Anyone ski one of this seasons DPS Wailer 95s

I am looking for any reviews of this season's DPS Wailer 95s. I did a similar search in the beggining of the fall and found few reviews. I just did a search on the Tech Talk forum and didn't find much either, though I saw the long thread on the Lotus 138. If I am missing something, please point it out to me.

Has anyone gotten one of this years Wailer 95s? How was quality and finish? Last year's had some problems with the finish (I don't really care about that but it is a $900 ski).

What was the weight of your ski? The DPS website is listing 1400 grams for a 95 in a 185, which works out to about 6.2 pounds a pair, which I find hard to believe. That would be the same as my Trab Freerandos, and earlier the DPS website gave a weight of 7.25 pounds.

How do they ski? What kind of terrain and snow have you skied them on?

Hi Harpo,

Sunday was my first day on this year's model of 185cm Wailer 95 Flex 3s. I actually ordered 195 cm's, but that shipment containing the 195s isn't due in until mid-March or later. The great guys at DPS offered to send me a substitute pair to use in the meantime, and they arrived last week.

Before proceeding, in the interest of full disclosure I have to say I am a DPS rep (and was a DB rep before that). PM me if you want a discount code. I've previously owned a pair of 2004/2005 195 Flex 2 Surreals (which broke), then got a pair of 195 Flex 2 Wailers last year, which had base finish problems in addition to the well-known topskin problems, and these delamed in December.

Here's an extract of the report I filed with DPS:

Initial impressions:

• Unlike last year's Wailers, the bases were essentially flat (maybe .5mm of concave in places) and the bottom edge bevel looks normal.
  
• When squeezed together base to base, the bases don’t meet together exactly flush from tip to tail, but much better than my 2005/2006 Wailers.
  
• I was expecting them to be thicker, but in fact they are a slight bit thinner in the middle than last year’s. However, I’m very glad I got the Flex 3s; the stiffness seems about right, particularly in the midsection.
  
• There’s definitely more tip rocker on these than last year’s (looks like about 3 cm more)
  
• It appears that the boot sole markings are 1 cm back from last year’s (Since these are 185s and last years are 195’s, I can only estimate). I mounted at -1 last year, so I plan to go with 0 cm midsole on these unless I hear otherwise.
  
• There’s a slight bit of top skin chamfer on them, unlike the sharp edge on last years Wailers top skin which gouged up and tore back the topskin.
  
• The bamboo sidewalls certainly look cool, but I assume it was not chosen simply for the coolness factor.

Got the skis mounted (@ 0 cm midsole) with my Naxo 21s. Before skiing them, I hand-flexed them against my single surviving 195 Flex 2 Surreal (the other was hopelessly broken). The Surreal was still noticeably stiffer than the Flex 3 Wailer 95, and seemed to be stiffer torsionally as well. I think this is mainly because the core of the Surreal is substantially thicker than the Wailer. However, when I flexed them against my existing 2005/20066 195 cm Wailer 96 Flex 2s, the new board are noticeably stiffer, particularly in the midsection. Seemed about the same in torsional stiffness.

Ski prep: After planning the bases flat (as per my report below they came to me slightly concave), put a 1 deg base bevel and a 3 deg side bevel on the edges, then deburred, sandpapered, brass brushed, fibertexed, hot waxed, hotscraped, then re-waxed the bases.

I skied them this Sunday at Crystal. Here are my observations:

Conditions: After three weeks without new snow and recently warm, sunny temps, it rained lightly all the way to the summits on Saturday, but remained warm and cleared by Sunday morning. While the air temps stayed slightly above to at freezing overnight, clearing skies and the resulting radiant heat loss made the morning conditions surprisingly fast and hard on the groomers. Air temps rose into the low 40’s Sunday and the humidity was high. By noon even north aspects were turning to corn, and south aspects and the flatter runs got fairly sloppy by afternoon.

Me: 6’1” 220 lbs, ex-racer type. Since I am on the 185cm’s, I was concerned that I may be too heavy and tall for this length. However, I figured the flex3s might be burly enough to work out for me anyway.

Observations:

1. Did a few fast cruisers in the AM while things were still hard. While at first the minimal camber and tip rocker made it seem like the skis were going to be hard to manage on the hard-packed groomers, I was totally wrong. Once I put them on edge, they carved like you would expect a good, stiff cruising ski to hold. Nice clean arcs and little to no chatter. Just enough sidecut to do the job, but not so much that they became hooky or twitchy at speed. While I didn’t get them on any truly bulletproof ice, they felt like they would still hold pretty well as long as the edges were sharp.
2. Did a few morning runs in some south-east facing runs with a mix of old hard bumps and rotting snow. This wasn’t particularly easy on the Wailers, although my buddy who skis about the same skill level as I and who was on K2 Recons was also having a hard time with the inconsistency of the snow. However, the big problem I noticed was that I mainly had difficulty whenever I plowed into a hard bump. The deceleration made the the shovel and middle of the skis flex so much that it released the tail edge and you get the feeling of going over the front, and thus ruined the end of the turn (I did have a 15lb pack on, which didn’t help). I felt like the ski just wasn’t beefy enough in the mid-body to resist over-flexing the ski. Also, I think my Naxo bindings aggravate the situation. A conventional binding firms up a ski from the toepiece to the back of the heelpiece, but the Naxo system has a free-gliding hold-down unit for the rails coupled with a flex point nearly under the ball of the foot, so it provides zero boot/binding stiffening effect. Even with the flex 3s, I can still lean hard into the front of my boots and get the ski to flex off the ground from mid-foot back (but it takes a lot more pressure than last year’s Flex 2’s!).
3. Once things softened to something between cream cheese and corn, all was sweet. Slow or fast, the Wailers were easy and predictable. I skied all the steepest lines (some 45-48 deg) at Crystal, and in tight chutes they were particularly delightful (that’s the only time I felt glad to be on the 185’s, in all other conditions I still think I’d be better off on the 195s.) For still being a medium flexing ski, they seemed to handle speed extremely well as long as I didn’t plow into anything so bumpy as to cause a sudden deceleration. One of the most fun non-powder days I’ve ever had at Crystal. The Wailers made skiing untouched cream cheese in the sidecountry feel like skiing powder! I’m guessing the increased tip rocker helped that quite a bit.
4. As I expected, they zipper-lined soft bumps just fine.
5. Overall, I skied 24,000 vertical feet on Sunday in a variety of conditions, and the only wear and tear I saw on them was some small burring and slight cuts on the top edges of the shovels caused by contact with the uphill ski. (I kept my old Surreal tip protectors, and if I weren’t sending the 185 Wailers back I’d be tempted to drill two holes in the tip and mount those protectors to prevent accumulated damage to the shovels.)


Although the flex 3 shovel and tails seem fine as is, I suspect that the Wailer 95 could be made just a tad thicker and stiffer in the mid-body and it would be even better. Even the charts from the DP website indicate that the Wailer has a pretty soft mid-body compared with the other DPS models, and I’m guessing this is because they are kept thin there to save weight. Personally, I’d trade a bit more weight for more beef there.

However, I might think differently if the flex 3s were mounted with conventional bindings.

Now if we can just get some new snow, I look forward to trying them in some pow. More reviews to come.

NICE WRITE UP.

and re weight a single lotus 120 with a fritschi freeride plus mounted to it is 5.9lbs (ie. 11.8lbs per pair WITH BINDINGS)

freerides = 4.5 lbs per pair, so the total weight of a 120mm waisted 190cm pair of skis is 7.3 lbs or 3299g per pair or 1649g per ski.

Sweet. When I have lots and lots of American dollars, I might look into this ski. I played with the idea of getting some flex 2's, but it sounds like the flex 3 is manageable for mere mortals.

One thing I have noticed on my Naxos on high speed groomers is how dead they are underfoot and how much they seem to affect the consistency of the flex (on B3's which are pretty noodly). I can flex towards the toe in the liftline, and the ski noticeably flexes exactly at the front of the heelpiece--more so than when my B3s were mounted alpine. Did you notice anything similar on the Wailers while trying to find a speed limit?

I definitely think the Naxo binding makes the underfoot part of the ski flex more than with conventional bindings. Whether or not that's a good thing, I'm not sure. It certainly makes it feel softer.

When I have time, I'll take some photos of the way mine flexes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

NICE WRITE UP.

and re weight a single lotus 120 with a fritschi freeride plus mounted to it is 5.9lbs (ie. 11.8lbs per pair WITH BINDINGS)

freerides = 4.5 lbs per pair, so the total weight of a 120mm waisted 190cm pair of skis is 7.3 lbs or 3299g per pair or 1649g per ski.

---

Interesting. Must be high variance, then, in their production run as my pair of 120s (unmounted) come in at just under 9 pounds. Kinda interesting/sketchy if the above is actually true!

They still are *very* light for their size.

i am a retard and forgot to say the weight reflects last years flex pattern.

my spreadsheet\thread also shows a high variance in the 120 weight if both of your weights are accurate as well.

its most likely just a year to year thing, but it could be more than that.

Ive done significant composite work, and when my friend and I made the same parts side by side, after final machining, his were 200grams heavier.
This was on a 16" diameter .25" plate of solid carbon 6k/6k T300 epoxy wet layup.

edit: duh. flex patterns. those are the upper and lower bounds then

both the core profile and overall stiffness is different on this and alst years skis. a few this years skis were made intentionally to last years spec.

my bad. i forgot. i'll weight mine too, just to see.

BD, good review. Hope you shared it with Stephan.
Layups and other things can change when perfecting a design.
Same thing with skis as your carbon piece, Phil.
Love it when you guys get together and compare notes.
Marsh!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

i am a retard and forgot to say the weight reflects last years flex pattern.

---

My last email from DP said, "They are burly, durable and
powerful, yet coming out lighter than ever.":(

I may keep my chipped up 120's from last year if they are almost two pounds lighter than a replacement and the topsheets are still pulling up like Yoss reported. I use it as a touring ski so that type of weight increase is huge. Can we confirm that weight difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

NICE WRITE UP.

and re weight a single lotus 120 with a fritschi freeride plus mounted to it is 5.9lbs (ie. 11.8lbs per pair WITH BINDINGS)

freerides = 4.5 lbs per pair, so the total weight of a 120mm waisted 190cm pair of skis is 7.3 lbs or 3299g per pair or 1649g per ski.

---

Not sure if this is the best place for this post, but I've been thinking about setting up freerides on a pair of lotus 120s and I'm wondering what to do about the brakes? Have them re-machined? Bend them? I also thought that I saw a while back on here that Look brakes fit Freerides? Has anyone done this?

Should I skip it and just go with alpine bindings?

(damn I need to get off my ass too and send them back for the remade version first)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eb

Not sure if this is the best place for this post, but I've been thinking about setting up freerides on a pair of lotus 120s and I'm wondering what to do about the brakes? Have them re-machined? Bend them? I also thought that I saw a while back on here that Look brakes fit Freerides? Has anyone done this?

Should I skip it and just go with alpine bindings?

(damn I need to get off my ass too and send them back for the remade version first)

---

i've gotten fritschi brakes to work (not well, mind you, but they do have some clearance) on spatulas. do with that what you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dirk Diggler

My last email from DP said, "They are burly, durable and
powerful, yet coming out lighter than ever.":(

I may keep my chipped up 120's from last year if they are almost two pounds lighter than a replacement and the topsheets are still pulling up like Yoss reported. I use it as a touring ski so that type of weight increase is huge. Can we confirm that weight difference?

---

if that difference is actually true (and measured, not reported -- can you weigh yours for us dirk?), i would definitely keep the older version.

did you ever feel they got deflected due to their (light) weight?

i should get mine out in the next week...just haven't found the time to get a dynafit template & drill 'em.

the 06/07 layup is definitely lighter than 05/06. Within the Wailers, considerably so.

here are weights taken from 3 random shelf samples per size/shape and averaged out...

Lotus 138, 192 cm: 2040 g/ski - 8.9 lbs/pair
Lotus 120, 190 cm: 1811 g/ski- 7.85 lbs/pair
Wailer 105, 188 cm: 1420 g/ski- 6.26 lbs/pair
Wailer 95, 185 cm: 1400 g/ski- 6.17 lbs/pair

Upallnight, surprised to see your measurement on the Lotus 120 at a bit under 9.0 lbs. After seeing that, went out and remeasured 4 more random 190cm Lotus 120 flex 2 samples, and got an average of 1805g, with a resin variance of maximum to minimum of 65g. Even the heaviest single Lotus 120, flex 2 produces a maximum pair weight of 8.1 lbs.

If your pair is just under 9lbs, that would definitely be strange and anomalous. Are you sure your scale is accurate and zeroed? If so, send a PM, and let's work to swap them.

Some other random notes:

+ Flex 3's are generally not more than 40g heavier per ski than the Flex 2's- and within resin variance, so you can have a flex 3 that is as light as a flex 2.

+ The profile on the 06/07 Wailer 95's is the same as the Wailer 105- it's setup to up to float those shapes as much as possible for their width, while incorporating a proportionally stiff tail for high speed stability and power- that means running the profile deeper into the tail while thinning the underfoot section to hit a designed overall flex value. We are super happy with the way they are skiing at the moment, but in the name of R+D, will also be playing with Wailer 95's with a more all-around Cassiar profile (stiffer underfoot, softer tail, stiffer tip). As you say, Brain Damage, I don't think you are going to stall or have a profile issue on the 195's. I ski the 185 Wailer 95 and can crank on them, but then step down to the 175cm, over-leverage the shovel, and the ski stalls in the 3/4 phase of the turn. The band aid cure is to mount farther back to numb the shovel, but that's obviously less preferable to being on the right length.

+ We have been playing a bunch with the torsional stiffness of different bindings, and have found that Naxos will take a high performance ski and turn it into slop ;) Even the difference between a Marker toe and a Look/Salomon toe on the same ski makes it noticeably crisper and so much truer to its designed performance.

This is why I get on the intermanet. For threads like this. :yourock:

DPS, Thanks for the clarification.:yourock: So glad to hear it.

I love those 120's like nothing else, hence the minor hesitation to trade them in. Any update on when they are available?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dps

Upallnight, surprised to see your measurement on the Lotus 120 at a bit under 9.0 lbs. After seeing that, went out and remeasured 4 more random 190cm Lotus 120 flex 2 samples, and got an average of 1805g, with a resin variance of maximum to minimum of 65g. Even the heaviest single Lotus 120, flex 2 produces a maximum pair weight of 8.1 lbs.

If your pair is just under 9lbs, that would definitely be strange and anomalous. Are you sure your scale is accurate and zeroed? If so, send a PM, and let's work to swap them.

---

I pulled out the scale again and used the following method to weigh them:
* weigh myself;
* weigh myself with the skis 2-3 times;
* weigh myself again.

I'm not sure if the scale is accurate in an absolute sense, but I believe this would minimize any error.

I am weighing them while still in their plastic zippered bag (must be light, no?). They always come in above 8 -- I think 8.2 was the lowest and 8.7 the highest -- so better than 9#, for sure.

I remembered them coming in at 8.8 or 8.9 the first time around when I did a quick measurement -- but maybe my method was off.

Sounds like my sample may be at the high end of things? Not sure how to get a more accurate reading w/o going out and buying a new scale.

weighed the bag ;), a surprising 182 g, or .4 lbs., so i think you are in range.

If you happen by the post office, you can put each ski individually on the scale, and then total them up.

The flex 2 is sold out until summer delivery, and there are only a few flex 3's left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dps

weighed the bag ;), a surprising 182 g, or .4 lbs., so i think you are in range.

If you happen by the post office, you can put each ski individually on the scale, and then total them up.

The flex 2 is sold out until summer delivery, and there are only a few flex 3's left.

---

that's a surprising weight for the bag -- i've assumed it was featherweight, but i have never felt it without the skis inside. maybe i'll weigh the bag, too.

i am in a pretty small town. our postal scale is in a bit of an awkward spot and wouldn't accommodate a ski without it being supported from somewhere else; good thought, though. i don't need to get that precise. i will try weighing them w/o the bag, though.

(p.s. thank you for letting me know how to add the weights of individual skis together to make the pair! :)i am going to have to tell some people that this concept had to be explained to me, and they will lose any last semblance of respect for me :). ) i can understand, though, that there could be some ski to ski variance. also, knowing that my own scale is not the best at low weights (higher error), i've been consciously weighing the skis (with my weight on there, too) to reduce the error.

will report back after i have a chance to do this. thanks so much!

sorry, guess i was on track with one of those postage scales that only go up to a couple of lbs + curious about the difference from ski to ski.... wasn't doubting your weighing skills...

fun to be geeking out on grams ;)

dude, this bathroom scale thing is weak sauce. at yer local office supply store (staples etc) you can pick up a hyper accurate scale for 30 bucks. anyone who reads or posts in tech talk is enough of a gear geek to make that 30 dollar purchase well worth it. plus you can weigh packages and pay for shipping over the interweb.

as a DB purchaser from way back in the day, i've been paying close attention to DP skis and flirted with pulling the trigger last year. the lotus 120 is speaking to me. i like how DP approaches ski design, and how they're constantly improving / evolving.

so it was with some disappointment that I read a negative magazine review on the wailer 95. sorry i've had a beer and can't remember which magazine...i read a lot of mags...anyway, the poor edgehold was the main complaint. hmmm now that i think about it, i think it was that euro ski magazine whose review department is run by that british ex-olympic racer. the edgehold was described as 'binary'.

don't interpret this as a 'dp wailers suck' post -- i haven't even flexed 'em, let alone skied them. it's more like "hmmm, DP are still not on the radar for a lot of skiers---hey wait, here's a review in a big glossy magazine. er, bummer, turns out to be a negative review'.

edit to add: I think it was that Daily Mail ski and snowboard magazine (we get it for free) aimed at british punters. i don't agree with all their reviews but in general they do okay e.g. picking the im103 and legend pros as 'most stable in crud', etc.

maybe the review was for the narrower cassiar? can't remember, and their site search sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dps

The flex 2 is sold out until summer delivery, and there are only a few flex 3's left.

---

Sold out until summer delivery? I rec'd an email saying you were replacing them in late Jan. ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dps

+ We have been playing a bunch with the torsional stiffness of different bindings, and have found that Naxos will take a high performance ski and turn it into slop ;) Even the difference between a Marker toe and a Look/Salomon toe on the same ski makes it noticeably crisper and so much truer to its designed performance.

---

would love to see some data on this. especially with the width of these skis being pretty chunky.

I’ve gotten in 3 more days on my loaner pair of 185 Flex 3 Wailer 95s since I posted my initial report on them. I’ve been skiing them in very hard conditions at Crystal the last two weekends. Had about 4-5 of dust on crust Sunday, which was fine when I was able to find some undisturbed crust in the B/C, but mostly it was “4-inches-of-dust-on-frozen-chicken-heads”, which was not fun. Saturday afternoon softened a bit in the PM, but most of the day was on brutally hard refrozen bumps and crud and some icy groomers.

Am finding that the 185 Flex 3 Wailer 95s are just not beefy enough to be great in these conditions. Not horrible, and maybe no 95 mm waist ski is going to be great in these conditions, but definitely not ideal. They got kicked around pretty severely by the death cookies and chickenheads. Furthermore, the edges (which are sharp) hold OK to a point, but once they lose grip, you better be over that downhill ski or you’re going down. Once things soften up, however, it’s a very fun ski (albeit at my size I'm sure I'd still be better off on the 195s.)

As I posted earlier and per SD's later posting, part of the problem may be the Naxo bindings. As per the attached picture where I'm just leaning forward and pressing my shin hard into the front of the boot, with most skis (and conventional bindings) I can butter up on the tips, but with the Naxo's on the Wailers, the ski to flexes freely under my foot rather than out in the forebody.

Part of this deep flexing is due to the ski being fairly soft in the midsection, but the pictures show how the bending moment is being appllied under the ball of the foot rather than out in front of the toe. I suspect that aggravates the problem of not really being able to put any pressure on the front of the ski, and the ski being somewhat squirrely on super-hard conditions.

Also, knowing that Naxo’s and Fritchi’s allow a bit of axial play, it probably makes it harder to maintain a good feel for when the edges are going to break loose. I hope to pick up a set of Marker’s Duke A/T bindings to mount on the 195’s next fall (Since my 195s probably won't be in until the end of March) -- from what I hear that should be a tighter setup.

While this may not apply to the other DPS models, don't be afraid of Flex 3 on the Wailer 95s. They are easy to ski slow and make tight turns when you need to, so you don't have to give up much to get the better stability the Flex 3s provide when going fast.

So far the topskins are holding up pretty well.

We’re getting dumped on tonight and hope to get them out in real powder conditions on Wednesday. May compete in Crystal's Powder 8 contest on Saturday if I can line up a partner.

I'll post more once I see how they ski in real pow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrainDamage

As I posted earlier and per SD's later posting, part of the problem may be the Naxo bindings. As per the attached picture where I'm just leaning forward and pressing my shin hard into the front of the boot, with most skis (and conventional bindings) I can butter up on the tips, but with the Naxo's on the Wailers, the ski to flexes freely under my foot rather than out in the forebody.

---

presumably the wailer is designed to be a backcountry ski. (if it were a resort ski, why would the weight matter at all?)

if that's the case, shouldn't it be designed to work well with an AT binding (fritschi, naxo, etc.)?

my naxos work just fine on a 112mm waist ski, and my fritschis are fine on many other pairs of skis. i don't think the binding can totally be at-fault here.

just wondering/puzzled.

I measured the weight of my 185 cm Flex3 Wailer 95's on a digital kitchen scale mounted with Naxo NX21s (mediums). They weighed a total of 12 lbs. 7 oz. a pair. Subtracting off the published weight of the bindings & brakes--5 lbs. 8 oz.--puts the skis alone at 6 lbs. 15 oz/pair. (3.15 kg/pair, or 1576 gr/ski). The published weight is 1400 gr/ski, a 12% variance.

(This assumes that the scale is reasonable accurate and that the Naxo published specs are accurate.)

In response to Upallnight's comment "presumably the Wailer is designed to be a backcountry ski. (if it were a resort ski, why would the weight matter at all?)", here's what I think:

Yes, while the Wailer is designed to be a great B/C ski, it's meant to be more than that (there are already plenty of great light B/C skis out there, but most folks would think they suck as an everyday resort ski).

What I'm seeking is the mythical "one ski that can do it all", and the Wailer 95 comes closer than anything I've ever been on. From the DPS website: "The Wailer 95 rails like a race ski on the groomed—even at 95mm in the waist. Combine a flex pattern engineered for floatation with a directional twin and you have the everyday frontside/backside board for continental and intermountain climates." "95mm underfoot is such a sweet waist width. It offers great hard snow performance coupled with good powder and crud float. "

A typical day at Crystal usually involves wet powder, crust, crud, steep chutes, steep faces, trees, moguls, hucks, high-speed groomers, bootpacking, and ice. Even if you have a quiver with you, making a ski choice in the morning can be hard.

While it's true that no one ski (or boot or binding for that matter) can be optimal for all conditions, I believe that DPS is getting close to building one ski that will be fun enough in nearly all conditions that you can go out every day without hauling a quiver around with you or suffering one part of the mountain to get a great experience on another part. Garmont and Scarpa have done that with boots, and same goes in the binding arena with Fritschi, Naxo, and soon Marker.

I liked the 191cm Mantra I demo'd for a week at JH last year, but it suffers as an all-around ski because of its high weight and the susceptibility of metal to bending in the bumps. The Mantra did many things well, but was not a satisfactory bump ski. Carbon is amazing in that you can get much lighter weight (particularly swing weight) yet higher strength AND torsional rigidity (albeit at a higher cost).

BTW, I think that being light is important to a ski even when not using them B/C, particularly as you go fatter. They are less tiring (particularly when sidestepping or skating), hop turn easier in tight spots, ski bumps better, don't kill your legs so much dangling from the chairlift, and feel more playful in general.

RE: Naxo flex. As the attached illos illustrate, there is a pivot point on the Naxo that is just ahead of the ball of your feet. While this improves the Naxo's stride when the heels are in climb mode, it is still there when the heels are locked down. I think an unintended side effect of this design is that it magnifies the leverage you put on the front of ski when you decelerate when you hit a bump hard or when you plow into soft or wet snow. With the Fritchi, this pivot point is a few inches further forward and is the main pivot axis when in climb mode.

BTW, all is not fixed with the Naxo durability problems. A toe wing broke off on my NX21s in December after only 7 days sking on them (at the beginning of a great powder day at Steamboat, of course :mad: ), and they were not treated harshly.

Marmot in Bellevue WA replaced them with a new toe unit that has some small changes from last year's model, but now I will always worry that this could happen to me while in the B/C, where it won't be so easy to get out.

brain damage sed

Quote:

---

the edges (which are sharp) hold OK to a point, but once they lose grip, you better be over that downhill ski or you’re going down.

---

...which echoes the comment in that mag review about the 'binary' behavior on the edging.

the construction on DP's is different & innovative enough that design evolution seems inevitable. i.e. i'm sure they'll get this design dialled.

I love this place.

OK, had an outstanding day at Crystal yesterday, probably my best day ever. Skied the 185 cm Flex 3 Wailer 95's in about 2' of as close to blower powder as we get in the PNW on top of bulletproof hardpack. Cold, sunny, and no wind.

North and South Backcountry opened for the first time since the storm cycle ended, and every run was untracked powder and steep.

How were they? Well, it's hard to say since I think I could have been on old narrow race skis and still had fun that day :p . However, I can say that in these conditions, I felt I could do no wrong on the Wailers, they were sooo sweet.

A noticeably better powder board than the old DB Surreal, which was too stiff in the shovel and didn't have as much tip rocker. No worries about going over the bars with the Wailers -- I could ski them off the ball of my foot and no sensation of tip diving.

They also allowed me to ski some skied-up pow under Chair 6 at warp speed under full control (even though at my size I really should have been on 195's).

I keep asking myself -- if I were on the Lotus 120 or 138, could I have enjoyed the day even more? My guess is no, those boards need poorer snow conditions to show off their superiority. I'm guessing in wet glop, zipper crust, or wind-affected snow the wider boards would shine. OTOH, the Wailer 95s are an ideal A/T ski when equipped with A/T bindings and wall-to-wall skins, while the Loti would be more work when climbing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dps

here are weights taken from 3 random shelf samples per size/shape and averaged out...

Lotus 120, 190 cm: 1811 g/ski- 7.85 lbs/pair

Upallnight, surprised to see your measurement on the Lotus 120 at a bit under 9.0 lbs. After seeing that, went out and remeasured 4 more random 190cm Lotus 120 flex 2 samples, and got an average of 1805g, with a resin variance of maximum to minimum of 65g. Even the heaviest single Lotus 120, flex 2 produces a maximum pair weight of 8.1 lbs.

---

used the post office scale on them tonight. due to the position of the scale (on a shelf in the corner), it was challenging to weigh them. i had to hold them up just a tad (at an angle), so i think my measurements were a touch light.

that said:
1st ski - 3lb14oz
2nd ski - 4lb3oz
bag - 7oz

skis - 8lb 1oz... so... a touch on the high side for the pair.

if i had a matching pair of the lighter skis, that would have been 7.75# for the pair. (a matching set of the heavier skis would be 8.375#/pair.)

Bump. Anyone else have the Wailer 95's, or 105's for that matter? I would appreciate your opinions of the skis and of how durable they are.

So far, I have one first person review of this season's 95 on this thread, one first person review of the old foam core 95 over on TTips, and one second hand write up of the 06/07 105 over on TTips. I have also seen the reviews last fall in Backcountry and Couloir.

I am particularly intrested in how well these skis hold up to abuse. The owners of the 95 and 105 reviewed over on TTips each warrantied their skis once. DPS offers a one year warranty against defects in workmanship or materials. I would be happier if they had PM Gear's "Satisfaction Guarantied" warranty - if I am going to hand over close to $1000 for a pair of skis they better last me a long time. The reviewer over on TTips speculated that Stephen would stand behind his product for longer than year, but that was based on the reviewers opinion of DPS's customer service reputation. I have seen many people affirming PM Gear's customer service and I have also experienced it in person. I don't remember any other people doing so for DPS. Can someone direct me to a thread where that happens?

I am trying to decide between getting another Bro to mount with Dynafits, or a Wailer. I would be more than happy with the Bro, but the Wailers are supposed be almost two pounds lighter, and I might want to try something different.

meh?
2 lbs lighter?!

exactly how much does a W95 weigh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pechelman

meh?
2 lbs lighter?!

exactly how much does a W95 weigh?

---

An entry into the DPS blog a few months ago said that the actual weight of the 06/07 Wailer 95 185 was 1400g, and the 105 in a 188 was 1420 g. This works out to about 6.25 lbs/pair. Don't remember which flex. The weight was taken from an average of three samples. It is considerably less than the previous years version of these skis, I think they said this because they used less resin?

Last years 179 Bro Stiff was reported at 7.5 pounds. My first pair of 179 Extra Soft Bros (warrantied) weighed 7.25 pounds but was to soft for me. My current pair of 06/07 179 Softs weighs just about 8lbs, I think because it has more fiberglass in it than last year's 179 stiffs.

If I were to get another pair of Bros to mount with Dynafits, it would be the ones that weigh 8lbs, which is about 1.75 pounds more than either of the Wailers I might get.

Is anyone doing moderate (occasionally substantial) touring on the Wailer 105s? I've been reading lots of posts and while the Wailer 95s are probably more versatile/practical I'm considering replacing my current AT setup (similar dimensions to the 95s @ except 178cm) with something a bit fatter. Mostly curious about the width for touring? I have Maiden AKs for super deep resort days and so I'm looking for opinions on the new AT setup: 175 Wailer 95s versus 178 Wailer 105s. My phat-ski greed has me always wanting to go wider -- looking for a good reason not to go 105 as a primary touring (and sidecountry) rig. Typical day tours for me would be 2-4K of vertical, Washington terrain.

this pic is sad for a flex 3
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/a...1&d=1172014713

hi brain damage; im from argentina and now riding 4frnt msp 188cm and maybe wanting to buy some lots 120 mm waist 200 cm fro riding las leñas and some other taller peaks in the andes. MAybe you can send me your discount number so i can order one of those. _MAybe mounted them in some fritschis in order to tour a little better than with the dukes...what do you think about this???
thank you

Anyone one have more recent reviews of the W95, especially of of the 07/08 versions (which remains unchanged this year)? I saw the review in Backcountry Magazine - and other reviews in the traditionally published media?

DPS, how does the edge holding on ice compare between the wailer 95 and a Volkl Mantra? Also, is the flex3 3 stiffer than the Mantra?

I ski Mantras in the backcountry, mostly spring firm conditions, steepish couloirs (45-50 deg in the Eastern Sierras.

Thank you.