or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fischer Watea's

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 

Hey Folks,  I am new to the forum. Been reading for years. Thanks!


I haven't seen recent reviews or discussions on The new line of Watea's. I am looking at the 2011 Watea 94 or for another $80 the 2012 Watea 94.


I am 44yrs old, 150lbs, 5'5" tall and an aggressive skier . I just don't jump off things like I used to. 


Anyone have any feedback on either years ski? Headed out to Vail in a few weeks and want to bring new boards.

post #2 of 17

You haven't seen any recent reviews because that ski really hasn't changed a ton since it's been introduced.  In.. '10, i think, they added the boat hull tip.  This year they added some very slight rocker to it.


I'm still skiing the 2008 version as one of my skis.  Overall, it's a very nice ski.  It's got more of a light, lively feel as opposed to a damp bulldozer feel.  However I'd say that stability isn't too bad, considering.  It does very well in soft snow, powder, bumps, trees.  I would say the 2 weaknesses are probably heavy crud and really firm conditions.  IMO, it's a very good all-around ski for an off-piste oriented skier, although I'm probably going to be replacing mine with something a touch damper.  Just a personal preference I've learned about since I originally bought them.

post #3 of 17
Save the $80, get the older model, size up to 184 (or is it 186?) if you plan to haul ass everywhere. Otherwise 178.

I got some Watea 94 in 2008, 178 cm size, and I weigh 150. I skied them about 10 days with alpine bindings and then retired them to AT use where I've enjoyed them repeatedly.

I had no problem with the Watea 94 in any condition. It skis light and yet it is very damp. I've read reviews that say it's weak on hard snow but I can make mine arc like mad on hard snow and ice.

The Watea 94 is the best ski I've ever used on ugly frozen coral reef. Very smooth.

Fun in bumps. Great in soft snow. In wetter thicker crud/cutup at speed, the tip will be a bit bouncy but they will hold a line just fine... more a visual thing than a performance weakness.

You won't need a beefy boot to drive the Watea 94, but it will be happiest and perform best if you can stay on its sweetspot. Not really going to get much out of the ski tail-gunning it.

Also -- If the two models are at the same ski seller, I'd ask for a bigger than $80 discount for the earlier model. Prior model year discounts are usually a lot bigger than $80.
Edited by GrizzledVeteran - 3/1/12 at 5:08pm
post #4 of 17
I have the 2012 Watea 94 - love it! Used it every day last year in all conditions in the PNW. Very light, a good amount of camber and the wide tail really makes it rail on hard conditions. Great in crud also. I highly recommend this ski. I also have rossi S3 and K2 Outlaw, and the Watea would be my choice for a 1 ski quiver between these 3!
post #5 of 17

Originally Posted by GrizzledVeteran View Post

I had no problem with the Watea 94 in any condition. It skis light and yet it is very damp. I've read reviews that say it's weak on hard snow but I can make mine arc like mad on hard snow and ice.
The Watea 94 is the best ski I've ever used on ugly frozen coral reef. Very smooth.


Originally Posted by ILOJ View Post

Very light, a good amount of camber and the wide tail really makes it rail on hard conditions. Great in crud also.


And hence the reason why demo'ing can be so important, if you're able to.  Everyone has different likes and dislikes, due to skiing styles, personal preferences, and what-not.  You're bound to get a lot of conflicting information, which doesn't necessarily mean anyone is wrong, just that different skis sometimes work differently for different folks.

post #6 of 17

Where do you ski?  Snow conditions, size of mountain, type of runs, terrain enjoyed the most, and time spent where?

post #7 of 17
Thread Starter 

I live on the East Coast. I make 2 trips out west a year. I have other skis and don't mind demoing if the conditions warrant. These, I am hoping, will become like an older favorite running shoe. Always fall back to using it, but try new stuff along the way.


I was hoping to stick with the 170's. I like skiing tight fall line turns as well as long sweeping GS turns. The 170's are 1" above my head.  To short??

post #8 of 17

I think it's a no lose situation.  I love my Fischer Watea 101s.  No top end on  speed


They ski very well.  I've had some really fun days on the 94. 

post #9 of 17

jrud, my everyday ski this year has been the '12 Watea 84. I'm a 5'9", 165lbs advanced (certainly not expert) and ski the 176. I've had them in Colorado and Utah mostly this year and have really enjoyed them, plus they are a great value. They are similar in makeup to the 94 but went smaller in the waist as I found them more manageable for me in bumps. I doubt heavier folks would enjoy them as much, but being a lighter guy I've found them very light and energetic with great edge hold on everything but pure ice. So on anything but the hardest groomers, I've had a lot of fun laying them on edge and enjoying the ride. They are an absolute blast in bumps and trees, extremely quick and predictable. This is where I try to spend 60% of my time, so it may be why I've enjoyed them so much. I've had them in everything up to 10" of fresh powder and they performed really well for me, again I'm sure it helps being on the lighter side. The slight rocker they added this year has improved all-round performance a little, but probably not drastically over the previous models.  


I know you are talking specifically about the 94, but just wanted to comment that like GrizzledVet and the 94, I found the 84 to be a very smooth, fun and capable all mountain ski. They may just become my 'old running shoe.' 

post #10 of 17

I bought Watea 94's based on reviews on EpicSki - never regretted that.  They are truely 1 ski quivers for Western skiing.  I think mine are 2008 models, since they have the fugly maori warrior graphics. 


170's that are 1" above your head aren't too short; maybe the opposite.  Shoot for the ski tip hitting you in the eyebrow.  Mount the ski bindings about 1" behind the line if you like big mountain skiing, right on the line if you like the park (but these aren't really terrain park skis). Your statement about liking tight turns and huge GS turns is somewhat incompatible - you have to compromise if you want both.

post #11 of 17

I've got the 94 with the hull. I really like it as a tweener, somewhere between my race skis and powder skis. It's becoming the ski I grab most days. I think it holds OK on ice and is quick enough to ski in bumps. Skied powder only once on these skis, but 94 was considered wide just a few seasons ago, so don't see any problems there. 

post #12 of 17

I ski the 84's (not new) and like them a lot.  I spend a fair amount of time in the bumps, or I would have gone wider.  I'm 6', 185lbs and ski a 176 FWIW.  If I was buying today, I would probably consider wider and longer.


I have no complaints.  I "want" new skis, but never seem to be able to justify the "need" as the Wateas keep on ticking and I find nowhere where I can't go with them and have a lot of fun.  I've had them in every condition imagineable and they just never disappoint.  I've demoed a few other skis, and never feel bad coming back to the Fischers.

post #13 of 17
Thread Starter 

I have a follow up question regarding length on the 2011 W94.  At my height of 5'5" 150lbs should I get the 170 or 178. I keep reading these skis ski short due to the turned up tail and powder hull tip?   Thanks.

post #14 of 17

No, not really skiing short.  The tails aren't that high; not like a twin tip.  Aim for your eyebrow with the ski tip.  Just my $0.02....

post #15 of 17
Weight rather than height dictates ski length, IMO. Weight, and/or skiing speed. At 150 lbs I would go 178. I weigh 150 and like the 178.

I think people say they ski short because the tip initiates nicely.
post #16 of 17

I'm skiing older Watea 84 and 101s.  84s are my daily driver.  The 94s on paper look similar to my 101s with the power hull/swallow tail and 21m turning radius.  I have no issues on harder groomer, tree, or powder with my 101s.  The 84 skis different, that being very smooth and can turn tighter turns (18m).


Surprisingly to me, that I have more confident in the trees with the 101s than the 84s.  In powder, both perform fine to me, as I like my skis to sit deeper in the snow.  Some refer this as 3D.


I think choosing between 170 vs 178 is a personal choice.  As mentioned in the past, what do you want to compromise?  Maybe another way to put it is..if you have a 'weakness', then you may want your skis to make you shine in that area.

post #17 of 17

I demoed the 178's and loved them.  I'm 5-10 and 140 lbs. 


New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion