or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

watea 94 review

post #1 of 49
Thread Starter 
Skied the 94 on Sunday at Bristol.

Me: 43 (just shy of 44)
level 8, improving on bumps
6', 175

Setup: wateas 94's, 178's mounted +1cm. 130-94-118

Conditions: 4-5" of soft snow on top of blown base.
Terrain was eastern black, "Rocket Run", blue at bottom. Snow was piled into 1-2 foot moguls and just piled at bottom. Areas of boiler plate on steep sections between moguls.

Intitial feeling was the ski was extremely lite underfoot. easy to skate over to lift line, felt nimble. Getting off lift and gliding down to the run the ski was fun right from the start, did not feel like 94 underfoot and was very responsive, even on the flat terrain, played in some untracked stuff along the sides and found it floated nicely and it was very easy to turn. Pretty quick side to side as well, actually felt more responsive than my Mojo90's. The ski has a softish flex but not a noodle. Torsionally, it was fairly stiff for a wide ride. It held an edge suprisingly well on the boiler plate.

On the bumps the ski was great, made me a better bump skier. Easy to turn and did not wash out on the boiler plate in between bumps. nice feeling underfoot and the tips flexed well enough going up the bumps and came around nicely.

Going down into the area of 1' and piled stuff I played around with some short to medium turns. I was truly impressed with the ease of initiation and the way the ski hooked up: The ski stayed locked into the turn and the tail released nicel. You could really carve on this ski. Again, Nice flex pattern and excellent stability. Did some GS turns and it blasted the snow. By the afternoon, it was freezing rain and snow was getting heavy, the 94 was not deflected and carved nice lines. The ski has a nice lively, lite feeling, not overly damp IMO.

They opened up a green run so we jumped on it. The run was mostly pure boiler plate. Although it lacked true edgehold, this ski was stable and pretty quick edge-2-edge. I was able to make some decent short turns with it.

Summary: I think Micheal Barrett said it best this way, it will make a great western all mountain ski. I can't wait to take it into the trees. Fun, nimble, good float and great energy. Not a ski I would want to ski all day on hardpack but on soft snow this ski really is versitile.
post #2 of 49
Thanks for the review Finndog! I'm strongly considering this ski. It would be great if you could keep us posted on your deeper thoughts on this ski as you ski it more throughout time.

I'd like to share a reply to my e-mai that I received from a shop about the Watea 94, Volkl Mantra, and Elan 888:

Thanks for dropping us the email. I have skied on the Watea 94, Mantra,
and the 888. They are all great skis. The 888 was the overall favorite in
our shop test last season. It made everyones top three skis. It's a very
stable crud buster that is perfect for big turns on piste or off. I
personally thought there was just a touch of a flat area in the ski
underfoot, but that could have been the demo binding. The Mantra is one
of our most popular skis because it of it's versatility. Even though it's
96mm underfoot, it's still fun on hard snow and round bumps. It's really
remarkable how well it carves the groomers. For powder skiing, it's
perhaps a bit hooky for the big turn crowd, but great for dancing in the
trees. The Watea 94 is my personal favorite of these three skis. It's not
as heavy and stable feeling as the 888, or as carvey as the Mantra. It's
light but solid, and quite nimble for it's girth. The 94 is smooth and
stable, but a bit more playfull than the Volkl or Elan. In short, it's
more of a "freeride ski". It is also pretty light, and has a notch in the
tail for climbing skins. If I could only own one ski, it would very
likely be a Watea 94 with the Marker Duke. If I was getting a dedicated
AT set up, I would use a lighter binding(although the Duke does not weigh
much more than the Naxo 21). If I could have 2 out 3 skis, I would do the
Watea 94 for AT, and the 888 for inbounds. If you prefer a ski that hooks
up in the turn a little more, than sub the Mantra for the Watea.

Kittredge Sports http://www.kittredge.net/skis/alpine.php

Footloose Sports http://www.footloosesports.com/reviews/
post #3 of 49
Nice reviews men.

I'm probably going to get the Watea 94 at the end of the season. Its a great ski due to its versatility.

Michael
post #4 of 49
Thread Starter 
I will be on them December 16. I agree with the comments made. Michael, I forgot your sole length, it's setup for a 307.
post #5 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mehama View Post
Thanks for the review Finndog! I'm strongly considering this ski. It would be great if you could keep us posted on your deeper thoughts on this ski as you ski it more throughout time.

I'd like to share a reply to my e-mai that I received from a shop about the Watea 94, Volkl Mantra, and Elan 888:

Thanks for dropping us the email. I have skied on the Watea 94, Mantra,
and the 888. They are all great skis. The 888 was the overall favorite in
our shop test last season. It made everyones top three skis. It's a very
stable crud buster that is perfect for big turns on piste or off. I
personally thought there was just a touch of a flat area in the ski
underfoot, but that could have been the demo binding. The Mantra is one
of our most popular skis because it of it's versatility. Even though it's
96mm underfoot, it's still fun on hard snow and round bumps. It's really
remarkable how well it carves the groomers. For powder skiing, it's
perhaps a bit hooky for the big turn crowd, but great for dancing in the
trees. The Watea 94 is my personal favorite of these three skis. It's not
as heavy and stable feeling as the 888,
or as carvey as the Mantra. It's
light but solid, and quite nimble for it's girth. The 94 is smooth and
stable, but a bit more playfull than the Volkl or Elan. In short, it's
more of a "freeride ski". It is also pretty light, and has a notch in the
tail for climbing skins. If I could only own one ski, it would very
likely be a Watea 94 with the Marker Duke. If I was getting a dedicated
AT set up, I would use a lighter binding(although the Duke does not weigh
much more than the Naxo 21). If I could have 2 out 3 skis, I would do the
Watea 94 for AT, and the 888 for inbounds. If you prefer a ski that hooks
up in the turn a little more, than sub the Mantra for the Watea.

Kittredge Sports http://www.kittredge.net/skis/alpine.php

Footloose Sports http://www.footloosesports.com/reviews/
I find this to be surprising..I found the 888 to be light and nimble (much more so than my Titans), You might want to include the 999 on your list.
post #6 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
I find this to be surprising..I found the 888 to be light and nimble (much more so than my Titans), You might want to include the 999 on your list.
Same thoughts here. The 888 was very, very stable, but not heavy underfoot at all. In fact, it changes direction very easily and has a very refined feel to it. I preferred it over the Mantra a bit, as it was more versatile on hardpack, and seemed less locked-in to a certain turn radius when on edge. Still waiting for some snow to get out on that Watea 94.
post #7 of 49
Thread Starter 
Get on the 94. You will see what we are talking about. this is not a ski that you really want to have for hardpack ( all the time), but it excels in soft snow. I think the 888 and Mantra are more "all mountain" and the 94 is more soft snow specific.
post #8 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
Same thoughts here. The 888 was very, very stable, but not heavy underfoot at all. In fact, it changes direction very easily and has a very refined feel to it. I preferred it over the Mantra a bit, as it was more versatile on hardpack, and seemed less locked-in to a certain turn radius when on edge. Still waiting for some snow to get out on that Watea 94.
The 888 felt like a wide GS ski, very stable & quick edge to edge. It did not like making full "C" shaped turns IMO, It liked going down the fall line.

The Watea 94 felt like a wide RX8. Quick and capable of almost any turn shape and very user friendly.

Michael
post #9 of 49
The Watea 94 felt like a wide RX8. Quick and capable of almost any turn shape and very user friendly.

Michael[/quote]


Michael,

I have skied RX8s for the past 3 seasons and have yet to find a more user friendly, responsive ski. It really does just about whatever you want it to do on most snow conditions.

I have been skiing a pair of Explosivs for the past few years on powder days. I love the Explosives when the runs are wide open and the turns are few and long. However, the Explosives require a lot of effort to make short turns in trees or on narrow runs. They are not a ski you can just "relax" on or they might take you for a ride. I have been looking an easy turning, relaxed, versatile replacement for the Explosives.

It sounds like the Watea 94 might be it. Have you by chance skied Explosivs? If so can you give me a comparison with regards to turn shape variety, energy input required, forgiveness? BTW (38 yrs old, 6' 225 - advanced skier)

Thanks,

Bill
post #10 of 49
Thread Starter 
Bill., the 94 is just the opposite, easy to turn, easy to ski. on short and mid size turns, the ski was compliant and easy to contol the size of the turn. You can relax and cruise if you want. This is my new favorite ski.
post #11 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by BC13 View Post
The Watea 94 felt like a wide RX8. Quick and capable of almost any turn shape and very user friendly.

Michael

Michael,

...It sounds like the Watea 94 might be it. Have you by chance skied Explosivs? If so can you give me a comparison with regards to turn shape variety, energy input required, forgiveness? BTW (38 yrs old, 6' 225 - advanced skier)

Thanks,

Bill[/quote]


Hi Bill,

I have not been on the Explosives, but your evaluation is what I have read from many users. The Watea 94 is far more "all-mountain" than the Explosive and one of the softer flexing skis of this dimension.

Considering your size, I would focus on the Watea 101;

Dimensions 134-101-124

Turn Radius 25m

Length 191

Side-wall construction.

See: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ighlight=Watea

I'm considering the Watea 94 or 101 as a replacement for my AK Rockets & Spatulas.

Michael
post #12 of 49
Thread Starter 
UPDATE:
Skied the 94's at Steamboat in boot high; trees, open bumped and some soft groomed. The 94 proves again to be a super verstile western all mountain ski. great float, very good in bumps and is a great carver especially at high speeds. As much as I liked the Mojo90, this ski is so much more versitile and a wider envelope of performance.
post #13 of 49
What length (Watea 94) would you all recommend for me??

Level8/9 (Expert)
5'10"
190lbs.

Soft snow, off piste,steeps, trees, small bowls, occasional bumps and groomers.

PNW resorts (Alpental, Crystal, Mt. Hood)

Thanks
post #14 of 49

Speed/ turn shape

Hi Mehama,
Like Finn,
I ski the 178
I'm 6ft, 168 level 9

Based on your information and being 15lbs or so heavier than us, you could be either.

It think it comes down to the 2 most important things...
How fast do you ski?
and, part of the question, what turn shapes do you prefer.

I ski mostly off piste in medium to short turns at moderate speeds and the 178 is perfect. if i skied 30% faster most of the time and did lots of long radius bashing turns through terrain, i would want the longer one.

Cheers,
Holiday
post #15 of 49
How does it float in powder? Do you think there would be much difference there?

I like the quick short turns for moguls/trees etc. And I do like to go pretty fast and bust through crud, but just not sure how fast is fast?

Fischer website (Product Finder) http://www.fischerskis.com/en/
actually recommends size 186cm from 5'8" height and above. But I talked with an ex racer that uses these and he is 220lbs. and thought that the 178cm would be good for me at the resorts that I ski unless I would be at bigger mountains?

It would be interesting to here from anyone that has tried both sizes and give their impression of differences.

Thanks
post #16 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mehama View Post
How does it float in powder? Do you think there would be much difference there?

I like the quick short turns for moguls/trees etc. And I do like to go pretty fast and bust through crud, but just not sure how fast is fast?

Fischer website (Product Finder) http://www.fischerskis.com/en/
actually recommends size 186cm from 5'8" height and above. But I talked with an ex racer that uses these and he is 220lbs. and thought that the 178cm would be good for me at the resorts that I ski unless I would be at bigger mountains?

It would be interesting to here from anyone that has tried both sizes and give their impression of differences.

Thanks
I also think that you could go between sizes. What Holiday said!

FWIW, the Fischer "Product Finder" is crap. When I was looking into sizing for the Cold Heat for personal use, it recommended either the 164, 170, 176, or 182. Boy, that narrows it down!: Why the heck would I want a ski that is 82mm underfooot and only 164cm in length? It would be worthless in any decent amount of new snow. And, there is just no way I could ski the 182cm at 155lbs-it is just too much ski. The 170 is plenty strong enough, maybe I could use the 176 if I wanted more of a big-mountain feel. You are definitely doing yourself a favor by asking questions around here!
post #17 of 49
Thread Starter 
Mehema, only you know how you ski and what you really like in a ski. What length is your Mantra? The 178 is very maneuverable and there isn't any wasted running length since there it's not a TT or even a large turned up tip. I like the quickness and agility of the 178. I have skied it fairly fast (according to Barrett 40-50 range) and it was stable and I like it's performance in the bumps. . For me, I don't think the extra length is going to benefit me. It does everything I need it to do.
post #18 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mehama View Post
...I talked with an ex racer that uses these and he is 220lbs. and thought that the 178cm would be good for me at the resorts that I ski unless I would be at bigger mountains?

It would be interesting to here from anyone that has tried both sizes and give their impression of differences.

Thanks
That, along with the comments from Finn & Dawg is all the advise you need.

Michael
post #19 of 49
I'm going short! I do have similar skiing preference/style as Fin & Holiday and rarely go 40-50 mph, so this size should suite me just right. Just wanted to be sure to make the right decision. 178cm will be good for bumps and trees to manuever quickly, and there should be plenty of float for POWDER. I currently use Fishcer Big Stix 84 181 cm and can get away with skiing the deep though not as floaty as I would like.

Thanks for all of your input.

So the way I see it:

Watea 101 for big powder, very high speeds, and big boys (i.e. pro free -riders).

Watea 94 186 cm: bigger mountain resorts, bigger boys, longer turns, handles higher speeds.

Watea 94 178 cm: all mountain/off piste/powder/trees smaller resorts all size skiers and turn shapes.
post #20 of 49
the watea 178 is a much better pow ski in my opinion then your big stix
i had both the wood core big stix and the carbon green one. they both tended to be stiff in the borebody and especially the green one tended to spear in. the 94 surfs up well and smiles the whole time, even in the 178. if you have any concerns about that, you could also throw a binding like like the Railflex where you can go back 1cm +/- on the biggest days...

cheers,
holiday
post #21 of 49
Thanks for all the opinions RE: Wat94.
I am on a 170 Progressor for teaching and skiing on piste, I am coming off of atomic for the last several years and I need a big mountain ski. Wat 94 or Big Heat?
Thanks for your input.
Greg
post #22 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by GR8TRN View Post
Thanks for all the opinions RE: Wat94.
I am on a 170 Progressor for teaching and skiing on piste, I am coming off of atomic for the last several years and I need a big mountain ski. Wat 94 or Big Heat?
Thanks for your input.
Greg
From what I have seen of the Cold Heat (which I ski in a 170) is that it is a great ski for crud at speed, but quite stiff. The Big Heat is similiar, with a very carvy sidecut (less than 20m) and a stiff flex. Even though I have not skied it, I can imagine that it is very similiar to the Cold Heat, but wider. Which would mean it is a great crud ski at speed (key being AT SPEED), quite turny, and a powerhouse carver considering it's width. It probably is too stiff for really deep snow, whereas the Watea is made for deeper, softer conditions, with the soft flex and turned up tip and tail. Plus, according to Holiday, the Watea is very good in bumps. I doubt the Big Heat does as well in a mogul field.

Do you need a big, wide carver, considering that you already own a Progressor? Yes, then get the Big Heat. No, then check out the Watea.
post #23 of 49
Thread Starter 
Great in bumps.....
post #24 of 49
OK fellas,

Just when I was looking at two other skis (Mojo 90, Prophet 90), I read your continuing raves about the Watea 94.

Finn - You skied the Mojo 90 right? Can you (or anyone else) give me a comparison between the two skis? I demoed the Mojo 90 (176) and liked its quickness edge to edge, edge hold, crud busting, and effortless turning. I did not like its stability at speed.

Can you (or anyone else) give me a little feedback on the Watea re: these attributes? I imagine it has to be great in crud and soft snow, but does it edge well enough to handle eastern fall line skiing where the 10 inches of powder sits on 3 inches of ice? And is it possible the Watea is as quick edge to edge as the Mojo 90?

I currently ski the RX8 and love how that Fischer skis.

Thanks,

Bill
post #25 of 49
Thanks Dawg,
That confirms what I was thinking based on the lay up of the ski. I love the Progressor at speed in crud already, so I think the Watea 94 might be what I need for deeper softer big Mt. riding.
Cheers,
Greg
post #26 of 49
I like what I'm hearing about these skis. What length would you recommend for someone who is 6' 230lbs?
post #27 of 49
I'm also a big guy and used the 186cm sized. Consider this ski, the 176cm size will be way too short.

Michael
post #28 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BC13 View Post
OK fellas,

Just when I was looking at two other skis (Mojo 90, Prophet 90), I read your continuing raves about the Watea 94.

Finn - You skied the Mojo 90 right? Can you (or anyone else) give me a comparison between the two skis? I demoed the Mojo 90 (176) and liked its quickness edge to edge, edge hold, crud busting, and effortless turning. I did not like its stability at speed.

Can you (or anyone else) give me a little feedback on the Watea re: these attributes? I imagine it has to be great in crud and soft snow, but does it edge well enough to handle eastern fall line skiing where the 10 inches of powder sits on 3 inches of ice? And is it possible the Watea is as quick edge to edge as the Mojo 90?

I currently ski the RX8 and love how that Fischer skis.

Thanks,

Bill
Bill, I was blown away by the performance of the 94. I loved the mojo90 but Michael barrett hit it on the head when he said it was a RX8 just wider. This ski has no idea it's 94 underfoot and is actually quicker and more carveable than the 90. One advantage it had in GS or carving was that it wasn't as slow in the transition, You have to be patient with the mojo90, the 94 was much quicker and the felt lag time was much less. It's more stable at speed and although it's no ice ski, it was very useable on hardpack (I would not want to ski all day on hardpack with it) up through knee deep. Just look at the dims and go feel the flex of this ski. It's a ski that is just not as "sexy" as a Mantra but frankly, I don't need the extra weight nor stiffness of the Mantra. The 94 just has this great feel and near perfect blend of flex,float, energy and torsional stability. Cool looking too!
post #29 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
Bill, I was blown away by the performance of the 94. I loved the mojo90 but Michael barrett hit it on the head when he said it was a RX8 just wider. This ski has no idea it's 94 underfoot and is actually quicker and more carveable than the 90. One advantage it had in GS or carving was that it wasn't as slow in the transition, You have to be patient with the mojo90, the 94 was much quicker and the felt lag time was much less. It's more stable at speed and although it's no ice ski, it was very useable on hardpack (I would not want to ski all day on hardpack with it) up through knee deep. Just look at the dims and go feel the flex of this ski. It's a ski that is just not as "sexy" as a Mantra but frankly, I don't need the extra weight nor stiffness of the Mantra. The 94 just has this great feel and near perfect blend of flex,float, energy and torsional stability. Cool looking too!

Finn,

Thanks for the comparison between the Mojo 90 and the Watea 94. It really helped to have those questions answered.

Bill
post #30 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv View Post
I'm also a big guy and used the 186cm sized. Consider this ski, the 176cm size will be way too short.

Michael

Has anyone skied the 176 and the 184? I'm 6 foot 235ish, (fightin weight of 220) and was leaning toward the shorter length since I am in the east and will likely only ski 6 - 9 days a year out west. The ski would primarily be used for soft snow days in the east. I figured the 176 would be more maneuverable for tighter eastern terrain.

However, Barrets comment about the 176 being way too short for someone 6 foot 220 has raised an eyebrow. I'm sure the longer one is more stable, but I found the 176 Gotama plenty stable for me.

I generally make shorter turns in powder, but fast medium and longer turns in soft snow and crud. Any thoughts on 176 vs 186?

Thanks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews