EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Do I really need a Watea 94?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do I really need a Watea 94?

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
I think I have myself convinced that I need a new pair of Fischer Watea 94's. I'm a 200lb. expert, ex-ski racer back in the 80's, that skis off piste as much as possible. The Wateas sound great on paper, sort of an easier going Mantra in my mind.
I currently ski Elan 777 in a 184cm, they are great crud busters, but pretty average for skiing everything else. I've skied K2 Recons 181, kinda boring, damp; Dynastar Intuitive Big 188, an odd ball ski but I made it work for a couple of years; 8800 184?(demo'd, decent ski), B3's 184, damp, not that exciting; 5 -Stars 175, fun groomer ski.
My question is, do I need that wide of a ski or should I go with a AMC 79 182cm. which sounds like a more lively version of a ski like a Recon. I really don't have the budget for two pairs of boards.
My local hill, Bogus Basin, I find myself skiing crud and off-trail bumps most often, but north of here I ski better powder condions maybe once or twice a month. I end up on the groomers when the snow conditions get bad, so any ski I choose needs to handle harder snow.
The mid's are popular here, like the new Mythic Rider, Elan 888, or Head iM88 (a ski I don't particularly like, demo'd them for about an hour). It seems like the mid fats are like the 777, good for crud, but not particularly great for anything else - so, do I go big, like the Watea 94, or go with a narrower ski like the AMC?
post #2 of 18
Need has nothing to do with it. I've got a 69 waist, a 75 and an 82 ready to go and I'm going to add the Watea 94 mid season this year. I think this looks to be a fun ski and will pick it up in time for the late February trip. Probably put some PX12's on it.

You don't need it but just buy it anyway :
post #3 of 18
Thread Starter 
My real issue is that I don't really want, and can't really afford, multiple pairs of skis. I probably would be happier if I owned seperate groomer, powder skies, etc., I just don't want to have to deal with what pair of skis I'm going to pack with me on a particular trip/day.
post #4 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by halvie View Post
I currently ski Elan 777 in a 184cm, they are great crud busters, but pretty average for skiing everything else. I've skied K2 Recons 181, kinda boring, damp; Dynastar Intuitive Big 188, an odd ball ski but I made it work for a couple of years; 8800 184?(demo'd, decent ski), B3's 184, damp, not that exciting; 5 -Stars 175, fun groomer ski.
You ski off piste as much as possible but don't want a pow ski?

If you really don't like the 777 on groomed I would sell it too and buy a midfat that you like for both crud and that can handle groomers to your specifications. Many 80-90mm skis are good in crud and good on groomers. The im88 is a great ski for that sort of niche. Too bad you don't like it. But there are plenty of similar skis that may turn you on. Then buy a 110mm+ ski for pow days. If you don't like any of the 80-90mm skis for groomers then you will need to buy a 65-75mm ski for groomers or you can just suck it up.
post #5 of 18
Have you thought about the Misfit?
post #6 of 18
if you're really focusing on a 94mm waisted ski and you're an ex-racer, my vote is being tossed in for the AK King Salmon.

http://www.akski-usa.com/products.html
post #7 of 18
Thread Starter 
Interesting - I have not heard of this ski - thanks for the tip.
post #8 of 18
Go for the Watea! I,m doing the same, based on what I've read, plus I'm a big believer in Fischer skis. I'll be keeping my Fischer Big Stix 84s w/ Diamir Freeride bindings for alpine touring/resorts until I find a good deal on the Watea 94's. I'll probably slap my alpine bindings on those and use them for soft resort days. Depending how well I like the Wateas, it could be my one quiver set-up someday??? Right now, I'm still having a blast on the Big Stix for just about everything except ice. Maybe the Watea 84 could be the answer?
post #9 of 18
Thread Starter 
So, what about the Atua? I realize it will ski a bit shorter as it's a twin, but it seems liike it would be almost the same ski.
Would a 186 Atua be enough ski for a 200lb agressive skier?
post #10 of 18
I'm think it will be. I'm about that weight and ability too. But I'm also waiting for more personal reviews about the ski and the price to drop before I make a purchase.

Footloose Sports really like these skis. It might be worth contacting them and discussing more specifics with them, and let us know what you find out, please. I'd kind of like to know just how much the Watea 94s (186cm) weigh?

Thanks
post #11 of 18
Thread Starter 
I have checked out the Watea 94 at a local shop and they are not a heavy ski. The only other ski I looked at was a Head iM 88, and the Watea is definately lighter than those - the Head is quite heavy.
post #12 of 18
I went for the 94's for the same reason; the Mantra-lite factor, I haven't skied it but I also like Fischer and really like the dims, flex and overall construction. FYI- the 94 replaced the Atua.

the 88 is a great ski but it's much stiffer; more so than the Mantra. Go to the 94. It's tough to take that leap of faith when your not use dto wider skis but once you get on them in the pow (and on groomed, for the most part) you realize the width is really not such a factor for control, in fact, in the pow and broken, skiin gis much easier and just plain more fun.

FYI- Dawgcatching is selling them for 650 flat I think.
post #13 of 18
One question: Sizing seems to be a bit confusing on the 94's. My understanding is that the tail is basically flat, slightly turn up and rounded. I ordered the 178 based on this, I'm 6' 175. I am a little concerned about the length given that I learned my lesson when i bought the Mojo90s in a 176 which was WAY too short.
post #14 of 18
Thread Starter 
The tail of the 94 is slightly turned up as you say, but nothing like the full twin tail on the Atua. That's the issue I am having with the Atua, I'm still interested in that ski, as there are some still available for $400, but I wonder if I'm going to want the 94 just because it will probably ski longer than the Atua.
post #15 of 18
well it came in a 186 right? so it most likely has a running equiv of 178/180, the new 94 is a 178. About the same....
post #16 of 18
i'm going 186 cm 5 11" 190 lbs expert

I think Fischer uses the 101 Watea as the really big guy or really big mountain ski.

I just want an all arounder for resort, backcountry, trees, groomed, moguls, but mostly powder/crud hence the 94.
post #17 of 18
Sounds good, just remember, its not a TT and the running length will be much longer. For me, the 178 should ski like a 175, that's plenty for Steamboat. I'm not an expert. 8+
post #18 of 18
just to stir the pot... Nordica Enforcer. 135-98-125. R21 (185) wood/metal. My 2008 one-ski quiver pick. (based purely on specs, construction and prior experience with the Jet Fuel.)

If I were in your boat, I'd buy it.

http://www.nordica.com/dynamic/ski.p...dL=1&restart=1&
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Do I really need a Watea 94?