do i want 138s? help me spend or save $$$.

[upallnight]

i definitely don't need any new skis, but i'm in the gray area between wanting and needing at the moment. i've read the threads out there on the 138s but am wondering if anyone has an opinion that might sway me in one direction or the other for getting the 138s.

we've had a pretty epic year here -- one where it's been fun to run through the pow-ski quiver. i'm also heading back to AK in the spring for the first time in a couple years.

i took my spatulas out for a few days (simply because i hadn't taken them out in 2 years), and it just rekindled my memory of how much fun and playful they could be in the right conditions. it left me thinking about the 138s in a 202 length... would it be just more of what the spatulas do well, with even less of the downside?

what i like about spatulas
for the record, when i'm having fun on the spats i like the surfy feeling, easy pivoting in the tightest of spots, and performance in any type of pow and/or slabs/crusts. i actually don't mind the hardpack performance (i'm not out there riding them every day, but i know how to ride them on firm stuff when necessary). a higher speed limit would be nice. i'd also dig the lower weight (i think -- i've always wondering how much of the spat's performance in crust was due to the heft). while i don't mind the weight of the spats that much when i'm riding, my recovering knee appreciates the lighter weight ski hanging off the chair and while traversing/sidestepping.

other skis i ride
this year, i've been riding 190 gotamas (about 35 days) and EHP 193s (30 or so days). the remaining 30 have been split between my spats, as well as 190 120s, 190 G40s (inbounds/early season hardpack) and Seths w/ dynafits (rock ski/early season touring). i didn't take the spats out at all last season, and i took them out only 3 times in 05-06.

intended use
if i got them, i would use the 138s for big inbounds days, some weird/variable/crusty/choppy days, and i would take them up to AK.

thoughts which might affect the decision:
why not use the 120s?
i've got dynafits on the 120s, and they're mainly a powder touring rig. i like them quite a bit, but for inbounds and edging on anything firm, the wide ski + lateral rigidity of the dynafit put a helluva lot of stress on a knee with no cartilage (=major pain). i also tend to ski faster, harder, and take bigger air inbounds, and while dynafits are a great binding, i don't want to do that in them, day-in and day-out.

why not just ski the EHP 193s in those conditions?
i love the EHP 193s, but the spats are a bit better in really tight spots, as well as better in crust/windslab.

why not just switch bindings on the 120s?
i could put a different binding on the 120s, but then i lose the best pow-touring rig.

if i got 138s, i would either transfer my bindings from my Spats and sell them, or give them to my wife.

questions:
i don't need the skis, and i'm not thrilled about the cost....but should i go for it anyway?

any opinions on the 192s vs. 202s? (i was thinking the 192 would be too similar to the spats (why switch?) but don't want to sacrifice the maneuverability.)

flex 2 vs flex 3? (i see on the dps site they say only flex 2 is available in the 202.) i ski 125-150 days a year on an intermountain snowpack, with a coastal trip or 2 thrown in.

should i wait it out for improved durability over the 07-08s? i'm not hurting for the skis.

thanks in advance for bringing up any good points for me to consider. either way (skis in hand or money still in pocket), i'm sure i'll be happy.

[AKWL]

No advice on skis from me. I need advice from you. 95days on snow, an expensive ski quiver, Alaska heli trips AND married?!

I'm impressed.

[marshalolson]

i am a big guy that skis hard and have never really felt i NEEDED anything longer than the 192. i feel they ski much bigger than a spatula at speed, and though they don't turn quite as well in the super tight, they definately are still some of hte most nimble out there. i ski them in a flex 2 because i want them to be little more smeary and manuverable, and don't feel like i am giveing anything up at top end speed. current flex 2's are also stiffer than the 120's you have most noticibally in the shovel.

anyhow, my .02 there for ya. it you want to try some, i can send you my super hammered pair for a while and see what you think.... or i can sell them to you for (relatively) cheap if you want to keep them (UAN only, fuck off the rest of you ).

[XtrPickels]

I barely have advice, because my 138's are sitting unmounted...

I have flex 2's and they are an excellent stiffness imo. I was surprised at how they flexed, I expected something softer. On marshal's chart they are similar to mantra's, one tick stiffer than soft bro's and one tick softer than Ants. IMO thats a sweet spot for them to be. They are far from soft.

Flex 3 is up at a 9. I'm sure they would float well because of the rockered front and be maneuverable because of the shape, however, I don't think they would "come alive" until a much higher speed.

You're asking a bunch of enablers if you should get new skis...
... If you can spare the money then I say yes. In a year your life will be no different for having spent the money, but you'll have had a number of fantastic days.

[lemon boy]

i am a big guy that skis hard and have never really felt i NEEDED anything longer than the 192. i feel they ski much bigger than a spatula at speed, and though they don't turn quite as well in the super tight, they definately are still some of hte most nimble out there. i ski them in a flex 2 because i want them to be little more smeary and manuverable, and don't feel like i am giveing anything up at top end speed. current flex 2's are also stiffer than the 120's you have most noticibally in the shovel.

anyhow, my .02 there for ya. it you want to try some, i can send you my super hammered pair for a while and see what you think.... or i can sell them to you for (relatively) cheap if you want to keep them (UAN only, fuck off the rest of you ).

the marshal olson sure fire DPS ski sales method = extended demo.

UAN - do this.

[upallnight]

i am a big guy that skis hard and have never really felt i NEEDED anything longer than the 192. i feel they ski much bigger than a spatula at speed, and though they don't turn quite as well in the super tight, they definately are still some of hte most nimble out there. i ski them in a flex 2 because i want them to be little more smeary and manuverable, and don't feel like i am giveing anything up at top end speed. current flex 2's are also stiffer than the 120's you have most noticibally in the shovel.

thanks for the input, marshal - especially on flex 2 vs 3. at a certain level, it makes sense that flex is less important on a reverse camber ski as the ski is "pre-flexed", so to speak -- but too stiff is too stiff.

point taken re: 192s. have you ever been on the 202s? if you were riding every day in WY instead of CO...and possibly bringing them to AK, do you think your preference would be different?

anyhow, my .02 there for ya. it you want to try some, i can send you my super hammered pair for a while and see what you think.... or i can sell them to you for (relatively) cheap if you want to keep them (UAN only, fuck off the rest of you ).

thanks for the kind offer. let me think it over. the only problems i see are that while i hope we have many big pow days left this season, you just never know. the # of days i bring out my spats is pretty small. also, i use AT boots.

No advice on skis from me. I need advice from you. 95days on snow, an expensive ski quiver, Alaska heli trips AND married?!

I'm impressed.

don't be that impressed -- when you typed 95 days i knew that was high... i'm only at 85 days for the season (35 on gotamas, 25 on EHPs, and 25 on the others - i over-estimated the days on the EHPs and other skis in the earlier post), although i do expect to wind up with 150+ for the year.

as for skis...used skis and shop/pro deals are your (my) friend.

AK? i've been lucky over the years. used to be there every spring but haven't been back in a few. psyched for this one.

marriage? i devote time for that, too -- but overall i have a really amazing wife and am lucky.

thanks for any and all advice.

[shasti]

i just moved to jackson and have skied my 138s a lot. They are pretty much sick. Everybody raves about their tight tree performance and all that but i think the best thing about them is just their ability to shred any sort of 3-D snow with more ease and power than regular sidecut skis. you really can point stuff that before would have required turns because you know your turn coming out of it is going to be locked. however, when you've got 6 inches of fluff on top of hard bumps they can put a lot of stress on the ankles and shins. I'm 6'6" 190lbs and ski hard and sloppily and they tend to beat my legs up pretty good after about 4 hours of hard inbounds riding. Probably my favorite ski I own (190 explosiv, 191 Goliath), but if i had to pick only 1 ski i think it'd have to b my goliath. however in AK, i think you need this ski.

[marshalolson]

th more i think about it: "if i was buying an AK ski (and in my mind jackson ~ ak), it would be 138 202's"

[lemon boy]

^I have absolutely not skied 138s but given how friggin easy to ski 200 120s are I don't believe you could go wrong on the 202s especially give that it'll be an AK ski.

[schwerty]

I haven't skied the 202's either but I'd go for 'em!

Are you going up to Theo's operation?

[Trackhead]

I'm waiting for my 192 cm Lotus 138's and putting Dynafits on them. I skied my friends 138's a few days and absolutely love them. I'm a fat ass at 200 pounds.

[rip]

I think I have narrowed down my search for a big day pow ski after skiing a bunch of the different shapes this year(toons, bents, ARG). My favorite so far has been the ARG but it felt a bit short in powder.

Does anyone know how the 192 138s compare to the ARGs? Also is the flex 3 actually all that stiff and unweildy, what skis flex similar to the flex 3 from DPS?

[pappag]

Does anyone know how the 192 138s compare to the ARGs? Also is the flex 3 actually all that stiff and unweildy, what skis flex similar to the flex 3 from DPS?

Flex 3 isn't that stiff and unweildy; more info here.

[rip]

Thanks Nick, my gut feeling is to go with the flex 3. I just am not too sure how a stiffer ski that is already rockered will ski in light utah blower pow. I know I would love them for later in the day crud crushing, I just want a ski that never has that might be going over the bars feeling.

On the ski flex chart the DPS flex 3 is rated similar to Legend Pros, is that a good comparison?

[pappag]

Thanks Nick, my gut feeling is to go with the flex 3. I just am not too sure how a stiffer ski that is already rockered will ski in light utah blower pow. I know I would love them for later in the day crud crushing, I just want a ski that never has that might be going over the bars feeling.

On the ski flex chart the DPS flex 3 is rated similar to Legend Pros, is that a good comparison?

Granted, the powder I was in is much different than what you are treated to, but I felt no ill effects from the flex 3 regarding powder performance. The rockered tip is pretty significant and I bet that helps minimize any adversity a super stiff board might have in soft snow.

I would say the flex 3 is in line with the LP. The 120 is so smooth and snappy you won't notice its stiffness and I imagine the same for the 138. Not sure of your style or what kind of skis you like, but I absolutely hate soft skis which is why I decided for the 3.


FWIW - Marshal is on the 202cm 138 in a flex 2.

[gamma]

i love the 138s. i had 120s, sold them and got 138s after riding a few days on a used pair. have to say had some amazing runs on them when i was out in jackson. once you get up to speed and the tips are up and planing.. the turns are effortless and fast.

heres my take:

the 120s are great powder skis. the 138s are another level. if u want a pow specific ski, why not just go one step more and get a full reverse camber reverse sidecut ski that not only destroys powder but variable conditions too.

if i buy another pair of dps it will be the w105 or w95. Ive done some very limited touring, but would think that a smaller waist is easier for skinning and general bc skiing.

im a jong who maybe skis 20 days a year if hes lucky, so take it for what its worth.

[JoeStrummer]

I'm waiting for my 192 cm Lotus 138's and putting Dynafits on them. I skied my friends 138's a few days and absolutely love them. I'm a fat ass at 200 pounds.

I am interested in your feedback. I switched exclusively to Dynafits and have them on all my skis at this point. As UAN remarked earlier, the rigidity isn't great for the kneecaps. I'm starting to feel it a bit in the knees after putting Dynafits on 95, 99, and now 110mm waisted skis. It might be the fact I'm skiing a lot more this year, or that my training consists of little chocolate donuts and Guinness, or that my knees are full of apple-cores and old Chinese newspapers. But I am skeptical about going much fatter with Dynafits so please post your experiences once you have a few days on them.

[upallnight]

Granted, the powder I was in is much different than what you are treated to, but I felt no ill effects from the flex 3 regarding powder performance. The rockered tip is pretty significant and I bet that helps minimize any adversity a super stiff board might have in soft snow.

I would say the flex 3 is in line with the LP. The 120 is so smooth and snappy you won't notice its stiffness and I imagine the same for the 138. Not sure of your style or what kind of skis you like, but I absolutely hate soft skis which is why I decided for the 3.

gotta ask a respectful question here. i don't follow things all that closely, but i gather you are skiing the 120s, not the 138s, right? while i've not been on the 138s (yet?), i can tell you that there's a difference between a rockered 120 and a reverse/reverse ski.

that said, you are recommending flex 3 skis to folks and saying there are no ill effects in pow and, yet...... there are a whole bunch of pics people posted of you skiing pow that look way backseat. the only reason i point this out is you seem to be giving advice on flex, and based on those photos it looks like maybe your skis are not floating for one reason or another (too short? too stiff?). on a 120 or a reverse/reverse ski, you should be able to ski it pretty much centered or forward and get it to plane.

wanted to give you an opportunity to clear things up. if not, i think you should remove your blanket recommendations.

have to say had some amazing runs on them [138s] when i was out in jackson. once you get up to speed and the tips are up and planing.. the turns are effortless and fast.

gamma-you timed your trip perfectly. when you were here, conditions were so good one could be riding anything and feel great on 'em!

did the 138s not feel as good at lower speeds?

i've felt that my rockered and reverse/reverse skis are great when planing (as is true for almost any ski) -- but the benefit is that they get to planing much quicker. what you are saying above is interesting and perhaps contrary to what i've experienced.

I am interested in your feedback. I switched exclusively to Dynafits and have them on all my skis at this point. As UAN remarked earlier, the rigidity isn't great for the kneecaps. ... But I am skeptical about going much fatter with Dynafits so please post your experiences once you have a few days on them.

JS-i've used dynafits on skis from 70mm to 120mm in width. you already know what it does to your knees, in general.

there's really no issue in pow (and presumably one would be riding 120s and 138s in deep pow), but take torsionally stiff ski, add dynafits, a dash of firm conditions (like you might encounter inbounds even on a pow day)...and sprinkle in some bad knees and you get knee pain. it's not a flaw of the ski or the binding - but keep in mind when this comes up we're usually evaluating the ski out of its intended use.

120 + dynafit is a fantastic winter pow touring ski for me. inbounds? i've ridden the combo but am not crazy about it only due to the stress it places on one's knee.

[pappag]

gotta ask a respectful question here. i don't follow things all that closely, but i gather you are skiing the 120s, not the 138s, right? while i've not been on the 138s (yet?), i can tell you that there's a difference between a rockered 120 and a reverse/reverse ski.

I think it must have taken all of 15 seconds to see the link I posted above is directed towards my review of the 120 and subsequent statements in this thread reflect the same.

that said, you are recommending flex 3 skis to folks and saying there are no ill effects in pow and, yet...... there are a whole bunch of pics people posted of you skiing pow that look way backseat. the only reason i point this out is you seem to be giving advice on flex, and based on those photos it looks like maybe your skis are not floating for one reason or another (too short? too stiff?). on a 120 or a reverse/reverse ski, you should be able to ski it pretty much centered or forward and get it to plane.

wanted to give you an opportunity to clear things up. if not, i think you should remove your blanket recommendations.

Whole bunch? I only see two that show me in the backseat with one taken after landing a jump, but I do welcome your blanket thoughts as well.

[upallnight]

I think it must have taken all of 15 seconds to see the link I posted above is directed towards my review of the 120 and subsequent statements in this thread reflect the same.

i apologize if my earlier point was unclear and missed. more directly:
1) your experience is with 120s, a rockered ski;
2) you are extending your thoughts on flex on a rockered ski to a reverse/reverse ski.

i'm not sure #2 is a safe leap, given my own experience on reverse/reverse skis and the 120s.

i would pay more attention to the information if you've been on some other reverse/reverse skis, but from what you posted here, i don't know if you ahve or not.

Whole bunch? I only see two that show me in the backseat with one taken after landing a jump, but I do welcome your blanket thoughts as well.

sorry you took offense. like i said, i don't pay attention all that much, but given that i'm not looking at every thread, when something is significant to me when it stands out. i know of the few pictures that were posted of or by you, that a number were backseat in pow (not counting landings) - enough that i recall stopping to wonder as you make it clear you're on some of the fattest skis around (moments, 120s, etc.). it's not worth searching for photos. folks can draw their own conclusion, or not.

overly stiff ski for pow = backseat would make sense. if you say it's not so, then i believe you. there could be other reasons, i'm sure.

i do admit my personal bias for wanting accurate info about 138s to be posted in a thread about 138s.

[skimasterflex]

I know I should search for this but maybe this will circumvent an Upallnight Nick Pappa G fight.....

What is the difference between Rocker 1 and Rocker 2 on the 138s? And can you really only get the Black ones in Rocker 2 and Flex 2?

I would be wanting Black 192's in Flex 2, but what is Rocker 2 about?

[pechelman]

im not sure theres any fight going on here, but im also still very unsure how to take flex comments on a fully rockered ski. i think its a fair and honest question.
my experience with reversed skis is only on spats, but a bit more extensive on skis with tip rockers\long shovels (although still only 3 skis) and im not sure they have any crossover.

i need to think like a ski more


and i dont think there's any reason to take offense here
ive seen a "few" skiing pics of lots of people here that are taken whilst backseat
its an instant in time and its hard to judge anyone by that one instant
it is however just an observation and all we have to work from (especially for those whom have never skied with people commenting on skis)

my 2

[upallnight]

I know I should search for this but maybe this will circumvent an Upallnight Nick Pappa G fight.....

What is the difference between Rocker 1 and Rocker 2 on the 138s? And can you really only get the Black ones in Rocker 2 and Flex 2?

I would be wanting Black 192's in Flex 2, but what is Rocker 2 about?

they list the following as available in 138s:
192 rocker 1, flex 2, white/red stripe
192 rocker 1, flex 3, white/red
192 rocker 2, flex 2, black
202 rocker 2, flex 2, black

i wondered the same thing about the differences in rocker (although it's sort of immaterial for me as i'm most interested in the 202). here's what the dps web site has to say about it:

The Lotus 138 is currently available in two different rocker profiles (camber configurations), Rocker 1 & Rocker 2, that reflect a transition in build and design from 2006 to 2007.

Rocker 1 has a slightly lower profile tip and less dramatic tip rocker than the Rocker 2. *Rocker 1 has more tail rocker than Rocker 2- which has a relatively flat tail. *Rocker 1 (the Red Stripe) has a slightly lower profile tip and less dramatic tip rocker than the Rocker 2(Straight black). *Rocker 1 has more tail rocker than Rocker 2- which has a relatively flat tail, but still some tail rocker in the rear section. With its shallower tip rocker, Rocker 1 is suited well to maritime and inter mountain snow climates, as the ski will easily plane in higher density snow, and once at speed in lower density snow. The tail section also makes it great for getting sideways and smearing, and quicker turn finishes in tight spots like trees, but will wheelie somewhat when landing back on big airs. Rocker 1 is available in available in white with a red pin stripe.

Rocker 2 will get up to plane a bit quicker in lower density snow due to its deeper and longer tip profile. Rocker 2¹s tail is flatter, which is conducive to stomping bigger airs with less wheelie effect and endows the ski with more power at the end phase of the turn. However, its tail is not quite as smearable and playful as Rocker 1. Rocker 2 is available in straight black. The difference between the two Rocker choices is relatively subtle, so if you are debating between the two, don't sweat it. Chose the Rocker profile with the graphic you like the best, and enjoy the future of powder skiing.

[upallnight]

and i dont think there's any reason to take offense here
ive seen a "few" skiing pics of lots of people here that are taken whilst backseat
its an instant in time and its hard to judge anyone by that one instant
it is however just an observation and all we have to work from (especially for those whom have never skied with people commenting on skis)

my 2

you said it better than i could have.

i honestly didn't mean for nick to get offended (but i can see how it would read in a way i did not intend - apologies for that). that said, i saw what i saw and posited a legit explanation for it (ski flex pattern).

my comments about potential pitfall in comparing flex of a ski with a different design/camber remain (and should not be offensive).

[Dynafit_old]

upallnightzez, I zee zorriest zat I gives de knee pains whend you ski viz me

I knowzez it hurts you, but its a also hurtzes me cause I love you.
Dis love be in a neinghey-eurofab way tho!!!!!

On a sidenotez to all deez americans readzing this thread.
Backzeeet ski on me no workez!
If you ski like dis, I releazes you like the marker dukey go kabloooey!
ha ha ha!


"Im so backzeeeet, mein hein is dragz on de snow! OOOPS!"


"Why no dis faces shotez? Im backseeeetz! he he he!"


"I gettzinz sleepzy now. I lean backzeeet uphill to lay down. Yawnnnnz"


"Une minuten! Woah! woah woah woah slowz down pleazes! tails engagez!"


Dynafit need make no commentz herezes. Draw de angles epiczskierz!


insert WWII tailgunnerz soundedez! "ah ah ah ah ah ah ah! vrrrrrrrrrmmmmmm ah ah ah ah"


Editedez!

NickzPappaGeez, I meanzes no harmzes n justz pokez a little fun, he he he!
I vant poke friendzly az you lookez so poofy in de puffy even on bluebirdz warm dayz!

Like diz!

he is frenchyz tho, zho you may nien de recognizitaion

for de americans its like dis !

HEEE HEEE!