fischer watea 94

AlpineZone

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 72
  1. #1

    fischer watea 94

    decided to get one of those while it has good price at o2gear. Main reason: I want something softer, easier to turn especially in bumps and trees. currently my skis rosi B2 160 sometimes feels lack of stability and they need to be drive hard all the time. Legend 8000 I have in 179 which give all stability and float I need but difficult to turn in tight spaces.

    Recently I demo nordica helldiver in 170 in spring conditions and it feels easier to turn however it's has mixed review and priceover $500. Watea have better reviews and better price.



    what you guys think 170 or 178?
    I am 5' 9" 160lb level probably 7- 8. Have no intension to use them on groomers

  2. #2
    You are saying that you have trouble with the Legend 8000 in bumps and tight spaces? Maybe 178 is too long for you because the Legend 8000 is an extremely nimble ski and one of the best 'mid-fats' for bumps and trees on the market.

    Going 15mm's wider under foot with a larger turn radius and a stiffer construction (read: Watea 94) is not going to make it easier in tighter spaces by a long shot. If you think the 8000 gives you enough stability and float but are looking for something better in tighter places like trees and bums, it might be the archer and not the arrow or perhaps you should have gone one size shorter.
    -Steve
    TheSnowWay.com "Skiing is not a sport, it is a way of life." - Otto Schniebs

  3. #3
    perhaps you should have gone one size shorter.=> perhaps I should of but too late to regret

    If you think the 8000 gives you enough stability and float but are looking for something better in tighter places like trees and bums,===>I do not looking for something better I'm looking for something EASIER

    it might be the archer and not the arrow===> I do not blame skis ....simply sometimes it tiring to swing all that wood around all day long

    Going 15mm's wider under foot with a larger turn radius==>20 m turn radius in 8000 compare to 21 m in W 94 hardly meaningful increase. In trees probably two meters reduced to much because 20 m turn radius is 60 ft. Also technically speaking wider platform providing better mechanical leverage (something like a longer crowbar)
    stiffer construction (read: Watea 94)==> I read it softer, lighter and little bit more forgiving.I demo nordica helldiver in 170 and felt it substantially softer easier to turn compare to 8000 and was told Watea even more softer.
    Last edited by mishka; Apr 4, 2010 at 6:32 PM.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by mishka View Post
    I do not looking for something better I'm looking for something EASIER
    My opinion is that you are not looking at the right ski for your needs in the Watea 94. You could always just try to the ski and find out. Seems like you have it all figured out already any ways...
    -Steve
    TheSnowWay.com "Skiing is not a sport, it is a way of life." - Otto Schniebs

  5. #5
    My opinion is that you are not looking at the right ski for your needs in the Watea 94.==>why do you think so

    You could always just try to the ski and find out.===>at this point I cannot demo them before buying.

    Seems like you have it all figured out already any ways...==>no I am not decided yet.

  6. #6
    kingslug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    looooooong island ny
    Posts
    3,245
    I would think the 84 would be better in the bumps.
    Lets go!
    I'll drive.

  7. #7
    The Watea is ok in the bumps. I have a 186. Love them and they were great in the kind of open trees and powder in Utah, but it is definitely not a soft ski. There were a few time's when I got tired that I wished I had the 178's. (I'm 5'9" and 215lbs) It sounds like your expectation of them does not align with how they really really ski.
    Whatever hits the fan will not be distributed evenly.

  8. #8
    I demo'd the Helldiver night skiing season before this one in absolute boilerplate conditions. That is a very stiff ski, much like my Jet Fuels (which btw, I ski in a 170 @ 5'11"/240#).

  9. #9
    bvibert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Torrington, CT
    Posts
    30,386
    The Watea 94 is not what I'd call soft. I have a pair in the 186 length. I can make them work in bumps, but I'm a big guy. I'd chose other skis if I was going to be doing much skiing in the trees, but I'm a gaper (especially in the trees) FWIW.

    Greg has a pair of the 94's and also the Legend 8000's. He tells me that he much prefers the Legends for making tight turns.

    I think you're looking at the wrong ski for what you want. The 94 excels at making big turns in open spaces, IMHO.
    Brian

  10. #10
    marcski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Westchester County, NY and a Mountain near you!
    Posts
    4,575
    I ski on the mythic ryders. I think they are one of the best skis I've ever had. IMHO, they are a great all-around ski. I think if you want something "easier" to maneuver in the bumps or the trees...go shorter. With the extra surface area a wider ski provides, go short. I am about 5"11, 185 and my Mythics are just a 172. They are stable at any speed, provide great float in pow and chopped up snow and I find them quite easy to ski all over the mountain.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:21 PM.