• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Atomic Theory Question

wa-loaf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
15,109
Points
48
Location
Mordor
Been thinking about these skis a lot recently. Demoed them last Spring and they were a lot of fun. But they have a bit of overlap with my Watea 94's. Skied the Watea's last weekend and they just felt kinda heavy slow, probably just because I've been mostly on skinnier shorter stuff all season due to the conditions. They felt much better once I got into the powder, but the mixed ice and pow bumps were kinda a struggle before I got my legs going.

My Wateas have Dukes on them. And even though I have never used them for it I still have aspirations of doing some backcountry.

So the question is do I:
1. Do nothing, the Wateas are fine and I should save my money.
2. Buy the Atomics, put the Dukes on them? Unload the Wateas. I'm assuming I can use skins on these.
3. Buy the Atomics, get some new bindings and keep the Wateas as a BC set-up.
 

St. Bear

New member
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,946
Points
0
Location
Washington, NJ
Website
twitter.com
Skied the Watea's last weekend and they just felt kinda heavy slow, probably just because I've been mostly on skinnier shorter stuff all season due to the conditions. They felt much better once I got into the powder, but the mixed ice and pow bumps were kinda a struggle before I got my legs going.

How can you be sure that you wouldn't feel the same way on the Theory's this year?
 

wa-loaf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
15,109
Points
48
Location
Mordor
The Theory felt much lighter and has a rocker tip to it that the Watea doesn't. It felt playful (but not skittish) while the Watea is very solid. I might do something if I see a really good price, but I'll probably hold off another year. Just working this out in public. lol
 

St. Bear

New member
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,946
Points
0
Location
Washington, NJ
Website
twitter.com
Did the Wateas feel heavy last year?

I guess my point is, if this heavy feeling just came about because you've been on carving skis most of this season, than comparing the Theory from last year to the Watea this year doesn't really work.

BTW, I am interested in your opinion because I'm looking to upgrade my skis after this year, and these are two of the skis I've researched.
 

wa-loaf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
15,109
Points
48
Location
Mordor
My Watea's are from 3 seasons ago so don't have the powder hull or any rocker on them. I haven't skied this or last seasons Watea's. I think I need to add the Blizzard Bonifide to the list. That's gotten kick-ass reviews, but I haven't skied it.
 

Cheese

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
999
Points
0
Location
Hollis, NH
Been thinking about these skis a lot recently. Demoed them last Spring and they were a lot of fun. But they have a bit of overlap with my Watea 94's. Skied the Watea's last weekend and they just felt kinda heavy slow, probably just because I've been mostly on skinnier shorter stuff all season due to the conditions. They felt much better once I got into the powder, but the mixed ice and pow bumps were kinda a struggle before I got my legs going.

My Wateas have Dukes on them. And even though I have never used them for it I still have aspirations of doing some backcountry.

So the question is do I:
1. Do nothing, the Wateas are fine and I should save my money.
2. Buy the Atomics, put the Dukes on them? Unload the Wateas. I'm assuming I can use skins on these.
3. Buy the Atomics, get some new bindings and keep the Wateas as a BC set-up.

My opinion, the Watea is outdated. I know it sounds odd that a 3 y/o ski is outdated but many of us (me included) fell for the fat when we should have waited for fat rocker. I had a Rossi B4 with traditional camber that was 94 underfoot. It never came close to the fun I have on my Rossi S7. Even though the S7 is 117 underfoot it floats, flexes and carves super easy in the powder plus skis very short to turn on a dime in tight trees. I kept the B4 as a rock ski and dumped it a month later realizing I'd never ski it again. I'll bet the Watea will suffer a similar fate should you save it.

If you've already got a groomer ski (Progressor 9+?) you don't need another on piste carver. Go fat, go rocker and go back country!
 

wa-loaf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
15,109
Points
48
Location
Mordor
If you've already got a groomer ski (Progressor 9+?) you don't need another on piste carver. Go fat, go rocker and go back country!

Ha, I've also got a Salomon Enduro 84 that's been my main driver this season with the Progressor reserved just for race nights.

I'm demoing some race skis Thursday night too, thinking I might want something longer for the Great Race. I don't think buying two sets of skis this spring is in the cards ... really shouldn't even be buying any ...
 

Bene288

New member
Joined
Nov 25, 2011
Messages
1,026
Points
0
Location
Albany, NY
Did the Wateas feel heavy last year?

I guess my point is, if this heavy feeling just came about because you've been on carving skis most of this season, than comparing the Theory from last year to the Watea this year doesn't really work.

BTW, I am interested in your opinion because I'm looking to upgrade my skis after this year, and these are two of the skis I've researched.

+1

Also looking at the Theory or Watea for a bump and crud ski.
 

andyzee

New member
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
10,884
Points
0
Location
Home
Website
www.nsmountainsports.com
Don't know anything about them.

Actually I don't either, but I do have the Nordica Enforcers. This seems to be the same ski but uses more of a semi-rocker design. The Enforcers are great. 136-98-126, something like a 17 m TR, very light and skis just about anything. To be honest, I haven't skied the Hell and Back but have heard nothing but good things about it. It has very similiar specs to the Enforcers. So, from experience, very happy with the Enforcers, can't go wrong. From reviews from folks I know, the Hell and Back sound like a good deal, You get a chance, demo them, Nordica makes one hell of a ski.
 

St. Bear

New member
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,946
Points
0
Location
Washington, NJ
Website
twitter.com
Actually I don't either, but I do have the Nordica Enforcers. This seems to be the same ski but uses more of a semi-rocker design. The Enforcers are great. 136-98-126, something like a 17 m TR, very light and skis just about anything. To be honest, I haven't skied the Hell and Back but have heard nothing but good things about it. It has very similiar specs to the Enforcers. So, from experience, very happy with the Enforcers, can't go wrong. From reviews from folks I know, the Hell and Back sound like a good deal, You get a chance, demo them, Nordica makes one hell of a ski.

How does the Steadfast fit in the picture? I've heard good things about that for an "all-mountain" ski.
 

wa-loaf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
15,109
Points
48
Location
Mordor
+1

Also looking at the Theory or Watea for a bump and crud ski.

Not sure you'd really want any of them for a bump ski. At 94 and 96mm they can certainly be skied that way, but I'm thinking of them more as an east coast powder, crud, tree ski that I can take west and still hang.
 

Bene288

New member
Joined
Nov 25, 2011
Messages
1,026
Points
0
Location
Albany, NY
Not sure you'd really want any of them for a bump ski. At 94 and 96mm they can certainly be skied that way, but I'm thinking of them more as an east coast powder, crud, tree ski that I can take west and still hang.

I meant bumps like natural bumps you find in the woods. Just looks like an awesome ski for that kind of loose cruddy snow and pow. The 186cm gets me all excited as well, but may be a little too long for the trees.
 

wa-loaf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
15,109
Points
48
Location
Mordor
I meant bumps like natural bumps you find in the woods. Just looks like an awesome ski for that kind of loose cruddy snow and pow. The 186cm gets me all excited as well, but may be a little too long for the trees.

How big are you? I thought the 186 was great, but didn't take it into the trees. It turns really easily so I don't think it would be prob and you'll want the extra length for any pow you ski.
 

Bene288

New member
Joined
Nov 25, 2011
Messages
1,026
Points
0
Location
Albany, NY
I'm big, almost 6"2 and 210-215. I used to ski long racers all of the time. My current Atomics are actually the shortest skis I've ever used (178). I'm sure I'd be happy with 186. I've never skied anything with that fat of a waist either, definitely should find a demo before I commit.
 
Top