Great work Will and team. I’ve been eagerly awaiting this update, as I love my 112RP Pures, but find that they “melt” a bit on me at higher speeds (too soft in the forebody) and aren’t damp enough for the kinds of set-up crud common to PNW resorts. It’s a dream machine for touring and most resort powder days, but for everything else, the Katana gets the call. I had hoped that the RPC could be something between the two: much more conducive to inbounds charging than the 112, while dropping a decent amount of weight from the Katana. Sounds like we’re not quite there.
Here’s the question: is it your opinion that no amount of technology will overcome the lack of dampness that comes when a ski is as light as an RPC? Even the third SS strip doesn’t appear to have solved the dampness issue. This question rekindled in my head when whispers of a new Pure formulation came out of OR. A heavier, but damper pure would be right up my alley assuming the shape works. I know there’s the hybrid route and the every ski is a compromise to one degree or another, but I doubt I’m alone in thinking “if only my Pures were 25% damper, they’d be perfect,” even if that came at the expense of 25% more weight. After all, DPS employees themselves have been fond of saying that the low weight of the Pures is simply a happy byproduct of using the best-skiing materials, as opposed to a means to an end. If so, a heavier, damper version of the construction for an inbounds ski seems appropriate if feasible from a market perspective. I’ll probably always tour on the pure flavor we have now, but for lifts….
Hey Andy, funny you ask. I was just chatting with Jonathan at sia, yesterday about the new pure3.
It has an entirely new laminate, and rides differently. Jonathan will be posting a direct pure2 vs pure3 review on the rpc in the coming several weeks.
I will refrain from posting my opinion, as I am the sales manager of Dps after all.
Will,
How do you compare the DPS RPC groomer performance to that of the 190 bibby, 191 on3p billy goat and Praxis Concept?
Hi Chicken,
The Bibby doesn’t have the tenacious edge hold of the RPC, and feels a little heavier moving from edge to edge (for its width, though, you can rail the Bibby pretty well on some semi-soft groomers). It also requires a bit more of a centered stance than the RPC, which you can really lean on in a race-style carve. I haven’t skied the 191 BillyGoat for a while now, and I do know ON3P is changing that ski significantly for next season. But, the 11/12 version that I skied a while back didn’t seem to have the edge hold of the RPC, and felt more sluggish across the board (really, given the light weight of the RPC, pretty much anything in the same 115mm class will). However, the Billy Goat does MUCH better charging through chop/crud as a result. Unfortunately I haven’t skied the Concept. Hope this helps you – let me know if there are some other specifics you’re wondering about.
WB
Here is my take in the 112RP and the 112RPC. First DPS and frankly Blister didn’t do the RPC any favors by using the 112RP connection ( which you both keep doing) or testing a untuned ski (knowingly or not) and writing a review on it. Your review kept me off the RPC for most of the season. So much for trusting any review and I should know better! I still don’t agree with the majority of what you have said here about the RPC. A few knowlegable guys have started calling the RPC a *115 Lotus* which is likely a better comparison and name for the ski IMO. My take is the 112RP is a ‘beginners’ ski. The ski for the guy who never learned to ski powder on a traditional pair of sticks. The RPC is for a strong, mature skier who does know the value of a tortionally stiff ski. The RPC is simply the most versital LWT big mtn ski I have ridden. It is that good imo.
Easy to take swings at what I think is a bad review. Harder to write a good review and test so much gear. That I appreciate as well as Blister’s efforst and contribution to the copmmunity. You guys don’t miss much. But on the RPC I think you missed a lot. I just wish I hadn’t waited so long to get on the RPC :- )
This is a seriously strange post. In our reviews of the RPC, Will and I both highlight the impressive performance of the RPC because of it’s torsional rigidity. But whatever, glad you like the ski and find it to be exceptionally versatile.
Great work Will and team. I’ve been eagerly awaiting this update, as I love my 112RP Pures, but find that they “melt” a bit on me at higher speeds (too soft in the forebody) and aren’t damp enough for the kinds of set-up crud common to PNW resorts. It’s a dream machine for touring and most resort powder days, but for everything else, the Katana gets the call. I had hoped that the RPC could be something between the two: much more conducive to inbounds charging than the 112, while dropping a decent amount of weight from the Katana. Sounds like we’re not quite there.
Here’s the question: is it your opinion that no amount of technology will overcome the lack of dampness that comes when a ski is as light as an RPC? Even the third SS strip doesn’t appear to have solved the dampness issue. This question rekindled in my head when whispers of a new Pure formulation came out of OR. A heavier, but damper pure would be right up my alley assuming the shape works. I know there’s the hybrid route and the every ski is a compromise to one degree or another, but I doubt I’m alone in thinking “if only my Pures were 25% damper, they’d be perfect,” even if that came at the expense of 25% more weight. After all, DPS employees themselves have been fond of saying that the low weight of the Pures is simply a happy byproduct of using the best-skiing materials, as opposed to a means to an end. If so, a heavier, damper version of the construction for an inbounds ski seems appropriate if feasible from a market perspective. I’ll probably always tour on the pure flavor we have now, but for lifts….
Hey Andy, funny you ask. I was just chatting with Jonathan at sia, yesterday about the new pure3.
It has an entirely new laminate, and rides differently. Jonathan will be posting a direct pure2 vs pure3 review on the rpc in the coming several weeks.
I will refrain from posting my opinion, as I am the sales manager of Dps after all.
Will,
How do you compare the DPS RPC groomer performance to that of the 190 bibby, 191 on3p billy goat and Praxis Concept?
Hi Chicken,
The Bibby doesn’t have the tenacious edge hold of the RPC, and feels a little heavier moving from edge to edge (for its width, though, you can rail the Bibby pretty well on some semi-soft groomers). It also requires a bit more of a centered stance than the RPC, which you can really lean on in a race-style carve. I haven’t skied the 191 BillyGoat for a while now, and I do know ON3P is changing that ski significantly for next season. But, the 11/12 version that I skied a while back didn’t seem to have the edge hold of the RPC, and felt more sluggish across the board (really, given the light weight of the RPC, pretty much anything in the same 115mm class will). However, the Billy Goat does MUCH better charging through chop/crud as a result. Unfortunately I haven’t skied the Concept. Hope this helps you – let me know if there are some other specifics you’re wondering about.
WB
Here is my take in the 112RP and the 112RPC. First DPS and frankly Blister didn’t do the RPC any favors by using the 112RP connection ( which you both keep doing) or testing a untuned ski (knowingly or not) and writing a review on it. Your review kept me off the RPC for most of the season. So much for trusting any review and I should know better! I still don’t agree with the majority of what you have said here about the RPC. A few knowlegable guys have started calling the RPC a *115 Lotus* which is likely a better comparison and name for the ski IMO. My take is the 112RP is a ‘beginners’ ski. The ski for the guy who never learned to ski powder on a traditional pair of sticks. The RPC is for a strong, mature skier who does know the value of a tortionally stiff ski. The RPC is simply the most versital LWT big mtn ski I have ridden. It is that good imo.
Easy to take swings at what I think is a bad review. Harder to write a good review and test so much gear. That I appreciate as well as Blister’s efforst and contribution to the copmmunity. You guys don’t miss much. But on the RPC I think you missed a lot. I just wish I hadn’t waited so long to get on the RPC :- )
This is a seriously strange post. In our reviews of the RPC, Will and I both highlight the impressive performance of the RPC because of it’s torsional rigidity. But whatever, glad you like the ski and find it to be exceptionally versatile.