What size DPS 112s?

[Karl May]

Ok, so I've finally found a store that is not sold out on the DPS Hybrid 112s yet. I want to order them tonight, but am still wondering if I should get the 184 cm or the 190. I'm 150 lbs, 5'11" and a high intermediate to advanced skier. Most reviews are about the 190s, and I can't find to much on the 184. From what I understand, the 190 seems to be a good option, as it is already quite pivoty, and there is no real need for a shorter version, unless doing lots of treeskiing. This is going to be a 1 ski quiver, so I need versatility, and I'm also not to heavy, so I might be better off with the 184s. Some advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Karl

[dps]

Based on your physicals, and how you will be using the ski, I would recommend the 184cm, which is the best compromise length wise-- in fact, I think if forced to ski on them, you would even really like the 178cm. The 184cm will give you that extra pow leverage, but still some of the enhanced playfulness, especially in trees, that you get out of the shorter sizes.

I am 6'2", 180lbs. and really like the 178cm as a frontside tool... if that gives you any perspective on worrying about the shorter 184cm size.

[Bird Blaster]

I am 6'2", 180lbs. and really like the 178cm as a frontside tool... if that gives you any perspective on worrying about the shorter 184cm size.

MADNESS!!

but it speaks to the versatility and awesomeness of 112rp's

[dps]

To elaborate a bit... I would not choose the 178cm as my personal everyday ski, but I have had a couple of great, really fun days on it in mixed conditions, and especially in trees. It's super easy to stay right on top of the 178cm, and be able to work it. It's a ski that you can drive as opposed to it driving you.

There are a pair of 178cm's I have earmarked for early season jump/jib stuff, but if I could only pick one length that was going to see a lot of resort/mixed snow use, I would go 184cm myself. If the 112 was going to be my only dedicated BC pow ski, and 138's and Spoons didn't exist, I would go 190cm.

[Karl May]

Ok, thanks for the advice, dps. That was what I was thinking, especially when I figured out I only weight 150lbs after finding the long lost scale. Everyone seemed to say the 190, but I hadn't read much on the 184s, so I'm glad I asked here.
Thanks again,
Karl

[Scotsman50]

TGR maggots will mostly tell you to go long because they compensate for their short dicks. I have made the mistake by listening to them in the past.. 184 is what I have now and I have skied the 190 cm but def prefer the 184 and the 184 is prefect for your description.

[ticketchecker]

Ok, thanks for the advice, dps. That was what I was thinking, especially when I figured out I only weight 150lbs after finding the long lost scale. Everyone seemed to say the 190, but I hadn't read much on the 184s, so I'm glad I asked here.
Thanks again,
Karl

5'6" 160 here, skied the 190 hybrid last year in Maine and a phat week in Jackson. Just sized down to the 184, would have bought it last year but it wasn't an option yet. 184 be just fine for you.

Although I'm thinking the 178 would be $$ around these parts, tight syrup filled hardwoods and all.....

[Karl May]

Ok, thanks again for the all the replies. Please keep the info coming, as I'm still not decided, because the DPS rep that I'm buying the skis from recomends the 190s, but I'm leaning heavily toward the 184s though.
Thnx again,
Karl

[SB]

Buy the 184's NOW!

[Beyond]

6', 165, bought the 184's, due to arrive this week, after checking with several DPS connected folks. Good series of comments here by marshalolson, who emphasizes different lengths as having different qualities, rather than One True Length for each of us. Search.

[Karl May]

Thanks for the input, Beyond. I've been searching for the comments by marshalolson, but can't seem to find them. I have read some (i think most) of the threads about the DPS 112 where marsholson responded, but can't seem to find the ones related to size. If you have the URL handy, do mind posting it so I can read it? Don't worry if there's too much work involved.
Thanks,
Karl

[linds-o-rama]

I ski the 184s and I'm a girl! Ha.

[linds-o-rama]

Now I'm regretting my totally stupid response.

I love the 184s, and weigh more than you. My only gripe is that they can be too long for touring, switchbacks are a bitch. But I deal with that small issue because they SLAY THE POW!

Get the 184.

[Karl May]

Thanks for the input, linds. Good to hear that 184s will definately not be to short for me.

[harpo-the-skier]

LOR, how big are you?

[adviljunky]

go long. i find my 78 112s too short. i'm 5'6, 135 lbs. definitely a fun ski but I find them too small at high speed in pow. if i were buying them this year instead of last, I'd go for 184 (wasn't available last year). i'm astounded that dps likes the 178 given his size. don't get me wrong - i'm not part of the big swinging dick tgr crowd - but I prefer my 183 Katana in deep snow because it's far more stable at speed.

[dps]

I will flush it out some more: I liked the 178cm as a frontside/mixed snow playful ski. The days that I enjoyed them were at Alta when it was generally soft,packed pow/crud/skied up in the trees. It was not Pow. I wasn't charging full blast and dropping airs, rather having a blast with medium speed carvy/slarvy turns in the trees, airing of catwalks and lips, and carving down to the lift. I do ski much faster on the 190cm, which I also spent a bunch of time on in similar resort conditions, but had a ton of fun on the 178cm– it feels more like a toy for someone my size, and a fun ski to get on occasionally, but not the normal, natural pick, if that makes sense.

I would and do much prefer the 190cm on deep days. In fact, had a couple of great deep/crud 190cm days at Alta/Jackson as well. If I knew I were getting the 112RP for skiing an Alpine style resort (think Europe/Jackson Sidecountry), or the BC exclusively and was using the RP for charging deeper snow, I would definitely ski the 190cm.

The 184cm is the compromise frontside utility knife for my style/size. It gives me some of the playfulness of the 178cm, with a bit more of the chargability, and float of the 190cm. The important think to consider is snow and quiver: if it's getting truly deep, I am going 138/Spoon anyway, so my 112 use and size selection is geared toward mostly mixed snow/frontside use.

We are splitting hairs here a bit. Ultimately its 6cm in either direction on an incredibly versatile shape, and that's why the same skier can have fun on a variety of sizes, and why I enjoy all three sizes. The difference between the 184cm and the 190cm, while noticeable and worth describing, is not that substantial with the 112 RP design.

That said, given your physicals, and your ability, and the fact that you aren't probably going to be using this ski for 100% deep heli drops or exclusive BC pow use, 184cm is the safer, slightly more driveable bet for you. I have no doubt you would enjoy 190cm and being able to control them given the shape, but the 184cm is going to give you a bit more control and playfulness (which=smiles) as you develop your skiing.

[Karl May]

Thanks for the great contrasting there, dps. That's really what I was looking for, a good contrast between all three skis.
Thnx,
Karl