Has anyone skied both the DPS Wailer A110 and A112 ?

[BMC]

So I guess the thread title is somewhat self explanatory. Both skis have the same construction. There’s a 2mm difference in width underfoot. However the shaping is different. The venerable Wailer A112 RP has the famous 15M turn radius and an auto turn reputation. The A110 has the C2 shaping, a bit of a bigger turn radius, and some changes to tip and tail taper that visually look incremental rather than radical.

The A110 only seemed to sit in the DPS line for a year or two. I can only find one…possibly two…reviews on it, being Blister and Ski Essentials (both of which are great, but the SE one is one of their shorter ones and I kind of weight their reviews higher than Blister - sorry Blister).

So has anyone skied both skis? Can they talk about the differences? The use case for both is knee deep and up powder in trees mainly, with a little more open bowls (dropping into trees!).

 

[Phatboy64]

Not a full answer to your post but I owned a 112A and it was a really fun ski. Skied very short so go big it your looking to get it

 

[Fuller]

If I had a plethora of knee deep powder but those pesky trees kept getting in the way I would favor a 12m radius.

 

[ELDoane]

I've skied both and own too many DPS skis for my health. The A112 is, as you note, darn near telepathic. My pair are in my profile pick. I probably should be on a 189, but I have the 184 for nugging through eastern trees. It's absolutely the perfect ski for powdery tree stashes or other soft snow conditions where you want to turn, turn, turn and your absolute speed is low. I've never gotten too sketchy at speed, but those big ass tips and the rearward mount position aren't the friendliest for crud busting. But, in a big bowl of bumps with pow on top, a real blast. I'll be honest, it's my favorite ski, but that's also influenced by the conditions I use it in. Any date looks great on a powder day!

As for the 110, it was typical of all the C2 shaped skis. Basically rode like a wide 94 Cassiar that they still have. Much more stable and grippy at speed, wanted to make 18-20m turns and punch it down the fall line. It was OK in the trees and fun, but sure not as easy as the 112. I ended up not keeping it around because I liked my J Metals better for crud busting and going Mach looney. I like carbon builds, but there's just something about heavy metal that inspires confidence when you're hitting the accelerator. I did keep a C2 shaped ski around in an 87 width and it's an amazing ski in mixed conditions, but not pow. It's a spring skiing champ.

I'm pretty sure that 110 served as the foundation for the 115 RPC DPS built for big mountain charging. They moved the mount point forward from the A112 and stiffened up the core to make it more adept at punching through stuff and increased responsiveness. If I lived out west I think I'd still spring for a Lotus over the 115 RPC, but it's an intriguing build. And, of course, impossible to find as it was limited edition.

Based on what you said - knee deep and up and in the trees - I'd say go with a big A112. But, depends on your definition of trees. If you're talking more big open glades and you want to go fast, maybe you want the longer radius and stability. If you are more oriented to picking your way through a tight line, stick with the 112.

 

[my07mcx2]

^^ if you have any 100 rp let me know!

 

[Tricia]

^^ if you have any 100 rp let me know!

You should check out Requipper for good condition used skis.

All categories - Requipper

Showing search results

www.requipper.com

 

[my07mcx2]

You should check out Requipper for good condition used skis.

All categories - Requipper

Showing search results

www.requipper.com

I looked and didn't see any! thank you Tricia!

 

[BMC]

Just revisiting this as I took a pair of DPS A110’s to Niseko and just had my first day on them. I haven’t skied the 112 but the prior comments make a lot of sense having now skied this one.

Ok so mine is the 179 which frankly for me is ample. It’s a pretty stiff ski tip to tail. That’s the first thing I noticed as I got off the lift and did maybe 20 or 30 turns en route to some powder. The other things I noticed in those turns (reinforced later in the day) is that it carved well on forgiving soft groomers at least. Better than I thought it might. I also noticed it seemed to prefer to ski in the fall line, rather than coming across the fall line. And I assume right there is probably the biggest difference with the 112.

Into the powder and it floated better than I thought it might for a 110. Partly because of that, possibly due to the natural turn radius and the stiffness of the skis I started skiing a little faster than I intended (noting this is the first time I’ve ever skied these puppies). However, when the pitch rolled over and got steeper and I prepared to enter trees I was able to wind the pace back pretty easily, which was great. I think I did that by pressuring the tip more to reduce the radius but can’t say for sure - I just did it, rather than thinking it,

Into the trees and the skis were more manoeverable than my only real reference ski for a ski this wide - the Salomon Mtn Lab (115). So they navigated the trees more easily than I’m used to, which is great. It’s not due to short turn radius but due to the ease with which you can change direction, because they’re light.

As I skied them more I found myself skiing powder faster than I normally would, with the main constraint being trees!! Don’t hit the trees!! (I didn’t hit the trees).

As I say I enjoyed them in the soft groomers but they did give more feedback than my normal skis as the snow firmed up and got more rutted.

 

[BMC]

I’m just going to add a couple of observations here. This is a ski where it’s hard to find reviews - what I say here may assist someone in the future. And the two main points I wanted to make are (1) in bigger turns at least on low angle deep snow the relatively low tip rocker (relative to the 112 or skis like the Rossi Soul 7) sees your balance point needing to shift ever so slightly to the rear. Once the pitch increases the need for that disappears and (2) again, relative to the 112 I assume this ski is just more of an all rounder. I find I can ski this ski pretty normally on harder snow (albeit on new snow days). I infer with more tip and Tail rocker and a tighter turn radius the 112 will be more optimised for the soft snow experience.

I’ve been really enjoying this ski in up to about upper thigh deep fresh snow in open runs, trees, and powder bumps. I’ve also enjoyed it in cut up snow and groomed runs. It’s not going to be a hard snow ski but it’s much more versatile than I imagined it might be. So much so I’m contemplating that the second ski for my Japow quiver could be narrower (and used more infrequently) than the current second ski, the very good Nordica Enforcer 100.