EpicSki  ›  The Barking Bear Forums  ›  Skiing Forums  ›  Ski Gear Discussion  ›  Fischer Watea or Dynastar Legend 8000
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread

Fischer Watea or Dynastar Legend 8000

#1
Rating: 0
10/26/09 at 5:39pm
  • Joined: October 2009
  • Post Count: 3
Experience:
So I'm a relative noob to the sport. Have just 15 days of skiing (1 season) under my belt, but I'm solidly hooked to the sport and feel stupid for not trying it out earlier. I live in the Seattle area and have skiied at Stevens Pass a lot, and at Crystal and Whistler once each. I will probably try and get the same number of days of skiing this season: 15-20.

Oh and I'm 5'10", 165 lbs and 29 years old.

Skill:
As far as skill goes, I was able to ski the whole mountain at Stevens at the end of last season... though not comfortably or gracefully down the double-blacks. My current set of skis (Salomon XWing 5 in a 165 length) began to feel too soft towards the end - where I was being forced into making turns that were quite short - but the softness helped me in the bumps etc. I'd say I'm an above-average intermediate now.

Interest:
I like to ski both on and off piste, almost equally. So having a ski that is well suited to bumps and ungroomed powder is pretty crucial for me. I'm willing to sacrifice some on-piste performance for that.

Boots:
I've got Salomon Mission 10 boots that I selected after atleast 7-8 hours of trying boots. I like the Salomon fit quite a bit. The Salomon Falcon Custom Shell seemed perfect, but was too pricey for me.

Skis:
So... I've been doing my reading and it seems like the Fischer Watea and Dynastar Legend are both skis that fit what I'm looking for. There are some decent deals on a Fischer Watea 84 - was thinking of getting them in a 167. Thoughts?

-Karthik
Edited by Karthik Subramanyam - 10/27/09 at 3:49pm
Export to Wiki
#2
Rating: 0
10/27/09 at 12:09pm
  • Joined: October 2009
  • Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
  • Post Count: 7
my interest are similar to yours and i have demo'd both of those skis, I liked them both but leaned toward the watea. I found the legend very simlar to my rossi b83's, which i enjoy. the watea seemed a tad more aggresive. you might also look at the Elan 888. it's along the same line, I thought they were a riot to ski, very fast edge to edge, seemed alot shorter but were really stable.  probably be my next pair.
 
Export to Wiki
#3
Rating: 0
10/27/09 at 12:28pm
  • Joined: November 2005
  • Location: Central PA
  • Post Count: 1,524
What kind of boots do you have? How do you think they are performing for you? How about the fit?

I'm guessing you don't have high performance boots (just an educated guess).

Start with your boots.

Imagine driving a sports car with 6" of play on either side of the steering.

Harrisburg PA Web Design & Internet Marketing
Export to Wiki
#4
Rating: 0
10/27/09 at 12:42pm
  • Joined: May 2009
  • Post Count: 26
 don't feel stupid, i started at 37!!! but am furiously trying to make up for lost time as well.  i was looking at several skis both of which you are looking at last year, i ended up buying the Watea 84, awesome skis IMHO.  

Mattl is right, get some great boots. your feet will thank you.  
Export to Wiki
#5
Rating: 0
10/27/09 at 3:42pm
  • Joined: October 2009
  • Post Count: 3
Thanks for the responses so far, folks.

So I actually do have a decent pair of boots since I knew that that was the first thing to spend money on. I'm on my 2nd set already and spent atleast 7-8 hours trying on different boots to see what worked well for me. I have Salomon Mission 10 boots and they fit me pretty well. The Salomon Falcon Custom Shell boots fit the best, but were out of my price range.

So far it seems like two of you prefer the Watea 84 to the Legend. Rocor, when you say more aggressive, do you mean stiffer? Would that also make the Legends easier in the bumps?

If I do go with the Watea 84, is 167 an ok length for me? Again, I'm 5'10", 170 lbs with all my gear. The next step up on the Watea is 176 which sounds very long.

As a side note, what about bindings? I don't really understand what value a more expensive binding brings.

Thoughts?
Export to Wiki
#6
Rating: 0
10/27/09 at 7:27pm
  • Joined: October 2005
  • Location: Tahoe
  • Post Count: 3,105
First things first..............boots.

You say the Falcon fit the best but you bought the Mission b/c it was cheaper......HUGE mistake. Those two boots are on the opposite ends of the fit spectrum. The Falcon is on the low volume end of the recreational boot scale while the Mission is on the high volume end. If one fits, the other doesn't. You have just bought yourself some trouble and your bootfitter should have been more stern with you. If you can fix this one way or another then get on it.

The Watea 84 and the L8k are skis that I have skied extensively and have owned one of each in the last year. My impressions......

L8K= Firm and grippy. High energy if you can bend it and a great ski for up to expert level skiing. One of the true classics of the last 10 years.

W-84= Softer, more forgiving, easier in bumps and easier going overall but less grippy. Medium energy. Fine ski and a good choice for you.

SJ
www.starthaus.com   (Check out SH ski deals #2 in the special deals forum)
Export to Wiki
#7
Rating: 0
10/27/09 at 8:03pm
  • Joined: October 2009
  • Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
  • Post Count: 7
aggressive to me means; when I point them, they go that way and hold that line, of course it takes a bit more effort/skill to bring them around, probably equating more to torsional stiffness than flex.

for a bump skis softer is not always better. I prefer one that has good tip and tail flex but quite firm through the mid section. This allows you good control with less chance of hooking and easy release of the tail. I can run the rossi through the bumps okay. I know other skis are better but I'm not in the bumps all day and I'm a one quiver guy. If you are in the bumps alot you may want to consider a park/all mountian ski. Some thing like a K2 PE, I understand these will work very well for this. Never tried them but plan to.

length in skis is some what a personal choice as all skis have a different length feel when you ski them. 176 sounds about right to me. I'm 6'2" - 200lbs, skiing for 30+ years, typically ski ~185, feels right on my rossi but I think I could have skied a longer 888.

bindings, i feel as longer as they are decent quality, adequate din setting, properly set and correct for the ski you should be just fine. I doubt that you need extra lift, etc, etc

+1 for seirrajim boot comment. Interesting how we had almost reverse opinions of the legends / wateas? could come down to the length I skied? hang on for demo days and try a bunch of different skis
Export to Wiki
#8
Rating: 0
10/27/09 at 9:15pm
  • Joined: October 2009
  • Post Count: 3

Yea - I do wonder if I should have spent the extra money on the Falcons. They were almost $300 more though, and the Mission 10s were pretty close in fit (and a steal at 75% off). The Falcons that I was considering were the Custom Shell and I would have needed the toe box widened. However, the heel-fit was great. The Mission is better in the toe area and I've got an insole and some other packing to get the heel area to feel as snug as the Falcon. Also, as far as I understood it, not all the Missions are the same last - the 10s were on the narrower end (albeit not as narrow as the Falcon).

So SeirraJim: Do you agree with Rocor's estimation that a 176 Watea84 would be a good fit for me? Would 167 be too short?

Thanks for the responses so far, guys.

Export to Wiki
#9
Rating: 0
10/27/09 at 10:04pm
  • Joined: October 2005
  • Location: Tahoe
  • Post Count: 3,105
Boot lasts are depicted by the boot companies in the form of forefoot widths measured across the met heads. This is not at all definitive but is in general a point to start your considerations. The fly in the pudding for us all is that the wider forefoot widths coincide with greater overall volume as well. Hence while the 4mm extra width may not seem like very much, (actually, it's a TON in relative terms) the overall volume of the Mission is MUCH greater than the Falcon. There is only one Mission shell shape and it's a biggun. Let me re-emphasize this fact.....if the Falcon felt like it fit....then there is no way in hayull that the Mission is the right boot.

Falcon = 98mm
Impact = 100mm
Mission = 102mm


The Watea would be an easier ski in general. For a 165# guy with a grand total of 15 days under his belt, the 167 would be OK. You probably won't have a realistic need for a longer or stiffer ski for a couple of years at least.

SJ
www.starthaus.com   (Check out SH ski deals #2 in the special deals forum)
Export to Wiki
#10
Rating: 0
10/28/09 at 7:12am
  • Joined: April 2009
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Post Count: 13
I have to agree with SierraJim on the boots.  Always hard to look past a $300 price difference but having the right boot as the commercials say is "priceless".  I recently purchased Falcons and also tried on the Impact.  Though there is only a 2mm difference in the Last, on my foot the volume of the Impact was noticeably bigger than the Falcon.  Must be even more volume in the Mission.  Doesn't make sense to add an insole and "some other packing " to the Mission to try to get the out-of-the-box fit of the Falcon.
Export to Wiki
#11
Rating: 0
10/28/09 at 10:14am
  • Joined: February 2009
  • Post Count: 118
For Washington conditions, get the Watea.
Export to Wiki
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread