Anyone ski one of this seasons DPS Wailer 95s

[upallnight]

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.

[BrainDamage]

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 ), 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.

[frorider]

brain damage sed

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.

[Pow4Brains]

I love this place.

[BrainDamage]

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 . 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.

[upallnight]

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.)

[harpo-the-skier]

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.

[pechelman]

meh?
2 lbs lighter?!

exactly how much does a W95 weigh?

[harpo-the-skier]

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.

[endlesswinter]

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.

[Core Shot]

this pic is sad for a flex 3

[brianevans]

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

[harpo-the-skier]

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?

[rod9301]

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.