or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › DPS Wailer 112 (AKA the Banana Ski)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DPS Wailer 112 (AKA the Banana Ski) - Page 8

post #211 of 230

Depends on your size!  I am 6' 168 and have skied the 112 in waist deep powder and its just fine. As long as the snow isn't heavy; and its "not supposed to be" in the Kooteneys!  

 

Baldface? 

post #212 of 230
Finndog -
Oversight: 5' 8", 170 lbs, though hoping to be a bit lighter by the time the trip starts smile.gif
My 112rp's are 184" Pure 3's.

Yup - Baldface.
post #213 of 230

Awesome, Enjoy.  

post #214 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by vigga View Post

Finndog -
Oversight: 5' 8", 170 lbs, though hoping to be a bit lighter by the time the trip starts smile.gif
My 112rp's are 184" Pure 3's.

Yup - Baldface.

I skied the 112 Pures in the next size down (178?) in knee+ powder in Utah and had a blast. And we are basically the same size.

Have a great time.

D1

post #215 of 230
I think as long as you are not charging huge lines in an attempt to make it in to ski movies the 112 is a great powder ski regardless of depth.
Edited by cstreu1026 - 1/28/14 at 6:28pm
post #216 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by cstreu1026 View Post

I think as long as you are charging huge lines in an attempt to make it in to ski movies the 112 is a great powder ski regardless of depth.

I think you mean "unless you are" :)

And no...I don't see myself charging anything that could ever be considered "huge"

post #217 of 230

if you have adjustable bindings I would suggest trying them +1 FWIW.  Just allows better shovel control/use.  

post #218 of 230

Thought about putting Schizo's on them, but my home shop had a price on a brand new pair of standard Griffon's that was just too good to pass up - so not for this trip :(

post #219 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by vigga View Post

I think you mean "unless you are" smile.gif
And no...I don't see myself charging anything that could ever be considered "huge"

Good catch.
post #220 of 230
Thread Starter 
112RP- huge line charging for mere mortals :-)
post #221 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
 

if you have adjustable bindings I would suggest trying them +1 FWIW.  Just allows better shovel control/use.  


I'm at +1 also (after initially skiing them at +2.5) and feel that's a good spot on this ski.  I just finished tuning my pair up getting ready for the big snow that's moving into CO. :D

post #222 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post
 


I'm at +1 also (after initially skiing them at +2.5) and feel that's a good spot on this ski.  I just finished tuning my pair up getting ready for the big snow that's moving into CO. :D

Too funny, I ended up at +1.5 myself.  AND yes! the "show" is about to begin. 

post #223 of 230

Just got my pair of the Pure 3s, planning on mounting +1, detuning to 2cm beyond contact, and trying them out in LCC this weekend, yea!  Hope everyone stays home to watch the super bore, leaves the slopes to me (not likely!)

post #224 of 230

At 5'7, 160 I was under the impression that the 184 would be the size for me. After skiing it a few days, I am starting to wonder if I should have downsized a bit for the stuff out here on the east.

 

For wide open spaces, I think I like the 184's. For trees, bumps, etc, I think a 178 may have been the way to go. :(

post #225 of 230

I'm 5' 7" (and a bit heavier than you ;)) and ski the 190.  The 190 for me turns on a dime.  Strong foot pull back and tipping are all this ski needs with so much integrated rocker in the tips and tails.  I find it to be practically "mindless" to ski in tight trees.  I can't even imagine what the 178 would be like for me considering that the 190 is already a 15m radius ski.  It would most likely be downright scary.

post #226 of 230
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maineskiaddict View Post
 

At 5'7, 160 I was under the impression that the 184 would be the size for me. After skiing it a few days, I am starting to wonder if I should have downsized a bit for the stuff out here on the east.

 

For wide open spaces, I think I like the 184's. For trees, bumps, etc, I think a 178 may have been the way to go. :(

112RP skis short but not super short.  The deeper the snow gets the longer its effective length becomes.  I would not be afraid to go long but within reason.  You probably can ski both length just fine, its a matter of the preference.  if you feel that 184 is too long, then maybe it is.  

post #227 of 230

I'm the same 5'8"/160 and demo'd both the 184 and the 178, the 184 in Pure 2 and 178 in both the Pure 2 and hybrid, over four 4 days at Alta last April.  Snow was 12"+ of heavier (for Utah), wind blown and chunky.  Much preferred the hybrid and 178s in the trees and felt little difference between 178/184 in the open.  Then again, I ultimately preferred my 175 JJs so I guess that's pretty telling . . .

post #228 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post
 

112RP skis short but not super short.  The deeper the snow gets the longer its effective length becomes.  I would not be afraid to go long but within reason.  You probably can ski both length just fine, its a matter of the preference.  if you feel that 184 is too long, then maybe it is.  

 

Yeah, I can't tell if I am just acclimating to the extra length at the tip or not.  It does seem super nimble but bad technique could be the cause of my indecision toward length 

post #229 of 230

HI all, can somebody point out to me where on my Wailer 112rp Hybrids 184 the center of effective edge is, relative to midsole mark?

 

I tried to find the center of edge contact of the tilted ski by sliding a piece of paper along the floor. If I went by that measurement I can never get ball of foot over that center mark without mounting 4-5 cm forward.

 

Boot size is 27/27.5, Dynafit Zzero4. Try to ski centered with some but not agressive shin pressure. Athletic but conservatie "no fall" skier. Like short to medium turns most.

 

What do you recommend for a mounting position? And for reference, where is CEE?

 

thanks in advance!!

post #230 of 230

I owned 112RP Pures 184cm  ( original Pure construction )

I see you are in Germany -> my Wailers have visited Garmisch-Partenkirchen and St. Anton :)

 

Not to state the obvious, but there is a centre mark on the ski topsheet and lines for + or -.

For the 112RP, +1cm seemed to be to popular mounting point.

Unless you think you have a top-sheet that was misprinted or misaligned, I would go with what is printed on the ski.

 

You can also check at TGR Forums in the lengthy DPS Wailer112RP thread.

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php/183657-DPS-Wailer-112RP-(aka-my-wallet-is-in-for-a-beating)

But be forewarned about asking "stupid questions" there, as the forum community will bite your head off.

 

- Andy

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › DPS Wailer 112 (AKA the Banana Ski)