2012-2013 DPS Wailer 112RPC, 192 cm

[khyber.pass]

So the question remains, will the 186 RPC be significantly less hooky in weird snow than the RP despite a minimal difference because it's so much stiffer?

IMO, yes. I mean, weird snow is weird snow, your weird snow is not my weird snow, what you find weird I find a fetish, etc etc etc, but yes: it's not just stiffness, the RPC has less splay, less rocker, less bulletnose, more subtle shaping, and longer variable sidecut. At least for my purposes, it's my bombs out ski for all conditions in Whistler... and yah we get some weird snow. That said, this is a DPS ski, and not a metal Volante set weighing 20lbs a pair.... so it favours light over might and responds to a skier who skis accordingly (but I think you're used to this).

[fool]

Any more thoughts on a tele mount point? Just read through the thread, I know Marshal said on the line: anyone recommend anything else? Thanks.

[garuda]

Any more thoughts on a tele mount point? Just read through the thread, I know Marshal said on the line: anyone recommend anything else? Thanks.

I've skied 2 pair of 192s with ntn freedoms. First mount at the 0 line, second mount is .5cm forward of the line. Both work fine. You have to get used to having the wide contact point that is closer to the center of the ski when skiing on hard snow with a forward mount, but it skis well once that's figured out. No problems with float at +.5. I wouldn't go much farther forward than 1cm at most, since the tail is stiff and you would start getting in front of the sidecut. On the other hand, I can't see any reason to go back of the line.

[rod9301]

I think the reason 112s dont ski well at all in bad snow is the profile (exaggerated tip rocker) and softness.

I toured on bonafides, which have a 21m radius, and they have no problem in shitty tahoe snow, and the power thru everything, never hook.

So I don't think it's the radius on the 112 that causes the hookiness.

Btw, for a bit less money, you can get the carbon katana, which is the first light ski I tried that did not disappoint.

I put dynafits on them, and it's a fantastic ski.

[SupreChicken]

Man, I don't doubt that the carbon katana is a great ski. But do you ever have trouble skinning with a full rocker? I've seen friends struggle on the skin track -- just not enough purchase...yeah, yeah hoji does it, whatever, he's better at skinning than I am. Any other mortals here worried about that?

[kootenayskier]

I think the reason 112s dont ski well at all in bad snow is the profile (exaggerated tip rocker) and softness.

I toured on bonafides, which have a 21m radius, and they have no problem in shitty tahoe snow, and the power thru everything, never hook.

So I don't think it's the radius on the 112 that causes the hookiness.

Btw, for a bit less money, you can get the carbon katana, which is the first light ski I tried that did not disappoint.

I put dynafits on them, and it's a fantastic ski.

I find 190cm W112RP Pures to be the ultimate shitty snow ski. They reward a light and lively and precise technique, with constant pressure and angle adjustments to match the snow and terrain. They'll never be the ski to power through everything, but if feeling and responding to the snow consistency, and constantly popping off subtle features to land on micro-transitions is more your style, nothing comes close to the level of precision possible.

[Andyski]

Man, I don't doubt that the carbon katana is a great ski. But do you ever have trouble skinning with a full rocker? I've seen friends struggle on the skin track -- just not enough purchase...yeah, yeah hoji does it, whatever, he's better at skinning than I am. Any other mortals here worried about that?

Nope. IME it has way more to do with surface area than shape. The carbon katana will have more surface area than an RP, for example.

[LiveLarger]

Nope. IME it has way more to do with surface area than shape. The carbon katana will have more surface area than an RP, for example.

But will the carbon katana have more surface on the ground at the same time? That is the relevant part here and is what SupreChicken tried to tell you.

[roQer]

But will the carbon katana have more surface on the ground at the same time? That is the relevant part here and is what SupreChicken tried to tell you.

Again CarboKatana vs. RPC comparo here (191 cm vs. 192 cm Pure 3). CarboKatana is much better in carving if somebody bothers and better in variable conditions. RPC shines in powder and soft snow in any kind of terrain. Running bases flat can be somewhat tricky on CarboKatana due to the full rocker. Both are really good at hucking and charging hard for riders who don't spend much time inbounds.

[Andyski]

But will the carbon katana have more surface on the ground at the same time? That is the relevant part here and is what SupreChicken tried to tell you.

I understood his question perfectly, though my response was perhaps not as specific as it could be. The rocker profile of the Katana relatively subtle, much more so than the RP, and a good deal more than the RPC. Therefore, it will likely have more surface area on the ground at any one time than either of those skis. I've toured a ton on a pair of Scouts, and mine are very close in rocker profile to the Katana (mine don't have any camber). They skin great, even on icy volcano mornings, despite having shitty old skins on them. A little better than my RPs, but it's not that noticeable. My OG Megawatts are also flat with big tip rocker and subtle tail rocker and skin just fine, though, sure they're 9MM fatter under foot than the Katana. Supre asked if any mere mortals were worried about skinning on the Katana because it's fully rockered. I wouldn't be at all for average BC use (different if you're doing Denali or something, obviously) because while it's "fully rockered," the rocker is quite low, similar to the Scout or Megawatt as opposed to a Praxis Pow.

[Lindahl]

I would agree with Andyski. I've skinned quite a bit on my PM Gear Kusalas. They have an even more reverse camber profile than the Cuntanas - very similar to the Renegades. I didn't notice myself struggling anymore than anyone else in firm conditions - comparisons against people with Voile Chargers, 4FRNT Turbos, DPS RP112s, Blizzard Gunsmokes, Blizzard Cochises, and some girly ski, as well as other unknown parties. This included some nasty windfucked firm sidehilling on a 40 degree slope, where everyone was getting buttfucked and either switching to booting or ski crampons.

[LiveLarger]

I understood his question perfectly, though my response was perhaps not as specific as it could be. The rocker profile of the Katana relatively subtle, much more so than the RP, and a good deal more than the RPC. Therefore, it will likely have more surface area on the ground at any one time than either of those skis. I've toured a ton on a pair of Scouts, and mine are very close in rocker profile to the Katana (mine don't have any camber). They skin great, even on icy volcano mornings, despite having shitty old skins on them. A little better than my RPs, but it's not that noticeable. My OG Megawatts are also flat with big tip rocker and subtle tail rocker and skin just fine, though, sure they're 9MM fatter under foot than the Katana. Supre asked if any mere mortals were worried about skinning on the Katana because it's fully rockered. I wouldn't be at all for average BC use (different if you're doing Denali or something, obviously) because while it's "fully rockered," the rocker is quite low, similar to the Scout or Megawatt as opposed to a Praxis Pow.

Thanks, good to know.

Again CarboKatana vs. RPC comparo here (191 cm vs. 192 cm Pure 3). CarboKatana is much better in carving if somebody bothers and better in variable conditions. RPC shines in powder and soft snow in any kind of terrain. Running bases flat can be somewhat tricky on CarboKatana due to the full rocker. Both are really good at hucking and charging hard for riders who don't spend much time inbounds.

I use the RPC P3 as my daily driver. It might be that the Carbon Katana is even better at carving, but carving most certainly isn't bad on the RPC either. They respond very well to modern racing technique. I also think they are good at hucking and easy to ski fast on. Both in trees and in open terrain. They are in fact surprisingly good in trees. The big front rocker and wide front coupled with the rather narrowish tail keeps the tips up. The rather low weight and short turn radius, makes them easy to throw around when needed. All in all it gives (at least me) confidence that you can shut down speed or change direction lightning quick if needed. I found this to be a rather unexpected trait, given all the talk about it being a charging ski.

[Bird Blaster]

After reading all 10 pages of this thread and having spent a bunch of days on my RP112 I remember all the fun things about DPS. Being on the 112 also had me remember that I always wanted a stiffer and less turny ski. I think I might pick up some 192 RPC hybrid's

[roQer]

I use the RPC P3 as my daily driver. It might be that the Carbon Katana is even better at carving, but carving most certainly isn't bad on the RPC either.

This is IMO correct. RPC isn't certainly bad at carving. Katana with it's beefy tail and low rocker line gives just this GS ski feeling of turn execution which can't be really matched by a rockered pintail construction.

[balefulstare]

Dude at local store said RPC is discontinued next season, can anyone confirm this?

[dps]

Tanner Hall's demise?

The RPC returns in full force for 15/16...

[roQer]

Bumping the old thread. Is this confirmed that RPC will be gone in 16/17?
In the recent years I skied a lot of 115-ish skis but I'm still coming back to my RPC. Discontinuing the RPC would make me really sad as this was a quite unique ski in its class. What intend DPS to replace the RPC with, if at all?

[LiveLarger]

I was told both by the Scandinavian sales rep and DPS online support that the RPC is discontinued for 16/17. There isn't anything in their current lineup that can replace it's role and it doesn't sound like they have anything in plan for it either. Like you, it makes me sad, as this is my "goto ski" that I rack up most of my days on. I really hope they revise this decision.

[cstefanic]

Also, when did they drop the 112RP Hybrid?

[grskier]

Hybrids are probably going to change here soon.... Stay tuned for that. I think a few of the foundation skis were at SIA......

As far as the RPC, I'm hearing limited release update coming this summer. Small batch likely for the discerning shredder who likes a ski without much of a top end speed limit.

[LiveLarger]

As far as the RPC, I'm hearing limited release update coming this summer. Small batch likely for the discerning shredder who likes a ski without much of a top end speed limit.

It's pretty close to perfect as it is!

[roQer]

It's pretty close to perfect as it is!

I'd opt for a little smaller shovel and hence larger radius if I'd the choice.

[LiveLarger]

I'd opt for a little smaller shovel and hence larger radius if I'd the choice.

I think we will just have to disagree. If you want less shovel and a larger radius, then I'm sure there are other skis more suitable. I find the large and almost unsinkable shovel, just perfect. I really like the radius.

[roQer]

I think we will just have to disagree. If you want less shovel and a larger radius, then I'm sure there are other skis more suitable. I find the large and almost unsinkable shovel, just perfect. I really like the radius.

I don't think you'd give up much floatability making the shovels a little narrower and moving the widest point a tad toward the tip (reducing the taper). It'd give the ski probably a better performance in variable snow and on steep hardpack.
There is a reason why most companies are going back from exaggerated shovel designs to more moderate forms, even also DPS as seen in the new Wailer 106 and Lotus 124. I think this is the right direction for more versatility and stability in difficult snow without sacrificing the powder performance too much.

[LiveLarger]

I don't think you'd give up much floatability making the shovels a little narrower and moving the widest point a tad toward the tip (reducing the taper). It'd give the ski probably a better performance in variable snow and on steep hardpack.
There is a reason why most companies are going back from exaggerated shovel designs to more moderate forms, even also DPS as seen in the new Wailer 106 and Lotus 124. I think this is the right direction for more versatility and stability in difficult snow without sacrificing the powder performance too much.

The performance on steep hardpack and variable snow is already plenty good as is and this is a powder charger. I'd thinking giving up any powder performance would be a mistake.