Page 58 of 58 FirstFirst ... 53 54 55 56 57 58
Results 1,426 to 1,441 of 1441
  1. #1426
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Squamish BC.
    Posts
    697
    Quote Originally Posted by fool View Post
    Gigantic bump

    Thoughts on the 112RPs as a pow ski for a season in Whistler? I have a pair - 192s, maybe 10 years old, with ~50 days on them - that I'm considering remouting to alpine bindings from tele. My daily driver will be Enforcer 104 Free 191s. It seems like a 120+ waisted ski would be ideal, just not sure I want to spend the coin on that. Never had a pow-specific ski before. (Alternatively, does mid-season Whistler has solid deals on pow skis? Seems doubtful but figured it's worth an ask).

    I enjoyed the 112RPs but didn't like them as much as the RPCs - I think I enjoyed the longer turn radius of the RPCs vs. RPs. That being said, it seems like the RPs could be decent in powder because they felt a bit more "floaty."

    Me: 6'2", 190ish, advanced-expert (been on teles the last ~15 years). Planning to spend the season in Whistler, with some skiing in CA.

    Edit to add: it's been a few years since I've had many days on the RPs or RPCs, hence some of my uncertainty on some of their ski characteristics.
    I have same vintage RPís and I am the same size and weight as you and Whistler is my home resort. I have RPís mounted with Dynafit Rad 1ís for mostly touring, but have skied them frequently at the resort on powder days and for resort access backcountry.

    They are a good powder ski and handle groomers well if kept in tune. I skied them in Japan in bottomless powder and they float better than any 112 waisted ski should. They perform like several of my wider 120 waisted skis. They are on the light side, so they do get knocked around a bit in crud snow, more so than the heavier RPC which have less side cut, but they are still manageable if you ski them at reasonable speeds. Theyíre not chargers, but are still a lot of fun and should be great with alpine bindings.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  2. #1427
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Wetdog View Post
    I have same vintage RP’s and I am the same size and weight as you and Whistler is my home resort. I have RP’s mounted with Dynafit Rad 1’s for mostly touring, but have skied them frequently at the resort on powder days and for resort access backcountry.

    They are a good powder ski and handle groomers well if kept in tune. I skied them in Japan in bottomless powder and they float better than any 112 waisted ski should. They perform like several of my wider 120 waisted skis. They are on the light side, so they do get knocked around a bit in crud snow, more so than the heavier RPC which have less side cut, but they are still manageable if you ski them at reasonable speeds. They’re not chargers, but are still a lot of fun and should be great with alpine bindings.
    That is perfect - thanks, Wetdog. I'm likely planning to mount them with Fristchi touring bindings but will ski them for both touring and resort. I'll give them a go and if somehow it's a great snow season, I'll start looking at way bigger skis.

    Also, thanks kootenayskier.

  3. #1428
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Dirty E
    Posts
    1,020
    https://classifieds.ksl.com/listing/65920913

    I really want to know WTF is going on here.

    Name:  3640771-1636576237-228320.jpg
Views: 327
Size:  52.9 KB

  4. #1429
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    2,134
    I saw those on KSL several weeks ago from a different seller for half the price. The original seller said they he bought them from a DPS employee who made them himself with a modified Alchemist layup. Looks like this Porter fellow is trying to flip.

  5. #1430
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    867
    Quote Originally Posted by cstefanic View Post
    https://classifieds.ksl.com/listing/65920913

    I really want to know WTF is going on here.

    Name:  3640771-1636576237-228320.jpg
Views: 327
Size:  52.9 KB
    those were first article camber checks made from scrap topsheets. They are guaranteed to have wacky camber/rocker lines, as well as construction and flex patterns that are less good than inline versions.

  6. #1431
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Dirty E
    Posts
    1,020
    Custom

  7. #1432
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    556
    My wife purchased 158cm Foundation 112 RPs, the ones that look like brown bananas, because she hates her marble 165cm Armada JJ UL. She describes the JJ as what I believe is catchy (one ski abruptly catches and runs wider than the other) and having tip dive. She basically bought the DPS because she heard they were easy to ski in powder and thinks it should be fun not a pain in the ass. She is a pretty fast and strong skier but entirely self taught so traditional PSIA form is not present.

    Where should I mount these things to set her up for success? -11.5 seems very far back, but at this point I feel like I know nothing; Iíve never been on a DPS, I havenít skied that far back in decades, and Iíve done my fair share of buying the wrong skis. She just wants me to pick a spot because we are both deep into analysis-paralysis. Her other skis are Faction Prodigy 1.0 and Line Blades both on the line (much more progressive than the DPS).
    Last edited by TexasGortex; 03-18-2023 at 10:24 PM.

  8. #1433
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dystopia
    Posts
    19,229
    ^^^^^
    My wife still loves her RP.
    I gave up on it after one season. Super fun, but too soft for me.

    On your mount question I have no idea. Drove them on the line. Never a tip dive. Wife on the line, no tip dive.

    158 is so short. Might need to go back 1 or 1.5cm?
    Demo bindings are fun for these experiments

  9. #1434
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    LV-426
    Posts
    20,249
    I found the RP112 really hooky on hard pack, no matter how much I detuned. Gave up in using them as a travel ski, mounted Dynafits, they're a BC ski only now.

    Was she trying to ski them on groomers?
    Quote Originally Posted by powder11 View Post
    if you have to resort to taking advice from the nitwits on this forum, then you're doomed.

  10. #1435
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    573
    My GF loves her Foundation 112 RPs in a 168. Super easy in powder trees which is where we end up doing most our riding. Have them mounted +1, still tons of tip. Rec is way way back

    Edit: yeah the Yvettes, forgot that's the name of the women's version
    Last edited by lrn2swim; 03-19-2023 at 02:44 PM.

  11. #1436
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    556
    She had the headaches with the JJs in ~6 of powder over a mix of inbounds conditions including some groomed.

    The mount point is WAY back, hence my hesitation. Iíd normally throw just about any ski on the line and give it a go these are just an outlier compared to her other skis.

    Edit: sheís only about 158cm tall so the length isn't quite as short as it might sounds

  12. #1437
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,140
    If the skis are as tall as her, they are mounted on the line and have tip dive, I donít know what to say. As others mentioned, the reccomended mount line is ultra far back compared to most modern skis, so I canít imagine going much farther back. The huge tip rocker, taper and rearward mount generally lead to insane amounts of tip floatation.

    They do have a very short turn radius and short edge length so can definitely feel hooky. Good for short, stabby turns but harder to harder to ride an edge smoothly for a big arc on a groomer.

    She might just not like them.

  13. #1438
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    556
    She was having tip dive and a bad time on the JJs (whose line is something like -4.5 I think). She hasnít skied the DPS yet.

    I edited the original post to try to clarify which skis she didnít like and what she was having trouble with.

  14. #1439
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,140
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGortex View Post
    She was having tip dive and a bad time on the JJs (whose line is something like -4.5 I think). She hasnít skied the DPS yet.

    I edited the original post to try to clarify which skis she didnít like and what she was having trouble with.
    Oh, since that case mount on the line. Sounds like she hates tip-divey center-mounted pow skis and may love the wailers. My wife is on 168s (which match her height) and is obsessed with them.

  15. #1440
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Evergreen Co
    Posts
    829
    DPS used to put the line at +1 on the Yvette (womens wailer) so you might consider that.

    AlsoÖ mount point is deceptive on wailers. So much early taper that outside of swing weight you canít tell the first 10cm of ski is there until youíre in powder. My wife is a fairly centered skier and does great on the Wailer in a 168cm at 167cm tall.

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGortex View Post
    She was having tip dive and a bad time on the JJs (whose line is something like -4.5 I think). She hasnít skied the DPS yet.

    I edited the original post to try to clarify which skis she didnít like and what she was having trouble with.

  16. #1441
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    556
    DPS customer service replied to my wife:
    The recommended midsole for that particular ski is 66.5cm from the tail. I'd recommend going +2cm to make the ski a bit more playful and a better all-mountain performance. Moving the mount forward won't sacrifice float or stability, but nails the sweet spot for turn initiation and balance, and allows you to both drive the ski on the ball of the foot as well as a relaxed and more neutral stance.
    Iíll try to update after we get them on snow for future reference.

  17. #1442
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    20,913
    Still love my A112 184 as a one ski quiver for hut trips, travel, and do everything soft snow daily driver
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

Posting Permissions

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