• 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!

fischer watea 94

mishka

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
944
Points
0
Location
Providence RI
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 price:puke:eek:ver $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
 

riverc0il

New member
Joined
Jul 10, 2001
Messages
13,039
Points
0
Location
Ashland, NH
Website
www.thesnowway.com
You are saying that you have trouble with the Legend 8000 in bumps and tight spaces? :eek: 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.
 

mishka

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
944
Points
0
Location
Providence RI
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. :-o 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:

mishka

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
944
Points
0
Location
Providence RI
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.
 

wa-loaf

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

RootDKJ

New member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
7,866
Points
0
Location
Summit
Website
phresheez.com
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#).
 

bvibert

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
30,394
Points
38
Location
Torrington, CT
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.
 

marcski

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
4,576
Points
36
Location
Westchester County, NY and a Mountain near you!
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.
 

Greg

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 1, 2001
Messages
31,154
Points
0
You are saying that you have trouble with the Legend 8000 in bumps and tight spaces? :eek: 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.

Totally. I have 8000s in 172, and Watea 94s in 178. I hate the Wateas in the bumps compared to the 8000s. Go shorter.
 

Greg

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 1, 2001
Messages
31,154
Points
0
Totally. I have 8000s in 172, and Watea 94s in 178. I hate the Wateas in the bumps compared to the 8000s. Go shorter.

Read more of the thread. The Watea 94s are hard chargers. They are NOT meant for tighter turns. At least I can't get them working like I can on the Legends. I'm 170 lbs.
 

mondeo

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,431
Points
0
Location
E. Hartford, CT
Also technically speaking wider platform providing better mechanical leverage (something like a longer crowbar)
Wider also means a longer moment arm from the edge to the center of the ski, which makes it harder and slower to get on edge.

I own the 94, have demoed the 84, and own Addict Pros (84 underfoot) and Hart F17s (66). Three very different skis, all good at different stuff. The 94s are a great East Coast powder ski and good in the trees as long as the trees are powder. If I'm skiing bumps or tracked out trees, I'm on one of the other skis. The Watea 84 I'd consider as a good one-ski quiver for most people in the East. No mistaking it for a bump ski, but does a decent job.
 

ta&idaho

New member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
639
Points
0
Location
Washington, DC
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. :-o

Short turning radius doesn't automatically mean nimble in tight spots. As others have said, I'd try out something with a shorter running length and softer flex.
 

wa-loaf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
15,109
Points
48
Location
Mordor
Short turning radius doesn't automatically mean nimble in tight spots. As others have said, I'd try out something with a shorter running length and softer flex.

I think my next ski will be something with an early rise. I really liked the few I demoed. I think they will make great tree skis. I'll wait and see whats on sale next spring.
 

riverc0il

New member
Joined
Jul 10, 2001
Messages
13,039
Points
0
Location
Ashland, NH
Website
www.thesnowway.com
Short turning radius doesn't automatically mean nimble in tight spots. As others have said, I'd try out something with a shorter running length and softer flex.
Indeed. But I find my (longer and fatter) Atua's are indeed quick turning and nimble in soft snow conditions. But you need to make them work unlike the 8000s which can just be whipped around like nobody's business. So turn radius does indeed not tell the whole story, but I suspect the Watea94s can indeed make tight and nimble turns in the right conditions with the right driver. But that said, I suspect most skiers (as indicated here) do not share my experiences. Then again, by "right conditions", I am talking about minimum half a foot of pow.
 

mondeo

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,431
Points
0
Location
E. Hartford, CT
Then again, by "right conditions", I am talking about minimum half a foot of pow.
Makes a ton of difference with the Wateas. Half foot of pow, you can throw them around any which way you want. Packed powder (when you're on edge), their width makes them a bit slow edge to edge.
 

wa-loaf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
15,109
Points
48
Location
Mordor
So turn radius does indeed not tell the whole story, but I suspect the Watea94s can indeed make tight and nimble turns in the right conditions with the right driver.

I'll attest to them being nimble in the powder. I've gotten 3 powder days on them this season and they were great. The turn radius is only really noticeable on groomed trails.
 

bigbog

Active member
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
4,882
Points
38
Location
Bangor and the state's woodlands
Think you're correct about a 160 B2 being unstable. Think you should save up and demo some of the great women's skis come next season's opening months! I know how painful that sounds right now, but imho...being slightly less burly than a men's ski....the flex, sidecut, and float of a good woman's ski will be more suitable for your weight.

$.01
 
Last edited:
Top