Thread: DPS Wailer 95 vs. Dynafit Manaslu

Never been so stoked in corn season, already thinking about my skimo rig for fall.

Been quite content with my trusty 175 BD Kilos w/ FT12 and ZZeus but want to shed some weight. Kilos are rather stiff and tip is not turned up very much - ski design moved on there. They like to drive into bumps rather than lifting over them, especially in nasty (wet) conditions and require some effort to drive at the end of a long day.

So I'm looking to get 178 Manaslus or 185 Wailer 95 for next year. Might cut off like 10cm of the Wailers rised tail (yes, heresy ...).

Can anyone compare those skis? Will be strictly for ski mountaineering in Euro land. No need to suggest wider planks, I got some :-)

Pro Manaslu: longer sidecut, might get a good deal
Pro Wailer: thicker edges, generally more solid construction

I can demo Manaslus no problem, but DPSs are hard to come by here, so any insight is appreciated.

since i already have a bomber bc powder rig but needed a more versatile light weight touring rig i was considering these 2 skis as well but never had the chance to ski either. i ended up ordering the wailer 95 because of the numerous negative reviews of the manaslu falling apart easily and also the fact that they are really hard to find now. i'm not sure but it looks like dynafit is discontinuing that ski next year and going with the stoke instead? also i'm a carbon fiber junkie so i really want to give these wailers a chance. it just makes perfect sense to me to use cf in skis and i don't know why more companies don't do it. with this new ss technology in the skis it sounds like they will be a lot more versatile than the manaslus in variable conditions, and that certainly makes it more of a euro touring ski i would think. would be interested to see what people who have skied both think about this.

I have nothing of value to add to this thread, but a relevant question. I've been skiing 175 Kilowatts w/ FT12s as well, and considering the Wailer 95 as an eventual replacement. Is the tail on the Wailer so substantial that a 185 Wailer skis similarly to a 175 KW?

Bean, I am basing this assumption on this Wailer 95 pic http://www.telemarkfriends.com/image...0/dsc05608.jpg
and the tech specs that say tip length 175 / tail length 145. Kilo's got way less.

Here's one interesting comment regarding cutting off DPS skis tails, appartently they are plastic so you don't harm the core http://www.wildsnow.com/2923/dynafit...#comment-25921

the above measurements are eyeball w/ a tape, not the official dps measurements.

I have wailer 105s with dynafits that I use almost exclusively in the backcountry. I've never skied the w95s to take the following with a grain of salt.

Regarding the tail, I also initially thought the tail looked excessive, but at this point wouldn't consider altering the ski. I've had no problem with skins (BD sts) if that's your concern.

Bean, if you're happy with the length of your 175 kilowatts, I'd guess you'd be happy with the 178 wailers.

marshalolson: oh, strange, tech specs say tail is 43mm high. Agreed there is no point in cutting it down if it's actually only 1.5cm. Might just go with the 175cm model in that case. Seems to be my sweet spot for handling in tight and steep terrain, both on the up and down. I'd really fancy the longer radius of the 185er, just have no use for the tail.

Hmm, DPS spec'd 43mm would be 1.7in -- sure you had a metric tape?

WyoWill: I don't use tail clips with most of my skis. Just reglue the skins more regularly ...

I have the w95 185 flex 2, and the only downside of the tail is spraying snow on your friends as they follow you on a traverse. Maybe that's an upside, actually. I find them to be very durable, I climb over rocks everywhere I ski, and they're tough. I have 2 friends on Manaslus, and they seem to be a very different ski. They have a rise tip, (which I think is a good thing), but they don't seem to hold an edge on hard snow/ice like my Wailers. I'd like a rise tip w95, but I'm getting the new 112 for my next bc ski.

hmm... the 10/11 i have are both about 1.5cm

the 09/10 are ~4cm

let me get a firm answer that the lower tail is correct.

thanks.

i will update w. official data for 10/11 skis asap.

My son has the Wailer 95 Hybrid. I have the Manaslu. They seem to have similiar flex. DPS maybe slightly stiffer. I have destroyed my first pair of manaslus in somewhere around 120 days. Dynafit customer service has been excellent replaced a ski just off of photos and an email. I only have one pair of skis so ski the Manaslus every ski day. I have never felt them lacking in any conditions. One thing I really like is sidestepping is a breeze. Pivot your heel up hill and the ski follows, the weight makes this enjoyable. If Dynafit keeps replacing the skis I will probably keep skiing them till they perfect them. Another issue is the skins. Durability is becoming an issue here also. As for choosing between the two. My opinion is if you are only going to ski them 20-30 days a season go for the manaslu. Flatter tail, skin system works well, tip rise and weight.

BFD, I thought the weight was similar on similar sizes, w95 vs. Manaslu, no?

I just gave them the lift test. They are pretty close to the same, slight nod to the manaslu. To be honest when it comes to gear I am clueless.

You're right.

178 cm 1410 g, (+/-30g) Manaslu (from dynafit website)
175 cm 1550 g, dps w95 (from dps website)

Originally Posted by plugboots

You're right.

178 cm 1410 g, (+/-30g) Manaslu (from dynafit website)
175 cm 1550 g, dps w95 (from dps website)

BFD: Any chance you could put those skis on a scale. As we all know from [ame="http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76416"]http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76416[/ame] industry sites can be, shall we say, optomistic. BTW what lengths, what bindings? Thanks.

so the blems i have include several issuess, and the tail is way to low, so nevermind my stats. sorry.

Originally Posted by BFD

My son has the Wailer 95 Hybrid. I have the Manaslu. They seem to have similiar flex. DPS maybe slightly stiffer.

FWIW: I checked out the Manaslu at a demo tent, and I have the Wailer 105 "pure" version in a 188. The Manaslu was quite a bit softer flexing than the W105, to the point where I would consider the Manaslu worthy only as a soft snow ski. I'm 6'0" and 195lbs though, so YMMV.

I don't know how the Wailer 95 compares to either the W105 or Manaslu though.

My 09/10 175 Wailer 95 (pure with bamboos sidewalls) weighs just about 7lbs even.

Originally Posted by El Chupacabra

I have the Wailer 105 "pure" version in a 188.

And how do you like them?

Manaslus are very soft at the tip, soft in the tail, but rather sturdy (for the weight) under foot. I was going to try out a new-to-me pair yesterday, but the snow was so sloppy I opted (wisely) to ski my lotus 120's. I'll post a Manaslu-179 Bro (fairly similar to the Wailers) comparison when I get chance to ski the Manaslus. Sadly, that may not be for two weeks.

Originally Posted by Pow4Brains

And how do you like them?

^^ about sums it up...

Ok thanks everyone, will probably go with the Manaslus for $$ etc. Unlikely I'll put way more than 30 days on a single pair of skis.

Damnit though, the Wailers are slick and I'll be watching gear swap. If the deadline for custom colours hadn't passed I'd be severely tempted to put down for blue ones ...

Marshal, please PM me in case you're getting rid of yours :-)

pm sent. and i have blue ones.

just got my blue w95's. though i have not skied them yet i can say that they are cute as a button. the workmanship on them is a-1.

Bump.

I'm trying to decide between the 187 Manaslu or 185 W95. The skis would be mounted with Dynafits and used almost exclusively for ski touring around Revelstoke. Manaslu's are a little cheaper and come with speed skins. The W95 have been drilled twice and have Black Diamond skins.

Any advice is much appreciated.