DPS Wailer 99 Review or as Dave Hester says, "YUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP"

[Rontele]

Wailer 99 Review

[vulture]

I can tell you like the 99s :-) Have you tried the 105s? Seems like they would be a good fit for the 6-10" days for a guy your size.

[neck beard]

Thanks for the review.

Very interested in the 99's, waiting on Hybrid weights. With spring in mind I admit that I'd probably be more interested in a 95 than a 99.

Compare with the no cambered, early rise tail of the 112s

I've seen Pure 184 and 190 W112's with an obvious 7-8mm of camber when held base-to-base.

This has surprised me as I keep hearing either nil or minimal camber.

[Rontele]

Thanks for the review.

Very interested in the 99's, waiting on Hybrid weights. With spring in mind I admit that I'd probably be more interested in a 95 than a 99.


I've seen Pure 184 and 190 W112's with an obvious 7-8mm of camber when held base-to-base.

This has surprised me as I keep hearing either nil or minimal camber.

Maybe they do have camber? No clue. As you can tell, I am not much for the technical details. I just know what I like.

[MultiVerse]

Held base-to-base my set of Wailer 99 pures are 4mm apart in the middle at the widest point. In comparison a pair of Manslu's are 14mm apart.

I also confirmed that the 99 is 4mm wider than the Wailer 95 and Manaslu so if you already have skins cut wall-to-wall for the narrower skis they will fit almost perfectly on the 99 exposing just the metal edges.

[concretejungle]

Maybe they do have camber? No clue. As you can tell, I am not much for the technical details. I just know what I like.

Or you know how to justify your expendable income.

[rod9301]

i demoed the 184 99 hybrid a week ago on firm man made snow. I was also trying the Blizzard Bonafide in 180, and also my k2 hardsides (181).

I found two flaws with the 99s
1. pretty straight tails (101 vs 99 waist), caused the skis to stop turning now when i had my weight back
also, I lost the tail on a high speed raius turn (going pretty fast). The tail jsut lost edge and settled about a foot lower???

2. even though the 99 has a lot of rocker, i was catching the tips when going to a slide (like ngoing straight into a hockey stop).

why is this relevant? skiing steep couloirs, you end up completing the turns (completely), and sometimes this means slding downhill while you are absolutelyn sure of youir balance.

the 99 has good edge hold, and otherwise skied well. The bonafide was flawless though, and it had better edge hold.

[JONG Q Public]

Nice, I saw you at the Basin and commented on the skis in the lift line. I did a double take thinking it was you but loaded the lift. I should of said Hi.

James

[skiborsy]

1. pretty straight tails (101 vs 99 waist)

Just to save others some googling, the tail is 111 (121.99.111).

[rod9301]

Never mind,i must need glasses.

[Chris Knight]

Have heard very good things about the Bonafide.

also, I lost the tail on a high speed raius turn (going pretty fast). The tail jsut lost edge and settled about a foot lower???

Can you expand/explain this? What happened exactly? The tail edges stopped gripping while you were going pretty fast and then did what?

[khyber.pass]

@rod3901 -- Were the tips and tails detuned? It sounds to me like detuning is the issue here if you were experiencing hook & grab.

Also --- so you're saying when you were in the backseat, the ski didn't carve and/or slid out? Just checking. 'Cause this ski is snappy and stiff; it's tail is more trad then the W112RP. It's designed that way; sloppy technique won't be rewarded --- it's not as forgiving as more rockered skis.

For those in Whistler or travelling here this season I have W99s to play with (as well as other skis). Just PM me.

[rod9301]

C knight: in a high speed turn to the left, I felt the tail give out and the ski slid to the outside about a foot or so, then it caught again. And before you ask,i was centered.

Khyber, I was staying back on purpose, to see what happens. The ski didn't slide, it just locked out on a straight trajectory.

[rod9301]

Just to explain, good ski, I just don't want to use a slightly unpredictable ski in step backountry couloirs.

[Chris Knight]

Hi Rod,

I understand what you mean now, thanks.

[Chris Knight]

Got my first few groomer runs on these; 184cm Pure W99s.
Experienced neither of the two things that Rod mentioned (not saying he didn't, but I did not have that experience).
As far as I am concerned, this ski is straight butta'.

I spent a few hours a couple days ago lapping the exact same runs in the exact same conditions in the same boots, clothes, and pair of bindings (thank youuuuuu Jondrums!) but on a traditionally shaped 84mm 177cm ski (R.EX). By comparison, the 184cm 99mm W99s give up NOTHING in groomer and hard snow performance. As quick edge to edge as the R.EXs if not even quicker due to the weight; just as stable and solid underfoot; and no chatter or hookiness at all despite the (relative to traditional shapes) "big" forebody and tip shaping. The W99s rail on groomed/packed snow.

Given the tip shape and size and the focus of DPS as a brand, though I haven't had the opportunity to test them in soft snow (FUCKING SNOW ALREADY), I fully expect that these will perform as well in soft snow as the 100-110mm class of traditionally shaped skis (pre-rocker), with the hard snow performance of the 80-90mm class of traditionally shaped skis of old, as experienced first hand above.

As the BlisterReview and others have suggested, this new class of S3/JJ/W99-like shapes are absolutely the future of all-mountain boards in my mind, and while I haven't ridden any of the others save for the S3, I'm sold for good on the concept. I'll never buy another traditionally shaped ski. There's no need any more, unless we're talking dedicated carving machines or race boards. If DPS or other manufacturers ever make an even narrower version of something like this, it'll probably usurp even the "carving" category for anyone who even "might" go off piste. I'm not saying carving skis will cease to exist of course; rather that they will get the rest of the way relegated to 100%/no exception on-piste use, and that at some point, this kind of shaping will be showing up down in the 75-90mm underfoot range much like way "parabolic" shapes (oooooh, Parabolic!) migrated within ski shaping ~10 years ago. Really this "shiny new" S7/S3/W99/W112/JJ/etc "5 point" shaping concept is not something completely different; its just that this newest crop have actually gotten it all dialed now by combing rocker, camber, "5-point" widths, and light yet stiff/stable constructions in the same ski.

For me so far (sample size SMALL) the W99 is the version of this newest progression that hits it just right. I've owned the S3s, and relative to them, I personally prefer the W99 by a WIDE margin; the W99s ski much more like a traditional feeling ski (I suspect due to the lower tail profile) on-piste, but I have no doubt the W99s will perform as well if not better in soft snow than the S3s as well once IT FUCKING SNOWS. For the more switch/park oriented folk, skis with a full twin (like the S3) or more symmetric shaping (JJ) will probably be a better fit, but with that said I spent a run skiing switch and had no issues snagging or getting thrown by the relatively lower tail height of the W99s, and the BlisterReviewer appeared to have no particular problems spinning in the park, etc.

So...given all that, with the crazy light weight plus a pair of Jondrums' plates on them, this is a slam dunk setup that I expect to ski for the next half decade with nothing wanting or missing for my intended uses here in CO: early season groomer/low snow days, late season groomer/corn days, no-new-snow-groomer-and/or-bump days, trace-to-a-few-inches-standard-CO-resort-days AND long tours, climbs, or multi-day hut trips. For those who are Wailer-curious (it's like being bi-curious, just a little less gay - not that there's anything wrong with that BTW), I can't compare them to the 112s at this point, but give me a week and I should have some comments on the 99 vs. 112 feel from an upcoming first ride on those as well.

Overall, I give them 5 out of 5 Esquires up.

[hoarhey]

nice review, mr. knight, thank you.
dynadukes or sollyfits?

interested to hear your thoughts of w99 vs w112rp.

i'm guessing you'll be reviewing 190 w112rp, also in the pure version.

I'm curious about 176 vs 184 in the w99.

I have the 190 cm w112rp.

[Chris Knight]

I thought about going bi-Jondrums, and still have a pair of SollyFits here, but in the end I went DynaDuke across the board. Identical screw sets (no need to have/carry the highly varied Solly screw set), no need to change Dynafit forward position when moving between a SollyFit and DynaDuke, and one less set of bindings I needed to have sitting around.

Thus, all four pair of skis I own (177 R.EX, 184 W99, 190 W112, 192 L138) are all DynaDuke'd now (what's a few more holes really) and I'm super self-satisfied with the system (thank youuuuuuuu Jondrums!). I can tour light and/or long(er) (than my fat old ass could otherwise, that is) with Dynas on any one of them, spin lifts and/or slackcountry with Dukes on any one of them, need half as many bindings as boards, and take clamps off for travel and stack three pair in a single bag if I really wanted to. In short, it's sweet, and I'm sold. Obviously sold on DPS at this point, and obviously sold on Jon's products, with cost having been really the only hurdle to overcome as I've moved towards this over like the last three years or so.

Regarding the Wailer-curious experimental phase of my life, they'll be 190cm Pure 112s, and I'll get a chance tomorrow at earliest, next week latest.
Happy to post thoughts after, if people want to hear.

[Chris Knight]

P.S. My ultimate two ski quiver is now officially 184cm Pure W99s and 192 Pure 138s, both with DynaDukes, with one pair Dukes, one pair Dynafits.

GAME

SET

MATCH


With that said, my guess from all the 112 noise is that my ultimate one ski quiver would be that - 112s with DynaDukes (or inserts if I had the balls to do it myself, which I don't). We'll see...will update when I've ridden firsthand instead of relying on all the circumsizal info. That's the term, right Esquire? Circumsizal evidence? Can I get a ruling on that?

Cheers

[bean]

I really need to demo a pair on some steep crummy icy conditions this year. These could be exactly what I'm looking for to replace my kilowatts...or not.

Either way, sounds like a rad inbounds daily driver.

[hoarhey]

P.S. My ultimate two ski quiver is now officially 184cm Pure W99s and 192 Pure 138s, both with DynaDukes, with one pair Dukes, one pair Dynafits.

GAME

SET

MATCH


With that said, my guess from all the 112 noise is that my ultimate one ski quiver would be that - 112s with DynaDukes (or inserts if I had the balls to do it myself, which I don't). We'll see...will update when I've ridden firsthand instead of relying on all the circumsizal info. That's the term, right Esquire? Circumsizal evidence? Can I get a ruling on that?

Cheers

the plates give great flexibility across the quiver for sure

I've got dynafits on my w112's and they are pretty amazing for touring
S7's with barons for inbounds/sidecountry

legend pros with barons for hard snow days

could see replacing lp's with w99's and plate to cover late spring touring/harder snow days inbounds

interesting that you find this ski to be more versatile than a traditional ski at that waist width

I had S3's but found them to be a bit soft for when I would use a ski of this waist width.

If there's any soft snow, I'm on the S7 inbounds.

[neck beard]

...awesome review...

fkna, thanks for that. A great read. I promise to post much less if you post a little bit more round here.

[Mustonen]

Me: 6'2, 205-212 (depending on the week)
Mounted: HammerHeads - boot center mount
Conditions - The Legend, cold, icy and granular.

I am an unabashed dps fan boy. I have loved every ski they have made (though some better than others). Whether it was my first pair of Wailer 105s, 120s, 138s or most recently, the Sexy Bananas -- I always found conditions and places in the quiver for those skis. As life has transformed from law student cum ski bum to practicing attorney, the quiver has thinned (like my head of hair). I realized about two and a half seasons ago that I needed only one pair of skis for backcountry and resort powder, and a pair for everything else resort. I satisfied the quiver with a pair of Igneous FCs and eventually, the Wailer 112s. My beloved Red Gum Iggie.* Gorgeous, hand made beauties in Jackson. The 93 underfoot was perfect for telemarking around Colorado's resort. They were straight, stiff and looked unbelievably sharp. The ski industry had passed them by, however.

For any skier who has spent any time on the internet for the past three years would note that there is and has been a lot of change. Helmet cams, rocker and tennis ball green, among others. Manufacturers really starting to push the envelope on ski design as the industry looks towards the periphery of the resort boundaries and many more skiers take the backcountry. dps set the trend with the Wailer 112 Pure. The quiver killer. The one ski that could ski everything really well. Light, stiff with an incredible pop. Mounted with Dynafits and sent to the backcountry, this ski was a Comanche at a knife fight with a bazooka. They skied well inbounds; bucking the trend of rockered and reverse cambered skis flaying on anything but deep, untracked pow. They were an 11 out of 10.

You could imagine my glee, therefore, when dps announced earlier this fall that they were going to take the same out of bounds magic the Wailer 112 provides and bring it back inbounds. The Wailer 99. The daily driver. The Creamsicle. The "YUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP." Although the 99 looks like a scaled down 112, Marshal assures me that while the 112 was considered in the 99, they were designed from the ground up. The main primary differences that really sets this ski apart is the slight amount of underfoot camber and a flat tail. Compare with the no cambered, early rise tail of the 112s.

These slight design changes allow the 99s to excel in resort conditions. I had a chance to ski my hybrids this brutally cold morning at A-Basin. We need snow in Colorado. It will come, but its currently thin and the groomers are frankly pretty beat. Hard, cold and granular. Not the most ideal telemarking conditions. Was immediately surprised at the balance between the edge to edge ability of the ski to turn, combined with excellent stability at speed. No deflecting on the frozen granular. The skis turned well and provided an unbelievably stable platform. All of the while, the skis still retain the fun characteristics of the 112s. Turn on a dime, the ability to slarve turns and have the edge kick back right before weight transfer. Really sweet.

At 99 underfoot, these are perfect for Colorado. We have way more 6-10 inch snow days than 10+ and this ski will excel in that 6-10 range. Anything deeper and I would likely ski the 112s.

More to report as the season progress, but really impressed thus far.



*Note: I tried but could not get myself to sell the Iggies. Instead, I have paid them forward and given them to a close friend who will keep on the tradition they deserve.

This linking trend sucks.

[murph]

As far as I am concerned, this ski is straight butta'.

You mount these bad boys on the line?

[harpo-the-skier]

Ck, how big are you?