DPS Lotus 120 Spoon

[Mofro261]

I played around with mounting points on the Spoon L120 using griffons, from +1.5 to -1. Much preferred them at -1 to 0 over going forward for resort skiing. My older L120's also have the very little tail, and those pairs were at 0 and +1. +1cm would work fine for a dedicated touring rig and would be easier if you decided to insert both sets. To me, with the less upturned tail on the Spoon there is more tail and a wider tail profile than the older non-spoon L120 versions. The mount still looks pretty far back compared to all my other skis, but it works.

Some L120 love from the weekend:

[bsavery]

Damn....

[pfluffenmeister]

yeah, nice smoke.

[Rontele]

Preferred mounting position for 197s? Putting FT 12s on them. Will be a dedicated powder/touring ski, but will see resort action on deep days. Thinking -1 though for some reason I thought Marsh told me -1.5?

[shafty85]

IIRC, Marshal told me -1.5 as well, but I mounted mine at +/-0 (80cm from the tail) and personally would not go further back. YMMV.

[schwerty]

Had these things out for the first time this morning. Buy some!

Mounted on the midsole line with FT 12's.

These are my third set of 120's. They keep getting better! The Tetons picked up lots of snow over the past 24 hrs so I had perfect conditions for these skis. Wasn't able to open them up due to the terrain I was skiing but they handled beautifully at moderate speeds. Dumping speed is easy. And, as long as I stayed on top of the ski I could make it do anything I wanted. I sat back a few times due to fatigue and they worked me. More so than the earlier models I've had.

As for the spoon, I could tell it was there but I was hootin and hollerin from the start to finish of the one run I had on them. So, it must be a good thing!

No resort experience yet. They seem like a great big day ski for on area skiing too.

I'll say it again....buy some.

[grskier]

I've got 20+ days on my 189s mounted on the line now... such a fun ski.

[shafty85]

Did you mount on the line on the top sheet, which isn't always accurate, or actually measure the true midpoint (80cm from tail, flat pull, for the 189)?

I mounted true recommended (-1 from the top sheet mounting point) and am thinking about putting a second set of inserts in at +1.5 (+0.5 from top sheet).

[ticketchecker]

Got a pair of 178's to drill, micro feet/285 bel, 5'6" old guy. Going either sollyfit or maybe Vipec.

Marshal thought +1.5 would be good. Anyone think otherwise?

[grskier]

Did you mount on the line on the top sheet, which isn't always accurate, or actually measure the true midpoint (80cm from tail, flat pull, for the 189)?

I mounted true recommended (-1 from the top sheet mounting point) and am thinking about putting a second set of inserts in at +1.5 (+0.5 from top sheet).

I gave them to my shop monkey broheim and said, on the line please...

[cold_smoke]

Mine have 3 mounting lines(?) blue non-SE version... I mounted on the furthest back (not sure of the measurement, I was advised that may be 81cm but I'll verify). I am thinking I may have liked -1 or -2 from there a little more to get a little more running area in the tip and still have plenty of tail. I would strongly advise against going forward.

[RockinB]

So after reading all of this I am still utterly confused where to mount binders. Some are saying on the line at 80, others are saying 81. I just talked to DPS they recommend 80 on their site, the guy I talked to said 81, and recommended 82 if it's going to be a dedicated touring rig. I'm putting fiddles on them, and plan on using them mostly for touring and also deep days within the ropes. Am I going to regret putting them at 81?

[shafty85]

Most people are recommending that you go zero (80cm flat pull from the tail) or back. I have mine at zero and like them. Might try at +1.5 because I can with inserts, but most people are saying go back of the line.

[SUPERIOR]

You all disgust me.

[Re-Skier]

This is interesting b/c I just talked to the head of sales at DPS who said they are now unanimous on 81cm after testing. Back in December they were mounting at 80 but now at 81 and he strongly recommended I go 81. Anyway, sent him the link to this thread, so maybe he'll ring in.

[shafty85]

I'm going to remount at 81.5 (mainly to provide 1.5cm from the original mount with inerts). Jeff Brines' earlyups article originally had this as his preferred mount point as well (don't know why that's been removed from the article ).

[Re-Skier]

OK so a little more info from DPS. They measure along base of the ski, not straight pull from tail to line on top. So, given everyone in this thread seemed to be talking straight tape pull, all those 80s mentioned above are probably 81s in DPS-speak. FWIW, the guy I was talking to from DPS did just change the info on their site to read 81, and their site does say measure flat along base of ski.

[matt]

Got out on mine today for the first time this season. Mounted on the line (~80.5cm straight pull). I don't think I would want any different after one day of testing.

These things are rocket ships. They are confidence inspiring and have tons of energy but it you get in the back seat they will work you. They felt a touch short (189) but I had a hard time pulling the trigger on the 197 for a resort ski. I had not skied the previous versions so cannot provide much input on spooning, however no matter what the speed you can dump them to the side, and turn initiation was effortless. They were way more surfy than the Shiros they replaced.

4" on top of soft groomers were the "worst" conditions these saw today and I can say that on the groomers with the 4" of choppy powder and random pow moguls these things were a blast hauling ass and arcing GS turns. They felt very stable and more damp than I had expected.

Im interested to see they how they handle other conditions. Kicking my self for having them just sit in the basement unmounted since fall.

[RockinB]

I've got a handful of days on mine. I am anything but a good skier but damn, I have had more than a few hero moments on these. They like to charge and ski the fall line more than around it, but killing speed is effortless. There is no way in hell I will be using any other ski when there is more than a four or five inches of fresh. I read somewhere that these skis are akin to the reverse mullet....party in the front and all business in the back. I can't sum them up better any than that.

[foreal]

Anyone else care to chime in regarding mount point? Specifically on the 189's? Don't think the previous mount will conflict but curious to any more beta...

Cheers,
B

[d542east]

Mine are at recommended or perhaps a few mm forward of that and I'm digging it. Definitely wouldn't want to go more forward, but I doubt going back 1cm would hurt.

[shafty85]

Anyone else care to chime in regarding mount point? Specifically on the 189's? Don't think the previous mount will conflict but curious to any more beta...

Cheers,
B

I have inserts for my dynafits at -1 (this was a mistake by me - I went off the measurements provided by the website prior to it being updated to the midsole point at 81 rather than trusting the topsheet indicated midsole) and +1. I don't notice a huge difference, YMMV. Around 0 to +1 seems to be the consensus from what I've read.

[RockinB]

Bumping an old one. I'm mounting new bindings on mine and due to hole conflicts I can either go +3 or -1. Anyone gone behind the line on these? Just putting the boot on the ski at -1 makes it look like there is very little tail remaining.

[Deep Days]

Length: Can anyone compare relative length of 178 older versions to current 178?

I'm 5'7, waaaaaay too doughy these days at goddamn 210+ but shooting to trim up substantially and have been on 178 Lotus 120 hybrid from c.2011 for about 20ish resort days per year (I am lazy--exclusively inbounds more or less) and have toyed with the idea of going to the 184 (when it was available).

Partly, this is for concerns of stability at speed, particularly in the chopped up, and really my only complaint with current set-up (albeit a very minor one) is some flop in the tip when choppy, and I wish they were a tiiiiny bit heavier (so maybe my inquiry is irrelevant considering the pure construction of the new spooned L120). Plus I am hoping to get several days on heli in AK this year. Was on my 178 L120 for an AK trip in 2013 and definitely wished I had some more length (ended up on some 192 138s that were better, if not a bit long for my midget ass).

Question is: if I were considering a minor upgrade in length before, would anyone say he feels that these ski a little longer than the prior versions, particularly with increased tail stiffness/maybe less tail rocker? 189 seems a bit silly, but this may be a point of contention, as no increase in length miiiiiiiiight push me toward another (i.e. updated) pow ski, if I ever get the $$$ to do so.

For reference, when I skied a 100-day season late in college (2009), I went nuts and actually bought a 190 version but gave them up when I went back to Louisiana for med school and started commuting by plane to I-70 to ski a dozen days a year.

When I had the 190, I kind of wished there was a 184 out at that time, especially in tight trees (duh). Now at about 25-30 days a year skiing in SoCal. Current skis include a 178 Wailer 105 for when it is soft and 0"-2 or 3" of new, and 182 Wagner ski with traditional camber and pretty heavy that skis like a slightly less lively Explosiv (90 underfoot--ideal quiver for me with spectrum of 90, 105, and 120 underfoot to cover all snow depths).

Any insight much appreciated... Great reviews in here. Make me want a pair for sure!

[auvgeek]

The Pure3 L120 feels more substantial to me and stable at speed than past iterations.

But for inbounds-only use, I'd go 184 Billy Goat.