DPS Wailer RP2 112

[Orthoski]

Curious to hear people's experience who have skied the most recent version of the DPS RP2 112. I have a pair of the Cassiars that I use as a frontside ski and they're absolutely amazing on groomed or uniform snow (the torsional stiffness of the carbon gives them amazing edge hold for a non-racing ski and they have excellent rebound). Their added advantage is the ease of climbing uphill to pick up a toddler learning to ski. Due to their light weight, however, they get quite twitchy in crud or hard moguls so I find myself going back to my gold Goats in non-uniform conditions and trading up to a pair of older ON3P Jeffery 110s next year (didn't get to demo but bought blind based on reviews from this forum). I know the most recent Blister review of the RPC underscores my experience with the Pure version of DPS skis (light weight and stiffness is often in conflict) but curious if the newest iteration of the RP2's, Pure 3 with the tip/tail weighting makes it more of an all-mountain ski. I saw Blister's review of the 112 from a few years ago, and it seemed to be very impressed with that Pure version in variable conditions, but was it really that different than the RPC? For reference, the gold Goats remain one of my favorite skis of all time as a jack of all trades type ski.

Appreciate everyone's insights. I've enjoyed the DPS skis immensely, but wonder if they may be a tool designed for a specific purpose (light-weight touring and skiing in more uniform conditions).

[1000-oaks]

Haven't heard much about them, but it sounds like they gave the RP2 a bit of the RPC treatment to increase versatility. Did you see these? http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...-184-and-190cm

[Quadzilla]

I got a pair of 184 DPS RP2 Pures that I got last year for Tahoe soft snow specific BC. I mounted them with Dynafit Speeds and ski them with TLT 6 boots. To be honest, with the lack of snow this year I didn't use them much as I didn't really want to tear them up in the boney conditions but I did get them out maybe five times BC and one resort. So, not much of a test. First, the ski isn't really that light and there is others that are similar size and lighter but for me it is light enough and climbs well enough to be fun to be on all day doing laps. For me the ski is very turny with a degree of stiffness and with the rocker it is really a easy to ski setup and easy to ski on/in soft heavy and crusty snow. As far as a resort ride, IMO, the ski really skis short and is lively skiing at resort speeds. Of course a lot of this may be due to the boots/bindings but not my choice to take resort skiing on typical powder days here where there is a lot of chowder and variable snow, just doesn't have the chops of a full on resort big mountain ski.

Anyway, for me most certainly not a quiver of one but is very impressive as a BC specific soft snow and junk snow ski skiing at BC speeds IMO.

[XXX-er]

I had the old 112, haven't skied the more recent model I liked it at the time but after getting the lotus 120 I prefer it for the bigger turns while still being very agile and better in pow, still lots of people like the 112

[sethschmautz]

Like most of the others, I haven't skied the exact ski that you inquiring about. I did move from a 112RP (pure 2) to an RPC (pure 2.5). From Marshal's explanation, my version of RPC was only missing a sheet of rubber. Otherwise, it was the same construction.

The RP for me was really good in most conditions, but it got twitchy when running flat at higher speeds, and the shorter turning radius made it hard to carve at high speeds without skidding turns. The RPC seemed to fix the majority of this for me. Longer radius means faster carving, side construction means less tip flap, and the weighted tips and heavier construction makes it feel about more damp (although not VERY damp). I really like the personality of this ski. I would probably like the pure 3 even better.

If you don't mind the shorter radius of the RP (which I think contributes to the twitchy feeling), then I think the pure 3 version RP2 would be a very nice ski. I wanted a longer radius, so the RPC was a good choice for me.

Seth

[hoarhey]

as far as I know, RP2 is just a tweak to the rocker profile of the rp112.

the bigger difference is the Pure to Pure3 construction switch; new laminate, aluminum tip and tail spacers

For me, I liked the earlier iterations of the carbon ski, pre-Pure/Hybrid nomenclature and Pure in its first years for backcountry skiing, non-resort skiing.

Pure3, for me, was a move away from a touring, soft snow ski to a more all-mountain, in-area ski construction.

So, I would say if you're sold on DPS, Pure3 is a good ski for in-area snow, weight is ok if you want to tour (but not great for longer tours, 4000-5000/day).

There is a reason why DPS came out with the Tour1 construction after having built Pure3.


Edit: Quadzilla's post above seems pretty spot on to me

[Beyond]

Due to their light weight, however, they get quite twitchy in crud or hard moguls...I've enjoyed the DPS skis immensely, but wonder if they may be a tool designed for a specific purpose (light-weight touring and skiing in more uniform conditions).

You nailed it. I owned the 112's (previous iteration, Pures), Gold goats too. But not at same time, prolly would have done the same you did. My 112's were as close to perfect as I can imagine when the snow was soft and predictable. Especially in trees. In variable or stiff at any speed, not so much...

[tuco]

Due to their light weight, however, they get quite twitchy in crud or hard moguls

wonder if they may be a tool designed for a specific purpose (light-weight touring and skiing in more uniform conditions).

My 112's were as close to perfect as I can imagine when the snow was soft and predictable. Especially in trees. In variable or stiff at any speed, not so much...

Not a weight problem. Its a fundamental shaping problem

[LiveLarger]

No ski will be perfect in soft snow in trees and then also good in refrozen stuff or high speed groomers etc. Skis like that doesn't exist.

[rod9301]

Really¿ My katana do pretty well in both conditions. The metal and the carbon ones.

Btw, I found out that volkl did not sell katanas outside of the west coast, and mostly Tahoe.

They were selling 400 pairs a year, and 12,000 mantras.

This is why they discontinued the metal version.

[sethschmautz]

Really¿ My katana do pretty well in both conditions.

Funny. This was my original thought also. My metal katanas were a good compromise. I think, however, that the third parameter that wasn't stated is weight. It's maybe impossible to find a light ski that performs well in both of those conditions.

[LiveLarger]

Really¿ My katana do pretty well in both conditions. The metal and the carbon ones.

Sounds like you are missing out on what good pow skis can do. And what good groomer skis can do, as well. A compromise is just that.

[Orthoski]

Thanks, all - really appreciate everyone's experience. I was looking for a ski like my Gold Goats that don't excel precisely at one thing, but are able to handle a wide variety of conditions. I've used them, and still use them, for anything from fresh powder to zipperline bumps. There's something amazing about the DPS Cassiars in nonvariable snow (precise edge grip, great pop, multiple turn shapes, etc) but they get quite finicky in anything variable. While I'm sure this is much more true of the Cassiars (narrow waste, no rocker) was curious if this extends somewhat to the more all-mountain skis in their line. DPS makes a great product, but I think I'll look forward to mounting my Jeffrey 110's for next year - reviews make them sound like a playful charger which is the middle ground that I think suits my skiing best. Not to mention, happy to support another brand that I've watched grow on TGR for the past few years.

[LiveLarger]

If you are looking for a charger, then RP2 is definitely the wrong tool. And while I'm at it, "playful charger" is an oxymoron. Some skis get "playful" when you are up to charging speed, but the combination of smooth butters etc, with proper charger qualities, doesn't exist.

[Lindahl]

Funny. This was my original thought also. My metal katanas were a good compromise. I think, however, that the third parameter that wasn't stated is weight. It's maybe impossible to find a light ski that performs well in both of those conditions.

They're pretty damn close. I'd like to see a little more stability when running bases flat though. A skinnier Bodacious in the older construction (no carbon/taper) may have been right on the money.

[sethschmautz]

I'd like to see a little more stability when running bases flat though.

Agreed. I had kind of forgotten about that.

They (katanas) aren't terribly heavy, and this reveals that my current use case (post katanas) has me thinking about backcountry first/also. People have toured in katanas, but I wouldn't want to.

Seth

[tuco]

as far as I know, RP2 is just a tweak to the rocker profile of the rp112

If I remember right, 2mm added onto tail dimensions and the tail flattened out some

[rod9301]

The carbon katanas tour well, and ski really well.

[Doremite]

My .02 is you really have to be on the Pure3 in variable (all) conditions. If yer driving the hell out of it, ski will hammer w stability through all conditions but sweet spot very precise. I have only skied the 99 and 120 but if on the ski it will respond. Of course harder to be in the right spot at all times in variable/choppy/bumped snow. From there choosing the model variant for what conditional/terrain you ski most and yer skiing style is the only choice.