2020-2021 DPS Alchemist Lotus 124 Spoon

Paul Forward reviews the DPS Lotus 124 alchemist Spoon for blister Gear Review.
DPS Lotus 124 Alchemist Spoon, 17/18 Graphics

Ski: 2020-2021 DPS Lotus Alchemist 124 Spoon, 191 cm

Available Lengths: 178 cm, 185 cm, 191 cm

Blister’s Measured Tip-to-Tail Length: 189.5 cm

Blister’s Measured Weight per Ski: 2149 & 2158 grams

Stated Dimensions: 149-124-136 mm

Blister’s Measured Dimensions: 153-124-135 mm

Stated Sidecut Radius: 23 meters

Tip & Tail Splay (ski decambered): 74 mm / 33 mm

Traditional Camber Underfoot: ~4 mm

Core: Alchemist construction

Base: “fastest and hardest world cup base”

Factory Recommended Mount Point: -7.75 cm from center; 87 cm from tail

Blister’s Recommended Mount Point: -7.75 cm from center; 87 cm from tail

Days Skied 20+

Boots (size 27.5): Head Raptor 140 RS; 17/18 Salomon X-Max 130; Lange XT 130

Bindings: Salomon STH2 WTR 16

Test Locations: Alyeska Resort & Chugach Powder Guides, AK

[Note: Our review was conducted on the 17/18 Alchemist Lotus 124 Spoon, which was reportedly not changed for 18/19, 19/20, or 20/21 apart from it no longer having a “spooned” tip and a shape change on the shorter lengths to make them the same as the 191 cm version we reviewed.]

When I wrote my Flash Review of the DPS Lotus Alchemist 124 Spoon back in February, we had just had a great cycle of storms, and I was looking forward to getting back in the helicopter. What I didn’t realize at that time was that shortly thereafter, southcentral Alaska would fall under an extended blocking high-pressure system for almost five weeks. So during that time, I heli ski guided at Chugach Powder Guides for over 30 days, and the majority of that time was on the DPS Lotus A (for “Alchemist”) 124 Spoon.

Conditions ranged from thigh-deep, low-density powder; wind crust; recycled / faceted powder; a little hot pow; and quite a bit of perfect, superhero Chugach powder. Overall, it was ideal testing conditions for a ski like the Lotus A 124 Spoon, and I occasionally swapped out the ski for the 193 cm Volkl Confession, 196 cm Volkl 3, 192 cm DPS Lotus 138 Spoon, 192 cm Liberty Schuster Pro, and over the last few days, some resort powder skiing at Alyeska resort on the 16/17 Blizzard Spur and the Salomon QST 118.

I’ll be making some comparisons to those skis here, but will save a lot of the direct comparison work for an upcoming Deep Dive article. (Till then, however, you might check out the latest Blister Podcast episode on powder skis, where Jonathan Ellsworth and I talk about all of the skis that I’ve just mentioned and more.)


I’ll admit that I was biased against the Lotus Alchemist 124 Spoon when it arrived last month. I’ve written a lot about (and really love) the DPS Lotus 138, and I’ve enjoyed the various iterations of the DPS Lotus 120, too. Much of what I appreciated about those skis was that they were designed to be almost uncompromising powder tools.

When DPS announced the Lotus 124 Spoon, they emphasized the versatility of the shape and even alluded to having incorporated design elements from their Wailer 112, a ski that is not a personal favorite of mine (though it’s certainly a favorite of a lot of people out there). So I expected to write about the Lotus A 124 that DPS had compromised their deep-powder heritage to create an easy-going resort powder ski that sacrifices powder performance. But based on the last month of riding the Lotus A 124 Spoon in all types of powder conditions, I can say that this is not the case.

Paul Forward reviews the DPS Lotus 124 alchemist Spoon for blister Gear Review.
Paul Forward on the DPS Lotus Alchemist 124 Spoon, Chugach powder Guides, AK. (photo by Adam Clark)

Pretty much any fat ski is fun in deep, soft snow, but a really good powder ski allows for higher speeds and increased control, while the truly great ones give the skier an increased level of creativity across the fall line. And in the best conditions, the Lotus Alchemist 124 Spoon is exceptional.

Even at relatively low speeds, the 124 immediately starts to feel loose with easy, intuitive skids, turns, and pivots. Letting them run a little, however, allows for quick planing to the surface and, like their DPS predecessors, an exceptionally fun surfy, ride.

When laying the skis over and committing to higher-edge-angle powder turns, the 124 Spoon feels less supportive than fatter skis like the DPS Lotus 138, and feels a little less stable than the 16/17 Blizzard Spur. But compared to both of those skis, the Lotus A 124 Spoon generates more energy out of the carve, allowing for more dynamic turn transitions.

Drifting / Slarving Turns

Rolling the Lotus A 124 off edge and allowing it to break free into a slarved turn also takes more effort than the Lotus 138, but the powder-surfing heritage of the 138 is apparent in the 124, which still produces a very balanced, predictable slarve.

Often, especially in big, steep or convex Alaskan terrain, it’s essential to be able to throw your skis sideways and powerslide or drift long distances to avoid obstacles, set-up for a feature or another turn, or sometimes just because it’s super fun. The Lotus A 124 is one of the more intuitive traditionally-shaped skis I’ve ridden in this regard.

Paul Forward reviews the DPS Lotus 124 alchemist Spoon for blister Gear Review.
Paul Forward on the DPS Lotus 124 Spoon, Chugach powder Guides, AK. (photo by Adam Clark)

I attribute some of this to the balanced feel of the Lotus 124, its tip taper, and maybe a tiny bit because of the spooned tip (more on that later). But I can’t totally put my finger on the design elements that allow for this ski to drift as well as it does. I usually associate being loose across the fall line with more heavily rockered and tapered skis (like the Salomon Rocker 2 122 and QST 118) or more specialized reverse/reverse powder shapes; not skis like the Lotus A 124 with its camber underfoot and relatively flat and strong tail.

On most skis shaped like the Lotus 124, there is noticeable resistance to the drift from the tail of the ski engaging. Again, I’m not sure how the 124 is different, but it sure is fun to throw them sideways and almost weightlessly drift over rollovers. This is also a super important attribute of a ski for big Alaskan terrain where it’s often imperative to slide down a ridge or spine, controlling speed and staying out of big sluffs. I had the pleasure of riding some very fun, steep lines over the past month, and I’ve quickly made the Lotus A 124 my go-to ski for the biggest days.

NEXT: Light Powder on a Firm Layer, Shallow Powder & Soft Variable Conditions, Etc.

50 comments on “2020-2021 DPS Alchemist Lotus 124 Spoon”

  1. Great review. How would you compare it to the 186 BMT 122? Would it make sense to put regular bindings on the BMT 122 and use it as a heliski / soft snow ski for a lighter skier (5’10” / 155lbs)? Thanks

  2. Thanks for the review Paul. Given how much you loved the 138’s (be great if you could do a review of the updated spoon version btw), do you now favour the 124’s over the 138’s on a pow day, or just if conditions are more variable?

  3. I had a similar question, but the reverse. Would you recommend the Lotus 124 as a touring ski with AT bindings? In such a configuration how would you compare it to the Volkl BMT 122?

    • Hi Brian and jnge, Thanks for reading.

      Big picture: the DPS is a more robust ski and will do better in hard snow, inbounds snow, and variable snow. The BMT is a great ski, but definitely does best in powder and gets knocked around a bit more inbounds. That said, I was just talking today with one of the other guides about putting a pair of Jester’s on some BMT 122’s that we have in the hangar at CPG to use them as Heli skis. I don’t think I’m going to get to do that, but I do think they’d be plenty fun as a Heli ski, a little less so as an inbounds ski. But they’d be fine unless you’re the kind of person who wants to charge hard all day at the resort, even after the powder is tracked up, in which case you’d get some deflection and might be wishing for something more stable. Come up to Chugach Powder Guides for a Heli day and I’ll loan you my BMT 122’s with Kingpin demos for some awesome April pow skiing ;-)

      Regarding the 124 as a touring ski, I’d say go for it! As long as you don’t mind touring on a 2150g ski, the performance will be excellent. I’d probably opt for a stiffer boot like the MTN Lab or Zero G so you can take best advantage of this ski. Otherwise, I think it’d be a blast. I emailed DPS and asked them if they’ll ever make a Tour1 version in the 191 cm. I’d love a pair, but it doesn’t sound like that’s in the works at this time, and it’s hard for me to imagine wanting anything shorter than the 191.

      • A 191 Tour 1 version of the Lotus would be great. DPS never builds their skis in the longer lengths in Tour 1. Given a choice though between a 185 Tour 1 Lotus 124 and a 186 Volkl BMT, which would you choose? That seems to be my dilemma right now. I know you haven’t skied the Tour 1, but your comments on DPS making a 191 Tour 1 version make me curious. The shape would be the same as the 191 you reviewed, if not the build, so it would be an interesting comparison to the BMT 122. Not many people have skied the Tour 1version and it is only available in a 185, but I think I would be more inclined to be wanting to use it as a powder touring ski. You thought the BMT was pretty great in that role.

        • Hey Brian, I’ve been guiding big and technical terrain in great pow with 124’s every day for the last week again. Such a great ski. They are my favorite overall ski of 2017. That said, I’d be surprised if I found them to be as confidence inspiring in the 185, at least at my size (6′, 193lbs) and with guide pack. The BMT 122 is excellent for pow touring and I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend them so that would be suggestion to you at this time. I’m hoping to try the Tour1 124 in 185cm and, if a pair shows up here, will get that review up promptly. Thanks for reading. Paul

    • Hi Davyn, I have skied the 196cm Protest quite a bit. The Protest is definitely more powder specific and is a great ski but less versatile when the snow gets firm. For super deep pow I’d take the Protest (or the 138 Spoon), but for every day pow riding where I’m not 100% what I’m going to get throughout a run, I’ll go for the 124.

  4. Thanks for another great review. I am looking for a dedicated powder ski for a heli trip in northern British Columbia and cat skiing in Grand Targhee. If I can use it for resort powder days as well, great, but that is not my main concern. I had pretty much decided on the 192cm Lotus 138 Spoon, but reading your review makes me wonder if I should consider the 191cm A124 instead. I am 6”1” 160lbs. I’m not a super hard charger, so I’m less concerned with how it handles at high speed or on super steep terrain, and more interested in it being fun and surfy at moderate speeds and also reasonably quick and easy to turn in the trees. Any thoughts/guidance would be appreciated!

    • Hi David, Just saw your comments while I was catching up on some other questions. Sorry for the delay. I think you’ll be stoked on either ski but the 138 is pretty hard to be beat if you’re skiing consistent pow. If I go to Japan again this year there’s no way I’m not taking the 138 or something similarly “reverse/reverse” in shape. The 124 is super fun in pow and definitely more versatile but is much closer to a traditional powder ski vs the “spatula” like feel of the 138. Not everyone gets on immediately with the spatula shaped skis but those who do don’t want to be on anything else in deep pow. For North American resort skiing I’d definitely go 124 but for what you’re describing the 138 will be pretty freaking awesome.

  5. Paul, I purchased a pair of Magnum Opus last year based on Blister’s review and really had a blast with them. I’m 6″2 230 lbs and found the Opus to be a great all around powder ski but didn’t quite give me the float I wanted on my Heli/Cat days on lower angle slopes. Do you think the Lotus 124 will offer more float? If so my thinking is to tour with the Opus and get the Lotus as my Heli/Cat ski. Thanks

    • Hi, Chris – I can field this one; assuming you mounted the Magnum Opus on the recommended line, and given that you’re a pretty big guy, I’m not at all surprised that you weren’t getting great float out of the MO. While the Lotus 124 has a more forward mount than a number of other DPS skis, it is a more directional ski than the MO and has a mount point that’s farther back, and both of those things are going to help the flotation cause.

  6. Paul, great review. I was wondering if you have a comparison of the older 124 Lotus Pure 3 Spoon and the newer Alchemist? The Alchemist appears to be slightly heavier. Do they ski the same?

    • Hi Gary, I’d love to do that direct comparison, but haven’t had the opportunity yet to ski the Pure3. Will definitely update here if I do.

  7. Mount points are a colossal pain in the ass when trying to find the best position for your style of skiing. The new Alc. wailer 112 has a very rearward position (some 11-12 cm rear of true center ), and this ski is only 7.5cm. rear of true center. Since both are a 5-point sidecut design I wonder if the Lotus 124 would provide better float and stability by moving the mount point to at least 8.5-9.5 rear of true center? Have you experimented with moving around on the ski to find your optimal sweet spot? The older models have an entire grid of mount positions but this has been eliminated on the Alchemist models – I know I could mount at any location on the ski , but has DPS come to some conclusion that the recommended line offers the best performance based on an average of skier based comments and test results. I am coming from the Dynastar Cham 107, where I ended up re-mounting at -2 from recommended – and this made a major improvement in the skis all around performance. Your input and opinion would be appreciated. BTW I’m a big, strong, and technically old school skier who skis fast and aggressively ( think ex-racer/coach) who likes to drive the ski from the front of his race boots. Thanks.

    • Hi D.H.

      First, I agree that the Alchemist 112 has a very rearward position. It does ski quite well like that and is designed around that mount point but every time I get on that ski I notice how much ski is in front of my boot vs behind it.

      As I said in my review, if I was doing it over again I’d probably mount the 124 on the line instead of at +0.5cm but I don’t think I’d go back from there. The longer I’ve been doing this and the more skis I ride, the more inclined I am to try to use the skis in the way they were meant to be skied vs trying to evaluate every ski I get on it’s merits as a directional charger (my typical default ski). The 124 can be driven hard but it’s also designed to be loose and surf sideway across the fall line. Moving the mount point back might give more shovel support for driving the tips super hard but I think there’s a good chance that some of that fun, quick and surfy feel could be sacrificed.

      Have you tried the Pure3 Lotus 120 Spoon? I skied them frequently for a couple of years. They have a more rearward mount (even moreso with the even older non-spoon Pure version) and love to be driven super hard. I have a good friend who is about 210lbs and was a successful NCAA D1 ski racer and he absolutely loved the original 190cm Pure Lotus 120. I’m sure there are still some 200cm version floating around out there too if you want even more fore-aft support. Thanks for reading. Let us know what you end up doing. Best, Paul

  8. @ D.H. and Paul
    I’m 6ft3″/200lbs and a strong, fast rider (more or less a bit old school, Hockeyplayer) and I ride the Lotus 124 P3 191 since mid of last saison (mostly in the Alpes/ Europe). Due to my experiences with my W112 RPC 192, which I’m riding since two years and a quite similar shape, I started mounting my KingPin13 on -2cm, after 4 days in fresh snow of 20″. I had a few tip dives and on groomers the feeling to be too much forward on the ski. So I mounted the binding back to -4cm and feel great with that. I think this is not an advise for all skiers but if you are taller than 6ft2″ this might be the best solution, while DPS is missing at larger lengths in the assortment. And the flat strong tail leaves nothing to be disired at -4cm mounting.


    • Thanks for your comments Sven. Very interesting that you like it that far back. I do wonder if mounting that far back impairs some of the quickness and playfulness but I’d like to experiment with it this season. Thanks again for that feedback. Super helpful to have comments like this!

  9. Just wondering about tip design on the Alchemist Lotus 124. Can you post any pictures of the tip of the Alchemist Lotus 124 in 191cm? Is it is round and shaped similarly in style to the Wailer 106 or is the tip shape a bit more like the Wailer 112? Does the tip shape vary in the sizes or this ski? There seems to be pictures around showing both style tips. I just ordered a set in 191cm but they haven’t arrived yet so not 100% sure what to expect.



  10. Hi Rob,
    the Lotus 124 P3 has less taper and rounder tip, comparing to the W112 RPC P3.

    I could Post a picture, showing both tips.

    How can I post pictures here?

    Cheers Sven

    • The picture in this review does not look like the Alchemist Lotus 124 in 191cm, that I just got. The picture on the DPS site is accurate for the ski (& tip shape).

  11. Hi Paul, thanks for the review. Lots of confusion on the tip shape of the 191cm, seems they’ve changed it a few times. Apparently they’ve now changed the 191cm Alchemist to share the same tip shape as the other lengths in Alchemist. So less taper/fuller rounder tip than the one you reviewed.
    How do you think the different tip shape would impact the ride, pros and cons?

    • Hi Adrian, I’m pretty confident that the skis I have are the 17/18 tip shape. I have a pic of them next to a pair of 16/17 Pure3’s that we’ll try to post for comparison. I do not know if the tip shape varies between the different sizes but am working on getting info about the tips shapes as they’re found on the different lengths, years, and constructions.

  12. Excellent review! Question…I have skied the 138 Spoon and really enjoyed it. I have not skied the 124 Alchemist Spoon (yet). If you could simply pick one for exclusively heli-skiing/cat-skiing, which one would you pick? 138 or 124? I have an opportunity to pick up a pair of new unmounted 138’s (hard to find), and of course lots of 124 A Spoons are available. Thanks in advance.

    • Thanks for the great questions and comments Clax and Gary. For pure pow skiing whether that’s in Japan, cat skiing, heli skiing in early season or in the trees or deep snow touring, the 138 is the call for me. For my work heli skiing in Alaska, I have gravitated more toward the 124 just because it does better in the more variable conditions that we sometimes find in the runouts of big runs, particularly in April. Also, I find that my interests change year to year and last year, for whatever reason, I was enjoying skis with sidecut that could lay down some clean arcs in firmer conditions even at the expense of pure deep pow performance. Both skis are pretty close to the pinnacle of pow performance but it depends on how you want to ski.

      Personally, last year was a strong La Nina though with more days of skiing recycled and wind textured pow vs super deep blower. For Japan this year I’ll be taking the 138’s or Spoons again for sure. I hope that helps.

      • Thanks for your feedback Paul, that is really helpful. I have pulled the trigger on a new pair of 138 Spoons and eagerly awaiting their arrival. Thanks again for the interactive communication, and your continued valuable gear reviews.

  13. I’ve had the 138 spoon for two years and skied it over 150 days in all conditions. For front side pow, lift served side country and heli skiing this ski rules pow and holds up well in mixed snow conditions, except bullet proof ice. For long backcountry tours (8 hr tours) I find it too heavy for what it gives back going down. I prefer a lite wide ski for long tours like dps tour 120 or Black Diamond 120 carbon megawatts ( no longer available)

  14. Great review, I have a pair of Blizzard Spur 1st version and I want to buy something more specific, for big powder days. Do you think that the DPS Lotus 124A Spoon is a great choice or I have to think about a 138 spoon or maybe a 150 spoon? How do you compare the Spur and the 124A?
    I really need something different from the ski that already have. For me the Blizzard is a great ski and great all-rounder, but I want something that have more floating and is more playful in the big powder.
    Thanks in advance.

    • Hey Luca, If you have Spurs, I would definitely get the 138 for the big days. The Spur is heavier, a little more stable, a little less nimble and a little more directional than the 124. The 124 will consequently feel a little lighter underfoot and quicker in tight spots or more technical terrain but gets knocked around a little easier.The 124 carves better on anything firm. Both skis are awesome and, for me, fill similar spots on my quiver.

      The 138 is a different animal. If you haven’t tried a ski like the 138 or Praxis Powder Boards and you regularly have access to deep pow, you definitely should. Not everyone falls in love with them but most skiers I know find the sensation of the reverse sidecut shapes in deep pow to be pretty addictive once they get used to it.
      If those big days you’re talking about are almost entirely untracked, I would go Spoon 150. It’s pretty ridiculous in truly deep conditions.

  15. Thank tuo so much Paul. I have found a pair of Spoon 150, could you give me an advice on how to mount that ski? I really appreciate a suggest from you for a pair of blindings to mount on that ski.
    Ps: I also have a pair of Head B3 RD and a pair of Dynafit Vulcan 2016 carbon version.

  16. Hi Paul, you wrote about the ability to ‘drift’ the Lotus 124: “But I can’t totally put my finger on the design elements that allow for this ski to drift as well as it does. I usually associate being loose across the fall line with more heavily rockered and tapered skis (like the Salomon Rocker 2 122 and QST 118) or more specialized reverse/reverse powder shapes; not skis like the Lotus A 124 with its camber underfoot and relatively flat and strong tail. On most skis shaped like the Lotus 124, there is noticeable resistance to the drift from the tail of the ski engaging. Again, I’m not sure how the 124 is different, but it sure is fun to throw them sideways and almost weightlessly drift over rollovers.”

    I find it fascinating that the magic sauce in ski design brings somewhat counter intuitive results in the field such as you experienced with the Lotus.

    In my personal experience, I’ve modified some skis to dramatically change their inherent predispositions to ski more like I want them to ski.

    I purchased some K2 Darkside first edition models in a 174 length. At first I found them tip divey in bottomless and unbalanced. Loose tail drifts were not on the option block.

    So, I used the existing rocker line as a guide and bent dramatically more rocker into the tip. This totally eliminated the tip dive issue, made the ski feel more balanced and really loosened up the rear end for those slarving off the sides of shoulders and rounded terrain features in the alpine in big radius turns. Felt pretty magical.

    This year I decided to tweak some more…bent even more rocker into the tip but moved the rocker line about 3 inches closer to the center of the ski…not a game changer in performance like mod number one but definitely brought some subtle benefits. I noticed that skiing with full pressure on the front of the ski I’m actually feeling most of the contact at the toe piece and the tails feel even looser in the aforementioned terrain features…this leads me to think that the increased torque on the front end of the ski combined with the Darkside’s round moderately stiff flex pattern pulls the tails up and allows them to feel loose and slarvy when needed to be. For shorter radius turns working the ski in breakable zipper crusts the tails still feel solid and supportive.

    I skied with a buddy yesterday who was on the lotus 124 in a tour 1 construction and we matched turns shapes and critically discussed ski feel and seem to have had remarkably similar skiing feedback from very different skis. The snow was very variable in composition leading to a great day of ski testing in good to challenging conditions.

    My takeaway suspicion is that more traditionally shaped skis with a flex pattern with more stiffness underfoot and just a bit fore and aft of the bindings don’t lend to the total ski flex that allows the tails to loosen up with full forward pressure in a larger radius turn.

    Conversely, a dialed in tip rocker combined with a rounder flex pattern allows the ski to bend more through the shovel/forebody and middle; this lightens the tails and allows them to drift, even if the tails themselves are slightly stiffer. I don’t know how torsional stiffness factors into the mix though…another variable to consider for sure.

    Just a guess.

  17. Hi Paul, thanks for this review! I just picked up a pair of Lotus A 124 NON-Spoon on eBay, but am now reading more closely into the “spoon” tip.

    I wasn’t clear from your review and the comments about whether you think the spoon tip makes a difference in flotation and ‘surf-ability.’ Any chance you could clarify?

    Already looking forward to next winter,


    • hey guys, I just saw these comments. all things considered I think I would probably prefer the non-spooned version of the A124 as I don’t think the Spoon portion has any benefit on these skis and every once in the while it feels weird on icy traverses. I think you’ll dig the skis. let us know how it goes. Best, Paul

  18. Andrew,
    You probably have the newer Alchemist 2.0… I also have that ski. I asked DPS why they dropped the spoon. They said it didn’t seem to do much for the ski. That surprised me because I have 200+ days on the Lotus 138 spoon and I thought it made for effortless turn initiation. (I did feel some ski drag because of the reverse sidecut at the front of the ski. )

    I’ve skiied the Lotus A 124 2.0 enough to say I love it, but to be honest, I feel more at home on the 138. I wish DPS put a few more inches of rocker on the tip and tail of the 124. When I want to get in and out of the turn quickly, as in tight trees, the 124 is less responsive than the 138. In open terrain it behaves beautifully.

    You won’t be disappointed with the Lotus 124. It skis longer than the 138 in the same length. It planes on pow and you can ski it very fast with confidence. The tail on the 138 has a tendency to sink when you get in the back seat in deep snow and the 124 stays up because it has more tail surface area.

    Hope this helps!

  19. Absolutely, thanks Gary for the thorough response! I’m looking forward to plunging back into winter 2019 on the 124s, and will be ready to work a little harder in tight trees but let it loose on open terrain.

  20. Update on Alchemist 124- this has become my favorite ski. It takes time develop muscle memory when make a change. Initially I leaned in favor of my Lotus 138, but after learning how to get the mist out of the Alchemist, I prefer the 124’s all around performance in all conditions. The larger tip and tail brings the ski up to the surface in deep snow and performs predictably smooth without the two flaws in the 138 (front taper drag and tail sink) . The Alchemist 124 is a terrific ski!

    • Follow up- I’ve skied the 124 over 75 days in all conditions. Great ski, but I have found that wind slab breakable crust with hoare snow or powder underneath can be tricky. The rocker on the 138 performs much better in this conditions.

  21. I have just skied them for 8 days in Davos. First three days with very heavy deep snow, then variable good conditions (above the treeline, wind-destroyed snow, 5 cm deep, in the trees 20 cm powder, later 10 cm light powder on top of these conditions).

    The good: They have no speed limit. They can be driven fast even on bumpy groomers. They are dependable. They are excellent on any conditions EXCEPT the very deep stuff. They are light for their size. They are surprisingly nimble in the trees.

    The bad: They are so stiff that the front goes where it goes. Deep. They forced me to press with the heals or even worse lean backwards when the speed went down (and owing to the high avalanche risk I had to ski mellow areas the first days).

    Basically they remind me of a big version of an all-mountain ski. My carbon G3 Empires 115 do nearly everything they do as good or better, and what I wanted was a ski for the deep days when the Empires do not float well enough (for my liking) . This is not it. Had they made the front softer, the rocker longer, and used a negative camber I think it could have been a truly great ski for my purpose. Yes, it would have been worse on-piste, but that is only transport anyway, and it would have been less dependable when it is steep and hard, but there are narrower skis for that game.

  22. Greetings, I’ve just returned from a day’s skiing at Castle Mtn. in Southern Alberta where there was a huge variety of snow conditions ( hard groomers, to crud and crust, ending with a little boot deep pow in the upper bowls and chutes off of the Red chair ). I was very surprised and pleased that my Lotus 124 alchemist skied the junk snow and groomers quite well – usually when the conditions are skied out or if there is a melt and re-freeze I take out my Katanas ( the 2013-14 green weapons) and just plow through anything, but the DPS skis, although very much lighter and wider than the Volkls , ski such a wide range off conditions adding to the versatility off such a fat pow specific tool. I hope to test them again at Fernie BC where it has been dumping heavily. Before, purchasing my Lotus skis I agonized about the mounting position being too far forward and eventually chose to mount at -1 from recommended, and here I find the skis still easy to pivot to ski the trees as well as pressure the front of the skis and carve a decent lines on the groomers. I lucked out! My skis are 2.0 version with the paddle front end shown in the new DPS catalogue and not the spear tip model you have in your Blister review and are mounted with Look pivot 18s. I ski more old school and technical ( think carving and ex-racer/coach and am fit at 6’3.5″ at 230lbs. using Lange RS 140 boots with a BSL of 336mm.) I hope this info helps anyone else considering this fantastic ski. It’s not cheap, but I truly think it’s worth the investment if you’re trying to build your ultimate quiver!

    • Thank you for the feedback D.H. Jensen. I just got the DPS Pagoda Lotus 124, 191cm. I am 6’2″ 205lbs. I am also thinking of mounting them -1cm from recommended with now Salmon Shift 16s. I demoed the DPS Alchemist Lotus 2.0 124, 184cm from Utah Ski Gear last year and found it nearly perfect, but maybe a little forward. I like to aggressively charge, hence moving it back just a little. Paul Forward seems to recommend putting it at the line, which I may end up doing, but I am thinking 1cm back can’t make that huge of a difference.

  23. Hi. I am hoping you can give me some advice about the mount point for the DPS Alchemist Lotus 14 (191 cm), which I just bought, based on your review. I am 172 lb, 6’ 4”, and a (very) directional skier. I am pretty sure I need to go at least 2” back, and perhaps more. To give you some context, a favorite ski of mine is the 2017/18 Armada Invictus 108Ti. (For me it is an easy ski, and I can really drive the shovels!) Any advice about what I could do would be gladly received.

  24. Hello Paul,

    I don’t know if you are still following this thread and answering questions. I hope so.

    Paul, did you ever ski Pure3 124 in the end?

    I was considering picking up a 178 lotus 124 pure 3, but am re-considering

    After reading through your review, I am now considering a Lotus 124, most likely a Alchemist 2.0. I will likely be on the lookout to demo one next winter in the roaring fork valley area.

    It seems that the Alchemist 2.0’s heavier weight vs pure 3 makes it “better” for variable snow, which I see as a plus.

    Also, the removal of the spoon tip from the lotus 124 Alchemist 2.0 seems a move towards more versatile performance

    I’d likely out the Duke PT binding on the Lotus 124 as I’d see it more as a mechanized or deep snow resort ski (silverton).

    I am moving toward shorter skis (5’8” 190 lbs), so actually considering the 180 for the Lotus 124, but it would be nice if I could demo the 185 to see what that feels like.

    I do have Praxis Protests in a 177 cm length mounted with Dynafit verticals because of what I have also found to be it’s preference for soft snow conditions, tried the 187 in the resort and didn’t like it so much in tracked out conditions and snow (at grand Targhee). However, either boot packing Glory on Teton Pass or short skins in that area, the Protest is a lot of fun.

  25. Ok to ask a question here about all things Spoon?

    I found a dps slow motion skiing in japan video by Outdoor Research, and have spent some time playing the video at 2x normal speed (max that vimeo allows), and skipping to the parts with Stephan Drake skiing.

    I thought he must have been on the Lotus 138 spoons in this video but am now suspecting that he is indeed skiing on the DPS Spoons (based on tip shape?).

    Anyone able to confirm?


  26. For anyone looking at the newer, DPS ‘Carbon’ Lotus 124 (Pagoda construction) and wondering how it’s changed, DPS provided the below helpful info (I couldn’t find any good information on the 124 Pagoda elsewhere):

    “We’ve got an updated core that makes the ski more balanced and we’ve also removed the spoon technology to add more stability to the ski.


    Alchemist 124 (191cm): 153/124/135, -9.5cm from center
    Lotus Carbon Pagoda 124 (191cm): 142/124/132, -10.5cm from center

    Tip rocker length as % of total ski length: 24%
    Tail rocker length as % of total ski length: 21%

    A bit more directional with more ski out in front. The updated core is the most significant change. When we switched from Alchemist to Pagoda we added dampening properties to make the ski much smoother across variable/chopped-up snow.”

    My (entirely amateur) interpretation is — skinnier tip and tail, mount point 1cm farther back + more/straighter tip taper and less/faster tail taper (by eyeballing) + stability in construction + sidecut unchanged = more designed to still float and pivot while driving the fronts of the skis a bit more than with the previous Alchemist design, and with a bit more stability?

    I have a 184 Bibby that is too short to float in more than 1′ of snow, for me anyways (6′, 205lb) and a 184 Commander 124 that is fantastic in 4+ feet of light powder but kind of a handful in anything else. Just ordered the 191 Lotus 124 and hoping to replace both of the others for deep days, rather than have to decide between having fun in crud but diving in very deep and light snow (184 Bibby), or floating well in light snow in open bowls but really having to dial down my speed in less-than-light crud (184 Commander 124). As a more directional skier who took a very directional and cambered Kastle MX 99 into powder just to see what that would be like, and who oddly enjoyed that, I think this will let me do what I want, which is to ski powerfully and directionally, keeping at least moderate pressure on the front of my boots without ever diving, either fast in open bowls or more thoughtfully and slowly in trees, with the ability to turn being consistently predictable with proper technique and a bit of strength. I won’t get to ski these for a while, and I’ve never tried a DPS ski before and so I don’t have much ability to compare to anything including the previous Alchemist 124 Spoon, but if of interest to anyone I’ll report back when I do!

Leave a Comment