Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 256
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    retired
    Posts
    12,475

    REVIEW: DP Lotus 120

    dp lotus 120 flex 2 190cm
    mounted -1cm (too far forward) moved to -3cm
    me: 6'2'' 215# ex-racer type & used to retarded stiff and retarded heavy skis
    bindings: 920

    first impressions:
    1. Kick ass flex & shape - the shovel is medium flexing, with a stiff tail. prolly a shade softer than the BD, but at least as torsionally stiff. sweet setup for pow skiing. zero camber, semi-twin, nice big shovel rocker. nice and light - toured well. g3 tail hook stayed seated well.

    2. THIN - USE A 3.5 x 7.5 - LOOKS LIKE THIS IS FIXED FOR THE 06/07 stock. but a thin bit 3.5-3.6 is recommended.

    3. THEY RULE- i ski'd 8-12'' fresh ontop of crust. they made the conditions way fucking sweeter than they should have been. pretty easy & quick to ski through super tight trees/ bushwacking, and totally ripped in large radius open turns. no chance to straightline anything or huck anything. nice light, jibby (compared my other fatty's ) feeling. i think the jibby-ness is due to the light weight... so easy to throw around, but i didn't overpower it.

    4. Weights:
    1950 g per ski on the Lotus 120, 190cm, Flex 2
    2000 g per ski on a Lotus 138, 192cm, Flex 2


    more to follow as i get more time. but all in all, super stoked i went lotus vs. FFF or thrasher (and i think that is saying something)

    today's review: heavy sun effect and re-crystallised pow.
    got some modest air (20-30ft'ers), and they stomp'd it. landed in sun effect/ nearly corn, and the ski did not deflect like i though they might due to the weight.
    pointed through a few tight slots, and they stayed up, hauled ass, and edged out of the turn no problem.
    they smear/scrub out well in the sun effect and crust.
    :stoked:




    138's

    lotus 138 ->

    the 138's are what spats should have been. light & more carvable, but still smear-able and jibby feeling. they totally slay wind effect & boot/knee deep. i cannot wait to see the production 120's & 138's. i was looking for & skiing pillow lines 5-8ft off of deadfall in trees that were so tight i really would have been working just to ski on pow+. so much fun!

    i have gotten a bunch of pm's asking me to compare the 138 and the 120. basically they are different skis. first off i have not ski'd the production 138, rather the proto version, but it is very much the spatula that you wish been out for 4 years. smears and butters like you'd want it to, but lighter, and easier to carve in a tight spot, with a bigger platform for stopming. the 120 likes to be on edge a bit more but can be buttered fairly easily. the shovel stayed above chunder really well, but not quite as much of the "slice" as 138/spat do on windbuff. i also don't think either 120 or 138 is a POW specific ski, but rather the 138 excels in windbuff/firm/setup/crud as well, and the 120 excels in heavier/firmer/crud/dust on crust type stuff. also, i'd like to hear SD's opinion, but the 138 and the 120 prolly have pretty similar overall surface area numbers (they differ by 50g in terms of weight).

    long story short, i am a big fan of standing on an edge, and well, reverse/hybrid sidecuts cannot do that. thus i went 120. however, if SD gets my rep # going and i can sell some skis, i can for sure see a spot in the quiver for the 138's.

    mount point
    -2.5cm to -3cm is the money on 120's. -1cm on the 138's

    more about the reviewer
    for comparison, here is some stuff i've ski'd recently, and my take:
    ANT- lots of tail @ -2cm. farily soft, might be too soft & ski too short for me as a resort ski. tons of camber. poppy. need more time
    iggy FAT 270# - fucking rule. kick ass resort ski.
    atomic pow + 190 - fucking rule for hucking and straightlining. super heavy. suck your energy while touring.
    Big Daddy - good everyday ski. responsive for the size
    183 monster - kick ass resort skis.
    stiff ass stiff bros - kick ass resort ski. i like the round flex, but the tail was a little soft (i want some super stiffs)
    Last edited by marshalolson; 11-18-2006 at 10:30 PM.
    go for rob

    www.dpsskis.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    760
    What bindings did you put on them?

    Can you give some more colour? I didn't expect the "jiby feel" description. Were they stable at speed. With the stiff tail, I am kind of surprised that they ski well in tight places.

    Mounting point; got an e-mail from stephan about the factory line being off due to the switch to sandwich construction - are you happy about your mount, or too early to tell?

    Can't wait :-)
    All work and no play, ... you know...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Access to Granlibakken
    Posts
    7,106
    thanx for the review. remind me again how much you weigh? i'm thinking of pulling trigger on the lotus 120, and debating flex of 2 vs 3 choice (leaning toward 2, since that's prolly similar to my big daddies...i assume...).

    i'm also debating lotus 138 vs. lotus 120. what made you decide to go for the 120?

    for the typical kirkwood pow day, i'm thinking the 120 would be more versatile. plus i'm not sure how well a reverse-sidecut ski works for tele, whereas I know that the tabla rasa rocks for tele.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by frorider
    plus i'm not sure how well a reverse-sidecut ski works for tele, whereas I know that the tabla rasa rocks for tele.
    Both Hop and the non-maggot weegie Torkel seem pretty happy on their tele-proto 'toons. I can't see why some sort of reverse sidecut wouldn't work as well tele really?
    self unemployed?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Access to Granlibakken
    Posts
    7,106
    the pontoons (fat tip, tapering down to narrow tail) are quite a bit different than the lotus 138 or spatula (true reverse sidecut skis).

    i agree with you, in general what works for alpine works for tele. but alpine does have a centered stance, whereas the rear foot in a tele turn drives a point much farther ahead on the ski, and, with stiff boots and an active tele binding, puts a lot of downward pressure on the ski forebody. since big daddies / etc all have fat tips relative to the waist, that doesn't create any issue, but i have a hunch that tele spatulizing is in a different category. i've only met two tele spatulizers; one didn't really dig the setup, and i didn't get a chance to ask the other guy.

    none of the above hypothetical concern would apply to the pontoon, which has a bigass tip up front.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by frorider
    thanx for the review. remind me again how much you weigh? i'm thinking of pulling trigger on the lotus 120, and debating flex of 2 vs 3 choice (leaning toward 2, since that's prolly similar to my big daddies...i assume...).

    i'm also debating lotus 138 vs. lotus 120. what made you decide to go for the 120?

    for the typical kirkwood pow day, i'm thinking the 120 would be more versatile. plus i'm not sure how well a reverse-sidecut ski works for tele, whereas I know that the tabla rasa rocks for tele.
    As for the flex, I think probably 2 will be a good choice, as these skis are pretty stiff anyways. I think the nr 2 stiffness is similar to an explosiv or so.

    Lotus 138 vs 120; had the same inner discussion, but ended up with 120. Haven't got them yet so can't say how they ski. But as you say, 120 is a more versatile pair of boards, whereas 138 would be for powder only. Interesting that a 120 waist ski is now versatile; it has to go over 130 to be considered a pure powderboard . I can't imagine hardpack would be much fun with the 130... Also 120 is proven. But then again, if you go wide, why not go all the way. Choices, choices

    Don't think there is a reason why tele should affect the choice.
    All work and no play, ... you know...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by frorider
    none of the above hypothetical concern would apply to the pontoon, which has a bigass tip up front.
    True dat. I was mostly thinking about camber, not sidecut. My bad.

    I still think the 138 would make a good tele ski at speed though, the cambering would make the ski resist the tipdive tendencies that might come from the narrower tip. That said the "narrow" tip is still kinda big on the 138 I think...
    self unemployed?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Steezeland
    Posts
    58
    picture next to Ant's??? please

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Steezeland
    Posts
    58
    thank yeeeew! awesome review

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    29,351
    I have to nominate marshall as the #1 reviewer on this board.
    Good work. I love what you have to say about skis.
    Mostly cause you know what the hell you're talkin about.

  11. #11
    adam is offline The Shred Pirate Roberts
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    3,558
    Sweetness! I will be buying a pair the very moment I get $910. The only thing that I am remotely concered about is that with the thin sidewall, will the binders rip out easier?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    retired
    Posts
    12,475
    Quote Originally Posted by adam
    Sweetness! I will be buying a pair the very moment I get $910. The only thing that I am remotely concered about is that with the thin sidewall, will the binders rip out easier?
    you don;t need $910, but rather 95% of that.

    as long as there is as much tread depth as the threads are wide, you are set ... and there is. i am not concerned about it, and have 65lbs on you.

    SPLAT- if you think i can bullshit on the internet well, you should see me in real life
    go for rob

    www.dpsskis.com

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Steezeland
    Posts
    58
    wonder if SD can comment on whether next year's will be different (ie. dimensions, construction, etc) as they test these and evolve the design

    so, if I order one today for October shipment, will it be a different ski is what i'm asking

    SD?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    29,351
    Quote Originally Posted by marshalolson
    SPLAT- if you think i can bullshit on the internet well, you should see me in real life
    We gotta hook up sometime, bro.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Golden
    Posts
    6,318

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by splat
    We gotta hook up sometime, bro.
    Marshal can slander gear with the best of em. In fact, he may just be the best.

    Just checked out these babies. Solid. Sidewalls look and feel bomber, i wouldn't worry about that. Friggin light too even with 20s on em.
    Drive slow, homie.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Wet and Mild
    Posts
    4,658
    Sick skis and a great review Marshal. There's still something that is entirely too sexy about the woodgrain topsheets that Iggy and Capital have, even if it means a heavier ski. They look like short 190's, or are the ANT's just long for a 192?
    Set my compass North, I got Winter in my blood.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    721
    I currently ski a 183 Monster 103 as my every day ski. I was thinking about buying a 120 as my pow ski, but was kinda worried about the length. I know people like longer skis for skiing powder, but I ski my fair share of tight trees and I'm worried about the extra length. How long did the Lotus' ski compared to the 103's? Did the weight of the ski make it easier to throw around compared to the 103's?
    _____________________

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Golden
    Posts
    6,318
    Quote Originally Posted by SafteySquad
    I currently ski a 183 Monster 103 as my every day ski. I was thinking about buying a 120 as my pow ski, but was kinda worried about the lenght. I know people like longer skis for skiing powder, but I ski my fair share of tight trees and I'm worried about the extra length. How did the lenght feel compared to the 103's? Did the weight of the ski make it easier to throw around compared to the 103's?
    monster 183s ski like a 190. You will be more than fine on a 190 twin as long as you ski monsters like they should be skied.
    Drive slow, homie.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    721
    does anybody know the running length of the Monsters?
    _____________________

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    retired
    Posts
    12,475
    Quote Originally Posted by SafteySquad
    I currently ski a 183 Monster 103 as my every day ski. I was thinking about buying a 120 as my pow ski, but was kinda worried about the length. I know people like longer skis for skiing powder, but I ski my fair share of tight trees and I'm worried about the extra length. How long did the Lotus' ski compared to the 103's? Did the weight of the ski make it easier to throw around compared to the 103's?
    what z said 103 183=188 everything else. and yes. they are twinned and have alot of shovel rocker. you are all set. ps: are you in boulder? swing by and check them out

    Quote Originally Posted by glademaster
    Sick skis and a great review Marshal. There's still something that is entirely too sexy about the woodgrain topsheets that Iggy and Capital have, even if it means a heavier ski. They look like short 190's, or are the ANT's just long for a 192?
    ANT measures 193cm according to my tape.

    120 measures 190cm
    go for rob

    www.dpsskis.com

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    721
    I am in Boulder. I would love to come by sometime, but school has me locked down pretty good right now. After midterms are over I might just come by and take a look. Thanks for the info Marshall and Z.
    _____________________

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    retired
    Posts
    12,475


    for those that missed it, this was what i worked up a while back as my "dream pmgear" ski - basically the same thing. well done SD
    go for rob

    www.dpsskis.com

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peach Pantsuit
    Posts
    1,056
    I'm definitely interested in a review on performance in more conditions. I encourage you to go skiing, and report back.

    Did you feel like they skied shorter because of the weight? Estimate on apparent length?

    We've talked before about materials and how they make a ski *feel*. I've never liked a foam ski, and much prefer the feel of a wood core. Any thoughts on how these felt?

    Thanks mang.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    29,351
    Quote Originally Posted by marshalolson


    for those that missed it, this was what i worked up a while back as my "dream pmgear" ski - basically the same thing. well done SD
    Thanks, Marshall.
    I think I missed that.....at least the drawing.
    I can see you speaking Chinese, throwing out designs right and left on a factory floor at some point in the future.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    retired
    Posts
    12,475
    hugh - skis like a slighty livelier wood core ski. not super damp like an iggy. more like a lighter weight, but similar flexing tanker. swing by and play with them some time...
    Last edited by marshalolson; 04-14-2006 at 11:56 PM.
    go for rob

    www.dpsskis.com

Posting Permissions

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