EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2011-2012 DPS Wailer 112RP Hybrid 184cm, Yvette 112RP Hybrid 178cm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2011-2012 DPS Wailer 112RP Hybrid 184cm, Yvette 112RP Hybrid 178cm - Page 3

post #61 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

ski-ra, what's your BSL?

 

Maybe you can mount some easy bindings on your S7's and I'll keep demo bindings on my DPS Yvettes and we can sample each others skis?  How's that for an idea?

 

Thanks Trekchick, but no need to do anything special - I'll be proceeding with the 178cm S7's for now given all of the above discussions and wouldn't probably consider any powder ski in a 168cm length...unless they're "long" for their size (like my 169cm obSethed's which are nearly 172cm and almost as long as the 178cm S7's). Perhaps I'll eventually get a chance to try the S7's against the 178cm DPS's....
Edited by ski-ra - 9/10/11 at 8:01pm
post #62 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

I think we just need to find some good beers and have another taste-off night?  Sound good Ira?

Indeed - beer o'clock it is, though don't get me started or we'll find ourselves hijacking this thread and angering the DPS gods....
post #63 of 88

I am considering a pair of the 112RPs pures for this season as my one ski quiver more or less. What bindings did you guys choose to pair with these skis and why? I am thinking Look Pivot 14s

post #64 of 88

there's no magic or perfect binding but it seems like a lot of FKS/Looks and Griff' Jesters....

post #65 of 88

I'm kind of hesitating getting in the middle of this debate, but I think there's an important point being missed.  To me, once a ski has significant amounts of rocker (tip and tail) then the normal considerations about flex pretty much go out the window.  Normally you need to flex a ski to turn, but on a ski like the Wailer 112RP this just is not the case.  All a soft rockered ski gets you is a ski the flops around like crazy at speed.  I honestly believe that most people that normally prefer softer skis for whatever reason (weight, terrain choice, skiing style) would be better off going stiffer on a big rockered ski.

 

Ira - you really should be on the Wailer 112RP in a 178cm (at least).  You could even go 184 in my book.  The S7 just has no balls when you start going fast.  I have not skied the Super 7 yet.

post #66 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

Normally you need to flex a ski to turn, but on a ski like the Wailer 112RP this just is not the case.  All a soft rockered ski gets you is a ski the flops around like crazy at speed.  I honestly believe that most people that normally prefer softer skis for whatever reason (weight, terrain choice, skiing style) would be better off going stiffer on a big rockered ski.


QFT.

 

Don't think of it as rocker -- think of it as pre-decambering.

post #67 of 88

Would you guys stop telling Ira to think!!!!!hissyfit.gif

 

Ira......listen to me!  

Stop thinking and just buy the skis!!!

post #68 of 88

I hope Ira doesn't mind me chiming in:

 

1- he bought the 7's.

 

2. Ira doesn't ski fast in open terrain; he's a tree-rat and lives in the land of aspens and lodge pole...... He's a super technical skier; very smooth, making lots of short and medium round turns.  I think if he goes on a  groomer he would spontaneously com-bust.....

 

3- he prefers soft skis like his seths and at 130 pounds (unless we're drinking a lot of quads and stouts the night before) he won't overpower it.

 

 

post #69 of 88

I have to agree here in general. I thought I preferred soft skis but after skiing on some stiffer rockered skis like the cochise and 112 and to a lesser extent the Sentinel (love this ski) I much preferred the control and stability. Good observation.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

I'm kind of hesitating getting in the middle of this debate, but I think there's an important point being missed.  To me, once a ski has significant amounts of rocker (tip and tail) then the normal considerations about flex pretty much go out the window.  Normally you need to flex a ski to turn, but on a ski like the Wailer 112RP this just is not the case.  All a soft rockered ski gets you is a ski the flops around like crazy at speed.  I honestly believe that most people that normally prefer softer skis for whatever reason (weight, terrain choice, skiing style) would be better off going stiffer on a big rockered ski.

 

Ira - you really should be on the Wailer 112RP in a 178cm (at least).  You could even go 184 in my book.  The S7 just has no balls when you start going fast.  I have not skied the Super 7 yet.



 

post #70 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by icefire279 View Post

I am considering a pair of the 112RPs pures for this season as my one ski quiver more or less. What bindings did you guys choose to pair with these skis and why? I am thinking Look Pivot 14s

Odd choice IMO cuz they are about the heaviest binder on the market. Why waste the 112 weight advantage? I'd get a Mojo or Jester.
post #71 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

I hope Ira doesn't mind me chiming in:

 

1- he bought the 7's.

 

2. Ira doesn't ski fast in open terrain; he's a tree-rat and lives in the land of aspens and lodge pole...... He's a super technical skier; very smooth, making lots of short and medium round turns.  I think if he goes on a  groomer he would spontaneously com-bust.....

 

3- he prefers soft skis like his seths and at 130 pounds (unless we're drinking a lot of quads and stouts the night before) he won't overpower it.

 

 



Thanks for the follow up.  I hope to hear from him when he gets on them. 

 

post #72 of 88

Thanks for the feedback beyond, but just a few questions...

 

I looked up the specs and it appears that that the jesters are only marginally lighter than the pivots, is that really that big of a deal? Now I havent had the chance to hold each in my hands and compare the weights in the real world but the reason I say this is because I have not heard great things about the durability of many marker bindings (of course this is just what I have been told) while there have been far fewer negative comments about the pivots.

 

The reason I have taken an interest in these lightweight skis because I feel they would be more easily maneuverable rather than being easier to carry. Since any additional weight in the bindings are close to the center of the ski it shouldn't affect rotational inertia in any meaningful way. Would I be correct to think this?

 

The marker bindings look a little wider than the pivots do you think that would make a meaningful difference?

 

I am actually planning to go shopping for bindings today (some sales in my area) so i'll try to hold both in my hands to compare weight. Jesters also look about $40-60 more expensive.

 

Thanks for any input!

post #73 of 88

Can't speak to the Jesters, have heard they are several oz lighter than Tyrolias. And a pair of Pivot 14's I have in a box was 7 oz heavier than a pair of Mojo 15's, for comparison. That's a lot in my opinion, since it's unsprung weight sitting out at the end of your leg. Maybe we differ on what "marginally" means. 

 

Lightweight skis are more maneuverable on settled snow, I notice the difference mostly in bumps where you may need to do a lot of retraction, absorption, or bounces (I try to avoid the latter). But IMO you buy a light powder ski primarily so it will plane at lower speeds and be easy to throw around in tight places like pillows, trees, or chutes. Unclear about the axis of rotation idea as particularly relevant in powder, since you're not really turning that way, and anyway, won't the moment of inertia at the ends will more influence swingweight? Stuff like cutouts at the tips or thinning/changed construction of cross sections will create a functional outcome of lightness even when the total weight is high. I'm not an engineer, though.

 

Think the Jesters are wider. And yep, that'll help in a wide ski. Meaningful? Depends on how you ski. Will affect carving a lot more than smearing or banking. Think about the fact that many folks do just fine skiing Dynafits on a 115 ski...

post #74 of 88

Thanks for the input beyond,

 

While 7oz is a significant difference comparing pairs of bindings by themselves, I feel that it is insignificant as a whole with body weight and everything so IMO it won't affect planing and such. However I do agree with you on the retraction/absorption bit since the binding would be a significant of the total weight of the ski (minus body weight). 

 

Wouldn't swingweight be relevant in maneuvering in close quarters though?

 

Anyways, I ended up buying the Pivot 14s for around $230 can't wait to order my Wailer 112s in the next week or so. Planning to get them in the 178cm flavor, just wish they came in a red or orange...

post #75 of 88

Can someone verify:  jester/grif's are not any wider than most bindings. They are great choices for a ski like the 112. 

post #76 of 88

They have a wider hole pattern than older design bindings.  That may improve leverage.

post #77 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDad View Post

They have a wider hole pattern than older design bindings.  That may improve leverage.


Would that decrease some of the knee torque on wider skis? I sold my S7s in part because my knees seemed sore after I skied them, thinking maybe I didn't want (or need) that wide of a ski. But my curiosity about the DPS sort of got the best of me, and I ordered a pair, now I'm wondering if I should try the wider bindings. 

 

post #78 of 88

It's unlikely to have any effect on knee torque, because as long as the binding is flat on the ski, the relevant lever is the ski, not the binding.  (And if it does have any effect, the narrower mount would tend to flex more, reducing the transmitted torque.)

post #79 of 88


I have heard/been told that this is not true; not saying you are wrong, I am just trying to get the "its 100%"....  is this a change for 2011/12. My understanding is the toe 'wings" are wider but the screw pattern is not any wider than any other binding. Again, I love the Jester/griff and I think the flatness of the binding and relative light weight is ideal.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDad View Post

They have a wider hole pattern than older design bindings.  That may improve leverage.



 

post #80 of 88

I don't know about any new model design changes.  But they're still stuck with the DIN norm.

post #81 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

Would that decrease some of the knee torque on wider skis? I sold my S7s in part because my knees seemed sore after I skied them, thinking maybe I didn't want (or need) that wide of a ski. But my curiosity about the DPS sort of got the best of me, and I ordered a pair, now I'm wondering if I should try the wider bindings. 

 

You could try running Barons or Dukes. Since these sit about half an inch higher than most traditional bindings, you gain a bit of leverage edge to edge.
 

 

post #82 of 88

but also require more stability when running flat....

post #83 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctasset View Post

You could try running Barons or Dukes. Since these sit about half an inch higher than most traditional bindings, you gain a bit of leverage edge to edge. 

 



Yeah, I'm not even sure it was the width that was doing it.  It might have been the way that tip was always slamming into crud and I was absorbing it in my knees. I guess I'll find out soon enough.

post #84 of 88

^^^^ I'd guess your knees were sore not from slamming into stuff (S7's are pretty good about that with lighter skiers unless you're maching), but from the torque related to ski width. An elevated binding, either via Barons or a plate, would be my solution. Works for me, with worse knees than you, guaranteed, and have never noticed the dread instability that aficionados of dead-flat mounts bring up. (Oddly, they don't bring it up with Dukes/Barons, because I guess the cool/AT factor erases the planted in the snow factor.) Other threads have discussed the mechanics behind all this, at excruciating length...

post #85 of 88

if that works, how about just putting a litter riser under the binding? 

post #86 of 88

Just ordered myself a pair of the wailer 112rp pures 178cm and im so excited I cant sleep...also an arm and leg poorer

post #87 of 88

Last season my girlfriend tested the Wailers too. She was on to short ski's for Sierra powder and Trekchick let here try the Wailers.

She went from crying to flying! Oh boy, I had a hard time keeping up (on K2 Hellbents).

 

This year we are both considering buying Wailers and Yvettes with the Marker F10 touring binding. biggrin.gif

Thanks Trekchick for giving here this nice experience!

post #88 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirksuchy View Post

Last season my girlfriend tested the Wailers too. She was on to short ski's for Sierra powder and Trekchick let here try the Wailers.

She went from crying to flying! Oh boy, I had a hard time keeping up (on K2 Hellbents).

 

This year we are both considering buying Wailers and Yvettes with the Marker F10 touring binding. biggrin.gif

Thanks Trekchick for giving here this nice experience!


It was great fun.  When you come over here again, let us know and we'll hook you up. biggrin.gif

 

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 › 2011-2012 DPS Wailer 112RP Hybrid 184cm, Yvette 112RP Hybrid 178cm