickness of base material removed by 4-6 stone grinds. And then it would be a DPS re-application for maybe time for a new ski, especially if you don't have a lot of stone grinding done.

 

[GB_Ski]

So what @dovski is saying is that the DPS Phantom solution only penetrates into the ski base so far....about the depth equivalent to the thickness of base material removed by 4-6 stone grinds. And then it would be a DPS re-application for maybe time for a new ski, especially if you don't have a lot of stone grinding done.

That's not what DPS is saying.

 

[Noodler]

That's not what DPS is saying.

View attachment 160016

Wonder if we have a resident chemical engineer who could weigh in on the plausibility of this assertion. Doesn't seem to pass the "stink" test.

 

[ScottB]

That's not what DPS is saying.

Welcome to the internet, where anything goes (until the moderator kicks you off the forum) and contradictions abound.

DPS has motivation to say what they say. Dovski seems to had it happen on one ski in his quiver. Is he believable?? We will probably never know. I don't know him, but his posts seem pretty reasonable in general in my opinion. I have it on about 10 skis, but have never ground a ski with it more than once or twice and still good. Could something else have gone wrong with his ski and he is incorrectly blaming the Phantom, sure? I am not being helpful, but the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. DPS would not be the first company to overstate their products performance, probably they all do at times. I think it penetrates, but how deep is anyone's guess, and does it vary for various reasons: probably. DPS actually said when it first came out that if the ski was not new or just stone ground, the results would vary. Especially if the ski was full of wax.

 

[ForeverSki]

… base burn …

Noob question … what is base burn and what does it look like?

 

[DanoT]

That's not what DPS is saying.

View attachment 160016

It would be nice to hear the experience of others with DPS and multiple stone grinds. The problem is that a high percent of SkiTalkers do their own waxing, so they are not the target market for DPS Phantom treatment.

 

[Tom K.]

Wonder if we have a resident chemical engineer who could weigh in on the plausibility of this assertion. Doesn't seem to pass the "stink" test.

Present, but the skills, they are a bit long in tooth and rusty. I do remember reading a lengthy paper from a Norwegian guy a few years back. IIRC he used a scanning electron microscope and determined that nothing -- wax included -- really penetrates a modern ski base very far at all.

Can't seem to find it now, while searching and cooking pizza.

Maybe @cantunamunch could weigh in. His brain still seems fully engaged!

 

[Sibhusky]

I feel there was a long thread on Epic about this, complete with photos from the electron microscope.

 

[cantunamunch]

Present, but the skills, they are a bit long in tooth and rusty. I do remember reading a lengthy paper from a Norwegian guy a few years back. IIRC he used a scanning electron microscope and determined that nothing -- wax included -- really penetrates a modern ski base very far at all.

Can't seem to find it now, while searching and cooking pizza.

Eh. I remember this also.

It seems to me that, to settle this issue with any sort of definitive practical knowledge, we really need two tests
- a droplet contact angle test at various depths of grind.
- back EMF vs tool rotational speed - at various depths of grind.

It seems everyone is agreed that applying the polymer doesn't block tearout of PE out of the base - so we won't test for that.

The droplet contact angle would give us the hydrophobic benefit and the tool resistance curve would give us the "dry" frictional benefits at various depths.