WildSnow Quiver Arrow of the Week — DPS Wailer 99 Pure2 2012-13

Post by WildSnow.com blogger | September 26, 2012      

The tingling was going up and down my legs like I was in the presence of the guru.

Nice to get these planks into the quiver for 2012-2013.

Dimensions 125/99/111 (176 cm length), weight 52.3 (1482 gr). That is LIGHT for a fully performing 176 cm ski that’s 99 at the waist. (Note these are the Pure2 construction, which is lighter than the Pure3). Compare in our backcountry skiing gear weight chart.

DPS unzipped for backcountry skiing.

DPS Wailer came in a zippered plastic envelope instead of the usual shrink wrap. I've unzipped better things over the years, but this was the first time I've gotten to unzip skis.

See Bob Perlumtter’s previous take on these planks.

DPS Website


Please Enjoy A Few Suggested WildSnow Posts


66 Responses to “WildSnow Quiver Arrow of the Week — DPS Wailer 99 Pure2 2012-13”

  1. Mike September 26th, 2012 10:10 am

    Is that actual, measured weight? The DPS website lists them as a fair amount heavier than what you’ve got listed.

    The link provided is to a look at the Wailer 112, not the 99.

  2. Lou Dawson September 26th, 2012 10:35 am

    Mike, yep, I have the skis here and just put them on the scale again to be sure. I guess DPS knows how to build skis but needs to learn how to operate their scale? (grin).

    Sorry about the review confusion. That’s what happens when skis have the same names. We’ll get the 99 well reviewed during this year’s Quiver project.

    Thanks, Lou

  3. Rob September 26th, 2012 12:23 pm

    Wow….just read through the entire post (and comments) on the 112RP, in the link above. A lot to wade through, but worth it. As someone who had a religious experience on a pair of the 112 Pures last year in Austria, I’m very excited to hear more about the W99 as a touring ski.

    Since the 112RPs were the first rockered ski I had experienced, it’s hard to say how much of the difference I felt was due to DPS, and how much to basic rocker design….but the experience was transformative.

  4. Andy September 26th, 2012 1:18 pm

    DETUNE the heck out of the tips and tails. You’ll be very glad you did.

  5. Boz September 26th, 2012 2:49 pm

    I second the detune!

  6. Lou Dawson September 26th, 2012 3:18 pm

    Thanks Andy, I do that with almost all skis so it will not be forgotten! Lou

  7. Dan September 26th, 2012 5:29 pm

    Unlike my other skis I don’t detune the tips and tails of my Wailer 99’s (per DPS tech tip suggestion, see below) and have not had any problems with hooking (so perhaps you should test them both ways). Best skis ever (for a heart of the quiver backcountry touring ski).


  8. Espen September 27th, 2012 12:56 am

    +1 for the detune. They also have a very agressive edge. Actually a worldcup angle edge. It makes carving on near ice alot of fun, but I like my edges more forgiving and re-tuned them to 1degree base and 1.5 degrees bevel. Combined with a taper detune this made the ski preform as I wanted. It is less hooking in high speed turns on variable snow and there is a smoother transition from carve to slarve. Ps. the skies are mounted at center with ntn telemark binding. Will have tech inserts as well this winter.

  9. David B September 27th, 2012 4:44 am

    Lou, no need to detune the 99’s.

    I’ve not found the 99’s hooky at all. I’ve skied them is most lengths on hard and soft snow and both constructions. Try them first and if you feel you need to detune then do so.

    Again mount centre first off, I’ve tried moving + & -1 for curiosity sake and moved ’em back to centre. Each to their own on that one.

    Enjoy, I’m sure you will.

  10. Lou Dawson September 27th, 2012 6:15 am

    Hey, this is WildSnow.com so I’ll detune one and not the other, and see which side I like better in the turn (grin).

  11. Brent September 27th, 2012 1:04 pm

    Nice, I bet you will enjoy these. I had the 176s all over CA last season and I really love them. I’m 6’0′ 165 and that size was just perfect for longer tours, climbing with skis on pack, and tight terrain. This year I went for the 184s for a little more stability at speed. This year’s top sheets are vastly improved over the old glassy, easy-chip version. They are also lighter so something has changed that DPS isn’t bragging about yet. I know, two pairs, I must be a kool-aid drinker, but I don’t think they are perfect. They just hit the right trade-offs for what I want: sub 7.5lbs, energetic, stiff enough, rocker+camber, great at any turn shape. Some downsides are, obviously, the very high cost, and I think the ride is a bit harsh on choppy hard pack and boilerplate, not surprising for a light/stiff ski. Their sidecut/rocker/camber/stiffness profile, while making them so good at lots of turn shapes, also makes them sensitive to input… if you ask them to do something, they do it pronto, so it helps to ask right. I think they will be more appreciated by the “ninja” style skier than by the “caveman” style skier.

  12. David B September 28th, 2012 1:32 am


    Re Ninja versus Caveman. Not an issue as the Hybrid construction is damper and silky smooth. In fact I have days where i can’t make up my mind which I prefer more the Pure or the Hybrid.

    Could be the age / ambition equation:)

  13. Woodchuck September 30th, 2012 11:56 am

    Hi – a few thoughts for forthcoming quiver reviews if I may….for those of us who prefer wide-ish tourable skis with flat or close-to-flat tails, that might be worth highlighting in one of your great tables along with weight, radius, etc. Also your expert swag on what a ski really skis like in “length equivalent” (ie adjusting for rocker, how much longer a ski will provide a similar experience to a traditional cambered ski of shorter length). Products I would welcome 2012-13 comments on in addition to your fine work on DPS, etc:
    – Kaestle TX 97 & 107
    – Kaestle FX 94 & 104
    – Atomic Charter
    – Faction Agent 90 & 100
    Thanks very much!

  14. Lou Dawson October 1st, 2012 8:39 am

    Woodchuck, we’ll keep all that in mind. Definitly doing one or two of the Kastle skis again, good ideas on the Atmomc and Faction…

    I’ll see if we can do a table this year, with tail shape and some other stuff.

    Looking forward to it. Let’s hope we have a better winter this year in Colorado, so Ultimate Quiver is a bit more fun and easier to put together.


  15. Forest October 10th, 2012 2:49 am

    Lou, a question on detuning. In the past, I have detuned tips and tails on traditional cambered skis by putting them on the bench, de-camber with a clamp, mark the contact points at tip and tail and detune any edge that wasn’t touching the bench. I have a new pair of skis on the way that are rockered tips and tails with camber underfoot (Vectors). Should I follow the same detuning procedure that I have used in the past? Obviously the detune would extend much further along the edge with the rockered skis.

  16. Winni November 14th, 2012 3:00 pm

    just bought DPS nina 99 pures. I am 5′ 6 1/2 and bought the 176 cm. Worried that they might be too long? I am older, female, skiing 50 years, no steeps and too deeps, but love the powder, groomers, spaced trees. Was skiing on 168 Elans, was recommended the longer length by DPS sales team, and also speaking to a few women from ski shops that love these skis as well.
    They were sold out last year, so wanted to grab them before they were gone. First time ever I have bought skis without a demo. My instinct tells me these skis will be very fun. I appreciate all the detuning and mounting comments.

  17. Winni November 14th, 2012 3:01 pm

    They were sold out last year, so wanted to grab them before they were gone. First time ever I have bought skis without a demo. My instinct tells me these skis will be very fun. I appreciate all the detuning and mounting comments.

    just bought DPS nina 99 pures. I am 5′ 6 1/2 and bought the 176 cm. Worried that they might be too long? I am older, female, skiing 50 years, no steeps and too deeps, but love the powder, groomers, spaced trees. Was skiing on 168 Elans, was recommended the longer length by DPS sales team, and also speaking to a few women from ski shops that love these skis as well.
    thanks, Winni

  18. DPC January 4th, 2013 12:08 pm

    I’m looking at a gently used pair of wailer 105 Pures to use as a touring rig. I’d mount with dynafit . They would replace ’07 BD Verdicts. The DPS would be a lighter ski with more waist. I’ve skied the 112’s but can’t seem to find much about the 105s. How do the 105s compare to the 112s? Specs indicate a slightly more traditional camber for the 105s w/ a longer radius and much less rise in the tip. Have you been on this ski? I’m 190 lbs and looking at the 188cm. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

  19. Shawn January 4th, 2013 10:51 pm

    I have three weeks (~12 days, resort only) on a 105 pure/st radical/tlt5 combo, and I am very happy with it. I am 165 pounds and ski the 178 cm length. They edge well, I can turn them easily in tight trees, and I can smoothly ski over surprise transitions in snow surface. I really like mine, but I’m someone who has always sacrificed downhill performance in favor of less weight. After this weekend, I’ll have an opinion about their ease of climbing/touring.

  20. Winni January 6th, 2013 2:13 am

    Just received my order of Pure DPS Nina 99’s , 176 cm, new boots were necessary, got fitted with Atomic Pros
    I am a Vintage skier, been at it for 52 years, style more finesse than aggressive,
    Need for speed, powder, carving, and the Nina blue girls delivered like Maseratis underfoot. Had the best 10 days of skiing in my life, at BigWhite, Kelowna, B.C., due to these DPS nina 99’s They make every turn in every condition, snappy with great g force carves, if you lean a little, they give back more. good in moguls, trees, groomers, didn’t get any deep powder, but untracked 6″ was blissful. Thanks to the DPS engineering team and the sales team for helping me to choose the right skis. and their poles are fantastic as well.
    The Nina 99’s make me want to take on more challenges, get more strong and fit,and achieve my skiing bucket list of deep powder cat skiing soon.

  21. Crazy Horse January 6th, 2013 10:49 am

    “Go to the Source”;

    There is another world out there apart from the commercial ski brands that sponsor death-defying cliff leapers, take out full page ski magazine ads, and have their skis built in China by people who will never have the chance to ski.

    A visit to exoticskis.com will open your mind. 307 companies crafting everything from wood skis with wood edges built by a little old man living in a tree in the Black Forest to any number of small companies that will build exactly what your heart desires. For example, Keith at Praxis (north Lake Tahoe) offers 14 different standard shapes and four flex choices that can be finished with an endless variety of topskin graphics. Want a picture of WildSnowGirl skiing powder at Valhalla on your skis, Lew? Just send in a photo!

    My current powder/junk snow weapon comes from PM Gear down the road in Reno. The Lahsa 186 Pow is an all carbon construction around a very light core. At 4.2# per ski it is virtually the same weight as the DPS 112 Wailer Pure. With a 140/112/120 profile but with a much longer and stiffer mid section running surface, bullet early rise tip, and slight pintail it is a much better match for my 240# weight and freight train momentum, but because of the light weight and tail profile is still easily maneuverable in the trees. The shape has been around for a couple of years and has recently been copied (although in a lot heavier ski) in the Dynastar Cham series that is getting rave reviews.

    In spite of the belief systems of members of the Church of DPS, the world does not end with those three letters, (LOL) and you do have the choice of supporting your local ski bums instead of companies that build their products using $1.00 per hour wage slaves.

  22. Lou Dawson January 6th, 2013 11:09 am

    A holy war between the PM Gear riders and DPS acolytes. Glad you showed up Crazy, I was wondering where all you guys were (grin) when you needed to defend yourselves.

  23. Crazy Horse January 6th, 2013 12:20 pm

    So Lou, how about an article about the world of alternative reality? I know you won’t be able to do tests, but it could be fun to confuse your readers with the variety of choices that don’t conform to what exoticskis.com somewhat pretentiously calls “mass produced skis for mass produced skiers”.

  24. Jailhouse Hopkins January 6th, 2013 12:37 pm

    As an owner of skis from both DPS and Praxis, I have no idea how to respond to this! It was great to be able to talk to Keith @ Praxis regarding my, and my wife’s purchases. Keith and other small outfits build top quality skis, but I simply have never been on a ski as fun as the 112. DPS hit a home run here.
    The reality with these small manufacturer’s is that it’s very difficult to demo their skis, so when you find one that you like, you tend to stick with them. While there is a valid argument to keep jobs in North America, my next ski is the DPS 99.

  25. Brandon February 28th, 2013 4:07 am

    Hi Lou,
    Was curious how you like the Wailer 99s in 176 cm so far? I found a pretty good deal on a pair of 176 99 Pure skis, and would like to decide on them before they’re gone. The 176 seems like it might be a tad short for this ski? I’m 5’9″ 160, what do you think based on your time on a 176?

  26. Lou Dawson February 28th, 2013 5:23 am

    Hi Brandon, they’re working well. An excellent soft-snow ski like everyone says. They’re average on hardpack, or above average if the binding is mounted a centimeter forward, but then they’re not as fun in the soft. I tried both binding positions and ended up moving the binding back to the neutral position as marked on the ski. Very good performance/weight ratio which is why you see me using them quite a bit. For a lot of skiers they’re a bit too narrow. For something wider I like the Volkl Nunataq. Black Diamond Carbon Justice is good as well. Hope that helps. Lou

  27. Brandon February 28th, 2013 10:59 am

    I am kind of moving back down in size these days, my touring setups use to consist of Megawatts and K2 Obsethed skis, both with Dynafits. Now my main ski that I have used this year is an Atomic Ultimate rando race ski with PLUM race binders. So I’m hoping and thinking that a 99 waist ski will be a nice all around size. The big skis are fun, but I just got tired of moving that much mass around when conditions are less than perfect, or firm.

    The binding location was my other concern, I will be skiing these in the backcountry on a TLT boot with a BSL of 287, and in bounds with a boot having a 297 BSL. So, one of the boots is either going to be forward or back a centimeter depending. I was thinking of mounting the binding for a neutral mount for the TLT which is probably going to be the main boot I use for this ski. That would put my beefier in bounds boot 1 cm back from neutral. Do you think that this would work well?


  28. Lou Dawson February 28th, 2013 11:22 am

    Brandon, I hear you, I really really like the “around 100” width under the foot for the majority of my touring, though wider skis have their place. Hence my quiver (grin).

    My recommendation for such fine skis is simply pick which boot will be your primary driver, then mount for that boot. Let the other one fall where it may. Trying to compromise or fool around will just result in an extra set of holes or a ski that is not living up to its potential.

    I’m sure there are other opinions on this, but the fact is that to figure out the perfect compromise between the two boots you’d have to experiment, there is no formula since every body type and style of skiing is different.


  29. Brandon February 28th, 2013 1:15 pm

    Do you think the average hard snow performance is due to the length you are using (176cm)? I am trying to decide between the 176 and 184. My old Obsethed skis were 179 and I really enjoyed that length, I’m thinking these probably have less or similar rocker.

  30. Lou Dawson February 28th, 2013 2:41 pm

    Brandon, it’s just not a hard snow carving ski, that is unless one has faith, faith that can carve mountains. I’m not a very good carver but can tell the difference between skis. This one required more faith. Lou

  31. Patrick Jackman March 3rd, 2013 6:55 pm

    I wish I had enough experience and/or pairs of skis to be able to say the 99s are only “average on hard pack”. All I can offer is that I’ve never had so much fun on groomers with a light touring ski. If I can enjoy myself as much with them in the backcountry then I’ll be sold.

  32. Daniel May 28th, 2013 3:49 am

    hi all,

    thinking wailer hybrid 99 or 112 for europe. 65% touring, 35% resort but even there seldomly on the groomers. 6’2 180lbs naked. ski would be driven by zzero4px and dynafits, of course. we do have powder over here. and also in northern norway where i spend 2 weeks every season. i have decent float with the backlashes but could do with a surfier feel. still, breakable crust and windpack should be very skiable, as well.

    if I went 99, i would probably retire my 181 backlashes. less likely with 112s. I also have 170 vector BCs. for easy tours, long aproaches and corn skiing.

    anybody from europe who can comment on possible relevant advantages of the 99 over the 112? if anything, a new ski has to be pretty versatile even on sub-standard snow, ski significantly easier than my existing gear, and tour well enough.

    and maybe anybody can comment on how 181 voile chargers would fit my bill.

    thanks in advance!

  33. Lou Dawson May 28th, 2013 5:38 am

    I’d think the 99 would be perfect, since they tour well by no being too wide for the narrower skin tracks. I’ve used a 99 over there and it worked great, though I was 100% touring… Lou

  34. Daniel May 28th, 2013 9:24 am

    lou, would you say 176 or 184 for me? guess 184 would +- resemble my 181 k2 lengthwise but ski shorter, which then more or less rueles out the 176, right?

    i don’t mind my setup to be touring specific, it more or less already is.

  35. Erik Erikson May 28th, 2013 10:04 am

    Daniel, concerning lengt: If you like the length of your 181 K2 go for the 184 wailer! A 181 K2 is almost like a 184 in other brands (though I do not know the wailer)

    I am your height but 10 pounds less weight.100 % touring, never resort skiing (always in Europe). Ride a 181 K2 wayback and a 188 K2 coomback. Most people told me not to go that long with the coomback, but I love it in 188 (except for the weight..). Seems to turn even easyer than the wayback in 181.
    So I would say from my point of viewt: Do not go to short!

  36. Brent May 28th, 2013 1:13 pm

    184 at least Daniel. No way on the 176. I’m 6’0” 170lbs and I own both, at least until I sell the 176s.

  37. Patrick Jackman May 28th, 2013 1:35 pm

    I demo’d the 184 length of the 99 Pure on-piste at Whistler this season and really enjoyed them. However I’m 5’7 and 140lbs so I fit more toward the lower end of their length range which means 168 or 176cm.

    So I have a dilemma. I’ll never be able to demo those shorter lengths in BC. Do I go with the 184 and swing around extra length in the trees that I might not need or go shorter and risk losing the hard snow performance that I experienced.

    It’s a tough decision when theses planks are over $1,000.

  38. Patrick Jackman September 29th, 2013 11:21 am

    What differences, apart from color, exist between the DPS Nina 99 Pure and the DPS Wailer 99 Pure? This guy is evaluating an opportunity to get a new pair of last year’s Ninas on sale for $899.

  39. david September 29th, 2013 12:43 pm

    Patrick, see para 2: Blistergear

  40. Patrick Jackman September 29th, 2013 3:51 pm

    Thanks David. That’s a very thorough review.

  41. Patrick Jackman September 30th, 2013 5:07 pm

    Can anyone comment on the dps Pure3 effect? In Stella Selden’s review (http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2012-2013-dps-nina-99), she concludes “the Nina 99 ski is anything but damp”. Does the 2013/14 formulation do anything to address this?

  42. Lou Dawson September 30th, 2013 7:18 pm

    Pat, I’m not sure what happened to all the DPS disciples who used to hang out here and harass me with their evangelical fervor. Strange… I guess they assume we are converts, and have gone elsewhere to find another mission field. That’s too bad, as it sounds like you are a prospect for conversion. (grin)


  43. Patrick Jackman October 1st, 2013 4:26 pm

    Seeking DPS evangelists! What can be expected from Pure3 applied to the Wailer 99’s ride? (Thanks Lou. Maybe that’ll wake up a few disciples).

  44. John October 1st, 2013 5:43 pm

    Pat poke around on the TGR forums. There are a few threads on Pure3 that might help you get a little more information. They should be in the Tech Talk area and are pretty interesting.

  45. Patrick Jackman October 1st, 2013 10:42 pm

    Thanks John. I’m finding those discussions are very helpful.

  46. Adam December 14th, 2013 11:27 am

    Hello everyone,

    I am thinking of buying a new pair of skis into my quiver – intended use 80% touring / 20% inbounds (not much on groomers), to be mounted with TLT Speed Radical and skied in Europe – mostly Austria and France.

    I am hesitating between Voile Vectors @ 180cm or DPS Wailers 99 (Hybrid) @ 184cm – unfortunately I have no chance of testing neither of the brands/models (I live in the Czech Republic).

    Perceived pluses for Voiles: weight and price
    Perceived pluses for DPS: bit wider, sidewall construction and overall brand hype 🙂

    My riding style is I believe very advanced but not overly aggressive (i.e. I do jump very very rarely and ski in moderate speeds :-))

    To make the picture complete other skis in my quiver:

    190 cm K2 Hellbent with Duke
    193 cm Scott Pure with Duke (swaping the binding using inserts)
    175 cm Scott AztecPro with Naxo/TLT Speed combo (inserts)
    170 cm Lusti (Czech garage firm) slalom carvers with alpine binding

    Anyone had a chance to test both of the skis, Lou/Daniel?

    Thanks in advance for any comments/advices!

  47. John Warner January 6th, 2014 1:03 pm

    Hi all, I am considering DPS 99 Wailers or Kastle 97 TX’s for my “go to” Europe Hut to Hut off piste ski. I am just under 6’2″, about 198lbs. and 63 years old. My issue is ski length and retaining the ability to perform steep climbing kick turns with AT skis. Over the past 10 years I have acquired the habit of buying 177-178cm skis to accomodate my age. However, I fear that I am missing out on stability and skiability at these shorter lengths. Any thoughts out there? Thanks.

  48. Lou Dawson January 6th, 2014 1:24 pm

    John, a 178 isn’t all that short, though at your size I’d think you would indeed be best with the next size up in a rockered ski such as Wailer, though I’d stick with the 178 in a non-rockered ski. But if you are handling things on the 178s, I’d say you’re fine with them. This would seem to be a case where a demo could answer your question in just a few minutes. Also, don’t let your imagination run wild with concepts like “stability.” I mean, are you straightlining at 60mph with a helmet camera and a signed contract from TGR? Or heading down from a hut, enjoying the view?


  49. John Warner January 6th, 2014 4:07 pm

    Thanks for the quick reply Lou. You are correct, my straightlining days are long gone. I have been on 178 SkiTrab Stelvio XLs for several years and they have served me well. I demo’d the 177 Kastle TX97 yesterday in some unconsolidated 10″ new backcountry powder. The slope was about 20 degrees. The Kastle’s worked better than my Trabs, but still required some back seat skiing to keep the tips up. Maybe I should take some Yoga classes, improve my flexibility, and get the 184 DPS Wailer 99s? Thanks for your thoughts. John

  50. Daniel February 17th, 2014 8:21 am

    hi Lou

    did you mount your wailer 99s on the line?

    do they measure short or long for the stated size?

    and, for primarily AT and bearing in mind that I have a Huascaran for deep days, would you suggest 176 or 184? I have confessed elsewhere here that I like 174 K2s for touring. Would a 176 W99 ski stupid short in comparison or provide inadequate platform for me (6’2 175, short legs)


  51. Lou Dawson February 17th, 2014 9:19 am

    Daniel, I mounted them on the line but wouldn’t mind being one step forward, they make perfect turns in open terrain but I wouldn’t mind a quicker feeling when I want to make tighter turns that are more old school. At your height I’d think you’d want the 184, using a ski such as Wailer in too short a length defeats the purpose of such a ski.

    My 176 cm Wailers measure 175 cm cord length. Unrolled length is 176.5 cm


  52. John Warner February 17th, 2014 9:30 am

    I demo’ed the 176 cm Wailer 99’s for 5-6 days. I liked them, but at 6’2″ and 200 lbs. I decided to buy the 184 cm Wailer 99’s for climbing and skiing. I practiced my climbing kick turns with the 184’s and perhaps because of the double rocker, I can manage fine. Thanks for your insight.

  53. Andy M. March 12th, 2014 2:57 pm

    I’m considering getting a pair of 99 Pures for Tahoe backcountry. I spoke to Andrew at DPS today, and he thinks that it’s a good ski for what I want to do, but the length is a bit questionable. I’m 5′-10″, <155 lbs nekkid. I'm currently skiing 174cm K2 Backdrops (flat tail) and previously had 179cm K2 Obsethed (double rocker). He thinks the 176cm would probably be right, but possibly go up to the 184. Any thoughts? My gut is for the amount of tree skiing I do and my height/weight that 176cm is the answer.

  54. John Warner March 12th, 2014 3:31 pm

    I think the 176’s would be great for you. I skied them at Jackson Hole Resort.on hard pack then in 10″ new on the north side of Shadow Peak into Garnet Canyon and they were a little short for me. I am 6’2″ and 200 lbs. The 184’s suit me fine. I am taking them to Europe for a hut to hut trip in a few weeks, and I just used the 184’s in Washington backcountry powder in trees and out. I have not used them at my local Colorado ski area yet, but I plan to this weekend. Good luck with your decision.

  55. Jim March 12th, 2014 6:31 pm

    I have the RP112 pure, 178. I’m 5-5 160. Boot 26 Great pow ski. They ski “short” for their length. I mounted them mid point 0 and they sucked, did not work on hardpack, just slid, and in pow had to be waay forward and very hard to turn and threw you back in turns and lost control. Moved to +2, and they were transformed into fantastic skis, easy turning and float in pow, and carved piste. Hard to believe such a big difference. DPS website says short boots, and neutral racing stance benefits from forward mount. Dealer didn’t know squat about this. Guide from Revelstoke says all the guys there are mounting +2. Highly recommended. Web reviews don’t really critique them well. They’re pow skis. On piste, they wander at speed due to low soft camber.

  56. XXX_er March 13th, 2014 9:59 am

    5′ 8″ 160lb size 24 boot

    I mounted my carbon 184 112’s at +2 with demo alpine bindings that allowed moving boot center, at +6 they felt a little unbalanced upon landing sideways but still skied fine in pow, -2 felt like a boat that didn’t want to get up on plane, I ended up liking +4 so IME … ya go forward

    This season I am really liking last years 184 hybrid (red) lotus 120’s mounted +1 with Dynafits, in spite of the huge advertised 45M turning radius of the lotus 120 the pintail design also makes tight turns anywhere I want

    haven’t tried the 99’s

  57. Daniel March 13th, 2014 10:43 am

    are you talking centimeters or inches? always thought cm but maybe I’m wrong

  58. Lou Dawson March 13th, 2014 10:57 am


  59. Lou Dawson 2 October 22nd, 2014 6:51 am

    I just got an email from a reader (thanks!) who weighed his Wailer 99 Pure 3, 176 cm, and came up with a heavier weight than the Wailers I reviewed above.

    My recorded weight is 52.3 ounces, 1482 grams per ski.

    His weight is 56.1 ounces 1592 grams per ski.

    That is a huge difference of nearly 4 ounces per ski!

    I checked with DPS. What I failed to work into the review is that my Wailers are Pure2, lighter weight, while the current Wailer 99 is the Pure3, several ounces heavier.

    I’ll work this into the weight chart and review. Lots going on here, definitely a bit too much on my plate.


  60. Fredrik November 10th, 2015 7:53 am


    I have DPS wailler 112 190cm with dynafit beast 14 for deep powder and lift accessed back country. Love the skiis…

    Considering DPS wailler 99 pure 3 176cm as complement for longer backcountry skiing e.g lyngen, hut to hut, houte route etc. Do you believe they are tow wide and heavy, or will they be fine?

    Regards Fredrik

  61. Fredrik November 10th, 2015 7:54 am


    By the way I am 183 cm long and my weith is 84 kilograms.

    Regards Fredrik

  62. John Warner November 10th, 2015 8:35 am

    Hi Fredrik,
    The Wailer 99’s work fine on Hut to Hut tours or European high routes. I have taken them to Europe twice and numerous hut trips in Colorado. I am 6 feet 2 inches tall (189 cm) and weigh 195 ibs.(88kg). I had a pair of 184cm Wailers and 176cm Wailers and preferred the 176 wailers because they were easier to do kick turns when climbing steep hard or icy terrain in Europe. I’m 64 years old, so I’m not as flexible as I used to be. Interestingly, I sold both pairs of 99 Wailers and bought a pair of Voile V6 (183cm) and much prefer them over the Wailer 99s. I have had Dynafit Radical ST bindings on all three pairs of skis. Hope this is helpful. John.

  63. Lou Dawson 2 November 10th, 2015 9:08 am

    Fredrik, that’s one of my all-time favorite powder touring skis. They’ll do fine. But yes the Voile V6 is awesome as well. Hard choices! In a rockered ski you usually want to go more with your body height for length, but the shorter version will indeed save some weight and be easier on the uphill for touring. Lou

  64. Pete November 18th, 2015 5:34 pm


    I’m looking at a wailer 99 pure 3 primarily for a weeks touring for turns in Lofoten, Norway and then my do it all for touring / resort at home (Scotland) and Europe. Looked at the 112 but think a bit much for pushing uphill. I’m 140 lbs and 5’6″ tall, and torn between the 168 and 176 lengths. I’m not the most powerful skier but push hard enough. My current 176 Helixes are great in the open, but sometimes feel a bit cumbersome in trees / narrow sections, but they’re essentially trad camber (‘early rise’ but nothing I can see / notice really). I’d really appreciate any length advice anyone could give.

  65. Lou Dawson 2 November 19th, 2015 7:08 am

    Hi Pete, you are 167.64 centimeters tall? That does mean a 176 cm ski is “long.” For a touring ski, rockered, I’d go with your height, so you’d thus get the 168. Hope that helps. Lou

  66. Pete November 19th, 2015 12:03 pm

    Thanks Lou – that’s really helpful. 168 it is !

  Your Comments

  Recent Posts

Facebook Twitter Email Instagram Youtube

WildSnow Twitter Feed


  • Blogroll & Links

  • Welcome to Louis (Lou) Dawson's backcountry skiing information & opinion website. Lou's passion for the past 50 years has been alpinism, climbing, mountaineering and skiing -- along with all manner of outdoor recreation. He has authored numerous books and articles about ski touring and is well known as the first person to ski down all 54 of Colorado's 14,000-foot peaks, otherwise known as the Fourteeners! Books and free ski touring news and information here.

    All material on this website is copyrighted, the name WildSnow is trademarked, permission required for reproduction (electronic or otherwise) and display on other websites. PLEASE SEE OUR COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK INFORMATION.

    We include "affiliate sales" links with most of our blog posts. This means we receive a percentage of a sale if you click over from our site (at no cost to you). None of our affiliate commission links are direct relationships with specific gear companies or shopping carts, instead we remain removed by using a third party who manages all our affiliate sales and relationships. We also sell display "banner" advertising, in this case our relationships are closer to the companies who advertise, but our display advertising income is carefully separated financially and editorially from our blog content, over which we always maintain 100% editorial control -- we make this clear during every advertising deal we work out. Please also notice we do the occasional "sponsored" post, these are under similar financial arrangements as our banner advertising, only the banner or other type of reference to a company are included in the blog post, simply to show they provided financial support to WildSnow.com and provide them with advertising in return. Unlike most other "sponsored content" you find on the internet, our sponsored posts are entirely under our editorial control and created by WildSnow specific writers.See our full disclosures here.

    Backcountry skiing is dangerous. You may be killed or severely injured if you do any form of ski mountaineering, skimo randonnee and randonnée skiing. The information and news on this website is intended only as general information. Due to human error and passing time, the information, text and images contained within this website may be inaccurate, false, or out-of-date. By using, reading or viewing the information provided on this website, you agree to absolve the owners of Wild Snow as well as content contributors of any liability for injuries or losses incurred while using such information. Furthermore, you agree to use any of this website's information, maps, photos, or binding mounting instructions templates at your own risk, and waive Wild Snow owners and contributors of liability for use of said items for ski touring or any other use.

    Switch To Mobile Version