I just picked up the Watea 114 with X13 Binding

[gmcunni]

i just spent $400 on car repairs so no fat Wateas for me

 

[RootDKJ]

I say keep 'em and save them for the really nice days.

 

[mrksn]

Rocker rocks period, except on ice

 

[snoseek]

$379 with bindings vs $432 without bindings, the rocker is really worth that to you? Are you really going to get enough use out of a ski 114 under foot to justify the cost? I wouldn't go that big and I get almost 15-20 powder days a year. Sorry, someone had to be the debbie downer and say it.

:beer:

Sick deal for sure. Guess they need to discount a ski that big to get folks to actually buy it.

You need to demo a really fat pair of rockered skis on a pow day. :beer:

 

[jimmywilson69]

I say keep 'em and save them for the really nice days.

176 will be too long without the rocker. I had a detailed discussion about it with a guy at a shop. I typically ski 170 max. the 176 rocker will ski a little less than that.

 

[gmcunni]

Hmmm. I ski a 170 and thought going longer for a fat pow ski was 'normal'. I skied a friends 176 a few seasons ago and felt pretty good.

 

[RootDKJ]

176 will be too long without the rocker. I had a detailed discussion about it with a guy at a shop. I typically ski 170 max. the 176 rocker will ski a little less than that.

I guess that depends on your height/weight.

 

[jimmywilson69]

When I demoed some ski's in the 176 range in December, I felt like I was fighting the skis too much. The tips kept wanting to cross.

 

[gorgonzola]

to each his own but looking at your sig it doesn;t seem like that great of a ski choice to me rockered or not unless your planning on changing it up big time next year

what does evryone think the cutoff for pow depth and frequency is to justify or realize the benefits of a 100+ rockered ski?
for me i'm think at least a dozen days at 15"plus, otherwise i'm sticking with a mid fat for screaming down the the groomers and bumps and such...

 

[RootDKJ]

to each his own but looking at your sig it doesn;t seem like that great of a ski choice to me rockered or not unless your planning on changing it up big time next year

what does evryone think the cutoff for pow depth and frequency is to justify or realize the benefits of a 100+ rockered ski?
for me i'm think at least a dozen days at 15"plus, otherwise i'm sticking with a mid fat for screaming down the the groomers and bumps and such...

I have a feeling we'll be seeing more rockers at Blue next season.

 

[gmcunni]

I have a feeling we'll be seeing more rockers at Blue next season.

 

[JimG.]

to each his own but looking at your sig it doesn;t seem like that great of a ski choice to me rockered or not unless your planning on changing it up big time next year

what does evryone think the cutoff for pow depth and frequency is to justify or realize the benefits of a 100+ rockered ski?
for me i'm think at least a dozen days at 15"plus, otherwise i'm sticking with a mid fat for screaming down the the groomers and bumps and such...

Demo a pair.

I didn't think there was any justification to buying a pair of rockers for east coast skiing until I skied at Mt. Ellen in early March after a 3 foot dumping. I was having a great time in the woods until I saw a patroller on rockers. I was turning, he was gliding effortlessly. We both exited at the same time, I was winded and he was barely breathing hard. We talked a little and even he said it was almost cheating to ski on rockers.

So I demoed a pair the next day. Most enjoyable powder experience of my entire life. Took a little bit of getting used to, mostly because it was so effortless.

I decided then and there to buy a pair for next season. To me, even if I use them 2-3 times it is more than worth it.

 

[jimmywilson69]

so the ski's and bindings finally came. I'm actually considering keeping them. I don't know... I really wanted to "move forward" with technology (rockered skis), but i got such a good deal, that Its hard to want to send them back.

For a 176, these don't seem to be as long as I thought they would be. I also didn't realize what exactly the powder hull tip was until now. the tip of these ski's is actually shapped like a boat.

 

[wa-loaf]

For a 176, these don't seem to be as long as I thought they would be. I also didn't realize what exactly the powder hull tip was until now. the tip of these ski's is actually shapped like a boat.

I haven't skied the 114, but the powder hull on the 94 did seem to give it a fair amount more float than the 94 without it.

 

[jimmywilson69]

I guess the worst thing I could do is mount the bindings on them, ski them and if I don't like them, sell them for $250-$300 (w/ binding) since I will likely ski less than 10 days on them and make most of my money back.

 

[tekweezle]

are these twin tips? if they are, they may feel smaller than their stated length due to what is actually contacting the snow.

I have a pair of 169 PEs that I thought would be plenty long for me since I normally ski a 167-170 length non twin tip ski. takes some getting used to but they do feel a little "short"

 

[thetrailboss]

are these twin tips? if they are, they may feel smaller than their stated length due to what is actually contacting the snow.

I have a pair of 169 PEs that I thought would be plenty long for me since I normally ski a 167-170 length non twin tip ski. takes some getting used to but they do feel a little "short"

Yes, you do lose some length between the contact points on both ends with twin tips. I have a pair of Head Joe 105's that are 181 cm in length and I was told that they will ski like a pair of 175-177cm because of the loss of at least 2cm on each end if not more. I liked that.

If anything the twin tips helped lead to the rocker revolution.

 

[jimmywilson69]

Interestingly enough these are a 176 cm ski. But when I measure them from tip to tip they are only 173 cm in length. I get 176 cm if I follow the profile along the edge. Also, eventhough these are not rockered the distance between the contact points of the tradditional camber is only 145 cm. I went home at lunch and measured my K2 Apache Outlaws which are 170 cm, and the contact points between the camber was actually 5 cm longer at 150 cm.

Does this mean that this ski will actually ski shorter than the K2 which only has a partial twin tip tail?

 

[tekweezle]

some people think so. however "feeling" is subjective so let us know when you ski them.

as for me, took a couple of runs to get used to the length of the PE's and some adjustment in my skiing. basically, what I could do on other skis, I couldn;t exactly do on this pair. that;s not entirely a bad thing though. they just skied "different".

 

[bigbog]

So...Trailboss you gonna go out West, ski that Joe105(2011?) and post up what you think or what?...LOL.
Never know what Head will come out with...and never saw that ski available to demo.