# Did the shop steer me wrong?



## BackLoafRiver (Nov 11, 2013)

I know there is a good chance I am going to regret posting this but, here goes.

In case you missed it, I pulled the trigger on some DPS wailers. 112 hybrid.

I demoed them in a 178 last season and liked them. A lot. (obviously as I bought them)  When I called the shop, we got in to talking about length. I mentioned that my TST's felt too short by a bit in a 174.  Their suggestion was to go with a 184. After a lot of chatting about it, we went with it.

Now, I am scared that it is waaaay too much ski for me and I am totally screwed.  

Thoughts?


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 11, 2013)

That is a pretty rockered ski, right?  If so, that may not feel too much longer.


----------



## BackLoafRiver (Nov 11, 2013)

Yup.

http://blistergearreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Wailer-112-twin1.jpg


----------



## wa-loaf (Nov 11, 2013)

You'll be fine!


----------



## Riverskier (Nov 11, 2013)

I don't have any insight, but am a little perplexed why you would demo and love (enough to buy) the 178, but then blindly decide on a longer length. Did you demo the TST's in a 174, like them, and then determine later that they were too short? That could certainly explain your rationale this time around. Anyway, I hope it works out for you.


----------



## bigbog (Nov 11, 2013)

Ditto wa-loaf....


----------



## snoseek (Nov 11, 2013)

I think you'll be happy with the longer length. I jumped up about 10cm with rockered skis also and am fine with that. Not to mention that you'll likely be using these on deeper days and length is just as important as width for flotation IMO.


----------



## Cannonball (Nov 11, 2013)

An extra 2.3" spread between the tip and tail of a 6' of ski with a significant rocker? I can't imagine that you'll notice it much at all.


----------



## BackLoafRiver (Nov 11, 2013)

Sarcasm?


----------



## Cannonball (Nov 11, 2013)

No, not at all. Just echoing what others are saying.  It's a small amount that you won't notice much.


----------



## Puck it (Nov 12, 2013)

Not a problem.  I wish I had listened to the ski logic owner and went longer on my full rocker which are 178.


----------



## Glenn (Nov 13, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> An extra 2.3" spread between the tip and tail of a 6' of ski with a significant rocker? I can't imagine that you'll notice it much at all.



x2.


----------



## BackLoafRiver (Nov 14, 2013)

Thanks for the replies all.  Do you guys ever worry about negotiating something that long in the woods?


----------



## Cannonball (Nov 14, 2013)

^ yes I worry about it.  But it doesn't stop me.  My primary ski is 187cm, 115mm underfoot and I'm a dedicated tree-monkey.  

But with that said, I'm much happier when I'm on a 163 snowboard in the trees.


----------



## Puck it (Nov 14, 2013)

BackLoafRiver said:


> Thanks for the replies all.  Do you guys ever worry about negotiating something that long in the woods?




I would not worry.  Like I said, I wish I went with the 185cm in my SkiLogik's. Yours are only a little under 3" longer than the 178cm's.  You may have to get use to them but they will ski fine in the trees.


----------



## Edd (Nov 14, 2013)

If you want to feel really good about the purchase just ask the same question on Epicski. No ski is ever long enough.


----------



## ScottySkis (Nov 17, 2013)

Potterbrothers is a great shops.


----------



## wa-loaf (Nov 18, 2013)

Did you ski them yet?


----------



## BackLoafRiver (Nov 18, 2013)

No.

I called the shop and they said that they were going to mount a pair in the same size that i could demo. If I didn't like the length, they would work with me. **Edit - the only nab is that I have to wait for snow...it could be 2 months**

On a random happen stance, I bumped into the shop owner on the chair at SR this past weekend. He was fairly adamant that I was a prime candidate for the 184. I don't know why I am so skeptical.  The coverage was so good on Saturday that I wished I could get them out. (especially later in the day when it was spring bumps 101)


----------



## Bene288 (Nov 18, 2013)

That ski is pretty rockered. I don't think the extra length will get in your way. Even though it's longer it doesn't look like it'll hook you the wrong way due to the rise. 

I ski a 186 with much less rocker, the only thing that SOMETIMES gets in the way while skiing the woods are the tails. However I believe the shop mounted them a little too forward, so there is more behind the ski behind than there could be. You'll be good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## planb420 (Nov 18, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> But with that said, I'm much happier when I'm on a 163 snowboard in the trees.



Damn 163 seems big to me (a full time boarder) I love my 146 NUG to navigate the tight trees...I bet its quite a sight bombing through on that! I have a buddy who is 6'10" and rides a huge board but wont follow us into the woods since its so bit, hopefully I can use this to get him into the wood this year!!!


----------



## Cannonball (Nov 18, 2013)

planb420 said:


> Damn 163 seems big to me (a full time boarder) I love my 146 NUG to navigate the tight trees...I bet its quite a sight bombing through on that! I have a buddy who is 6'10" and rides a huge board but wont follow us into the woods since its so bit, hopefully I can use this to get him into the wood this year!!!



I guess it's just what you're used to.  I've been riding boards 161-165 for almost 20 years.  And I've been skiing/riding dense New Hampshire trees for even longer.  I have a size 11 boot and weigh 180.  I have a hard time imagining myself on anything narrower or shorter.  But I do sometimes think it would fun to play in the woods on a rockered 150-something.

Heck, my wife rides a 161.


----------



## BackLoafRiver (Apr 19, 2014)

Bumping an old thread for some feedback:

I've logged a bunch of days on the 112s and the verdict is still out. 

I have noticed lately that I feel like they are putting me in the back seat. 

For instance, I've started a handful of days on them recently only to realize that I'd prefer my bonafides. When I make the switch, it's almost as if it takes me a run or two to figure out how to ski again. One of my skis always feels like it is way out in front of me (in this case my right ski) I feel out of control and my weight is clearly distributed poorly. 

I don't know if it's a facet if poor technique or an indication that the ski is too long. I don't know. Maybe I just haven't figured them out??

They carve pretty damned well and float is good. I wish I could figure out how to get them dialed in.  

Thoughts?


----------



## Edd (Apr 19, 2014)

How long are the Bonafides for comparison? Also, are the Wailer bindings mounted on the line or forward or back?


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## BackLoafRiver (Apr 19, 2014)

Bones are 173  both mounted factory recommended center 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile a


----------



## Edd (Apr 20, 2014)

Also, are these Bonafides a recent version with tip and tail rocker?  If so, at 173 I imagine that is a short turning ski.

I can only offer a recent experience which isn't quite apples to apples.  I typically ski a 170 Kendo (older version, no rocker).  I won't say it skis long but it certainly does not ski short.

I also ski 174 K2 Hardsides with tip rocker.  K2 measures differently than Volkl and, by the eye, they look identical in length to a 177 Kendo or Mantra.  As far as turning ease goes, they're very close to my 170 Kendo.

I recently skied a 180 Brahma, with tip and tail rocker, identical in construction to the Bonafides, just with a skinnier waist.  Those were an absolute delight to ski, and turned easier than the skis above.

Also tried the Soul 7s in a 180, also with rocker.  They were slightly less easy to turn than the Brahmas but I would definitely buy this ski in that length.

I recently skied a Kastle FX 104 in a 184 (I said 182 in a recent TR, but I was wrong).  No rocker in those bad boys.  Good float and a smooth ride but, when I wasn't skiing the pow and was on packed down trails, I found them a bear to turn.  No way would I buy that ski in that length.

I'm 5'11", 175 lbs.  Not a terribly helpful post from me but just giving you my perspective.  I see folks out there on skis I feel are too long.  You could just need more time on them or maybe they just aren't your cup of tea.


----------



## BackLoafRiver (Apr 20, 2014)

Yeah, they are this years bonafide. 

I think I need a few days of lessons on both. Until this year, my daily driver was a 170 mantra with no rocker. Over the past few years, it's battle scars started to show and I decided it was time for something new, relegating them to the early/late season ski. 

I demoed the crap out of the bonafides and the brahmas in both the 173 and 180 length. For me, I felt more comfortable on the the 173 bone. My feet liked the 98 under foot. 

The 112s are a different beast. They are fairly effortless to turn however I can't tell if that's because I am skiing them wrong or not. Again, I think what it boils down to is having a professional see me ski and determine if I am in fact changing my body position when I ski them. 

Your post was indeed helpful. Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile a


----------



## Savemeasammy (Apr 20, 2014)

I am 5'9" and I use a fully-cambered 175 ski.  My theory on rocker is that it only skis shorter when you are going straight, and that when you put it on edge, it will still ski true to length (I'm sure there will be disagreement on this!).  Do you feel like you are in control when you are turning, but less-so going straight (particularly on hardpack)?


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## bigbog (Apr 20, 2014)

Maybe when you settle back a little...that increased area up front, in effect, puts you a little more towards the backseat?  I'm saying "Maybe" cause..sadly not experienced Yet....but will next winter.  With a lot of open space, ie Rocky Mtns, ..on YouTube one sees a LOT of tail-riding...thus they usually *pivot-&-skid* their way down....not being able to turn until a hockey stop saves from collisions.


----------

