176 Fischer Watea 84 vs 178 Dynastar Mythic Rider

Mission: Find the perfect ski to patrol on the average day at Alpine Meadows, where we are required to be able to ski anywhere at anytime.

Current active-use quiver (used this year):

• 178cm 2001 Dynastar 4x4 Vertical Limited (103/67/88; Tyrolia d10 FF17): a.k.a. the 4x4 ATV with a funky Hawaiian-style wood grain graphic. The skis I thought would fit the bill, but they're just too narrow to handle a sled in soft snow. Fun turners, very versatile without a sled, though.
  
• 186cm 2002 Fischer Big Stix 84 (116/84/103; Salomon 912): These became my go-to everyday ski last spring, because they have enough width to harvest corn, enough beef to bust crud, and enough sidecut to blast groomers.
  
• 188cm 2007 PM Gear Bro Model Midsoft Blem (125/99/114; Marker Duke): Bought as a backcountry, sidecountry and patrolling rig, to complement my Softs with Rossi Power 140s (which I haven't broken out yet this season). Still my favorite all-purpose, versatile Sierra ski, although I haven't yet tried running sleds through moguls on them.
  
• 195cm 2008 Praxis Powder (124/136/131; Tyrolia Mojo 15): For groomer days, natch.

My working hypothesis for what I'm looking for, in no particular order:

• 175-180cm long, with a flat or kick tail that won’t get caught on the sled.
• A waist in the 80s for adequate float on all but the deepest days.
• Excellent edge control for controlling sleds on everything from high moguls to firmpack. Amenable to a wide variety of turn shapes, with a broad sweet spot so that a momentary lapse in technique won’t risk catastrophe.
• Stability at speed.
• Mellow enough that I can ski all day and still have enough left if we catch a wreck during sweep.

Disclaimer: I know that’s a tall order, and probably unattainable in a single pair of skis, so I’ll be making some sort of compromise. That knowledge doesn’t make compromise any more pleasurable, though.

So SierraJim set me up for the Presidents’ Day Weekend with two pairs of skis that he thought would fall at the outer boundaries of what would make sense: the 176 Fischer Watea 84 (126/84/112) and the 178 Dynastar Mythic Rider (122/88/110), both mounted with Look PX12 Demos. Three days of sunshine two weeks after the last snow fell, and high temperatures in the 50s, made for firm conditions in the mornings and an early corn cycle in the afternoons. I skied the Wateas Saturday morning and the Dynastars in the afternoon, then the Dynastars Sunday morning and my Praxis in the afternoon (to see how they did in the mashed potatoes), and finally on Monday, the Wateas to start the day followed by a short stint in mid-afternoon on the Dynastars.

The Wateas were significantly more nimble, particularly in the bumps, than the Dynastars; the Dynastars seemed to take more work going from edge to edge than either of my Bros, despite being more than a centimeter narrower in the waist. The Dynastars’ forte was stability at speed; the Wateas felt squirrelly by comparison, especially unless they were kept on edge (although, to be fair, I was clocked at 57mph on a radar gun on the Wateas). The Wateas had a significantly broader sweet spot; I was able to carve turns with pressure anywhere from my toes to the forward part of my heels, while the Dynastars needed to be pressured between the balls of my feet and the mid-point of my arch to feel in control. The Dynastars had a definite edge (pun intended) in edge control, particularly on the first runs of the morning.

Bottom line, I didn’t love either pair of skis, but they each had their strong points and weaknesses. If I were forced to choose one or the other, I’d probably go with the Wateas, but the relative lack of edge hold would give me pause. I was somewhat surprised, actually, since one of the things I love about my Fischer Big Stix 84s is their tenacity. A longer length might’ve overcome some of the Wateas’ shortcomings, but might defeat the purpose. All things considered, I couldn’t see buying either of these as long as my Big Stix and Bros are still in service.

So I’m still searching. The list of possibles includes the Fischer Cold Heat, Dynastar Legend 8000, Atomic Crimson, Nordica Afterburner, and Volkl AC40. Stay tuned….

I would consider the 183cm Head Monster 82 or the 177cm 78 for what you discribe. The Monster 82 will perform more like your Big Stix than the Watea or Rider.

Michael

AlpineDad,

What is your height, weight, and skiing technique? Those two skis are on my 3 ski list to compare which also includes the 8000. The Watea84 and 8000 having been recommended by SJ.

AD:

See if SierraJim can get you a demo of the 08/09 Dynastar Legend Pro in 184.

It may be the ticket.

Hi,

I am 5 10" 155, level 7-7.5 I ski pretty fast and steeps but not a bump skier so can not claim true expert status, in my mind.
I demo'd both the Mythic Rider and Legend 8000 in 178 cm in similar conditions. Night skiing, during a windy snow storm. 6-10 " of fresh snow, and cut up powder.
The Mythics busted thru the crud with ease and I really liked them.
The 8000's not quite as good in the crud but easier turning later on in the evening as the snow got more skied up and my legs tired.

I think if I had a pair of carving skis already... The Mythics would be a great second ski, or if I was always going to be able to ski in those type of new snow conditions.
I am leaning toward buying the 8000's. A little better for quicker turns, which I prefer most of the time and probably for groomers when no new snow is available.

I also tried the Volkl AC30 on hard pack groomers and AC40's in the same conditions as the Dynastars.

If the Ac40's were the same price I would consider them.

Last week at Sun Valley, on hard pack groomers I tried the Nordica top fuel 172 cm and Rossignol ? the next day. Of the 3 groomer/hard pack outings I prefer the 1 volkl ac30, 2 Nordica top fuel and 3 the Rossignol. The Rossinol name escapes me, but is not important because I would not consider buying it.

I also tried the Volkl Mantras at Alta (it's own seperate demo world based on all the powder).

Hope this adds to the Dynastar questions and if anyone has any other suggestions to similar skis or next years models please let me know.

Rob

I think my 178 Afterburners nail pretty much every point. 84 underfoot, great edge, carve, skid, forgiving, stable at speed, don't cost a fortune. What's not to like.

alpinedad, I'd be curious to know your height/weight. The Watea 84s have plenty of edge hold and stability for me, considering they are biased as a soft snow ski, but I am skiing on the 184cm (6'1" 195lb here). They ski kind of short if you ask me, feeling more nimble than other skis I have owned in that length range. If you're used to 186cm Stix, I'd say you ought to try the Watea 84 in 184cm.

Thanks, but I don't think I'll be making it to the Gathering, unfortunately.
Excellent suggestion; thanks for expanding my list.
Sorry for leaving that out; brain freeze during the drive up. 6'1", 210 pounds. It'd probably be easier for others who've seen me ski to describe my technique than for me to do so, as it varies depending on factors including conditions and fatigue. But as you might guess from my love for the Bros and Big Stix, I tend to like fairly aggressive skis with relatively little sidecut.

At that size, definitely try the 184cm Watea. The 176 is without doubt too short.

No one for the IM 88's? I think they are extremely versatile.

What he said, AND I will add that I agree with Michael if you plan to be rockin' at 60mph all the time with these. I would put the 84 as more of fun, playful ski not so much as a high speed ripper.

These skis -- whatever they will be -- are not for speed runs. This was pure serendipity -- they were attached to my boots while the radar gun was attached to Sinecure's hand. I simply mentioned the speed to temper my critique of their squirreliness, which to be fair, was based on other runs.

Thanks, all.

Afterburners X 2

No luv hear for the Heads I guess!

Understood and appreciated. I have found they need to be mounted forward from the line which may explain some comments pertaining to stability at speed. I put RF's on them and will ski in the +15 mode. I skied My friends 84's +1 and then +2. He Has mojo 15's. For his height, 5' 8" the +2 is perfect. I think it was a touch too far so I think the 1.5 will be a good starting point.

Finn, what is the sole length of your boots?

I mounted my Watea 84s on the line, which puts me 1cm back of a BOF mount with my 325mm boots. For this type of ski, I like to be a tiny bit back from BOF. Feels just about right.

Alpinedad,

How did the Praxis/Mashed potatoes experiment go?

I am a 307. I ski very neutral. I use this ski for more of a soft snow groomer ski or a for a few inches of fresh. After that the 94's come out.

Mixed results. In at least two or three inches of mashed, they're money. In less than that, turning feels like I'm cantilevered up and torquing my legs something awful. It's a dramatic tipping point.

AD's skiing style? Hmmm. Tempting.

I'd say strong all-mountain skier in nearly any conditions or terrain. Clearly not a race background and its apparent that he's spent more of his formative skiing time on snow than ice. Generally well balanced and strong without being overly aggressive. Neither of us are huck-meisters, nor do we ride switch and do trauma park tricks (other than scooping up park monkeys who have wrecked themselves).

Here's a pic of AD on the handles and me on the tail rope from last weekend. Another patrol candidate is the sled meat. I'm on 188 Soft+ Bros in this pic.

Finn -- so at 307, you'd probably be about 2cm behind BOF when mounting on the line, using my measurements as reference. Thus, +1.5 puts you 5mm behind BOF, and +2 would put you right at BOF. So you're indeed right to move up a bit for groomer performance. That is putting you right in the sweet spot. It may not hurt powder performance too much either -- my 94s (mounted on the line by the shop) are exactly BOF by coincidence and they do fine in powder.

Thanks, Sinecure.

Note to all: No MA needed on that particular shot. I know my downhill ski is overextended, and my weight is too heavily on my uphill ski.

And for the record, I'm on 188 Soft Bros in that pic (unlike Sinecure's midsofts).

All respect to you. That can't be easy.

Neither is wearing a highlighter-green helmet. But that's how I roll.

Thanks, I have my 94's at +2 off the center as well and really like them there. They have done just fine in 2' of pow. I can see that if I was in that deep all the time ( I wish) I would want them back 1cm though.

One thing I forgot to mention about the Watea 84s: At least the pair I was on have a definite tone at which they vibrate. It was quite striking, actually. Anytime I was on hardpack, in particular, they sang to me in monotone. That bugged me and may have colored my impression of the ski. I have no idea whether this was a quirk of this particular pair in combination with this particular binding, or what.

I gave my new 84s a pretty thorough workout the other day in a wide range of conditions, including on a pretty steep black that was primarily frozen granular. First time I had them on hard snow. They definitely made a scratchy noise on the really hard stuff (as opposed to a more muted scraping noise a damped hardpack ski would make), but I was surprised how well they gripped and carved. For a soft light ski, they handled the hard snow fine in my opinion, and held a solid line at moderate to high speed. I never noticed any instability or other issues. They're definitely not hardpack skis, but won't penalize you if you happen to ski on hardpack in mixed conditions.

Hey, Alpinedad,

I have a pair of Watea 84s in 176. We're similar in build (I'm 6'1" and range between 190-200 lbs.) Though many, including the local Fischer rep, advised me to get Watea 84s in 184, I went for 176, choosing versatility over the potential for maximum float. (Actually the Fischer rep did say the 176 would be better for work, 184 better for play.)

I'm an instructor and while I'll be the first to admit that what we ski at work is not what you patrollers ski at work, you know that we have to demo/teach the full range of techniques on the full range of terrain at all speeds. To suit those workplace demands, I find the 176 Watea 84s work perfectly. They really have yet to hold me back. When I used to teach on SL skis (and I still do some days), I found myself compensating for them in some conditions/terrain. Not with the Wateas.

As for noise.....? I haven't noticed. When I'm working I'm yelling at students; when I'm not, iPod. But if they start to chatter underfoot on the icier stuff, I just give a little more edge/angulation....it's all good. No complaints.

Like the helmet, BTW. You should see the hat I wear when I'm instructing...

Alpinedad:
I recently tested three of the skis on your list. See my thread at http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=69366. In short, as a 130lb. skier that likes to ski controlled arcs in soft snow and powder the Watea 84's seemed near-perfect (and I didn't find edge-grip an issue even on Colorado ice, they just lacked a bit of stability and power in some cases). On the other hand, if only I were a bigger person (and willing to haul around heavy skis) the Nordica AB's would be the ticket - they are amazing, but way too much ski for me in the shortest 170cm length.
Good Luck!