DPS 08/09... the official maggot edition

**JONG Q Public** · 01-07-2009, 07:43 PM

DPS is already putting a bevel on the top sheet this year or so I was told. Other wise very good advise.

**Fritz** · 01-07-2009, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by vailcat

Of course the lipstick rockets killed it all day. Absolutely killer board. You could do no wrong today. The red stands out and gives me a boner. If you can get the lipstick red. So sick!

Reminds me of this:

Thats what dps did to me the first time too.

**vailcat** · 01-07-2009, 08:18 PM

Topsheet is already beveled. It has helped tons. No chips yet. Stay tuned

**AlpenDude** · 01-08-2009, 12:25 AM

Red 120's showed up. dukes have been in the box for months.
now the great mounting debate must come to an end. . .
. . . at the line or +1. . .

**Fritz** · 01-08-2009, 05:30 PM

^^What size skis and what size are you? My 200s are at +1. I'm 195ish w/out gear. Perfect point IMO.

**robnow** · 01-08-2009, 06:12 PM

Fritz, or anyone else with 200 120s, would you mind posting up a pic of a side profile/bases together to get a better idea of tip and tail. Or if anyone knows of any past links with pics. Still debating selling my 138s for 120s.

**AlpenDude** · 01-08-2009, 07:26 PM

on the line or +1. . . .

190cm Lotus 120 flex 2 to be mounted with dukes.

I'm 5'10'' 165lb.

from eye balling the line it looks like there will be soo much ski in front of the binding. Maybe the line is set back a bit to place the binding near the center of the running length??

compared to my 192cm Lotus 138s that are mounted at -1, it seems like the Lotus 120s will have much more ski in front of the binding.

**vailcat** · 01-08-2009, 07:43 PM

Im on the line with dukes. Seems just fine.

**dps** · 01-08-2009, 09:20 PM

on the run, will follow up with a state of the union, but as folks are mounting....

The lines on these things have been dialed in pretty well. Only reason to go forward is if you have very small foot, or you are way undersized for the ski. 200cm is the only size where you may want a bit extra, and won't give up float. On the 178 and 190's you will start to sacrifice planning, especially at low speed by going too far forward- The shorter ski, the more sensitive that equation becomes.

The Lotus 120 with its long tip, and less rocker than the 138 is designed to be ridden quite a bit behind the Lotus 138 in terms of mounting. Have faith.

Remounting is not that big a deal, but i would recommend starting on the line...

**Fritz** · 01-08-2009, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by robnow

Fritz, or anyone else with 200 120s, would you mind posting up a pic of a side profile/bases together to get a better idea of tip and tail. Or if anyone knows of any past links with pics. Still debating selling my 138s for 120s.

Camera's dead at the moment. I'll try tomorrow.

**JONG Q Public** · 01-08-2009, 10:35 PM

How about going back on a tele mount on the 105s.

My 120s are mounted on the line and are perfect but I am not sure the 105s will plane as easily and I only plan on using them for bc pow. I can probably figure this out when I get them in my hand and can compare the two but any input would be appreciated.

**deeppo** · 01-12-2009, 06:19 PM

Ok wailer 105's flex 2 are hear. Hand delivered by rob himself. Skis are beautiful(even in white) Where should I mount the skis. DPS says trust the line so I'm leaning toward that. Anyone have prior experience with the skis(older model). Skis will be all purpose backcountry skis, mounted with dynifit and skied with factors(small foot 25.5 297bsl)
Thanks for any info
deeppo

**JONG Q Public** · 01-13-2009, 11:16 AM

The Wailers arrived today. For any one interested flex 2 at 188 are 3.675 and 3.775 pounds per ski. Or for those from Yurp 1667 and 1712 grams per ski. They have normal camber and no rocker, may be early rise. The white top sheet is somewhat transparent on the lighter weight ski.

**JONG Q Public** · 01-13-2009, 05:44 PM

**deeppo** · 01-13-2009, 05:58 PM

I was surprised by the amount of camber in the skis. The tip looks nice and floaty though. Did you mount on the line? Hopefully I will be able to put my dynifits on them tomorrow.
Deeppo

**JONG Q Public** · 01-13-2009, 06:26 PM

I was also surprised by the camber. I would prefer that they were more like my Lotus 120s. Hard to say with out skiing them. They may preform better in steep spring corn snow the way they are.

I mounted them at -1. I took a long hard look at my Verdicts and my Lotus. I love the Lotus and think the Verdicts are to far forward.

For an AT mount I would go on the line.

**harpo-the-skier** · 01-13-2009, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by JONG Q Public

The Wailers arrived today. For any one interested flex 2 at 188 are 3.675 and 3.775 pounds per ski. Or for those from Yurp 1667 and 1712 grams per ski. They have normal camber and no rocker, may be early rise. The white top sheet is somewhat transparent on the lighter weight ski.

jqp, can you put them together base to base and measure how far apart the bases are at the waist? I want to see how this years camber compares to last years, which was just a couple of mm.

**JONG Q Public** · 01-13-2009, 06:55 PM

9/16 of an inch or 14.3 mm

**harpo-the-skier** · 01-13-2009, 07:12 PM

I think Stephan told me that the standard camber on last year's w105 was 1-8mm of camber. You might want to contact him to find out if yours are out of whack or they changed the specification.

"We have a 1-8mm combined camber spec on the 105. It is correct. We want it low for better soft snow performance. Carbon fiber ski with their torsional stiffness and power can also run less camber than fiberglass skis; the materials are not depended on it to generate power and rebound in the turn. Our camber specs are slightly higher for the 95 and Cassiar, although we also run those lower than your typical fiberglass ski. You should be all set for a great all-around ride."

**adrenalated** · 01-13-2009, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by harpo-the-skier

I think Stephan told me that the standard camber on last year's w105 was 1-8mm of camber. You might want to contact him to find out if yours are out of whack or they changed the specification.

"We have a 1-8mm combined camber spec on the 105. It is correct. We want it low for better soft snow performance. Carbon fiber ski with their torsional stiffness and power can also run less camber than fiberglass skis; the materials are not depended on it to generate power and rebound in the turn. Our camber specs are slightly higher for the 95 and Cassiar, although we also run those lower than your typical fiberglass ski. You should be all set for a great all-around ride."

I'm guessing 1-8mm is for each ski, so a combined camber of 14mm would be right within spec.

**deeppo** · 01-13-2009, 07:31 PM

Compared to my old g4s and xxx there is more camber on my wailers. Hopefully they will still kill it in the pow but i am slightly worried.
Deeppo

**JONG Q Public** · 01-13-2009, 08:00 PM

Thanks for the input. I am not worried. I spent a fair amount of time looking at the ski compared to all my other skis to get the mount correct. I really think these will ski well in powder. Not as good as the Lotus in pure pow but better every where else.

I don't like my first year Verdicts in light pow because of the mount and I hate the power tour bindings on them. The Verdicts kill it in steep spring couloirs. I think the Wailers will be way better in pow and almost as good in the spring. Plus I pick up 8 cm in length 7 mm in width and save almost 2 pounds per ski over the Verdicts/power tours.

I will have them out Thursday in the bc and I may give them a few laps at Loveland this weekend. I will report back.
James

**MultiVerse** · 01-14-2009, 01:14 AM

Not many fans of the w95 on this board, but I would like to know more about the w95 and w105 and where each shines especially in the BC. Or, in other words, given that their weight is so close, why not always go for the w105; at least out west (specifically in Utah) or in my case the w95 since the L138 is used if there’s powder on ground? When the high pressure front settles in… w95 or w105?

Aside from their waist dimensions and the fact that one emphasizes the front-side/ backside and the other emphasizes soft snow, what are the technical differences (camber etc.) between the w95 and w105?

**vailcat** · 01-14-2009, 01:20 AM

back to the 120's. Have 5 hard days on mind and not a single topsheet chip. Seem to be in still "in the plastic sleave they come in" condition. Sidewalls are flawless even though my form is not.

**harpo-the-skier** · 01-14-2009, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by ePiech

Not many fans of the w95 on this board, but I would like to know more about the w95 and w105 and where each shines especially in the BC. Or, in other words, given that their weight is so close, why not always go for the w105; at least out west (specifically in Utah) or in my case the w95 since the L138 is used if there’s powder on ground? When the high pressure front settles in… w95 or w105?

Aside from their waist dimensions and the fact that one emphasizes the front-side/ backside and the other emphasizes soft snow, what are the technical differences (camber etc.) between the w95 and w105?

Compared to the w95, the w105 has a more progressive, long rise tip, and (at least last year) less camber. That is all I can think of now.