Dynafit's Cho Oyu and Nanga Parbat for Fall 2013

Last Winter's OR show in SLC had a few things that really interested me.  A few of them I was really chomping at the bit to get on and get them outside to play with.  While at least a little bit connected and knowing who to ask, doesn't mean you will get what you want no matter how much cash you happen to have.  And I am always strapped for cash for the "want items".

Super stoked to get into the Scarpa Maestrale RS ski boot and the Rebel Ultra early on.  Getting to ski on the new Dynafit Cho Oyu and Nanga Parbat has been harder.   The Cho Oyu was available at the 2013 Vertfest locally for demo.  Anyone could hook up that ride! And many did . Pretty awesome really.  But the Nanga Parbat wasn't to be seen there.  Or here :(

There is a magic number in lwt touring skis I look for.  That is 1000g per ski.  Many race skis will come just under that number but very few "real" skis will.  My Broad Peak and GTRs (167cm and 168cm respectively)  are just over in the 1150g range.  Light and still, almost, real skis.  Good enough for me anyway in any condition I really want to ski.

The  Cho Oyu is listed by Dynafit @ 1080g in a 174cm.  My demos came in at 1192g per ski.   Still doing really good for a slightly wider ski and short 174 compared to the 167/168 skis mentioned previous.

"Dynafit sez:Despite the wide geometry of the ski, the weight is only 1080grams and is thus perfect for deep snow as well as mountaineering and ski expeditions. The Cho Oyo offers a new 3-D flex-tip design and a micro sidewall construction to achieve optimum weight reduction. With ‘scoop’ rocker, triple radius, a paulownia wood core, and new carbon speed stringers for the Cho Oyo. CHO OYO Available length of skis: 174,182,191, MSRP $799.95"

Broad Peak is a 112/74/96mm ski
Cho Oyu is a 124/88/110mm ski

The Nanga Parbat is a 116/80/84mm ski and advertised at 1000g

No question I want to get my hands on the Nanga Parbat,  But while doing the research for this blog piece I realised that Dynafit is still making the Broad Peak.  It just isn't being imported to NA now. 

Hummmmmm.  Hate to do it but this is likely a good source for the Broad Peak and other Dynafit skis no longer imported to NA.  http://www.telemark-pyrenees.com/en/

2014 Dynafit offerings

Sorry, I got distracted there on what is and isn't easily available in the US and North America.  I really like the Cho Oyu.  It is very light for the width and it skis very well.  Up front I really didn't know what to expect on this ski.  I took my 178 cm La Sportiva Lo5s and the Cho Oyu for some booting and short gullies at Crystal.  All skied in a pair of TLTs Ps.

Same gullies, different skis, and the man in the mirror.

First thing I noticed was the lack of weight.  Even with Dynafit rental bindings  the Cho Oyu was a pleasure to haul around and boot with.

My first run was lift assisted to get a feel for the ski.  It seemed a lot like skiing a Broad Peak or a 7 Summit to me.  But interesting enough less swing weight.  And a Broad Peak is no heavy on swing weight.

Of my quiver I thought the Lo5 was the ski would best compare to the Cho Oyu.  Missed that mark by a mile even though the Lo5 is 125/95/115 and the Cho Oyu is 124/88/110mm.   The 178cm  Lo5 is 3# 8 oz per ski.  The Cho Oyu is 2# 6oz per skis.   Add the fact that the swing weight is all under the boot on a Cho Oyu and you really notice the difference skiing and on a boot pack.  So no legit comparison to be had there.

The 174cm Cho Oyu really skis short by comparison as well.  Substantial tip and tail rocker for this size and genre of ski imo is just part of the reason.  The 174cm length even in a slightly wider ski skied like a much shorter ski for me.....closer to a 160cm ski in feel.  They were very quick turn to turn if required.

Lou offers some observations recently on his thoughts and some good pictures of the ski's profiles.
http://www.wildsnow.com/9644/dynafit-cho-oyu-review/

But there is more going on.  Part of it is the weight loss by chopping the ski up piece by piece.  Not that it seems to effect how it skis spring snow mind you.   Really makes me think about having a short Nanga Parbat for the weight reduction and Spring conditions.  And a longer, wider Cho Oyu to ski on winter snow.

Look Ma, no tip!

And a shaved pin tail!

So no comparison of the Cho Oyu to the Lo5 in any way I can think of.  But a very good ski compared to my all around Spring, and stand by, the Broad Peak.   Anything the Broad Peak will do, the Cho Oyu might well do it even better.   With only a 50g weight penalty and a tiny bit (may be enough) more ski under you to make a difference in weird conditions.   The tip and tail rocker and pin tail are going to make a difference in rough snow conditions and soft snow as well.  Much more ski under your feet than the GTR.  Which is another ski I like a lot in 168 and 178 cm lengths.  And a better comparison then the Lo5 to the Ch Oyu.

Love to get a pair of the Cho Oyus out with a set of Dynafit Race bindings screwed on them.  With Rainier in full on corn harvest season right now you can only imagine how much I wanted to pull the demo bindings and get after it on the Cho Oyu.

Bottom line?  For the most part they felt like a lighter Broad Peak to me.  Some of that was good.  But they aren't as damp as a Broad Peak.  The swing weight seemed better enough (less effort) that I am commenting on it.  Not a huge fan of the color or the tip shape.  I know, I know, this from a guy who still wears funky head bands and Vaurnets.  I really liked how much the ski weighted on the pack even with the demo binding.  They were notable in a good way and light.

Both the Cho Oyu and the Nanga Parbat are offering some pretty wild, modern and lwt technology for "speed touring" skis.  I have no doubt from my limited use of the Cho Oyu that either the Cho Oyu or Nanga Parbat are going to be great ski mountaineering ski.  Sad it will take another winter season and some deep snow to comment any further.  But for some winter conditions the Cho Oyu especially might really offer some unique soft snow surprises.  All in a very good way I suspect.  Good turns are only 4 months away if we are lucky. 

La Sportiva Hang5

 

La Sportiva's Hang5

Product: La Sportiva's Hang5

Length Tested: 178cm

Turn Radius: 23/30/23m

side cut: 145/117/135
camber: 7.7mm

Tip rocker: 425mm

Tail rocker: 0
Running length: 1510mm
Weight: per skis: 1900g / 4lb. 3oz.

Binding: Dynfit Radical Speed toe TLT Speed heel 

Mount point:  Mounted @  La Sportiva's  suggested line

Ski weight with bindings: 5lb even per ski

Environmental Conditions: early and late Spring skiing

Location of Test: Crystal Mountain Washington

Number of Runs: 15+days of spring skiing, 

Snow Conditions: Early and late Spring skiing conditions ice to slush
 

Demo or Own: own

CONSTRUCTION TYPE: FUSION SIDEWALL - 70% Camber / 30% Rocker
SIDEWALL MATERIAL: ABS Thermoplastic
TOP SHEET: 0.5 mm Double Polyamide (ISO ICP8210) - Glossy
CORE: Vertical Laminated Light Karuba Paulownia Wood
LAMINATE LAYER 1: Tri-Directional Fiberglass
LAMINATE LAYER 2: Bi-Directional Carbon/Fiberglass mat
SPECIAL MATERIALS: Fiberglass Veil
REINFORCEMENTS PLATES: Under bindings
TIP AND TAIL REINFORCEMENTS: Rubber
BASE MATERIAL: P-Tex 2000 factory hand waxed
EDGE MATERIAL: 1,8 mm steel + rubber laminate
FEATURES: Tip and tail attachment holes, flat/notched tail
SIZES: 178, & 188
COLOR: 99H Yellow
PRICE: $825 USD

Tester Info:

Height/Weight: 6'1" 190lb

Ski Days/Season: 30+

Years Skiing: 30+
Aggressiveness & Moderate

Current Quiver: Huascaran, Aspect, GTR, Lo5, Hi5, 112RP, 138, Broad Peak, 112RPC, 138. Praxis GPO and Protest

Home Area: Silver Mtn Idaho, Crystal Mtn and Alpental WA.

Preferred Terrain: off-piste, trees, steeps

1 (worst) to 5 (best) star ratings

$ Value: *****

Durability: unknown at this point but they still look good

Edge Grip: considering the 117mm under foot *****

Maneuverability:****-

Performance:*****

From another fan of the Hang5 earlier in the winter:

"It's a bit of a charger, eh? Good skiers seem to love them. Not so good ones, not so much. You gotta stay on top of them. If you get in the back seat they'll throw you around. It's a way different ski than the Hi5. Is strange, but at 117 underfoot it was really more of an everyday ski for me this past winter. I can ride it inbounds all day and; then take it BC too. Much more versatile than the Hi5 IMO. Yeah, I was surprised at the lack of fanfare for this ski. It's my favorite."


I agreed whole heartily with those observations. Same things I saw. My favorite ski as well of the 4 GTR/Lo5/Hi5/Hang5. Although I now think the GTR is the other unsung ski that should have a cult following.  It does with me anyway. Obviously all the la Sportiva skis are intended for different purposes. And I try to make that comparison to each ski in class.  GTR fairs well. I put the Hi5 in the same class as the DPS 112. People love them. I am just not a big fan of either after a season on each.

Skiing the Hang5 late this winter and Spring in comparison with the Huascaran (same length), longer DPS RPC, and a Dynastar Cham 107 (184) and my Lo5s.   Best comparison was the DPS RPC (192cm).    The RPC skied very similar for me in our current spring conditions.   Both add huge confidence under foot. Says even more for a 178cm ski I think. I found the Hang5 to be the ski I wanted to be on as we rotated through the day.
 
That is some dang good company for a 1st year ski.
Funny this: by late Saturday my legs were cooked and was skiing the Dynastar (which has gotten some rave reviews). I was hating them..really hating them. Decided if I skied so badly it was time to wrap it up. I got the Hang5 back on top of the hill and headed home. Much to my surprise, even with worn out legs the Hang5s still skied very well and seemingly made me stone sober.
They certainly make light of some terrible snow conditions, ice crust or boot deep slush.

Enough fluff :) Thought about this a lot over the first week I skied the Hang5s and bought a pair asap in the same 178 size.

Thoughts for the guys who also got a turn at my demo pair.

"I take them out for almost any moderate touring day. I find it to have less of a
new-school slarving personality as it needs to be stepped on to really charge. Lots of energy return and super fun. Makes tight enough turns and is stable at speed."

"uncomfortable, too unbalanced front to back.  Always felt like I was on a teeter totter."

"Too heavy and slow in tight conditions, not a ski that is much fun in jump turns"

"Nice ski, could easily be my all mountain ski, all winter ski even at 117 under foot."

My own take was interesting after forcing them off on friends.  Most of them ski better than I as well so I value their opinions even if it is not always my own experience.

Scarpa Maestrale RS

The Hang5 is not a ski I like skiing in my TLTs.  Although Jerry had no problem skiing his TLT Mountains  on the Hang5.  I much prefer a Dynafit One or the Scarpa Maestrale RS for the Hang5 even in the short 178 version.  It is a lot of ski for me at 117mm under foot and 145 at the tip with no real or imaginative foo-foo design work to make it ski shorter or lighter.

That said I don't look for the Hang5 as my "first take" back country ski.  It is fine in a skin track and booting as long as I am not doing a lot of either.  If so I want a lighter ski.  But on the down these things simply rock for me.  They are ultimately stable,  No teeter totter for me.  Likely the one ski in my dozen ski quiver that has a perfect mount  point sorted out.  And it makes a difference.  For me this ski gives a 5 star ride in any conditions, powder to Spring ice and anything in between.  I really, really like this ski.  Enough so to over look its' weight.  Mind you it still weights less than the vast majority of skis of this size and attributes by a fair margin.

The 178 Hang5 is a full pound more per ski @ 4.25#  than a 177 Huascaran @ 3.25# .  And the weight and ski stiffness/flex  relates that as well. The 178cm Hang5 is a 1/4 pound per ski less than the 182cm Praxis GPO @ 4.5#.  Good company imo  all all three skis.

The Hang5 skis more like the Praxis GPO than the Huascaran or even my 192 RPCs..   No question with numbers like 145mm/117mm/ 135mm  the Hang5 is a BIG ski with a rather traditional flat tail, decent side cut and a slightly rockered tip.  Nothing here really to give away the performance that I came to really value in the Hang5.

I skied them on the morning ice of a good Spring day and the resulting slush of a warm spring day.  I skied them in a few tight rock lined gullies, soft bumps that were huge and everything in between.  On typical cold Spring snow with its wash board effect fro a surface I loved them.  For me once I had some speed going  they were effortless and turned on a dime..exactly where I wanted and when I wanted.  No effort involved.  Not everyone one liked them 2:2 was the consensus I think.  With 3:4 bias in most conditions on the plus side.  But some what grudgingly.  Even the lone doubter was swayed some by the end of the day.

It is a ski that likes to be driven.   If you are comfortable on the ski and willing to work them I think the Hang5 offers a lot of feed back and is super fun.  And I don't work any ski very hard.  More importantly to me it seems very confidence building and super stable even in the 178 size I first demoed and then bought.

The 177cm  Huascaran was the first ski to turn me on to this size of ski (short 177cm and 115+/- under foot).  I now have 3 pair of them, the Praxis GPO , the Huascaran and the Hang5.    I generally prefer (or thought I did until recently) a 192 or bigger ski.  I have and ski on several including a longer 196 Huascaran, 192 DPS 112RPC, the 192 GPO, Protests and DPS 138.

But I don't  think I own a more fun ski than the 115+/-mm under foot  by 178 cm.    The Hang5s just reinforced that idea.  Give them even a little bit of room to make a turn on, in any kind of snow, and this ski will rip and put a smile on your face all at the same time.

Of the "big" skis La Sportiva offers I think this is the sleeper of the bunch.  By far my favorite ski between the Lo5, Hi5 and Hang5 Series and does everything better than either of the other two imo.
At least two new skis coming from La Sportiva.  A more resort driven Lo5 call the Mega 5 and a totally new lwt fatty I am really interested in,.   But is weights more than the Hang5 and is only 98mm under foot.

IMO the Hang5 best balanced ski in my own quiver of  a dozen or so skis.  The mount point is squared away for a very neutral ride in my size 28/29 boots.   Others were not so impressed with the ski.  Preferring a few of the other offerings I have.   I was impressed enough to buy a pair of Hang5s after just a couple of days of skiing on them.  For me this is a "any mission ski".  I wish it weighted less for packing around or skins.  But I can live with the ski's weight .  The performance is so high and so very predictable in any snow condition the weight is generally unnoticed unless it needs to be carried or skinning.  Typical shite days at the lift when the snow is chopped up and only OK...this is going to be one of my "go to" ski.

I really like this ski.  And the color as well :)

Hard to find a decent review on this ski or anyone that has skied it.  If 117 under foot sounds like something that might interest you...the Hang5 is more than worth making the effort to try out.  Be prepared to open the wallet if you do.  I wasn't and had to pry the cash out for these after skiing them.   

I'd like to say more.  I can't seem to do justice to what I really like about this ski.  The Hang5  deserves it in spades. It does quick turns down the fall line easily and big ripping GS turns  on any slope with ease for me.  Saving a lot of effort in the process by being so stable under foot.  And I do find it a stable ski.   Enough tip rocker to fillet the crap snow you always run into on-piste and wide enough to slay any sort of pow or crust off-piste.  What is not to like.  Icy narrow gullies?  Have to admit they are not the best ski there.  Takes some speed to get them to turn around.  But I will willingly ski them there just because they are so stable and forgiving.

One reviewer complained about turning a short Hauscaran  at anything less than Mach1!!??    Ha, ha, the short Huascaran is a gully ski for me.   And I ski sloooowwwwwwwwwlllllllllyyyyy in the no fall zone..

I really like this ski!  Few ski I can really say that about with some conviction.  The reward of owning a Hang5 was some of the best Spring runs off a lift and boot packing I had this year.  Gotta give credit where it belongs.  In this case it goes to the Hang5.
 

 

Dynafit Huascaran Ski.....take 2

 

Ya, after my exposure to Jason and Eric, back to my reality now :-)

Funny how I can write a blog and have all these great ideas in my head about training and nutrition.  And weigh out my gear to the gram.  Then on a 2am start at the last moment ditch the plan (THE PLAN) and grab totally different gear for a specific reason.    Which may or may not be even remotely reasonable.  I never do that climbing.

Classic example of that this morning.  We took Sunday off to get some rest and prepare for a ski on Rainier. At the last moment I intentionally and mindlessly grabbed my 177cm Huascaran instead of my 168cm GTR La Sportiva.   Which added 3+ pounds to my kit.  Instead of my typical 1 liter bladder I grabbed a full 100 fluid oz or 3 liters of water.  6.6 pounds of water weight instead of 2.2 pounds.    Up 7.4 pounds before I even left the house!

How to plan defeat?  Jerry and I were both tired.  Him from driving 10 hrs and a day of skiing in trying conditions.  Me?  From a late night social dinner and not enough sleep.  Few ever call me social.

The last time I had skied the Nisqually chutes the one thing that kept popping into my mind was how bad the snow was (it had been exceptionally warm that day) and how good the skiing might have been on a fat ski.  When we left the house late for the two hour drive and then missed a crucial turn and added another 45 minutes I didn't care about what skis I'd picked up or the additional water.

When Eric, Stano and Nick blew by me on the Muir snowfield I was feeling like a dolt. (see http://coldthistle.blogspot.com/2013/05/new-speed-ski-record-on-rainier.html )   I could hear their skins ripping off the skin tracks from a long ways down the mtn.  I'd just stopped for a bite to eat to cheer myself up.  Jerry a full 30 minutes ahead of me by now.

I had promised myself not to rethink the extra liters of water or the fat skis for this trip.  "Make a choice and live with it" was to be my motto that day.  My mind kept returning to this picture on the Muir snowfield a month ago.

A short day trip where I not only caught everyone I saw on ski or on foot but passed them all with little fan fare and no extra effort.  Something that literally never happens to me these days.  I was pretty stoked.  But Marker Dukes, downhill boots, long fat ski, big packs by comparison and a helmet didn't make passing them all much of a challenge either.

Yesterday I was all too aware, I was seemingly "them".  And while happy to be out.......I know the difference between "us" and "them".  And it aint the Lycra.  My "skinny" skis and boots were a big part of the fun previous.  Stripped to long johns and a minuscule race pack helped.   And the gear isn't even "light" versions oif the skis or boots by comparison to what is easily available.  I have never been disappointed in the light choice of gear in the mountains.

Ok, that said how were the Huascarans skiing down from Muir yesterday?  Well we abandoned the summit attempt after being totally demoralised in no small part by the Canadians running by and the lack of motivation earlier in the morning.

This is how I found Jerry @ Muir ;-)   Wrapped snugly in his Mont Bell Mirage jacket (review coming soon) and his favorite Patagonia Mixed Guide pant, sound asleep on his skis.  "I told you I was tired".  Unusual for Jerry as he's been the energizer bunny for the 40+ years I've skied and climbed with him.

http://www.montbell.us/products/disp.php?cat_id=70&p_id=2301365

Our fate now sealed, thankfully as Jerry naps ;)

Despite what Eric said in his blog about their speed ascent, "It was warm and windless so light gloves and race suit were hot!"  more here:
http://coastmountainskiing.com/race-mount-rainier-fkt/#comment-405

After a quick food and water break I found the Muir snow field both a little chilly and breezy just after sunrise just below where Eric and crew skinned past.  Hood up and puffy on.  The difference in effort involved obviously.   Jerry and I both had warm gloves and puffies on for the first part of our ski decent from Muir.

But as I said Jerry is usually full of energy.  So we aint waiting long for softer snow.  I'm game!  I brought full on "mountain" skis, and my TLT Performance boots, tongue and my innovative power strap add on to solve any skiing problem I might have imagined from the summit.  The upper hard pack and the Nisqually chutes are going to be kid's play after the GTRs in the wind crust and slush of the last time out here.

For those interested I'm using Voile straps for the TLTs in either version.  Makes the boot skin easier without the bolted on version and easy to add or remove.  I also like the progressive support they add differing from a typical Velcro power strap.  

Jerry was in a pair of TLT Mountain (no tongue or power strap) and short (166) Kilowats.  Jerry is likely capable of skiing any terrian, on any gear.  When we first met he was on 220s and a PSIA instructor.  He's 5' 9" and 150# on a good day and skiing prior to kindergarten.  Now he patrols in Montana after his last decade old gig as a full cert race coach.  I always believe I know how to ski,  until I ski with JJ again.

Jerry dropping off the Muir Snowfield yesterday

So the upper Muir snow field was some pretty hard snow.  If it were at a ski area it would no doubt simply be called ICE.   We skied it anyway.  Not a edge mark to show our passing for the first 2000'.  Hard and almost baby ass smooth terrain.  Fun skiing.  Sort of.   Jerry's feet and my knees were taking a beating from the hard conditions.  For the first time ever, I admit we are well worn.   Hard snow on fat skis and soft boots will do that.  And I had the advantage in every way with the Huascarans and carbon cuffed boots here. (tongue and power strap in place)

We took a short break to see if the sun would soften the snow enough to be really pleasurable.  Because it was pretty good skiing even being that hard.  30 minutes and things were starting to rock.  The right aspect and my Huascarans were cutting a razor's edge on the snow surface.  Just barely noticeable.  We both were getting huge grins and admiring the grand scale of the terrain on the mountain.

Note the distinct lack of Jerry's ski track in the dragon skin.  The tracks that do show are from the previous day's much  warmer snow conditions.

Yes, "GRAND", would be a good descriptor here!

So the Huascarans had skied a couple thousand feet of ice and now we are switching to some amazing corn snow for another 3000' and we'll end in 1000 vert feet of wet snow, almost slush.  Not terribly bad conditions any where and something any ski can handle easy enough.  But few skis will give you the kind of pleasure a mid fat, 113mm under foot,  rockered tip and a shaped pin tail will with a decent side cut, in ANY snow condition.  I have 3 such skis in my quiver.  All coming in at progressively more weight.  All of them amazing skis.  But only the Huascaran am I willing to pack up to Camp Muir or the summit of Rainier.  Because at least for me it is never "all about the down".   A quick (for me) three hour hike to Muir gets you a casually paced ski to the Nisqually bridge in 2 hours, even if some boulder hiking is thrown in.

The bridge just 10 minutes away

I had promised myself early on yesterday to "make a choice and live with it".   There wasn't a single turn I made yesterday (and I made a lot of them) except that missed turn on the drive over where I regretted my choice in skis.  I savored every single one of those turns.  I earned them after all.

The extra 2.5 liters of water?   I gave that away at Camp Muir to some needy climbers suffering through a bad night.

Jerry was gone 30 minutes hitching a ride and fetching the truck.  I took a nap in the bright sunshine .  "I told you I was tired".  Falling asleep staring at our route off the mountain and thinking just how much fun I had just had.....much of it due to my choice of boots and the Huascarans.  As I dosed off  I promised myself to take a few lessons and learn to ski more like Jerry for next year.  And rethink how much water I really need to carry  ;-)

 

Better to think  of your own efforts along the lines of Stano, Nick and Eric than "them other guys"  You'll likely enjoy the outdoors more more.

 

 

For anyone interested in my previous thoughts on the Dynafit Huascaran look here:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pxlqsK9liI

http://coldthistle.blogspot.com/2013/03/all-mountain-skis.html

I have yet to do a proper review of this ski.  I have the 177cm that I've talked about a couple of times now.  I was so impressed with the 177s I bought a pair of  196cm Huascaran's as well.  This review turned into a short story of our day out as much as it did a review of the Huascaran.  I can't say enough good things about this ski.  But I'll try again in a proper review of both the 177cm and the 196cm version shortly.  Bottom line imo?  I own four really, really good, mid fat, 115+/-mm under foot skis.  The Huascaran is the lightest version.  If weight is important to you buy a pair of Huascarans on sale this summer and get ready to rip next winter! 

Trevor seems to agree.  And he actually does RIP!

http://www.coaststeepskier.com/wphome/

 

La Sportiva GTR and the Dynafit Broad Peak

Skimo or "Edged Alpinism" gear?

 

 

For many who enjoy ski mountaineering and are concerned about performance verses weight the Dynafit Broad Peak ski is a known quantity.

Nate covers the high points well here:
http://wilsonalpine.blogspot.com/2012/02/steep-chalk-at-village.html

Total review at Wild Snow:
"Dynafit’s other new ski, the Broad Peak (112/74/96 in 167 cm), is Stoke’s opposite. Built for edge hold when you encounter conditions such as white ice during ski descents of big peaks, the ski is still said to handle varied conditions, as a board of this sort would have to.  My take is that the Broad Peak is a quiver ski. You’d own it if you want something that’ll help you survive steep icy terrain you might encounter during spring ski descents and that sort of thing — or if you’re heading out for a quick blast up and down Broad Peak before your morning espresso."

Broad Peak Spec sheet:

Dimensions:	112 / 74 / 96 mm
Turn Radius:	(dual radius) [167cm] 17.7 / 17.1m
Profile:	traditional camber
Construction:	sandwich
Core:	paulownia, beech and bamboo stringers, carbon reinforcement
Base:	sintered graphite
Tail:	flat
weight per pair	1142g/ 5lb

Weight *per ski* with a Dynafit Low Tech Race (Ti heel spring) 1300g/ 2# 13.5oz
the pair with bindings = 5# 12oz

The La Sportiva GTR Spec sheet:

Size(cm):   168cm
Radius(m):   22

Dimensions:

114 / 82 / 104 mm

Camber(mm):        7

Tip Rocker(mm):   192

Weight(g): 1230g per ski (verified)

3lb 1oz per ski with TRAB low tech race binding, (steel heel spring)

Weight *per ski* with a TRAB low tech race (steel heel spring) 1389g/ 3# 1oz
The pair with bindings = 6# 2oz

Dynafi LowTech Race binding comes in at  234g/8.3oz
Trab Race binding comes in at 282g/9.9oz

Dynafit Low Tech Race heel on the Broad Peak ski

Broad Peak ready to ski 5# 12oz
GTR ready to ski 6# 2oz

bindings? 1.6 oz difference for the pair.

Most already know how good the Broad Peak is.   Great ski on hard snow and ice.  Light weight and easy to carry.  I've skied them a lot of places and in every snow condition I can imagine.  It is better on hard snow obviously than in knee deep powder.  But the BP will ski anything you are capable of skiing is my take on it.  The steepest skiing and the longest tours I have done were all on my pair of Broad Peaks. 

But one too many rides over the handle bars on the Broad Peak in deep soft snow made me think that a little more modern and wider ski design, if I could keep the weight down, might be a worthy investment.

*pause for station identification*
I need to pause here for just a moment.  I've been getting lazy and have not kept up on reviews of the gear I am using this winter and spring.  I mentioned this ski to Brian over at :

http://www.getstrongergolonger.com/

So he soon had a pair in his capable hands as well. Brian skis more in a week than I likely do in a season.  The only race where I will beat Brian is to this review and the comparison of these two skis.  We are both getting a chance to ski on the newest Dynafit Nanga Parbat and Cho Oyu shortly.  So more to come on technical skis like the two described here.  Be sure to watch Brian's blog in the near future for his reviews of all these ski.    

Back to the comparison/review.

The GTR has a very modern, slightly rockered tip, good camber under foot and I think most importantly a little more width than the Broad Peak.  While it will float a tiny bit better and makes manky snow a little easier to ski, the down side is it is a little softer under foot and not as good on really hard surfaces IMO.  But so far in really poor snow conditions this has be a workman like ski.   Which means I have nothing bad to say about it.  That may not mean a lot but the conditions I have skied to date with the GTR have been dismal.  More side stepping and kick turns than I care to recount.  Nice that the ski will turn once you have he opportunity to get it done.

My custom cut narrow skins used on the GTR weigh in at exactly what my BP skis do.  But the Broad Peak factory Speed Skin is full coverage.  Both climb well.    Edge to the Broad Peak there.

To be honest I had thought my entire package of either ski and skin was closer than the 6oz on the scale shows.  6 oz means so little on a full day tour.  It is less than a full cup of water. 

Half dozen of one  6 of the other.

The question remains..."which ski do you think is better?"

The first comment I think needs addressing is, I don't think either of these skis is a quiver skis.  Bare with me for a moment on my reasoning here.

Skimo or "Edged Alpinism" gear?

I do have a quiver of skis.  I also have a "quiver" of ice tools.  But in actuality I don't have as big of quiver of either as one might first think.

For technical tools these days I have Nomics.  One technical tool that serves many different types of terrain.  Of course I have other axes/tools.  But one technical tool that I use.

Same with skis pretty much.  I have one ski that I consider a really technical tool.  That is the Broad Peak.  And now the recent purchase of the GTR make it two.

Either ski could easily replace the other IMO.   But *THE* technical ski is one I will not easily be without.  If you practice "Edged Alpinism" I'd suspect you have a ski that is similar to one of these two TOOLS.  Two is not much of a quiver. 

A few of the best SkiMo or "Edged Alpinism" web sites?  At some point it isn't "just" skiing any more.

http://slcsherpa.blogspot.com/

http://slc-samurai.blogspot.com/

http://jasondorais.blogspot.com/

http://theoutsideout.blogspot.com/

If I  dared ski some of the stuff shown on these web sites, I would pull out a technical tool.  That would be one or another ski of this type that I own at the moment.  Both of these skis are good tools.  But I don't look at them as ski as much as I look at them as just another piece of alpine climbing kit.  Just as I view an axe or crampon or a harness, these are simply tools.

I think part of this selection of gear is matching boots to skis.  Obviously I am using the lightest binding I can get to save weight.  I and others trust these lwt bindings every where in and out of the "no fall zone".  They are a given now for  "edged alpinism".

I use both the TLT5 Performance and the Mtn version of the same boot.  But there are other, lighter, high performance boots in several versions including those from Scarpa.   You can save a tiny bit of weight by ditching the tongue and power strap on the TLT and even more by using a lighter, full on (exensive)  race boot with little loss of performance on these technical skis.    The original Palau liner of the Performance or the  Intuition Pro Tour Liner will save some weight as well in the TLT.

I really like the more progressive flex of the TLT Mountain compared to the carbon cuffed TLT Performance.  Something to thing about if you are looking for new LWT boots.

My point is you don't need mondo ski and boots for this kind of stuff.  And a poor selection of heavy gear and the wrong clothing choices will drastically cut your likelihood of success on many projects.

It is easy to say, "boots" are your most important piece of gear."  And they might well be.  But it is the system of technical ski, lwt boot and race bindings that really make this system so efficient and a joy to use in the mountains.  Doesn't matter if you are doing "edged alpinism" of skiing some super fun, summer snow field with your dog.

As an example of a "heavier" but very similar system my 177cm Huascaran (113mm @ the boot) and a slightly heavier "race" Dynafirt Speed Superlight binding weights in at 8# 12oz for the pair and another 5oz for their skis.   A full three more pounds of the pair of ski, binding  and skins.  That is a lot of extra weight on a skin track.

These light technical skis are both stellar skis to get it done on.  At the moment I am swayed by the slightly wider GTR for my fun.  And the tiny bit more lift and ease on the turns that the width and rocker brings.   But I have the BP in the back of my mind every time I have to ski or side slip through a nasty patch of ice and wonder if the BP might have well allowed me a little more security there.

TRAB,  Atomic, Elan, Hagan and a host of other rando and rando race skis brands are out there.  Check out the other blogs if this kind of ski interests you.  See if you can mate up your own system for best effect.   I have little interest in true rando race skis.  But one or two steps up from the 65mm under foot race ski does interst me.

snowing and spitting rain here yesterday @ 6000'

DPS Wailer 112 RPC review...aka "DPS Lotus 115"

Happy man on a DPS RPC

 

 

Product:  DPS 112 RPC (Pure Carbon construction)

 

Length Tested: 192cm

Turn Radius: 20-23m  
side cut: 144mm-115mm-127mm

Tip rocker: 480mm
Tail rocker: 384mm
Running length: 1510mm
Weight: per skis: 4lb. 5oz. 

Binding: Dynfit Radical Speed

Mount point: +1cm forward of suggested
Ski weight with bindings: 5lb. 2oz. per ski

Environment & Conditions:

Location of Test: Crystal Mountain Washington

Number of Runs: 5 full days over a 10 day late spring storm cycle

Snow Conditions: from hard packed, rain ice, to 3 feet of new mid winter snow

Demo or Own: own

Tester Info:

Height/Weight: 6'1" 190lb

Ski Days/Season: 30+

Years Skiing: 30+
Aggressiveness: Moderate 

Current Quiver: Huascaran, Aspect,  GTR, Lo5, Hi5, 112RP, 138, Broad Peak, 112RP, 138.

Home Area: Silver Mtn Idaho, Crystal Mtn and Alpental WA.

Preferred Terrain: off-piste, trees, steeps

DPS sez: The RPC shape gives up some of the Wailer 112RP's hard snow carving performance and versatility in exchange for enhanced crud and powder velocity. 

 1 (worst)  to 5 (best) star ratings

Value: ***** (hard to believe on a $1250 ski but there it is!)

Durability: unknown at this point but they still look good

Edge Grip: considering the 115mm under foot *****

Maneuverability:******

Performance:******

Up front. I have not been a big fan of the 112RP.  Some seem to think it is the *magic ski*.   I liked the 112RP enough to have kept a pair for a season.  Almost everyone from professional mtn guides to timid intermediates seem to rave about the 112RP.  To me it is a quiver ski.  And not one currently in my quiver.  And not one to be replaced.  Not nearly versatile enough to be my only skis. Not to say it is a bad ski.   Just not the ski to end my search for the perfect ski.   I am glad I had a chance to spend a season on them. But not unhappy when I sold them either.

Like everyone else reading this review specifically for 112 RPC hands on info, likely most of you have read the less than stellar review on the RPC, Blister had posted previous. (It is linked below) That review (and more recently a second on the 2014 RPC) and my dislike for the 112PC kept me off the RPC for most of this season. In retrospect that was a big, BIG mistake on my part.  I get sucked in on the Internet reviews just as easily as the next guy.  Damn it!

What I like about the RPC compared to the RP?  Less rocker in the tip and tail as a start.  And a stiffer over all ski flex.  The ski is best described as "a sidecut version of the lotus 138, than similar to the wailer 112RP".  Same shape used, with slight variation, on the Lotus 120, 112RP, the 112RPC and the 99, and is exceptional technology imo.    

I am blessed by good fortune to get on a lot of skis.   A dozen or so this season alone.  Not a professional ski tester by any means but more skis than I have ever dreamt of skiing in any one season previous.  Best of all I own the skis..so nothing owed to the manufacture here past an honest appraisal of the skis..  All of which just keeps me searching for the next "best ski".   
 

A good many friends (most active outdoor ski professionals) have decided that the 100mm under foot is *the* magic number for their every day skis. I need to keep looking for that 100mm ski.   And I have most of the 100mm ski my buddies have suggested.   From my own search the 112mm/115mm seems to be my magic number.  I am typically a strong skier (physically) and able to ski any terrain given reasonable snow conditions.  And now with a modern 115mm under foot ski, even what I use to think as "unreasonable" conditions I can generally ski with little effort. 

One of my most fun and agile pair of all around skis right now is a  short 177cm, and 112mm under foot, skis.  But I prefer something longer when riding lift served terrain.  Something more like 190cm+.   FWIW I generally like a light weight 167/168cm skis in the BC if I am looking at covering an sort of distance.

I am using a tech or Dynafit style binding on all my skis these days. Even the skis reserved just for lift skiing. The RPC is going to be a lift served ski 90% of the time for me.   I commented on the 112s earlier.  From DPS's original comments  the 112RP seems like a much better powder ski than a resort/powder skis to me.  I've not skied the newest Rossi 7 Series but hopefully will shortly.   I have skied similar skis to the DPS RPC from BD, La Sportiva, DPS in 100 and 115 formats. I like the newest light weight skis and the lightest Dynafit style bindings.   A mountaineering back ground has me looking in that direction..instead of back at my old school Rossi and K2 roots. Just the weight when picking up a 115mm under foot from Rossignol or K2 stops me from looking any further.   The huge tail rocker on any of those skis would,  if weight did not. Even though I know some of those skis will ski very, very well.

Below are a few questions from a different forum that were asked when I mentioned I really didn't like the 112RP. 

"Were you on the 190cm RP's?  Interesting that DPS describes the RP to be more capable on hard than the RPC, and more versatile, but you found just the opposite to be true for you."

Here is the video I found most enlightening from DPS. This is what convinced me to give the "112" another try even if it is a 115 version :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq2VAjV8bJo

Yes, I was on the 190cm version of the PURE 112RP. And a 192 on the PURE 138 Lotus. (Zero4 and One boots) But one of my all time favorite skis is the Dynafit Huascaran in a 177cm (TLT boots) as a playful, fun ski in most any conditions and unsurpassed *for me* in tight trees. I like a stiff tail and little or no rocker in the tail on a shorter ski. The rocker up front I don't want flapping around at speed and the ability to carve bullet proof ice with some acuity important as well.

As much as I did like them both I thought both the 138 and the 112RP too much of a quiver ski instead of a all around ski (duh! that is obvious on the 138 and not nearly the versatility of the 112 everyone else describes ).

I bought 196cm Huascarans and the 192 RPC at the same time. Expecting GREAT things from the longer Hauscaran and not much from the the RPC. Knowing that the 177cm Huascaran is one of my all time favourite sets on any terrain using the TLT Mtn boot.   It turned out the other way around on ski likes and dislikes. I was making the comparison on two hour intervals during a 3 day dump of new powder over a hard ice (west coast standards) base that was rained on before freezing up solid. Add two feet of fluff to that while you are still skiing the ice as the base was interesting for the first day and a half.

Every time the place got skied out and I thought the conditions just sucked I went back to the RPC and found it was the ski lacking and not the conditions. Harsh reality and eventual glowing accolades for the RPC (much to my surprise!)

In all my Internet surfing I found two guys describing the RPC as a *115 Lotus* on another forum...which I found intriguing. Marshal Olson and Stephen Drake of DPS were saying the 112RP was a combo of the 138 and the Cassiar 80.   All those comments and the newest technology from DPS built into the RPC had me intrigued. My bet is the RPC was the ski DPS was really trying to make when they came out with the 112RP. 

DPS sez:

• “The RPC is designed to ski more in the fall line with a shallower turn shape. It’s for the charging, directional skier …who wants to put less emphasis on the RP’s hard snow performance and more on its abilities in crud and soft snow.”

***I found the RPC better at fall line/faster mach 1 type GS turns, ski with no lack of hard snow (or ice for their 115mm under foot) performance. I also found them easy to do slow, super tight turns on steep or even really moderate terrain with ease. Little difference in the 112RP and the RPS here it is only a matter of a little (very little) effort.

• “The RPC gives up some of the 112 RP’s hard snow-carving performance and versatility in exchange for enhanced crud busting and speed through powder.”

*** I didn't find that to be the case.  I think the RPC has some serious added attributes and literally giving away nothing to the 112RP....other than a more skilled/stronger skier will be happier on the RPC by comparison. Blister's review hints at this btw.

• “The RPC will allow skiers to surf powder in the morning, then charge leftovers all day as they sniff out stashes.”

***this I found spot on.....

Blister sez:

"the RPC is absolutely a Wailer 112RP at heart, as it shares some of the same characteristics that helped put the original RP on the map".

***Not IMO....I think the RPC is best described as a "115 Lotus" Forget all that nonsense about it's connection to the 112 RP. Bad marketing on DPS's part IMO.

"I’m not sure I knew what “torsionally rigid” really meant until laying down some blisteringly fast, high-energy carves out the bottom of Alta’s Collin’s face on the RPC. In this respect, DPS’s engineering and construction of the ski is seriously impressive."

I mention Rossi 4G 207s below.  It is a torsionally rigid ski is.  I had the chance to ski some of the best made for several decades.   The 138s and the 112RP are good examples of torsionally rigid skis. The RPC even more so I think.  If you want to ski ice...serious ice... get a torsionally rigid ski.  Make the ski rigid enough and you can even ski ice on a soft boot and 115 under foot.

Blisters' review here:
http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2012-2013-dps-wailer-112rpc-2#comment-16640

Follow up:
To prep my RPCs I simply ironed in a thick coat of some spring wax on the Hauscaran and the RPC and took them to the hill.   No detune on either and I wouldn't call either ski hooky or even anything close to hooky.

Easy to describe the 112RP as the ski for the guy that doesn't know how to ski powder.....and you'll never have to learn on the 112RP.  The ski will simply give you a majority of the skill required.  The 112RP is a super easy ski to ski...any where but hard snow.  But for me it is a "beginners" ski. I come from old school Rossi and K2 SL/GS 203 and 207 race skis if that helps. The newest (rockered and 5 point shaped) skis have made me a much, much better skier with less effort involved.

Bottom line?

I can rip groomers on the RPC with literally no speed limit.  Big super fast GS turns if I like (and I DO like!) or quick turns straight down the fall line at Mach 1. Easy.    Pow? If it is on this ski things are easy. Not as easy or as playful as a 177cm Huascaran but just as playful as the RP in my opinion.  Looking for those last tiny powder stashes at your favorite resort? The 4 to 6 turn pockets of the last remaining stash? The RPC will make that patch and if you work at it add an extra turn in there as well. Yes they are a tiny bit more work than the 112RP.   And I do mean TINY!  But the advantages the rest of the day are immense.   Even if it is just getting between stashes at Mach 1 with a huge smile on your face.   Slow speed tight trees or just tight turns? Easy enough...so easy....enough.   I am still amazed at just how versatile this ski is. Some of my skis will do most of what I have described.  The RPC finally seems like the one "full meal deal".  

I am a little stuck on a skied named a "112"  when it is actually 115mm under foot.  And I think it is much more ski than the 112RP.  More than the 3mm implies.
 

This is no 112RP.  It really is a Lotus 115. Big Mountain? All mountain?  The RPC will do both easy enough.  "My bet is the RPC was the ski DPS was really trying to design when they came out with the 112RP".   The limitations of the 112RP is obvious for the skilled practitioner. I've not noted any limitation on the RPC. And I really don't consider myself a very "skilled" practitioner. I just get to ski a lot of skis.

Heli ski? You bet.  I'd  be OK with leaving the 138s at home.

FWIW I am skiing the RPC with a Dynafit One boot or the Scarpa Maestrale RS.  And I am very pleased with the combinations.  More so with the RS and this ski.   Makes me think I might be leaving some on the table here.   Which makes me think Lange and down hill bindings.

The RPC isn't my all time favorite ski...but it is damn close.    For a resort ski on any sort of soft snow?  It might well be my favorite ski ever.  Either way hard not to get a smile on your face with these guys on your feet.  If I am earning my own turns on any sort of soft snow, corn to pow?  This ski (even in my 192s) is light enough to consider for any mid winter snow pack, boot or skin mission.   You  earn the turns might as well savor them.

Testing">http://vimeo.com/55557586">Testing my new DPS RPC 192

from Windbroproductionhttp://vimeo.com/user6712744">Windbroproduction> on Vimeo.https://vimeo.com">Vimeo.>

 

The skinny on the up coming CT ski reviews?

Heli turns bitd

 

If someone had told me I would have the interest in writing a ski review on Cold Thistle a couple of years ago I'd have laughed.  "No way in hell!"

A couple of reasons for that.  I really don't have that much interest in skis or ski gear.  The other is I don't have the technical knowledge  to do  as good of job at it as I would like.

But...just as my original hunt for a good "climbing down jacket"  ended up starting this blog and the gear reviews.  My hunt for a decent ski  for my own use has convinced me to write down what I have been learning over the past few seasons about skis (boots and bindings as well) and go back to the base of knowledge I gained in the early '70s through mid '80s on ski technology working in shops as a mechanic and boot fitter.  I am not trying to apply the old knowledge base to the current technology  and crop of skis.

My typical answer when questioned about skis in the last decade or so has been, "they are fine..they turn left and they turn right".  Some thought I was actually joking,,,I wasn't.  Skis are simply tools to me.  It helps to know the tool you need and to be able to choose the right tool as required.   But it is a poor craftsman that blames failure on his tools.  A couple of winters ago I got an awakening that my unused ski skills had degraded to an embarrassing level as had my ability to judge what really was "good ski gear" for my own use.

Pulling off an ill fitting ski boot high on the Vallee Blanche.

 

 

Funny now that I think back on the time I spent skiing.  All  the info here on Cold Thistle about climbing boots?  The foundation of that info is based on what I learned and know about ski boots.  Early on my skinny feet were ridiculously hard to fit  in a ski boot.   I had simply forgotten where it all started for me about how important a good boot fit really was until recently.  That in itself surprises and inspires me. 

My first three pair of plastic ski boots from the late 60's and early '70s.  The ones prior were leather!

Lange Pro

Lange Comp

 

Lange Comp

 

My last pair of Langes, The Banshee,1973

I first saw a pair of Dynafit TLT Performance boots at the OR show several years ago.  Then again as they first became available in the Chamonix shops.  I scoffed at the $1000 price tag at OR and again in Chamonix.  By that spring I was desperate to own a pair.  Now?  The TLT and the second generation boots (Dynafit One) that came from the original TLT idea are my favorite boots for more than just skiing.  As a crossover for ski mountaineering and ice climbing they are exceptional boots for the amount of  control you can have while  skiing in them.  In a lot of ways the TLT reminds me of the old Scott Superlight series of boots actually.  I had a buddy that added a Vibram sole to his and climbed in them as well.

Jeff on steep ice with a TLT.

 

 

And I would eventually find all sorts of uses for my own TLTs.

 

What I didn't realise at the time is just how import the skis would/had become and just how different the skis designs were now.  If I am going to be an advocate of ski mountaineering and the use of ski boots to climb technical ground with, I had better square away a few thoughts on skis as well.

I found a few of us out here looking for the same things or very close to it in skis.  If you have a mountaineering back ground the current rando race gear is going to have some appeal.  If you learned to ski (as most do) at a lifted served ski area you are likely looking at good down hill performance as well.  I want a good skis on a groomed slope as well as off piste when in really bad snow conditions.
All that is possible btw.

My bet is with a similar back ground we have all been looking at similar skis.  To that point I'll eventually be writing up reviews on the skis I have been on in the last couple of seasons.

Most importantly the choice in ski is as individual or may be even more so than a well fitting pair of climbing boots.  What works for me you might hate.   Or the other way around...which is what got me started looking for a "better" ski in the first place.

How a ski performs depends on so many things, your ability, your own boots and the snow conditions.  So you will see a lot of back ground info and details on each ski test (mine and others).

The idea here is to get you into a ski you will enjoy for your own purposes not sell you any particular ski.   If you happen to have the similar gear,  physical attributes and skill set as Dave Searle, Jerry Johnson  or myself, lucky you!  If not hopefully you'll be able to glean enough info from the reviews  to at least get started in the right direction on a decent ski choice for your own use.

But I can tell you quite clearly the gear available now will enable a decent skier to easily..as in really easily...ski terrain and snow conditions that even a decade or two ago was unrealistic for anyone but an expert, very experienced skier.  There are some down sides to that fact...like the need for more snow, avalanche and forecasting knowledge.  The knowledge is now required because the newest skis have opened up so much more terrain to less experienced skiers.  It is a double edged sword.  You can ski more places easily.  But you can also get yourself killed a lot quicker as well by making a bad choice in the wrong snow conditions.

Oh, and you poor bastards on snow boards?  If you want to climb and explore the back country?  Get a pair of skis :-)  You'll go farther, faster and with less effort in places you simply can't go on a snow board.  Same places you would also be hard pressed on a split board.  More on that subject at some point as well.