New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

watea 94 review - Page 2

post #31 of 49
Thread Starter 
FYI- its a 178, not 176......
post #32 of 49
Holiday,

One last question: Will the 178 Watea 94 be as stable at speed through various snow conditions as the old wood Big Stix 84? Currently I'm enjoying going over/through light crud and chop fairly confidently on these old big stix and don't want to loose that capability.

Thanks. Looking forward to riding this ski.
post #33 of 49
qualifying question to answer your question...
are you going though the crud at higher edge angles? what speed?

In other words, if you are pretty flat on the ski, the old one wil feel more stable imo. there is just more material, so more inertia. i've found that if i tip the 94 up more, it quiets down in chunky stuff.

also, once again, based on what you said, you ski at moderate speeds, and there it should be just as good to better. the old one was longitudinally stiffer so at higher speeds it would be better.

it's tough to pigeon hole this ski, all i know is that for me, it has a sweet shape, flex and feel.

unlike many of the skis I've skied on lately, it really likes short to medium reboundy turns. i skied it in over a foot yesterday(2 feet of new underneath that was heavy, with about a foot on top, so sinking to between boot top and knee height) and in some ways, it reminded me of when all pow turns were rebound, porpoise turns. you didn't have to use that turn, but it sure liked the flex and pop turn of old (which i enjoy as well). it would surf longer turns too, but the one that really made me smile as the shorter one...

today, i did find a worthwhile pitch and depth that it couldn't float. i was guiding an advanced (he called himself an expert... but, from NJ ), and i got some good pow runs on moderate pitches. I was taking the client to runs that had been groomed before the last 6 inches to a foot, and off the sides I found 2 to 3 foot deep areas. i couldn't get enough speed to plane this ski out. of course, the only ski i saw really coming up here was a pontoon...

so, there is a spot in my quiver for a 110cm plus, soft playful ski, but i sure havn't found one. Anyone?

PS for Mehama, I must fess up that I have many many skis that I liked more then my big stix 84. the green 86 was much higher on my list, and many others. that ski didn't click that well for me, even though on paper it should have... so, that may qualify my comparison a bit, as I obviously really like this 94.

cheers,
wade
post #34 of 49
Thanks Holiday!

Occasionally, I like to just go straight or do long turns at approx. 20-30 mph on crud or tracked powder on the sides of flatter blue runs. It's almost as if the ski sometimes skiffs across the top of junk snow in a way.

I'm also looking for that one ski that will do well all over: Powder, open bowls, trees, steeps, chutes, bumps, groomers, and in all types of snow, turns, and speeds.

Do you think you've found it with the 94? Coomba gone?

I will probably mount my older Rossi Axial 2 bindings on the 94's and keep my Big Stix with Fritchis already on them for AT .

I'll be picking up a pair of 94s soon in the 178. Thanks for providing good information heping me make my decision. Any good deals out there?
post #35 of 49
yep, this ski will do it all well,

if you want to straight, though, you're better off with a longer straigher stiffer ski. get a 194 Legend pro rider and straight shoot everything.
or
tilt the ski up, carve it and this one is happy, in all turn shapes, in all the snow i've found, at moderate speeds.

talk to dawgcatching and see if he has another one.

cheers,
holiday
post #36 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holiday View Post
i was guiding an advanced (he called himself an expert... but, from NJ ),
wade

Ouch! a man's gotta know his limits! he meant an expert on death cookies and wet piled crap......
post #37 of 49
What's the turning radius of the 178 94's?
post #38 of 49

20meters

glad you didn't take that personally, Finn, i didn't even see that you were you from NJ .

and yep, it's a 20 meter radius, the 186 is 22.

cheers,
holiday
post #39 of 49
Thread Starter 
thanks, I will take that as a compliment!
post #40 of 49
another day, and higher speeds in broken wind affected snow.
I was falling a buddy of mine who was known as "the worlds fastest man" (first person to break 150mph on skis and still only person to crash over 150, at 151).
anyway, i skied faster then i usually to hang with jeff and the seemingly skinny (compared w/ almost everyone else on KT) and short (at 178) skis exceeded my expectations again. they just seem to listen well and do what needs to be done. I know i'm starting to sound like i have some vested interest in these things, but i don't. They just make me smile.

that said, I do think i will end up owning a rockered super wide some day soon for the deepest dumps, but that's another story...

cheers,
holiday
post #41 of 49
Holiday,

I pulled the trigger on a pair of 186 cm found on sale for $525.00. I'm figuring that since this is an easier ski to ski (nimble, lighter, and quicker than normal) and my weight nearly 200lbs. that these may be able to do what I want them to in smaller spaces. If not, I hope to be able to unload them and get smaller pair later.

Did you ever try the Atuas?? I'm wondering if the contact length would be more similar to the 178s or the 186s?

What bindings are you using with these? I may go with Dukes for $360.00 or Tyrolia Mojo 15s for $200.00. What are your thoughts for alpine prformance on the dukes? Thanks
post #42 of 49
Couldn't help myself -went with Look px 14 Bindings. I plan to use these as a resort ski, and use my older Big Stix with Free Rides as my randonee.

I'll be letting you know what I think of the 186s in about a week or so.
post #43 of 49
Look forward to the report, Mehama. Don't forget us! :-)
post #44 of 49

dukes work well.

yep, I think they will be great at that length as well.
and
although i'm late, the duke is great. expensive, but awfully good.

enjoy and give us your report when you get a spin on em.

cheers,
holiday
post #45 of 49
I live in Park City (4th year) level 7 skier. 42 6 foot 185. I hit Jupiter, Scotts and McConkeys bowls on a powder day. Rip the groomed steeps, okay in not soo steep trees and frankly suck on icy moguls. Thoughts on the Watea 94 for me? I am on the Apache recons I dig them but a looking for some float in the pow pow. Thanks
post #46 of 49
good choice. more fun on groomed then apache, better in bumps and more float in pow, you get the trifecta.

holiday
post #47 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mehama View Post
Holiday,

I pulled the trigger on a pair of 186 cm found on sale for $525.00. I'm figuring that since this is an easier ski to ski (nimble, lighter, and quicker than normal) and my weight nearly 200lbs. that these may be able to do what I want them to in smaller spaces. If not, I hope to be able to unload them and get smaller pair later.

Did you ever try the Atuas?? I'm wondering if the contact length would be more similar to the 178s or the 186s?

What bindings are you using with these? I may go with Dukes for $360.00 or Tyrolia Mojo 15s for $200.00. What are your thoughts for alpine prformance on the dukes? Thanks

I am close to pulling the trigger on these skiis. Any feed back on how you found the 186's in tighter spots? Any help would be appreciated.
post #48 of 49
I find the 186 less manuverable in tight spots than the 178.

SJ
post #49 of 49
I agree with Jim, less maneuverable (particularly moguls) but more stable over chop, crud, pow, variable, etc. I can ski trees just fine with these, but struggle bit more in moguls at higher speeds (one of my least favorite terrains anyhow). I feel that I made the right choice for what I like to ski and how I ski. I'm 5'11" 195lbs pretty aggressive off piste skier mainly at resorts and occasional backcountry. Like soft conditions mainly! Good luck.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews