DPS Wailer 105 Review

[covert]

i've had these skis for a little less than a year now and haven't been very happy with them but always suspected it was a boot issue. they're mounted with dynafits which copulate with a pair of scarpa spirit3s. got a booster strap on the 3s and had a tor pro tongue.
this fall i blew them out, put in some new scarpa intuition liners, kept the booster strap and swapped back to the stock orange tongue and that was the golden ticket. they have been crushing silverton pow ever since. i haven't skied them in anything since pow this fall because that's what i like to ski and it has been readily available.
as a "mid-fat" they float extremely well and provide enough ski pen that i have been receiving abundant face shots. they initiate a turn like a switchblade, tour like a dream but are obviously less well suited to arcing big turns then their chubbier siblings. lots of pop.
i suppose sooner or later i'll have to get them on a less virgin surface. last year in the chugach they seemed to hold a decent edge on glacial ice but i was suffering from the aforementioned boot unhappiness so the jury is still out.
got an oregon scientific ATC2K camera for christmas. poor video on my first attempt with the "shoulder-cam" but the wailers looked so happy in their element that i was inspired to share. pray for snow...

ps suggestions on custom mount options for the atc2k? i'd like to get it on my goggle strap but sportshotz mounts won't fit...

[skinnyskier]

What was wrong with the boots before? More of an uncomfortable shell issue, or a need for a softer, more progressive forward flex?

[covert]

both, would be the short answer. fit made my feet unhappy but the blow-out and new liners have mostly addressed that. i don't think the tor pro tongue fit the spirit3 very well figuratively. it seemed to force me into a more upright position than i liked and the flex was overly stiff relative to the rest of the boot/binding/ski combo. very awkward. new liners are stiffer and with a booster and the soft stock tongue it seems to be a good upgrade. had a similar experience way back when...i preferred the denali xt's with a softer laser tongue than the gray tongue they came with...seems to improve the flex pattern considerably...

[Rontele]

nice review, covert.

I've gotten roughly 7 days or so on my 105s with O1s and they are just a dream...

[covert]

agreed...dreamy...

little bit about myself...

6'1" 185lbs i like speed but the aesthetic of the line and what you can milk from it is paramount. not much air since i broke my pelvis in half years ago. mostly i tour but the chairlift is a wonderful invention, not to mention the other mechanical advantages potentially available to skiers. jimi is the king but stevie ray is the man.

ski ~200-250 days per year generally in CO and AR

i've not been in an alpine boot for seven years though very much gravitate to the stiffest of the AT boots. lots of days in scarpas and garmonts.

i like big fall lines and deep pow. duh. often ski very firm surfaces in AR but not so much in CO. rarely encounter "normal" ski area conditions.

i love the new way of skiing that the DPS 120s (and similar skis) introduced to me but am reliving the glories of my youth ie shorter radius turns and the massive face shots that come with a "narrower" waisted ski.

quiver: DPS 120s flex3 and 105s flex2
K2 Made 'N AKs, Apache Chief and Coombas
Other old stuff <100mm under foot. lots of volkls

Garmont Endorphins and Adrenalines in various shades of destruction
Scarpa Hurricanes, Spirit3s, Denalis and Lasers
-all in pretty good shape given the mileage but not preferred boots

Various Fritschi Freerides and Dynafit bindings remarkably well
preserved given their level of abuse.

[Rontele]

Heh. I thought I was only freak with both 120s and 105s. Though mine are both flex 2, which, imo is a great flex for tele.

[harpo-the-skier]

Covert and Rontele, what length and vintage are your 105's? I have some 178 F2 W105 from this year that are waiting to get mounted.

[gamma]

very nice review covert.. and thanks for the pics the other day.. Im deviriginizing my 138 192 flex 07/08s in 12 of LCC new tomorrow.. cannot wait.

so can you give some comparison to the 120s? easier to turn? my only afterthought about the 120s is they love big fast turns.. short turns, no sexy time for gamma weighing in at 240 ..

[Rontele]

Covert and Rontele, what length and vintage are your 105's? I have some 178 F2 W105 from this year that are waiting to get mounted.

06-07 188, flex 2s.

[covert]

Covert and Rontele, what length and vintage are your 105's? I have some 178 F2 W105 from this year that are waiting to get mounted.

120s 06-07 188 flex3 which not only slays pow but does pretty well on the placa (hard slab) in SA.

105s 06-07 188 flex2

[covert]

so can you give some comparison to the 120s? easier to turn? my only afterthought about the 120s is they love big fast turns.. short turns, no sexy time for gamma weighing in at 240 ..

i skied the 120s in flex2 for the second half of last season in silverton and the flex3s all summer in SA. to me, their defining characteristic is their incredible stability at speed in pow. they draw you into massive arcing turns to the point where it is difficult to find big enough fall lines, even in leñas. they perform admirably in deep pow/tight trees but as the depth of the surface snow decreases, so does their agility.

the 105s prefer a shorter radius turn and exit that turn with a lot of energy ready to slash the next one. very lively ski. my initial impression was that they were a little squirelly at speed in big fall lines but that was before i solved my boot issues. the 105s will probably prove to be an outstanding couloir ski.

[Rontele]

i skied the 120s in flex2 for the second half of last season in silverton and the flex3s all summer in SA. to me, their defining characteristic is their incredible stability at speed in pow. they draw you into massive arcing turns to the point where it is difficult to find big enough fall lines, even in leñas. they perform admirably in deep pow/tight trees but as the depth of the surface snow decreases, so does their agility.

the 105s prefer a shorter radius turn and exit that turn with a lot of energy ready to slash the next one. very lively ski. my initial impression was that they were a little squirelly at speed in big fall lines but that was before i solved my boot issues. the 105s will probably prove to be an outstanding couloir ski.

I'll add this. The 105s are like a mini-120.

[Wetdog]

the 105s prefer a shorter radius turn and exit that turn with a lot of energy ready to slash the next one. very lively ski. my initial impression was that they were a little squirelly at speed in big fall lines but that was before i solved my boot issues. the 105s will probably prove to be an outstanding couloir ski.

I'm thinking of a pair of these or the Wailer 95's for a dedicated touring ski with dynafits. Do you think from your experience that the 105's would make a good all round touring ski capable of handling mixed back country conditions? They are certainly light enough. I have never toured on anything bigger than mid 90's waist, not because of dimensions so much as weight. This ski seems to have broken that boundary line.

[harpo-the-skier]

I'm thinking of a pair of these or the Wailer 95's for a dedicated touring ski with dynafits. Do you think from your experience that the 105's would make a good all round touring ski capable of handling mixed back country conditions? They are certainly light enough. I have never toured on anything bigger than mid 90's waist, not because of dimensions so much as weight. This ski seems to have broken that boundary line.

The W95 is within 20g of the weight of the W105, so that shouldn't factor in your choice. On groomers, the W105 almost had too much edgehold, but I haven't had them on anything steep and firm. The W105 has a much more progressive tip shape than the W95; I love the W105 tip shape in deep snow.

I choose the W105 for the same purpose you have and haven't been disappointed.

[SkiOrDie]

I'm thinking of a pair of these or the Wailer 95's for a dedicated touring ski with dynafits. Do you think from your experience that the 105's would make a good all round touring ski capable of handling mixed back country conditions? They are certainly light enough. I have never toured on anything bigger than mid 90's waist, not because of dimensions so much as weight. This ski seems to have broken that boundary line.

The difference in weight, on DPS skis, is not a real factor - too small to matter.

But, when I was talking to the DPS guys, prior to buying my 105s, they were hesitant to recommend the 105s until they found out that I had spent a fair amount of time on a ski with over 100mm underfoot. My old skis are Dyno Nobis Inspired with 89mm under foot, but once they learned that I was skiing the Line Profit 100s and the Goats, they changed their recommendation to the 105s.

If you haven't had an interchange with the folks from DPS, you really should. They are the most reasonable and low-BS folks I've ever talked to. You can see that in many of their posts here - they ignore the ass holes who flame all over the place without cause - they stick to the facts and the reality of their skis - they provide GREAT advice for free. Look, if you're going to pay this much coin for skis you should use the free consulting. They really have no axe to grind in having you choose between the 90s and the 105s, they sell you skis either way. But, I found them extremely helpful and very accurate in their characterization of the two skis.

I would point out that the shovels are quite different between the 105s and the 90s, and that is probably a bigger difference (IMHO) than the difference in width, provided you're comfortable with wider skis.

Finally, I don't think wider skis are "harder" or odd in any way. I just think they take longer to go from Edge to Edge on groomers - not something I give a shit about. In the DPS line, there is no torsional rigidity difference, so you'll hold an edge equally well on either.

B-))

[marshalolson]

nice writeup!

[Kya]

Shit, this makes me want to buy a W105. Good thing I can't.

[The Padded Room]

I’m similar to covert as far as physical size and terrain I like to ski and found his review spot on. I bought these for touring and have them mounted with Dynafit FR12s. I have 4 days on them, and so far, are a DREAM to tour in. With that said I spent a day testing speed on groomers and almost killed myself, twice. I don’t know if I just need to detune the tips and tails a little more or what but they’re super twitchy on hardpack. Not too concern though as it is highly unlikely I will be railing these things at a resort again anytime soon.

[harpo-the-skier]

I’m similar to covert as far as physical size and terrain I like to ski and found his review spot on. I bought these for touring and have them mounted with Dynafit FR12s. I have 4 days on them, and so far, are a DREAM to tour in. With that said, I spent a day at Loveland testing speed on groomers and almost killed myself, twice. I don’t if I just need to detune the tips and tails a little more or what but they’re super twitchy on hardpack. Not too concern though as it is highly unlikely I will be railing these things at a resort again anytime soon.

Gunna talk to Marshal-is-the-mang-Olson and update.

PR, on Stephen's advice I changed the base bevel on the tip and tail from 1deg to 1.5 deg and that helped the w105s performance on groomers, they were much less grabby.

[ulty_guy]

I had a 188, 07/08 Flex 2 pair that I unfortunately broke just infront of the binding landing an air into a windlip after 5 days on them. Now most skis would've probably held up, but to be fair these are lighter weight skis that probably shouldn't be beat on quite so hard. That said, the 5 days I had with them absolutely ruled pow and steeps. They get bounced around quite a bit in junk b/c of the light weight. Also agreed on the nearly killing yourself on the groomer, they are very grabby and extremely torsionally stiff (like a 65mm waisted atomic race ski) which is the reason I think they're so tricky.

As for 105/95, I think it has to do with how much hard snow you'll be seeing. On serious icy steeps I found that the 105's high torsional stiffness and the fact that it's wider than your foot, put a lot of pressure on the inside and outside cuff of your boot which became painful over time. If I was going for a pure steeps/spring touring ski, I'd go 95.

I got a replacement pair 08/09 that had way too much camber and kinda screwed up the whole idea of the ski so I don't use it much. I'm going to try the decambering hoji trick and see if it works, we'll see.

edit- to fix the grabbiness, I went even further w/ a 2 degree bevel and it's still grabby

[verbier61]

heh..
to be honest I did not notice so far a lot of difference between my zero camber w105
(07-09, I guess, like UG's) and my slightly positive camber 08-09 w105, but a subtle difference certainly exists. I would say so far I liked a bit more the 08-09 in mixed conditions, and the zero camber in powder (quite obvious, I know)... but I might be biased by the placebo effect of knowing the presence or absence of camber. damn, anyway, very subtle differences, if any

[Chnaiur]

Do you guys really think the W105 F2 are "poppy"? I'm coming from a pair of Monster 85:s, and I feel the Wailers are real damp compared to those.

Will type up a review after a few more days on them.

[ulty_guy]

Qualifier on the replacement pair that I got was that they were a blem pair deemed to have too much camber, like more than a race room LP. I got my original pair on an inside deal so they weren't going to give me a spanking new set.

[verbier61]

ah, got it..... mine actually have a few mm positive camber, not more

[Canada Guy]

For the people that have these in the flex 3 how do you compare the flex to other skis you have ridden?