16 comments on “2020-2021 DPS Alchemist Wailer 112”

  1. Im (5’9″, 165-170 lbs Int/Adv) considering this ski and considering the 178. Let me know if you thinking sizing up this ski is smart.

  2. Once again, a great review and an eye opener because I’ve skied the Pure 3 version and did not like it in any other condition other than dry powder and very soft-loose cold chop. Test drive at Fernie B.C. over a period of 3 days and over as many different conditions that were available. The Pure 3 just got thrown around too much in any type of hard snow crud and bump. And on hard cord groomers it just felt super glassy and had an annoying tip buzz probably due to its ultra light build. The A 112 version sounds like it’s a potential ski for me as an all-around soft snow resort ski. I’ve commented before about the mount point on some other skis (Dynastar Cham 107 and DPS A124) and am surprised that you did not play around with the demo-track. This is a Newer School 5 pt. shape ski that usually favours a more forward mount, but at -14 behind rec. this is as traditional as an old Austrian GS board! Did any of the testers try it slightly forward? I never ski switch unless I’m crashing, and at 60 years old I am starting to slow down so your comments that this ski is more finesse based appeals to me. Mount position is a big ski performance factor for me because there is a sweet spot on every ski that suits your individual style and speed, and because of this I wonder if by moving up to +1 or+2 from rec would give it better/quicker edge to edge ability ( these positions still would be at -13 and -12 from true center ). Thanks DHJ

    • Hi, D.H. – As Paul Forward notes (and as our other reviewers commented on), they all found the ski to work well with the mount point — including Cy, Luke, and Sam, who all typically prefer much, much more forward mounts. Of the group, I think I was the person who didn’t automatically click with the mount point, but I am the outlier here.

      All that said, I don’t think it will be a risky move bumping up to -13 or -12 on the 189 cm Wailer 112. And if you’re looking at a shorter model, then “playing it safe” would maybe mean only going +1 of the recommended line.

      Final thought: this ski is already very quick. So while I still think its safe to bump a cm or two forward of the line, I’m not sure that I’ve ever heard anyone say that they wished the Wailer 112 was quicker?

  3. I was thinking to buy this ski as a 50/50 touring/powdays resort ski with pin bindings. I’m a 6 feet tall, 180 lbs advanced east coast skier and I ski a lot of trees and some open big mountain terrain in the Chic-Chocs. I was woundering if I should go with the 189 or the 184. I have a pair of Rossignol Experience 88 with a bit of tip and tail rocker, which felt a bit too short, and also a pair of K2 Coomback 102 with a bit of tip rocker and a flat tail, which felt a bit too long. Since the rocker profile seems to make the ski feel shorter than it actually is, I tought the 189 was a good option even tho I ski a lot of trees and that would mean some extra weight on the way up compared to the 184 version. Thank you for your help.

  4. I’m one of those who click with the DPS skis. I bought my 184cm 112’s new in 2011 and I’ve kept them longer than any of my skis. I think I can coax another season out of them but the top sheets are starting to delam (I have 111 days on them). I haven’t tried the newer versions but it looks to me that the efforts to make the ski more damp and quiet might trade off some of the things I like about mine.

    They’re first and foremost “powder in the trees” skis for me. There, the more pronounced tip rocker on the older versions give me confidence that I’ll ride over sticks and stuff under the surface. I’ve been caught by that crap before and broke bones so I might be more paranoid than most. I drive the tips pretty hard, will I the lower profile tips on the new ones ride under the surface?

    The tips do flap some on groomers but I’ve become accustomed to it. I keep mine sharp tip to tail and, unless it is icy, I can get an early edge and ski them arc to arc at a decent clip. Pretty fun stuff for a ski that looks like this!

    I also like how they allow my aging self to ski Bell-to-Bell because of the super light weight. I hate going home early on a powder day, especially when there’s so much to be had in the tight trees on these. I wonder if the heavier construction will take a toll here.

    I’ll probably demo a pair this year and find out.

    • Great comments, Nick, and what you’ve written here makes it easy to see why you’ve gotten along so well with the previous Wailer 112. “Powder in the trees” skis is pretty much the ideal use for these, we think.

      And for the record, we think you have *zero* reason to be worried about the slightly heavier weight, or any reduction in tip splay. There is still a serious amount of tip rocker on these, so I truly think you can dispell entirely with these concerns. If you do ski the Alchemist construction though, do report back with your thoughts about this current Wailer vs the pair you’re coming from!

      • I will.

        Funny, owning these (along with age and injuries) has transformed me from an “open bowl crud charger” to a “ski untracked in the trees” guy. I usually bring a chargy ski up but it’s a rare day anymore that I feel like swapping. Usually, if the untracked is gone I don’t have the hp left for more than a few runs fast crud skiing, plus the 112s are just fun hunting for the stashes in the trees.

  5. These are at the top of my list for 2018/19. I’m 5’7, 135 lbs and a strong but finesse skier. I LOVE my 2014 DPS Yvette Pures (184 cm) which are apparently very similar, if not the same ski as the Wailer, however, I want to try a 178 in this ski next year for a bit more maneuverability in the trees and I’m keen on a bit more dampness. From what I’ve heard, I’m confident it will be absolutely perfect. And I love the yellow/pink fade. Yes, I’m a girl. :-)

  6. A lot of what you don’t like about the construction of the Alchemist Wailer 112 has been updated in the Foundation 112; it is heavier, has less tip and tail splay, has less tail taper (tail dimension bigger), is much damper, and yet still has energy, quickness, good firm snow performance, and retains its soft/powder condition excellence. Have any of you skied the Foundation build of the Wailer 112? Just curious. To me, who has skied almost every iteration of the Wailer 112 from its outset, the f112 is finally the ski that is very close to all the benefits of the Nordica Enforcer 110, only more agile and fun.

    • We haven’t skied the Foundation Wailer 112, but we’ll definitely put it on the review list for next season.

      We have, however, skied the Foundation Cassiar 94, and we were quite impressed by that ski. (Totally different shape from the Wailer 112, of course.)

  7. Hi Jonathan
    Great Review again,
    I’m really glad you included all the different reviewers. A few more comparisons to other skis would have been nice.
    In your initial pre review you mentioned a couple of other skis and then never really talk about the differences.
    I’m wondering if this is at all like the V-Work Katana? Similar size and traditional mount points (different shape).
    I typically like a much more forgiving ski than you, but I clicked with the V-Works (184). I tried one after you finally reviewed them. I mounted mine with King Pins and they come out anytime it even looks like we might get new snow.

  8. Hi Jonathan,
    Nice review.
    I am 6’4″ and ~210lbs. Is the 189cm too short for me?
    I’m typically in the 190+cm range so it’s tricky.


  9. Hi Jonathan,

    I came across this review, and even though it is a bit old, I just found it to be the best review on the Wailers 112 out there!

    I currently own a Wailer 112RP2 Pure 3 (the 15/16) and was looking to change to upgrade to the Wailer A112 19/20.

    I am 6′ and 167lbs dry weight. have been skiing all this time on the 184s, and they felt great, although a bit unstable on the groomers or while dropping cliffs. I am considering if I should size up and go with the 189s. In your opinion would you go with the 184s or 189s?

Leave a Comment