Skis like a Wailer 99?

[sethschmautz]

Hey guys,

I'm looking to fill a gap in my (small) quiver. I'm looking for a ~100mm waist ski that will weigh around 8 pounds/pair and ski well in bounds and in the backcountry. I know that this is very subjective territory, but I've been impressed so far with how the DPS skis that I've skied (112RP, L120, and 112RPC) compared with how much they weigh. I have no brand affinity, and would actually prefer a flat tail. However, I'll likely be mounting these with Markerfit plates or inserts to mix and match dynafits and Lord SPs.

I'm 6' and about 195#. I have a smaller budget and would prefer to buy used. I typically look for skis around 190, but can see an argument for a little shorter (mid to upper 180s) for firmer conditions.

Thanks in advance!

Seth

[wgrand802]

Armada TST comes to mind, not flat tailed though

[ticketchecker]

Cassiar 95

[Island Bay]

Praxis 9D8, maybe?

[auvgeek]

^^Or Yeti?

[Jimi_Lee]

Was looking for the same thing last year. Here are the other models I was |considering:

PM Gear Bya (which I ended up with and like very much)
Praxis Yeti
ON3P Steeples (although I thought they weren't very playful)
Countdown 4\\\ (pointed out by someone else here)

Some of the others that may or may not be what you want:
Volkl Nunataq
ON3P Vicik
Rossi S7

[gregL]

Nanuq, Kabookie, Cham HM 97

[sethschmautz]

Thanks for he great suggestions guys. I've had my eyes on the nanuq and cham hm a little, but hadn't thought about the 9d8, yeti, or cassiar 95. Sounds like I have some research to do.

I'm not existing to get a perfect crud busting, damp inbounds ski at the weights that I'm looking at, but I'd love to hear comments about ski performance pros and cons from those who have skied these.

Thanks,

Seth

[tsk01]

Cham 97 HM?

[sethschmautz]

So, without opening another thread, I've searched TGR and other places for Wailer 99 reviews. I've read some great things - thanks for all who have contributed. I'm at a place where I'm now trying to decide on length - it looks like I'll be able to find a good deal on Wailer 99s in Pure 3 construction for sure in a 192, possibly in a 184. Other skis in my quiver are a 192 RPC and a 174 K2 sahale (spring touring). I really like how the RPC performs, and the Sahale only comes out during hard days and/or spring touring. Ideally, I'd like minimal overlap with the RPC, but the 192 (Wailer 99) can be found a lot easier than the 184 - i.e. I have a lead on a 192 for trade, nothing yet on a 184.

The question for the collective is, at ~185 and 6', moderately aggressive skier, don't huck, but am interested in a double-duty inbounds/backcountry hard(er) snow ski, what are the pros/cons of the 192 and the 184? I'm thinking that primarily, I will be giving up maneuverability with the 192 over the 184, but the radius is so short on that ski anyway, that maybe it would be a moot point. I would probably give up higher speed stability (if such a thing is possible on a 20m radius ski) if I went with the 184 over the 192. But perhaps there are things that I'm unaware of.

I haven't had a ski under 190 in about 5 years, and I've toured in bulletproof conditions on a 190 Lotus 120, so I don't think the 192 w99 would be too much to handle for my typical conditions in NW Montana, but I can see some advantages to having a shorter ski. I'd love to hear thoughts from the collective.

Thanks in advance.

Seth

[aarons]

Hey Seth, I have a pair of excellent condition 2013/14 DPS Wailer 99 Pure 3 skis, 184 cm length, with Dynafit FT 12 bindings, mounted at midline for a 314 BSL. They have less than 10 days on them. Looking to get $750 for them. I'm located in SLC and willing to ship. Let me know if your interested.

Thanks,

Aaron

[plugboots]

I'm 6'3" 175 lbs., I have the longest one, 192?, whatever, the 99 skis super short. Like turn on a dime in steep tight trees short. I actually think it has too much tip rise.

[sethschmautz]

I'm 6'3" 175 lbs., I have the longest one, 192?, whatever, the 99 skis super short. Like turn on a dime in steep tight trees short. I actually think it has too much tip rise.

Thanks! Which version do you have? Pure 2 or pure 3? Not sure if the rocker profile changed much or not.

[plugboots]

I have the model right BEFORE they put the weights in the tip and tail. I think the newer versions would be better as these need some damping on high speed groomers getting back to the chair. But that's why I got them for a discount.

[sethschmautz]

Thanks plug.

What else do you ski? I'm trying to get a feel for their comparison to a 192 RPC, or 190 RP.

Can you go into detail on the comment on to much early rise?

Seth

[plugboots]

I have 196 carbon Lhasa Pows with dukes, but I never use them with skins. I like that ski a lot, but it has a huge radius, so while it is amazing for firm snow, (in that it holds an edge), essentially you have to skid it. Love it in the soft. I did not ski that pair last season, as I never had any lift serviced soft snow days. Those skis just kill it in junk. I bet the RPCs would be good in junk too.

I also have first gen. 112 RPs 190 cm that I use as my BC skis with Dynafits. I have a ton of days on those. The only thing they don't ski well is sastrugi, but that's due to the side cut, which is cool for so many other things. The width is good for high avie, low angle days.

I have an early pair of Wailer 95s too that I love but just don't ski much anymore. I bought the 99s to replace these really, and I ski La Grave every year, so I wanted a La Grave ski. I thought on firm days the 99s would be better than 112s, and I think they are.

I guess it seems on so many of the days I'm on the 99s it's firm, and I look down and the tip is just up there seemingly doing nothing, that I sometimes want more ski underfoot and less tip in the air. Maybe. That high tip doesn't get hung up in couloirs, or in narrow shitty tree bumps either, so... Tip doesn't flop like a Rossi, though.

As background, I'm old and skied 110 GS skis on powder days, and 207 SL on hard snow days.

[sethschmautz]

That was incredibly insightful. Thank you. In my mind, I figured that I'd probably ski the 99s on days ~4-6" or less. The RPCs if it's any deeper.

Having come from the RPs (which I really liked), your observations on the similarities and differences really helps. Any thoughts on which skis longer between the 99s and the RPs?

Seth

[plugboots]

I don't know, it's hard to tell really since I ski the 112s with TLT 5s and Dynafits, and I ski the 99s with Cochises and Solly's. You could look up the running length and I believe the 99s are longer, I forget. If I had to pick one I'd say the 99s feel slightly longer. That could be due to the different construction, the boots and bindings, my style of skiing when I'm at a resort v. BC, etc. Nonetheless, when I look down I see 192, but when I NEED to make a turn, I FEEL 170.

[sethschmautz]

I don't know, it's hard to tell really since I ski the 112s with TLT 5s and Dynafits, and I ski the 99s with Cochises and Solly's. You could look up the running length and I believe the 99s are longer, I forget. If I had to pick one I'd say the 99s feel slightly longer. That could be due to the different construction, the boots and bindings, my style of skiing when I'm at a resort v. BC, etc. Nonetheless, when I look down I see 192, but when I NEED to make a turn, I FEEL 170.

Thanks - again, really helpful. I think that you have summed up and resolved my concerns with these observations. 192 seems long for tighter, harder conditions ("...when I look down I see 192...") for which this ski will likely be used. However, the shorter radius and early rise make for a ski that will ski shorter ("...when I NEED to make a turn, I FEEL 170...").

Based on your observations, I think I'll pull the trigger on the 192s. Thanks again for your help - although a single data point, this is precisely the info that I was hoping to find, but not expecting to as my questions were pretty specific.

Seth

[jackattack]

I've been skiing my 192 W99 pure's (flex 2) most of this week. I think they are 2012/2013.

They are totally competent on refrozen shit, but carbon + dynafits =/= smooth ride. Not enjoyable. Maybe the newer models with metal tip/tail are better. If it's remotely soft they're fine. Not particularly great in crud or heavy skied out conditions. I like them in deep soft snow due to their running length. Skis a lot shorter than 190 on hard snow. Intuitive, stiff and supportive. I'm just under 6' and 235lbs and wouldn't think of skiing anything shorter.

I think they're a great quiver of 1 touring ski. I may chop 5cm off the tail for easier kick turns.

[skibass]

I've really enjoyed the Black Crows Camox that comes in a tour specific version the freebird. I'd give it a look.

[harpo-the-skier]

I would go shorter for a BC ski unless you need the float.

[Boissal]

I've really enjoyed the Black Crows Camox that comes in a tour specific version the freebird. I'd give it a look.

Any experience with the Navis? Closer to the 100mm underfoot spec, bit lighter.