New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DPS Skis? - Page 2

post #31 of 54

Thanks Exotic Skis.....I added to your review

 

Here it is:

 

Product:
 DPS Yvette Pure
Length/size Tested: 
168 cm
Sidecut
140/112/128
Tip and tail rocker 
Carbon construction

 

Environment of Conditions:
*Location of review: Northstar and Alpine Meadows
*Runs Taken: who's counting
*Snow Conditions: Powder and Sierra Powder
*Demo or Purchase: Yes!

 

Summary (inc. Strengths & Weaknesses):
 Designed as a pure powder ski, the Yvette excels in powder and sierra powder, and doesn't quit performing when things get tracked out and choppy. 
Even though she was not designed to ski groomers and crud, I was pleasantly surprised that Yvette didn't punish me when I was ready to head for the car at the end of the day and took her down some beat up groomers.
Inspirations:  DPS Yvette inspired me to charge big pillows of snow and leave my signature in the untracked glades and trees.   She did not, however, inspire me to lay down RR tracks on groomers.
Yvette and I get along juuuuust fine!

 

Other skis in class: Rossi S7w

 

 

Tester Info:
Age: 44
Height/Weight: 5'6" 135 lbs
Average days on snow:  30+
Years Skiing:  15-30 

 

Aggressiveness: The moderate side of aggressive, looking for an extra dose of RAWR!

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #32 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

 

Title:  Review: 2011 DPS 112 Hybrid

 

Product:

 

Length/size Tested: 190

 

Environment of Conditions:

*Location of review: Northstar

*Runs Taken: 8

*Snow Conditions: 12-20" heavy windblown 30% water content sierra cement

*Demo or Purchase: demo

 

Summary (inc. Strengths & Weaknesses):

 Strengths: Even being a 190, this ski was amazingly nimble even in the trees. I recently spent a couple of days on a BentChelter in similar but slighty lighter conditions and I must say the 190 DPS out performed the Chetler in every aspect. While groomers and crud are not this skis preferred conditions the 112 did much better than expected. 

 

Weaknesses: While the ski skied very well, I am not sure the quality/ fit & finish is up to being a $899 (or $1199 in the Nano) but skiing it sure makes me feel that DPS is on the right track with this design. I do hear the 2012 production has improved. 

 

Mount Position: I had these mounted at +1 which I didn't realize until I was out skiing, even at that forward mount point I felt the ski had no desire to submarine nor did I ever feel that I was close to going over the handlebars. This position also gave me a bit more tail and not once did I feel like I was wheelying. 

 

Other skis in class: Rossi S7, Atomic BentChetler

 

 

Tester Info:

Age: 47

Height/Weight:

Average days on snow: 0-10, 11-25, 30+  (pick one)

Years Skiing: 0-5, 6-15, 15-30, 30+  (pick one)

 

Aggressiveness: Conservative / Moderate / Aggressive / Competitor (pick one)

 

 



Phil, what are you thoughts on size?  The addition of a 184 for next year has me reconsidering.  I had a pair of 189 Hellbents and still have a 189 Icelantic Keepers and they are awsome in wide open spaces but can be a lot of work in the trees.  Do the 190's ski big?

 

post #33 of 54
post #34 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by cstreu1026 View Post





Phil, what are you thoughts on size?  The addition of a 184 for next year has me reconsidering.  I had a pair of 189 Hellbents and still have a 189 Icelantic Keepers and they are awsome in wide open spaces but can be a lot of work in the trees.  Do the 190's ski big?

 

The 190 skied amazingly nimble. While I never would have considered a 190 as a powder/tree ski this ski has changed my mind. If I do get these, I will not even bother trying the 184, I will get the 190. 
 

 

post #35 of 54

^^^^^ What he said.  The 190 honestly feels like I'm skiing a 165.  You can turn on a dime.  It's the best tree ski I've ever had the pleasure of riding.

post #36 of 54

Cool! I figure the weight help offset the length a bit.  It's got to be a lot easier to swing a 3.5 lb. pair of 112's than my 10.5 lb. Keepers.

post #37 of 54

The 112RP and The Keeper are practically polar opposites of each other in the realm of rockered skis.

post #38 of 54

right but both have a generous amount of side cut and from the reviews I am reading on the 112RP both are similar in terms of versatility.

post #39 of 54

Well, let's keep track of elementary physics. The difference between 190 and 184, say, in the trees is extra mass out on the ends of a system pivoting at its center. So more inertia. The 190 may feel super fast in the trees compared to a 195 S7, for instance, because it's way lighter and has more rocker at tail, shorter running surface. But compare the 190 to a 184, same ski otherwise, and you'll notice the difference. FWIW, marshalolson over at TGR - and he's well above 200 lbs, I think 6' 4" - thought the 190 was going to leave the 178 for dead. Until he tried the 178. Still very planted, slightly lower speed limit and a bit turnier, but otherwise a lot more serious than he expected. Don't write off the 184 until you've tried it...wink.gif

post #40 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by cstreu1026 View Post

right but both have a generous amount of side cut and from the reviews I am reading on the 112RP both are similar in terms of versatility.

I skied The Keeper 3 different times over the past season and I don't care what they say the specs are, that ski does not have the "turn on a dime" nimbleness at all.  It's also fairly floppy and the extra width underfoot doesn't do it any favors when you have to return to the hard pack.  I never got to ski it in anything deeper than 4", so I'll have to reserve final judgement on it's deep snow performance, but I know it's not a 112RP in general feel.
 

 

post #41 of 54

I wouldn't call the Keepers nimble either but they ski fairly well on groomed snow.  I suspect weight might play a roll in that.  My 189's are over 10 pounds without bindings which is why I am looking at the 112RP's. 

post #42 of 54



Yeah, this is what I was thinking, I am not writing off the 190 at all and will steal Phil's at the gathering next week but the 184 seems like it could be a contender. can you guys comment on the actual length of the 190 measure tip to tail on a straight line? I think the RL on these is somthing like 145cm's?  Just curious. I am not sure what you are gaining on the 190 vs. the 184. It may be significant but my guess is actual difference in effective running length is no more than 4cm's?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post



The 190 skied amazingly nimble. While I never would have considered a 190 as a powder/tree ski this ski has changed my mind. If I do get these, I will not even bother trying the 184, I will get the 190. 
 

 



 


RED Font: can you clarify, seems like there's a typo, seems like you are saying the same as the above statement regarding the 190 vs the super 7. 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Well, let's keep track of elementary physics. The difference between 190 and 184, say, in the trees is extra mass out on the ends of a system pivoting at its center. So more inertia. The 190 may feel super fast in the trees compared to a 195 S7, for instance, because it's way lighter and has more rocker at tail, shorter running surface. But compare the 190 to a 184, same ski otherwise, and you'll notice the difference. FWIW, marshalolson over at TGR - and he's well above 200 lbs, I think 6' 4" - thought the 190 was going to leave the 178 for dead. Until he tried the 178. Still very planted, slightly lower speed limit and a bit turnier, but otherwise a lot more serious than he expected. Don't write off the 184 until you've tried it...wink.gif



 

post #43 of 54

Finndog - my 190s measure 190cm along the base (I call that base length).  They measure 188 in chord length.  I'm 5' 7" and 175 lbs. and there's no way I would want this ski shorter than the 190.  Don't let it scare you - it's a very surprising ski.

 

Also, I know DPS publishes a running length, BUT the way I measure RL (the traditional way where you put the ski on the floor and press out the camber) the DPS 112RP in 190 measures 116.5cm for the RL!  The effective edge (EE) when measured at 90* comes out at 133.8cm.  So you can see that these skis ski much shorter than you would expect until you get them in fully 3D conditions (12"+). 

 

BTW - According to my sidecut calculations (using the EE measurement) the ski comes out at 19.5m.  That's a far cry from the published 15m radius.  I have to believe that DPS is somehow using the very short contact length in their calculation and publication of the sidecut radius.

 

Marshal (of DPS) has readily admitted that they're coming out with the 184 to fill the gap and deal with the perception that a 190 is "scary" to some people.  Honestly, most adult males should be on the 190.

post #44 of 54

I've gotten rather enthusiastic about the DPS 112's and the DPS company in general. Just called them to talk about sizing and version of 112 for my wife and me. Was glad to hear there are several hundreds of people on the waiting list for the DPS 112 Pures alone. Well, not glad for me as I'm  +1 & +2, but glad for DPS. Being in high tech, I'm glad when a company that produces a product ahead of it's time by skier's first and businessmen 2nd and trudges along gaining acceptance for years has the potential to hit a home run. I'm sure this amazing year for powder hasn't hurt their cause. Good luck to DPS. Please post a Careers tab on your website. I might be interested.

post #45 of 54

Well, the comments and reviews about these skis were just too much to bear so I called Mike (?) at DPS to talk a bit about the Wailers.  Turns out he skis at Stowe and knows the terrain well, and for my height and weight (5' 10" and 155), and my desire for a ski that would handle the trees well, he recommended the 178.  And the Nordic Barn in Stowe happened to have a couple of pairs available still (though Mike said DPS still has some in the Yvette Blue version, which he said is the same as the Yellow Bananas), so I picked up a pair of Wailer Hybrids in 178 last Thursday.

 

I spent two days on these at Stowe, skiing mostly in the trees in a wide variety of conditions, such as 6 inches plus of untracked, loose chopped up fluff, packed powder, soft bumps, hard pack, and even some icy groomers.  As I had hoped for, these were a dream in the trees on any kind of fresh or loosely packed snow.  Their ability to turn quickly and smear turns in some very tight places (at least for me), was really amazing.  I was able to ski faster yet more in control then on my older Gotamas.  In short, I had a blast.

 

I also took these out of their natural environment and onto the main trails.  When the trails were simply packed down and not too icy, they held an edge just fine, although at 112 underfoot I really would't want to be skiing groomers all day on these as it takes some work getting these up on edge.  Even on some hard windlbown icy sections they held pretty good, though no where as good of course as a real carving ski, but, they didn't send me on a slide for life either.  The one time I really didn't like being on these was when I hit some hard frozen bumps, but that is defintely not what they were made for either.

 

Overall, the time spent on these was a lot of fun, and I can't wait to get them out there again.  Thanks too for all the great info and comments from others at Epic.

 

 

 

post #46 of 54

The 112RP Pure is, as advertised a game changer.  If you ski it you'll buy it.  If possible try it with Markers new Duke binding, the extra width on the new Duke is exceptionally well suited to this ski.

post #47 of 54

Holy thread resurrection Bat man. eek.gif wink.gif

post #48 of 54

I've been on the 138 Pure (190s) since last season.and simply love them in any kind of soft snow. 

post #49 of 54

I have a pair of the 138's as well. Hoping we get enough snow to use.  Thinking about mounting with some Baron's.  

post #50 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

I have a pair of the 138's as well. Hoping we get enough snow to use.  Thinking about mounting with some Baron's.  

 

My Wailer 112RPs never saw snow last season and I'm wondering if they'll get the chance this season. mad.gif

post #51 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

 

My Wailer 112RPs never saw snow last season and I'm wondering if they'll get the chance this season. mad.gif

 

 

Oh come, come now.....  Have a little faith..  

post #52 of 54

Tahoe Baby!!

post #53 of 54

run them tomorrow, i am :-) 

post #54 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

My Wailer 112RPs never saw snow last season and I'm wondering if they'll get the chance this season. mad.gif
i couldn't look at them all year and not use them. My 112's had probably 6+ days on them last season before leaving the midwest.  They're great in spring conditions too. smile.gif

On a side note I tried my hybrid Cassiar 80's for the first time yesterday and they rip.  I can't wait for better conditions to really put them through their paces.
Edited by cstreu1026 - 12/3/12 at 3:47am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion

Gear mentioned in this thread: