EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › DPS 112 RPC, aka Lotus 115.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DPS 112 RPC, aka Lotus 115.

Poll Results: was the review helpful?

Poll expired: May 1, 2014  
  • 0% (0)
    yes
  • 0% (0)
    no
 
post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 

 

 

 

Up front.  I am no fan of the 112PC.  I think it is a "beginner's ski".  The *magic ski* for the guy who never really learned to ski powder.   To me it is a quiver ski.  Not nearly versital enough to be my only skis.  Not to say it is a bad ski.  Just not the ski to end my search for the perfect ski. I am glad I had a chance to spend a season on them.  But not unhappy when I sold them either.

 

Like everyone else reading this review likely most of us read the less than stellar review on the RPC Blister posted.  (It is linked below)   That review and my dislike for the 112PC kept me off the RPC for most of this season.  In restrospect that was a BIG mistake on my part.

 

I am blessed by good fortune to get on a lot of skis.  And I am always searching for the next best thing.  I have had  DPS skis (112/138) and like them for the most part.  But I don't like the price generally.  Even a pro deal at DPS if you are lucky enough to qualify is more than retail on some damn good skis!

 

So for me to ski DPS I gotta REALLY like them :)

 

A good many friends (most professionals)  have decided that the 100mm under foot is *the* magic number for an every day skis.  I need to keep looking for that 100mm ski.  And I have most of the 100mm ski my buddies have suggested.  The 112mm/115mm seems to be my magic number.  I'm 6"1" and 190#.  I am typically a strong skier (physically) and able to ski any terrain given reasonable snow conditions....and with a decent 115mm under foot even what I use to think as "unreasonable" conditions.  I've pro patroled in the PNW-Inland NW and heli/BC guided in Canada and Alaska. 

 

I really like skiing on a pair of 177cm-115mm skis, but prefer something longer when lift served..190cm+.  And ski some LWT 167/168cm ski going the distance in the BC.

 

I am using a tech or Dynafit style binding on all my skiis these days.  Even the skis reserved just for lift skiing.  The RPC is a lift served ski for me.  Enough back ground to you should know if my comments will relate to you.  I commented on the 112s...and it seems to be the opposite of what DPS designed the RPC for.  So I got questioned...and rightfully so.  I've not skied the newest Rossi but should.   I have skied the BD, La Sportiva, DPS and in 100 and 115 formats.  I like the newest LWT skis and the lightest Dynafit style bindings.  A long mountaineering back ground has me looking in that direction..instead of back at my old school Rossi and K2 roots.  Just picking up a 115mm under foot from either company stops me dead, from going further.  The huge tail rocker would if weight didn't.   Even though I know some of them will ski very, very well. 

 

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by deliberate1 View Post

Were you on the 190cm RP's?

Interesting that DPS describes the RP to be more capable on hard than the DPC, and more versatile, but you found just the opposite to be true for you.

 

 

Here is the video I found most enlightening from DPS. This is what convinced me to give the "112" another try even if it is a 115 version :)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq2VAjV8bJo

 

Yes, I was on the 190cm version of the PURE 112RP. And a 192 on the PURE 138 Lotus. (Zero4 and One boots)  But one of my all time favorite skis is the Dynafit Hauscaran in a 177cm (TLT boots) as a playful, fun ski in most any conditions and unsurpassed *for me* in tight trees. I like a stiff tail and little or no rocker in the tail on a shorter ski. The rocker up front I don't want flapping around at speed and the ability to carve bullet proof ice with some acuity important as well.

 

I thought both the 138 and the 112RP too much of a quiver ski instead of a all around ski (duh! that is obvious on the 138 and not nearly the versitility of the 112 everyone else described ).

 

I bought 196cm Hauscarans and the 192 RPC at the same time. Expecting GREAT things from the longer Hauscaran and not much from the the RPC. It turned out the other way around. And I was making the comparison on two and three hr intervals during a 3 day dump of new powder on a hard ice (west coast standards) base that was rained on before freezing up solid. Add two feet of fluff to that while you are still skiing the ice as the base was interesting for the first day and a half.

 

Everytime the place got skied out and I thought the conditions just sucked I went back to the RPC and found it was the ski lacking and not the conditions. Harsh reality and eventual glowing accolades for the RPC (much to my surprise!)

 

In all my internet surfing I found two guys describing the RPC as a *115 Lotus* on another forum...which I found intriging. Marshal Olson and Stephen Drake of DPS were saying the 112RP was a combo of the 138 and the Cassiar 80. (not in my book by any means but I did get the idea what what they intended) All those comments and the newest technology from DPS built into the RPC had me intrigued. My bet is the RPC was the ski DPS was really trying to make when they came out with the 112RP. Blister's review damn near killed this ski for the 1st season I suspect. Not sure the reviewer had a clue either after rereading that one a few times and his later comments. Either he got a totally different ski than I did of the guy had no clue. The non-DPS tune just doesn't jive for me...sorry.

 

DPS sez:

 

• “The RPC is designed to ski more in the fall line with a shallower turn shape. It’s for the charging, directional skier …who wants to put less emphasis on the RP’s hard snow performance and more on its abilities in crud and soft snow.”

 

***I found it a better fall line/faster mach 1 type GS turns, ski with no lack of hard snow (or ice) perfirmance. I also found them easy to do slow, super tight turns on steep or even really moderate terrain with ease. Little difference in the 112RP and the RPS here it is only a matter of a little (very little) effort.

 

• “The RPC gives up some of the 112 RP’s hard snow-carving performance and versatility in exchange for enhanced crud busting and speed through powder.”

 

*** I didn't find that to be the case at ALL! I think the RPC has soem serious added attributes and literally giving away nothing to the 112RP....other than a more skilled/stronger skier will be happier on the RPC by comparison. Blister's review hints at this btw.

 

• “The RPC will allow skiers to surf powder in the morning, then charge leftovers all day as they sniff out stashes.”

 

***this I found spot on.....

 

Blister sez:

 

"the RPC is absolutely a Wailer 112RP at heart, as it shares some of the same characteristics that helped put the original RP on the map".

 

***Not IMO....I think the RPC is best described as a "115 Lotus" Forget all that stuff/nonsense about it's connection to the the "beginner's 112 RP". Bad marketing on DPS part IMO.

 

"I’m not sure I knew what “torsionally rigid” really meant until laying down some blisteringly fast, high-energy carves out the bottom of Alta’s Collin’s face on the RPC. In this respect, DPS’s engineering and construction of the ski is seriously impressive."

 

I mention Rossi 207s below. I do know what a torsionally rigid ski is. The 138s and the 112RP are good examples. The RPC even more so. You want to ski ice...serious ice... get a torsionally rigid ski. Make it rigid enough and you can ski ice on a soft boot and 115 under foot.

 

Blisters' review here:

http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2012-2013-dps-wailer-112rpc-2#comment-16640

 

To prep my RPCs I simply ironed in a thick coat of some spring wax on the Hauscarans and the RPS and took them ot the hill without scaping them. No detune on either and I wouldn't call either ski hooky or even anything close to hooky.

 

I know this will insult the majority of 112RP owners but here goes...easily to describe the 112RP as the ski for the guy that doesn't know how to ski powder.....and you'll never have to learn on the 112RP. It is a super easy ski to ski...any where. But for me it is a "beginners" ski. I come from old school Rossi and K2 SL/GS 207s race skis if that helps. The newest (rockered and 5 point shaped) skis have made me a much, much better skier with less effort involved.

 

Bottom line?

 

I can rip groomers on this ski with literally no speed limit..none.  Even drop into a tuck if I think it required and amazingly still be stable. Big super fast GS turns if I like (and I DO like!)  or quick turns straight down the falline at Mach 1.  Easy.  Pow?  If it is of this ski things are easy.  Not as easy or as playful as a 177 Hauscaran but almost as easy as the 112RP and just as playful as the RP.   Looking for those last tiny powder stashes at your favorite resort?  The 4 to 6 turn pockets of the last remaining stash?  These will make that patch and if you work at it add an extra turn in there as well.  Yes they are a tiny bit more work than the 112RP.  And I do mean TINY! But the advantages the rest of the day are immense.  Even if it is just getting between stashes at Mach 1 with a huge smile on your face.  Slow speed tight trees or just tight turns?  Easy enough...so easy enough.  I am still amazed at just how versital this ski is.  Some of my skis will do most of this.  The RPC finally seems like the "full meal deal" :)

 

This is no 112RPC...it really is a Lotus 115.  Big Mountain?  All mountain?

"My bet is the RPC was the ski DPS was really trying to design when they came out with the 112RP"   The limitations of the 112RP is obvious for the skilled practionier.  I've not noted any limitation on the RPC.  And I really don't consider myself a very "skilled" practionier.  I just get to ski a lot of skis.

 

FWIW I am skiing the RPC with a Dynafit One boot....and the short Hauscarans with a TLTP. I've already retired the carbon Zero4s. I have found I really don't like/want stiff boots on any of these skis. YMMV

post #2 of 16

Next season they will offer a 186 in the RPC.  I will stick to my beginners 184, 112 since I have't figured out how to ski powder......  BTW I skied the 112 today in heavier chopped tracked out piles  and dense wind loaded slabs and with them mounted +1.5 and standing stacked on the 112's they had no issues of deflection or being knocked around.  I would be up for giving them a try but for pure powder days, i don't know how they could be better. (maybe just as good biggrin.gif)  I think they should be mounted at least +1 to get the most out of the Paddle tech.  

 

 

post #3 of 16
Thread Starter 

I agree on the +1 mount.  Worked well with my 314mm boot sole.

 

Just knew the die hard 112RP crowd would love the "beginner" comment :-) 

 

Great set of pictures skiing the 112s you had posted earlier BTW!

Knowing how fun the 112 can be, as your pictures showed,  was one of the reasons I looked at the RPCs again.

My guess from those pics is you already knew how to ski pretty well before the 112s arrived!


Edited by Dane - 4/14/13 at 4:50pm
post #4 of 16

cool!  Yeah, I wish anyone trying the 112 or the RPC's would move the mount forward, the amount of control on the shovel really increases dramatically. the Paddle tech is really a useful innovation that allows you to vary the radiii and play with the ski. sink your heels and keep your COM centered letting the shovels rise up in the powder for some fun. Super easy to flick the tails too.  

post #5 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

cool!  Yeah, I wish anyone trying the 112 or the RPC's would move the mount forward, the amount of control on the shovel really increases dramatically. the Paddle tech is really a useful innovation that allows you to vary the radiii and play with the ski. sink your heels and keep your COM centered letting the shovels rise up in the powder for some fun. Super easy to flick the tails too.  

 

 

I love this thread, because for me, ~115 is the sweet spot for what I like to ski. And I love reviews with so much background information, because it lets me determine how the reviewer's view on things applies to me. 

 

Finn: I'm starting to think that with wider, newer-shaped, rockered skis-- mounting more towards center is an advantage even if you're not planning on doing any spinning or skiing switch. The width and neutral stance (and/or longer skis) lets you get away with less overall tip, and the longer length of ski behind the boot clicks, at least for me, with a rockered tail that might otherwise not be as beefy/versatile without that length. Moving forward feels bizarre for the first few runs; when I first got on R2 from Bones, I thought the R2 basically didn't turn or float. But once it all comes together it's amazing. 

post #6 of 16

yep, totally agree on the forward mount. It really has nothing to do with skiing switch or park.  It allows better control of the shovel and edges. I ski all of my skis at +1 (depending on how you look at the mount points) or so regardless of the width or type of snow. If you stay centered and ski using your entire foot it won't feel odd at all, it will feel like you have more control over the ski. You may feel some fore/aft issues that exist due to using the tails more than you should be and getting behind the turn; especially in powder.  Driving tips down in the bumps/trees, feathering TR in pow, pulling feet back under for more precise and controlled skiing for instance.  (things I have been working on all season) 

 

FWIW- Head ski's seem to be the ski that benefits best with a forward mount of at least +1 to 2. My REV 105's are getting mounted at +2.5! 

post #7 of 16
Thread Starter 

Mount point?

 

After mounting a number of different skis this winter on the manufacture's suggested point I suspect there is an industry wide trend to move the point back on wider skis to improve soft snow performance.   I found this an issue...some times as much as 2cm back from true contact surface mid point on a couple o skis over 100mm under foot.  At least on the RPC Marshal from DPS mentioned the mount point early on in Internet discusssions.  For me at least it really made the RPC dance.  In retrspect I might have liked the RP more if it had been mounted forwrd as well. 

 

IMO...I think it totally changes how a ski performs and it is never for the better on a rockered ski used in a traditional manner (no park or switch).

post #8 of 16

    Dane, you lost me here, do you or don't like it mounted forward? 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane View Post

I agree on the +1 mount.  Worked well with my 314mm boot sole.

 

Just knew the die hard 112RP crowd would love the "beginner" comment :-) 

 

Great set of pictures skiing the 112s you had posted earlier BTW!

Knowing how fun the 112 can be, as your pictures showed,  was one of the reasons I looked at the RPCs again.

My guess from those pics is you already knew how to ski pretty well before the 112s arrived!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane View Post

Mount point?

 

After mounting a number of different skis this winter on the manufacture's suggested point I suspect there is an industry wide trend to move the point back on wider skis to improve soft snow performance.   I found this an issue...some times as much as 2cm back from true contact surface mid point on a couple o skis over 100mm under foot.  At least on the RPC Marshal from DPS mentioned the mount point early on in Internet discusssions.  For me at least it really made the RPC dance.  In retrspect I might have liked the RP more if it had been mounted forwrd as well. 

 

IMO...I think it totally changes how a ski performs and it is never for the better on a rockered ski used in a traditional manner (no park or switch).

post #9 of 16
Thread Starter 

Sorry for the confusion.  I think the aft mounting points that many of the manufactures are now suggesting to enhance soft snow performance are a  mistake on their part.  So far a actual mid point or forward mount point has really enhanced the skis performance for me.  If nothing else now I check and make sure what actually has been marked and suggested by the manufacture.

 

What the ski manufactures should be doing IMO is marking actual mid point of the ski and let the owner decide.  I should have measured myself...just like in the old days :)

 

The rocker thing makes it all a little confusing but not that much.  Rocker just makes the running base shorter.

post #10 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane View Post

The rocker thing makes it all a little confusing but not that much.  Rocker just makes the running base shorter.

Is this true? Most rocker is seriously asymmetrical compared to traditional camber; there's way less running surface attached to the front half of the ski and more to the rear, relatively speaking. Especially for skis like the 112RP or Lotus 120 (both of which I owned). So mid-ski and mid-running surface are seriously different. Wonder if this explains why rockered skis with decent splay can act so differently in soft vs groomed snow. 

 

On the business of lateral stiffness: DPS Pures have too much of a good thing that way. Unbalanced IMO. Compare to a WC ski as a benchmark for longitudinal vs lateral. Cannot speak to DPS Hybrids. 

post #11 of 16

Personally, for DPS, I prefer the Hybrids over the pures. I like the feel and level of feedback better.  

 

The rocker will make the running surface different;  why different and not just shorter?  Because a powder ski for instance pretty much makes contact with all of its surface so it isn't just as simple as shorter running length, the leverage points (balance as well but not exclusive) are effected to the greatest degree by how much energy/pressure gets transmitted from the foot to what area of the ski. A bit too far back makes the shovel less responsive (both to lateral edge-2-edge response and tip response) for instance. 

post #12 of 16
Thread Starter 

Certainly different...

 

In this context I was talking about a forward mount point instead of the factory suggested mount point.

Rocker does make a difference, depending on the use of the ski (pow only or a all mopuntain ski) and the amount of rocker in tip and/or tail.

 

112RP has a bigger rocker (longer and higher) in tip and tail than does the RPC as an example.

 

My personal take is the rear bias mounting points on some of the rockered ski are generally suggested to better the skis performance in soft snow.

From what I have seen and experienced to date (and it is a short date) a good deal of hard snow performance can be left on the table when you get too far back.  I'm not the only one making that observation. 

.

post #13 of 16

Dane, yeah, agreed again but I think there's a bit of soft snow/powder performance being left on the table unless the user is just looking to surf and cruise and not actively use the Paddletech (their name for 5 dim ski design) 

post #14 of 16

Whats the  downside to using Schizos to allow fore/aft adjustment?

post #15 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by mntntom View Post

Whats the  downside to using Schizos to allow fore/aft adjustment?

 

 

None! those or any good demo binding do the trick too.  Ty and look have adjustables too. 

post #16 of 16

^^^^ This. Lot of solid bindings out there that adjust. Not to mention low light flex-friendly plates you can slap a normal binding onto. IMO if you know exactly where you like a mount, all good. Save 5 oz. If you don't, or if you think you may want to change it from time to time, no reason not to go adjustable. 

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 112 RPC, aka Lotus 115.