Thread: DPS Wailer 99 Review or as Dave Hester says, "YUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP"

5'11"
180 LBS
On the line

Originally Posted by rod9301

Khyber, I was staying back on purpose, to see what happens. The ski didn't slide, it just locked out on a straight trajectory.

Would this not be expected behaviour? Just curious what you were expecting with that tail. It has some slight release, but it's designed to track. In any case, if landing backseat, you'd want this behaviour.

Originally Posted by rod9301

Just to explain, good ski, I just don't want to use a slightly unpredictable ski in step backountry couloirs.

As you're looking for feedback on serious steep skiing and the W99, ski mountaineer Alex Wigley rode the protos in some serious terrain last year and will be working on some enchainments with them this year. He's brought them into 55 degrees+.

Originally Posted by khyber.pass

@rod3901 -- Were the tips and tails detuned? It sounds to me like detuning is the issue here if you were experiencing hook & grab.

That was my 1st thought !!- Mine skied much better after a little de-tunage !

CK - are you a salesman? JC this make me want.

pardon me if this has been covered before, but shouldn't there be a 190 length in this stick. Next year perhaps?

Khyber, perhaps it is expected behavior, just not desirable.

Alltanda, perhaps detuning would improve the ski, but I don't think I should detune a ski with so much tip rocker.

It almost sounds like you guys are in love with dps, I was just trying to report what I felt skiing it. For a ski this expensive,i would expect close to perfection. Instead, there are some undesirable traits that I would need to compensate for. Many other skis are more thoroughly tested and they perform flawlessly out of the box.
I assume that this is because volkl or blizzard have more r&d money, but ultimately I don't care.

I don't think that a small, independent ski company deserves to be in business unless they make a great product.

And before someone thinks I am a big company guy, I am an entrepreneur. I started three companies, sold two of them.
But our products had to be superior, or else I wouldn't made it.

^^skied a pair of 176 hybrids out of the box on EC boilerplate last week, they were money. Didn't experience any of the side effects rod9301 did.

Until I get some more time on them in variable conditions that's my review.

w99 = $$

^^Did the same a few weeks ago. Not exactly a 80mm carver, but I don't think that's what this ski was meant to replicate in 99mm width anyway. Tracks extremely well, can get tails to wash out for slarving, but it takes a little more effort than it does on my S3's and I didn't get any of it unexpectedly. Drastic improvement in both stiffness and pop over the S3's, if that makes any sense.

For what it's worth, these were the first DPS skis I've ever demoed, but obviously YMMV.

Originally Posted by rod9301

Alltanda, perhaps detuning would improve the ski, but I don't think I should detune a ski with so much tip rocker.

I think you're entitled to your opinion. Khyber is a salesman for DPS. Obviously, he can still offer knowledge and good points. Saying all that, I will disagree on this part. In my experience, it is precisely b/c of the large amounts of tip rocker that a ski like this has that it needs to be detuned, and detuned a lot. I am pretty familiar with the sort of planky, strange engagement feel that you are talking about. Had it a lot on the 112 hybrids last season, not only deflection but also weird moments depending on your balance and the pintail when the edges would catch and the ski didn't know if it wanted to carve or slarve and would end up locking into something horrific in between, all to the point that I was getting really frustrated with the skis and only skiied my Lhasa Pows if there were any sort of variable conditions. Earlier this season, when dragging them out of the closet, I decided that I was just going to absolutely destroy the edges, and detuned them all the way to the contact points on both the tip and tail. Now they are a completely different pair of skis. I've been pretty shocked with how much more nimble and predictable they became, especially on hardpack and variable snow. In any case, to demonstrate the utility of this board despite the fanboyism which can take place, I believe it was Khyber in one of his posts on the 112 who suggested going big on the detune. So, thanks for a good review both CK and Rod, knowledge is good.

Nice review. Looking into one when they get stocked

Originally Posted by rod9301

i demoed the 184 99 hybrid a week ago on firm man made snow. I was also trying the Blizzard Bonafide in 180, and also my k2 hardsides (181).

I found two flaws with the 99s
1. pretty straight tails (101 vs 99 waist), caused the skis to stop turning now when i had my weight back
also, I lost the tail on a high speed raius turn (going pretty fast). The tail jsut lost edge and settled about a foot lower???

2. even though the 99 has a lot of rocker, i was catching the tips when going to a slide (like ngoing straight into a hockey stop).

why is this relevant? skiing steep couloirs, you end up completing the turns (completely), and sometimes this means slding downhill while you are absolutelyn sure of youir balance.

the 99 has good edge hold, and otherwise skied well. The bonafide was flawless though, and it had better edge hold.

Haven't skied the W99's or the Bonafide's. But the W105's and 95's will punish you if you get in the back seat. I love both these skis though and I know I am more comfortable skiing fast through pow and crud in trees and down 40-50 degree slopes on the W105's than any other ski I've found.

I've never found a ski that could provide snap in a turn that doesn't punish you if you get in the back seat. I will definitely look to try the Bonafide's. I will be shocked though if they carve well and don't kill you in the back seat.

Would you feel comfortable taking the Bonafide's on a steep (45+) slope? I've never liked a ski with less than a 26M radius for steeps. I don't know how you avoid hooking when you have a smaller radius on slopes that steep. It seems to violate physics / geometry.

Edit - Rod have you posted a full review on the Bonafide?

FELT same way about my 112 hybrids last year about being a little unpredictable and then I detuned as mentioned to contact points and lets just say they are the go to money ski for me. They just do what needs to be done for me.

Will be finally getting out on the 99 pures this week. Will post thoughts if anyone gives a rats ass what I think.

Originally Posted by allTandA

CK - are you a salesman? JC this make me want.

Nope, but in fairness I have become a big fan of DPS products and am pretty sold on them at this point for my needs and riding.
So, as noted in a prior post, the 99s are by no means my only DPS board. Have owned 105s and 120s at one point, and now own these, 112s, and 138s.
It's taken me years to collect/pay for a bunch of them, but it's now pretty much all I have.

FWIW, I went through a love fest phase with Fischer (All-Mountain X, then 75s, 84s, 106s), then Atomic (R.EX, Teledaddy, Big Daddy) and Volkl (Gotamas in particular), in the last decade before "settling" into DPS in the last couple years.
I've owned and never really felt right on K2s, Rossis, Bluehouses, Sollys, Lines, and Bros.
In addition to Volkl, Atomic, and DPS, I've also really liked the Praxis feel.
I've never tried but would like to as I think they might be up my alley based on prior preferences: ON3P, 4FRNT.

Not sure if that's helpful at all, but I do sort of think there's some commonalities in the feel of some manufacturers.
Softer/rounder vs. stiffer/deader vs. stiffer/poppy-er, etc. I guess I like the generally ligher-stiffer-responsive-r feel?
Which I think does pretty well sum up the angle that they go for - stiff but responsive, light and quick. Works for me anyway.

Is there any reason why one wouldn't want to detune a rockered ski beyond the contact points?

If by beyond the contact points you mean closer to the center of the ski , it is because you reduce the effective edge on ice.
I felt the same about skiing only a long radius ski on steep terrain, but somehow the bonafide does not hook. I like to completely finish my turn when it gets steep,ie over 45 deg. And I was able to do this easily. by the way,i could do this on the 99 as well. Perhaps if I skied the pure, i would have a different conclusion, but the hybrid left me cold.

No, i mean detuning the rockered portions of the ski leaving the cambered portion of the ski intact.

the w99 pures rip, plain and simple. the pure version is damp, stable, and rails a turn like no other dps on the market. the tail has less rocker than the w112rps, which I have also skied in pure and hybrid. That flatter, stiffer tail means that the edge stays engaged throughout the entirety of the turn arc, not just to the apex, like I feel the 112s do.

I took these things out to the basin on a hard pack day (since that's all we've had this year) and was blown away by how playful and stable they are. I also ski w95s regularly and the difference in the two skis was very noticeable. The 95s have a traditional shape and require you to stay firmly over boot center, with forward pressure evenly distributed between both skis, and when engaged properly, the skis evenly arc S shaped turns and are super fun.

By contrast, the w99s are a ski that allows you to straighten your leg on the downhill ski, putting maybe 80% of your weight on the downhill ski (much more new school style turning) and you can almost forget about what the uphill ski is doing as long as you keep the edge engaged. When skied properly, these skis carve very pronounced C turns, with much stronger edge engagement in the initiation and exit of the turn. This ability to overwhelmingly weight the downhill ski means that they are playful and can disengage from the turn at nearly any point you want (like the 112s), so that you can slarve 'em with ease. I was a bit concerned about the shorter length ( I normally ski 190-195cms), but at no point, not for one single moment, did I find myself thinking that they skied short.

While it is not the widest offering out there, it is the perfect daily driver for expert skiers who may ski a bit of pow in the morning, but will be skiing chop and groomers through the day. As designed, the w112rps will enable a mediocre skier to make pretty turns, while the w99 allows expert skiers to take it to the next level. Complaining about how these things ski when you are backseat, whether purposeful or not, is a joke. When skied improperly, most skis leave something to be desired. When skied properly, the w99s leave absolutely nothing to be desired.

If I were buying a new daily driver for anywhere in the western US, I would not even bother looking at other skis, as DPS hit the nail on the head with this one.

RH, how big are u and what size w99 did u test?

Also u say "As designed, the w112rps will enable a mediocre skier to make pretty turns, while the w99 allows expert skiers to take it to the next level. ". Are u saying that the w99 is less forgiving compared to the w112? Could u explain this a bit more?

Originally Posted by harpo-the-skier

RH, how big are u and what size w99 did u test?

Also u say "As designed, the w112rps will enable a mediocre skier to make pretty turns, while the w99 allows expert skiers to take it to the next level. ". Are u saying that the w99 is less forgiving compared to the w112? Could u explain this a bit more?

I am 6'1" 180 lbs, grew up racing (for reference) and skied the 184cm w99, the only production length made.

My take on the 112 v 99 is as follows. DPS has always been about uncompromisingly making the very best skis possible for expert skiers - designed, tested, and built by Stephan for riders like Stephan. The w112rp allowed DPS to target a whole different skier demographic. On a number of occasions I have seen the w112rp turn a tail gunner or someone who breaks at the waist while skiing immediately go from making mediocre turns to making quite nice looking turns. To me that is the genius of the ski. Because other than very good skiers, most folks don't really engage the tail through the turn anyway and the 112 brings the best technology in the industry to market in a ski that a much wider range of skiers can excel on. I am not saying, not for one second, that expert skiers cannot/do not absolutely shred the w112s, as I have a few buddies who ski on them and rail fun-looking playful turns on them. Personally, however, I find the significant tail rocker means that the ski disengages a traditional style hard-pack turn sooner than I would like and that this requires you to adjust your skiing style a bit so that turns don't feel washy at the end. That is absolutely fine, in fact desirable in steeps, powder, or trees, but gets a bit scary (to me) on super high speed hard groomers.

As for the w99 (the big caveat here is that I have only seen other very good skiers ski them, so I am not sure how the skis respond with those who do not drive through the turn as well - but from reading this thread, I think you can look to those who offer complaints about the ski in that way). I hesitate to say that either ski is 'not forgiving,' they just ski differently. I would rephrase that by saying that the w99 fills a niche gap left open by the w112. The ski has a flatter, stiffer tail than the w112 which translates into noticeably more tail engagement in the later part of a turn. But that really only matters if you can drive these (or any) skis through a mechanically sound GS turn. Due to the similarity of the shape, I have no reason to expect that a intermediate skier could not get on the 99s and have a similar experience to the 112, but I have yet to witness it for myself. But what I felt makes this ski stand apart is that you can really rail the highest speed turn you can make with 100% confidence that the tail will engage and stay engaged until you release it. So the tail on the 99 is what is most different than the 112. Because the shape (other than the rocker and stiffness profile in the tail) is very similar to the 112, the 99 retains the playfulness and smearability of the 112, but does so in a way that brings something to the table that the 112 does not - the ability to straight rail a turn beginning to end. Obviously, you lose some float in the 99 due to the narrower waist, but for an in-bounds daily driver, I found the dimensions to be spot on. As well, the pure build was incredibly damp, stable, and smooth feeling even at the highest speeds I could achieve. The true beauty of the 99 is the combination of the pure carbon build technology, new school dimensions, which allow the ski to be playful and smeary when you want, with a stiffer and flatter tail, which allows skiers who can really drive a ski to make a more traditional style turn that is far more difficult to achieve on the 112. To me, that makes it the best do-everything inbounds western US ski on the market because you can rail a groomer like a GS racer, slash a pow turn like Hoji, and sideways smear them like bentchetler. There are lots of other skis that do one of those things very well, but no other I have ever skied that do all three as well.

Over the years, I have been continually impressed by the innovative thinking, designs, and build technology that DPS has brought to the table, from the 138, to the 120, to the 112, and now with the 99. Literally, there is no company on the market that can touch the technology involved in their pure skis these days and that technology, in my opinion, results in a ski that skis unlike anything else out there and has a durability factor that is unmatched. Yes they are expensive, but because there is no wet lay-up (thus no adhesive resin) involved in the pure, they hold up like no other ski. I have pure 138s and pure 120s, both of which have more than 150 days on them and the flex nearly identically to a show room model, which is something no other ski company can offer.

Hey, I think you just told some people they suck!

I have not skied on the 99s but I feel what you are saying. I really dislike the rocker, camber, rocker, 5-point ski for the reasons you mention. OK at alot but not really great at anything. Different people learned to ski differently and that has a lot to do with it, but this whole "dude..my S7s rail groomers" thing comes from those that have no clue about railing groomers.

Originally Posted by reidhresko

By contrast, the w99s are a ski that allows you to straighten your leg on the downhill ski, putting maybe 80% of your weight on the downhill ski (much more new school style turning) and you can almost forget about what the uphill ski is doing as long as you keep the edge engaged. When skied properly, these skis carve very pronounced C turns, with much stronger edge engagement in the initiation and exit of the turn. This ability to overwhelmingly weight the downhill ski means that they are playful and can disengage from the turn at nearly any point you want (like the 112s), so that you can slarve 'em with ease. I was a bit concerned about the shorter length ( I normally ski 190-195cms), but at no point, not for one single moment, did I find myself thinking that they skied short.

What is the difference between a C and S turn? Why would you want to put almost all your weight on the downhill ski? I always thought the ideal split on groomers was 60/40 - 70/30, the icier conditions needing more downhill weight. This is what was taught when I was racing and I taught as a coach up to 3 years ago. Has this changed recently?

not to speak for reidhresko, but i have been waiting to go off on this topic a while....

S turns end the edging force/begin the weight transfer @ the apex and transition down the fall line earlier, where a C fully rounds the turn across the fall line and begin weight transfer at 3/4 turn phase - with more power and pulling more g-forces out of the turn.



i personally think the w99 is the shreddingest ski i have ever been on, but i work for DPS and had a small influence in the design of the ski. so, well... whatever i have been keeping my own opinion to myself.

i think the w99 does both a C and an S equally well on any snow surface other than bottomless snow where you just simply run out of float @ 99mm. the w112 does both turn shape equally well in virgin snow, and carves very cleanly and rounde, but because it has more tail rocker to give it a little looser ride in soft snow, it therefore has a little less tail support compared to the w99, which is appreciated by those that put a ton of power into the tail of the ski.

IMO that does not make the w99 less "forgiving" or difficult to ski for a less powerful skier, it just makes the ski less loose and surfy in deep snow than the w112. which is fine! its oriented to be a little more biased towards shallower snow pack anyhow. the ski is for sure very playful and loose compared to most more traditional skis.


slight thread tangent looming...

a straighter and more powerful downhill leg = higher edge angle and a more stable structure. a more bent downhill leg = less powerful structure, more absorption of terrain feedback and less acceleration across the fall line.

+"straight" leg = 20-30deg, 70+% downhill weight. uphill edge at the top of the boot to knee.
+"bent" leg = 45+deg knee angle, 50-60% downhill weight (or less if you are buttering/slarving a turn), and the uphill edge below the cuff of your boot.
+there is a time and place for each, and a truly accomplished skier can make either at any time under any circumstance.

transitioning this into skiing virgin snow, you can:

1. ski super athletic, knees bent, 1/2 the time in the air launching off of every mound of snow, bases flat, and charge the fall-line,
2. ski downhill leg straighter, high edge angle, and stem the uphill foot to maintain float and minimize drag of the snow on the leg/foot/ski, and then rip across the fall line with acceleration,
3. round off your turns with highly bent knees and 50/50 or 60/40 weight distribution, and generally shed the speed they gained @ the apex of the turn as they cross the fall line.
4. push your turns and release a drift DOWN the fall line. fully rockered skis will accelerate here, where cambered skis catch/drag/slow.

anyhow, a very good, very technical skier should be able to do all of these turns at any time, instantly and perfectly, to conserve maximum speed and momentum, purely based on the changing terrain's requirements. a very good, technically superior ski should ALLOW the skier to make all of these turns perfectly and instantly at all times.

that said, not all skiers need or want all these turn shapes and style, nor do all skiers need or want to constantly accelerate or actively maintain the speed... so all types of skis exist, most of these skis suit 1 style more than another. what make IMO the w112 (and now the w99) so special is that they are so versatile everywhere, in so many conditions, and suit so many turn shapes and open up such creativity and efficiency of motion in ways that other skis do not.

just my .02

I was very happy to find this thread. I picked up a pair of 99 pures and put my 2nd day on them today. Unlike most, if not all reviewers on this thread I'm an east coaster. The snow here in the Catskills (NY) has been lousy to date. Everything is man made and we've had temps rise into the 40's a few days over the past few weeks really messing shit up. That coupled with some rain has made for very interested snow.

The first day I took the 99's out was cold (15-20 deg F) after a warmer day. I was envisioning skiing courderoy groomers that morning and testing their performance on nice hardpack. What I encountered was ungroomed and absolutely boiler plate. Basically everything froze up overnight. I found the 99's to be almost unskiable on this surface. My downhill ski wandered everytime I tried to engage the edge and no matter how hard I tried to rail them, I couldn't make the ski carve. I'm 6'1 and 215 lbs also, no small guy. I also have the DPS Cassiar's and switched to them after a few runs on the 99's and had zero issues skiing those conditions aggressively.

The second day I took them out was today. After 2 solid days of snowmaking and 1-2 inches of natural snow, today warmed up a lot. My first runs at 9:30 found mashed potato type conditions which I thought would be excellent for the 99's. While I did enjoy skiing them through the muck and slop, when I encountered ice and harder snow areas, the skis just didn't exhibit the carving properties that I want to find in a "daily driver". Personally I think it's just too much rocker for the firmest of snow conditions and think a straigher more traditional ski will always excel here.

This ski seems like it would be best suited on softer surfaces, 3+ inches of fresh or western resort groomers. The ones that you don't typically find ice and true boiler plate on. I'm really not thrilled about this, b/c I want to like these skis and truely believed they would work exceptionally here on the east. In the end, I love how light they are, I love the way the pound through thick slop and muck and I really like their ability to make all different shapes of turns. But their performance on true east coast hard pack leaves a lot to be desired. Defintely not the daily driver I was looking for.

Marshal, how far down from the tips (and tails) do you recommend for detuning these? I've covered most of the tip rocker, not sure if I should go farther. FYI one day on these so far and they rip, so I may just leave them be.

^^ These skis deserve a hand job, I mean a hand tune. I took mine to a guy I trust--1*, 2* NO DETUNE. They are perfect.
I just don't think the machines most shops use can put a proper edge on skis of this shape.

Originally Posted by murph

Marshal, how far down from the tips (and tails) do you recommend for detuning these? I've covered most of the tip rocker, not sure if I should go farther. FYI one day on these so far and they rip, so I may just leave them be.

i left mine razor sharp tip to tail for groomer action, and then once there is some more varied terrain open i will detune them with a file @ 45deg from the tip contact point forward and tail contact point back pretty aggressively.

i cannot recommend that to everyone, just how i tune my stuff.