Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3

    DPS Lotus 138 Spoon Review (2013/14 model)

    Sell your Subaru. Sell your bike. Hell, sell weed if you have to- if you ski a lot of untracked powder you want this ski on your feet.

    Here is my unbiased take on the 2013/4 DPS Lotus 138 Spoon 192cm. I searched wide and far for reviews of the new design, and couldn't find much, which made me nervous to drop this much cash on skis. and I'm SUPER STOKED I did. These skis rock, and are BY FAR the best powder ski I've ever used. So I feel obligated to share my experience.

    ABOUT ME:
    I am an AMGA certified guide and teach climbing, mountaineering, and backcountry ski courses for a college outdoor leadership program in the four corners. I'm a formally trained ski racer and spent a couple years as full time ski patroller for Beaver Creek. My home range is Colorado's San Juans where I spend most of my days in the backcountry or skiing Silverton Mountain. I love high speed GS sized turns, pillow lines, and drops up to around 15'.

    I'm 5'10, 165lbs. I have no affiliation with DPS. Blah blah blah, onto the skis.

    REVIEW:

    Like I opened with, these skis blow me away. I've gotten 5 days in so far, all in the backcountry, and I'm already in love. Conditions have ranged from sun crust to 2 week old boot top to 36" of fresh. I was super nervous ordering 192cm skis, but they are by far the most nimble powder skis I've ever used. In tight trees I can slash quick turns like I'm on a groomer with slalom skis. Yet on open slide paths they feel like GS skis, arcing big power turns at 30mph (clocked by GPS). They feel rock solid at that speed, and I know they'll go waaaaay faster. I just haven't been on the right slope with safe enough avi conditions to find their speed limit (if it exists).

    I'm a huge fan of lively, carbon skis, and that's exactly what they are. When you drive the ski by loading up the shin of your boot they launch you out of the snow into the next turn. Porpoising has never been so effortless. Yet, they're not hooky either, which is a complaint of the pre-spoon versions. I can hold onto a drifting, smeary turn for as long as I want. And yet they're equally adept at directional charging in a traditional turn shape. Did I mention I'm in love?

    Their sweet spot is enormous. I can ski in a aggressive racer stance and load the tips with absolutely no hint of tip dive. If I wind up in defensive, backseat "oh crap" stance I can still whip off quick direction changes. Once in motion, you'd never guess you have so much real estate under your feet. Unlike some other big skis, these don't feel like they're in charge.

    Drops? Holy shit. They're effortless. As long as you land upright, you're good. Instantly back in control, and ready to charge, turn, or dump speed.

    I'm grinning as I write this. I honestly feel like these skis have taken my game to the next level, and make it even easier to rip like our heros in the movies.

    I haven't gotten them onto wind board or groomer like conditions so I can't comment. I imagine they could be terrifying though. Curious to find out.

    TOURING:
    This has been interesting. First, they're heavy. 10lbs unmounted. Surprisingly, for as much surface area as they have they're slippery on steep uphills. I find I have to really focus on technique, keeping my hips forward, back straight, weighting my heels. They're very unforgiving if you lean forward or hinge at the hips during super steep-grab-a-tree sections. I think it's because of the full rocker. During the moment when one's weight shifts forward, the entire ski rocks and breaks loose. They're also dicey during off camber kick turns.

    I use Black Diamond 140mm mohair mix skins (which I barely had to cut). I'm no stranger to mohair mix, and have used them on other skis. Never experienced this before. The struggle on the uphill is totally worth it though.

    My 138s are mounted with Dynafit Speed Radicals. No brakes. Without bindings they were 10lbs on my home scale.

    SKI COMPARISONS:
    Over the past few years I've spent quite a bit of time on the Atomic Automatic 186cm, Voile Drifter 182cm, Voile Charger 181cm, and Blizzard Cochise 185cm, and K2 Seths. In powder, the L138 is in a league above. Here's are my thoughts:

    Atomic Automatics: A big disappointment. This ski was too damp for me, with not enough spring or energy coming out of turns. Sure, they're easy to ski and make all the turn shapes. But, they were too boring and forgiving. Plus, in storms that put down two feet or more they felt too narrow, sunk, and felt sluggish. I've heard they're great resort powder skis, but I only skied the backcountry in them. Sold 'em.

    Voile Drifter: Until I put on the L138 this was my favorite backcountry powder board of all time. No speed limit. Big float. Loves GS sized turns. Lots of pop and energy due to the carbon. I had a pair of these for two years, sold them for the automatics, regretted that, and then bought another pair. The L138 feels even noticeably more stable and energetic at speed though, and is dramatically more nimble in the trees. Sure, they're lighter and easier to tour in, but the L138 is so much more fun on the descents that I don't care.

    Voile Charger: Also an amazing ski in my opinion. Perhaps the best all around backcountry ski I've used. Like the drifter, but some of the float and high speed performance has been traded off for versatility and ability to crank quick turns in trees. I keep borrowing these from a buddy when I have to get on a plane and can only bring one ski (ex. Chamonix, BC, etc.)

    Blizzard Cochise: My favorite resort powder ski for dumps up to 12" or so. After that it's just too narrow and lacks float. But, it's incredibly fast and powerful in all turn shapes and conditions. No speed limit either. Not as poppy as voile's carbon skis, but who cares. These things rip. Just don't go into the deep or they'll auger in. As the powder turns to crud these do better and better.

    K2 Seth: Good float, and fun at speed in long radius turns, but that's about it. I felt like I was along for the ride. Too damp and one dimensional. A heavy beast in tight trees. Sold 'em.

    MY BUDDY's TAKE:
    My most trusted ski reviewing friend took them out for a couple days right after a 12" storm. He's 5'10" 180lbs. Had the same troubles on the skin track. But, he loved them as well. He called them a 9.5 out of 10, only being beaten by the Armada ARG, which is his favorite powder ski of all time. He worships that ski like some folks do the bible, so I don't think anything will unseat it from the altar after just two days. But, he was willing to admit the DPS was more poppy and energetic than the ARG.

    He had several days on 2012 version of the L138 in 192cm. He found the older version to be great in the trees, but too hooky for wide open high speed fun. He also felt it got deflected easily by tree clumps and other variability in the powder. He much prefers his ARGs to the older L138s. He was waaaay more impressed with the spoon version though and found it to be improved in every way except for the increased weight.

    138 SPOON VS. PREVIOUS 138
    This 5th generation is a totally different ski than the last generation. Another buddy owns a local mountaineering shop and we had his 2012 138's side by side with mine. His had dramatically more rocker in the tip and tail. His "flat" spot under the foot was much shorter. His were also noticeably lighter, despite also being 192cm. We scaled them, but I can't remember the exact difference. He was impressed by the new design, and felt they had a "less radical and better looking shape" than his.

    FINAL THOUGHTS:
    I hope folks find this long review helpful. I felt like I took a big risk buying these without much info since they were so changed from the previous version. I couldn't be happier. For powder skiing, they're tits. This is the ski I wish I had on my last trip to AK. Definitely a quiver ski though. To compliment them I'll be selling my Drifters and replacing them with 8lb all condition ski for monster vert days, corn, and above treeline variable/mountaineering conditions.
    Last edited by cstrouth; 02-04-2014 at 11:40 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    949
    Good review...interesting. Would be interested in some more comparisons to rocker 3.1 versions.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,748
    Quote Originally Posted by cstrouth View Post
    138 SPOON VS. PREVIOUS 138
    This 5th generation is a totally different ski than the last generation. Another buddy owns a local mountaineering shop and we had his 2012 138's side by side with mine. His had dramatically more rocker in the tip and tail. His "flat" spot under the foot was much shorter. His were also noticeably lighter, despite also being 192cm. We scaled them, but I can't remember the exact difference. He was impressed by the new design, and felt they had a "less radical and better looking shape" than his.
    Probably a good comparison to the R3 variations. R0 (narrow tip), R1 (wider tip and slightly more rocker than R0), and R2 (flatter tail than R1) also have less rocker, and a longer flat length underfoot. My bamboo-sidewall R1's average about 2,060g each.

    I think Marshall said he "semi-spooned" his older 138's by filing away a pretty serious base bevel toward the tips.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    girdwood
    Posts
    489
    Awesome. Thanks for the review. I've been waiting to hear how the 138 spoons compare to the older versions. Certainly be interested in more first hand accounts.

    That said, with the lack of snow up here, I'm pretty glad I didn't pull the trigger this summer.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    3,163
    First of all, thanks for writing this. Fun to read.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstrouth View Post
    MY BUDDY's TAKE:
    He called them a 9.5 out of 10, only being beaten by the Armada ARG, which is his favorite powder ski of all time. He worships that ski like some folks do the bible, so I don't think anything will unseat it from the altar after just two days.
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! He sounds like a cool guy. With very different taste than me.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstrouth View Post
    He had several days on 2012 version of the L138 in 192cm. He found the older version to be great in the trees, but too hooky for wide open high speed fun. He also felt it got deflected easily by tree clumps and other variability in the powder. He much prefers his ARGs to the older L138s. He was waaaay more impressed with the spoon version though and found it to be improved in every way except for the increased weight.
    Gah!!!! Yes!!!! Someone who agrees with me. I felt so excited for my first pair of 138s. 192 R1 pures flex 3. Not quite the same skis as his, but much more similar to his than the current 138 pure. I loved them in tight trees and really disliked them everywhere else. Couldn't find a balance point, they felt super hooky if I ever tried to make aggressive long radius turns, and they kind of just darted around even if I stayed on top of them. It could have been the mount, but I sold them as they just weren't for me. Several friends told me I was nuts for not liking them, but I didn't and that perfectly captured my critique of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstrouth View Post
    I hope folks find this long review helpful.
    Extremely. Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstrouth View Post
    I felt like I took a big risk buying these without much info since they were so changed from the previous version.
    Yeah, you did. But I've found that the "risks" have landed me my favorite skis.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstrouth View Post
    I couldn't be happier. For powder skiing, they're tits. Definitely a quiver ski though. To compliment them I'll be selling my Drifters and replacing them with 8lb all condition ski for monster vert days, corn, and above treeline variable/mountaineering conditions.
    I'm on some Steeple 102 shit too. Don't really want to go any lighter.
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    5,868
    Were one of you guys out with us in East Vail on Sunday? Skied with a guy named Kip who was on some 192 138 Spoons.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post
    Were one of you guys out with us in East Vail on Sunday? Skied with a guy named Kip who was on some 192 138 Spoons.
    Not me. Was skiing near Silverton Sunday. It never ceases to amaze me how small the world can be though....

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    4

    Lotus 138 Spoon comparison 182 vs 192

    Thanks for this great review !!
    Maybe this thread is completely Dead, but I'll give it a shot...

    Do you think there Is there a big difference in stablily between the 182 and the 192 version ? The 182 will be lighter and even be a bit more maneuverable in tight spaces but more "nervous" at higher speed... Is the Stability gain by going longer very noticeable ?


    Cheers !
    Last edited by maa817; 12-17-2016 at 06:49 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by maa817 View Post
    Thanks for this great review !!
    Maybe this thread is completely Dead, but I'll give it a shot...

    Do you think there Is there a big difference in stablily between the 182 and the 192 version ? The 182 will be lighter and even be a bit more maneuverable in tight spaces but more "nervous" at higher speed... Is the Stability gain by going longer very noticeable ?

    The chances that somebody has skied both lengths, and can be of any help to you, is pretty low.

    Email the guys at DPS, they'll know. And it also helps if you'd give some info about yourself (size, skill, style, etc.).

    info@dpsskis.com

    But just to give you my .02: I'm 5'11", 165 lbs, advanced skier (7/10) and have 4 days on the 192. The 192 is super quick, so I couldn't even imagine riding the 182. I've even had it in a narrow couloir, and didn't mind the length. Basically with the full rocker and the stiff flex, you get the best of both worlds for soft snow: a very quick / pivoty ski, that is very stable in variable snow. Keep in mind, that we're talking relatively untracked snow here. In super tracked / cruddy snow, the ski does becomes nervous, because of the massive taper.

    So if you're around my size and know how to drive a ski, I think you will want to get the 192.
    Last edited by Bredey; 12-26-2016 at 12:47 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,748
    The 182 is for pretty small folks, less than 145 lbs I'd think.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    monument
    Posts
    6,910
    ^^^ Heck, I weigh a buck-forty and I have 202s (R2).

    And even those are amazingly nimble.
    In search of the elusive artic powder weasel ...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    4
    Thank you for your answers ! I'm 178cm and 155 lbs, i would rate myself between advanced and expert (8/10). I've already had a talk with dps on the phone, and they recommended the 182. They told me, "the rocker profile is less radical and more subtle then the previous generation, which makes it ski less short". I was quiet surprised they recommended this length! I liked the idea of having a lighter ski... Anyway, thank you for your input. I think i'll lean toward the 192.

    Cheers.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,748
    The rocker 3.0 has the super rocker. The newer versions have less rocker but probably still quite a bit more than R1 and R2, which the guys above are recommending in the 192 length.

    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...-1-to-rocker-3

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    4
    Yesterday i talked with the DPS's ambassador of backcountry.com, he recommended me the 182 too ! What's up with them ? So surprising... He owns the 182, and he tested both. I think both version will be a blast, and it's just down to where and what you like to ski. I'm mean were just talking about 10cm here... Anyway thanks for the little chat, i'll try to get my hands on a 192, and it will be awesome! It just needs to snow damn it!! The conditions in Europe up until now have been a nightmare for powderhounds like us! I just get jealous seeing the forecast in NA. Thinking about a last minute trip to NA or Japan, if doesn't get better here...

    Cheers and a happy new year.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    is everything
    Posts
    1,943
    Just curious where you mounted and which binding is on the 192

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    15
    That's weird. When I talked to them this summer, they definitely recommended the 192. I did give them quite a bit of info about where I ski, skis that I like, etc. If you're spending more time in open terrain and at high speeds, I'd definitely go 192.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil E View Post
    Just curious where you mounted and which binding is on the 192
    I have the new Fritschi / BD Vipecs (Black) on them, and mounted at +1.5 cm, per DPS's recommendation. This puts the midsole line 84.5 cm from the tail, measured along the base. So far (4 days on them), they feel perfect there.

    http://www.dpsskis.com/company/faqs/tuning-mounting/

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Bozeman/Park City
    Posts
    5

    Agreed

    I can agree not much better than these in deep and untracked.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •