EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Review: Fischer Watea 84
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Review: Fischer Watea 84 - Page 2

post #31 of 54
94! hands down
post #32 of 54
Thread Starter 
Matt, yes, 94! In comparing the two skis, I find that the Watea 94's groomer performance impresses me more than the 84 -- you'd think the 94 is the underdog because of the extra width, but that's not the case. I can think of 2-3 times when someone asked me about the 94s on a lift ride, and the first thing I commented on was groomer performance. I think it's a bonus for this type of ski.

Overall, I would only recommend the 84 if you were skiing a lot of tight lines, where the extra width of the 94 might get in the way.
post #33 of 54

Watea 94 vs. MisFit

I have been doing some more research and have come across the Misfit - which is a twin tip version of the Watea 94 - any thoughts b/w the two ?
post #34 of 54
the misfit is the Atua. It's very similar to the 94 and yes, it is a directional TT, I don't think its a full TT.
post #35 of 54
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingYeti View Post
I have been doing some more research and have come across the Misfit - which is a twin tip version of the Watea 94 - any thoughts b/w the two ?
I am not sure I agree with that -- there are a couple key differences between the skis.
post #36 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
I am not sure I agree with that -- there are a couple key differences between the skis.

You are right there always are. But realistically if I want something like the 94 and something I can take into the pipe and broaden into a jumping ski this would be it.

Do you agree?
post #37 of 54
Thanks for your review OP. I picked up a pair of 84's and the exact same bindings that you used as well and skied them for the first time today.

Quote:
I think a softened packed surface is *the* money condition for the Watea 84s -- they really rocked.
That's exactly what I skied on today out east in NY, and they were the best skis I've ever been on. I felt a level of absolute confidence that I can't ever remember feeling--especially compared to my volkl supersport s5's that these replaced (1-ski quiver ftw!). The watea's feel like they're helping me ski better and giving my legs more energy, whereas the supersports felt like they needed every ounce of my strength to bend...even though they were 168's and the watea's are 176's.

I'm really looking forward to my trip to Aspen with these skis. I know you mentioned they don't float as well as the 94's, but compared to 69cm volkl's they have to be an improvement in powder as well I hope. And I ski too many moguls and east ice to deal with 94cm. Thanks again for the great review, I read this one and many other recommendations here and I couldn't be happier with these skis.
post #38 of 54
Thread Starter 
Cool, thanks for adding your comments!
post #39 of 54
This thread helped convince me that I should buy a Watea 84 untested for those "deeper days" here in the Northeast. My first chance to test them was at Stowe on Friday in a variety of snow conditions.

Me: 6'2", 170 lbs, level 8 skier. I have the 176cm Watea 84's, 2007/08 model, mounted with Look bindings (not sure the exact binding model, as I don't have them in front of me). This is easily the fattest ski I've ever owned; my naturally narrow stance isn't compatible with the super-wide boards.

About 6" of wet crud had fallen overnight which was covered in a thin layer of crunchy crust; not really breakable crust, as the crust broke without any effort.

The skis seemed like good crud-busters. The ski wasn't getting pushed around much by the piles; i.e., if I wanted to plow through a pile, I could. Just put 'em on edge, and cruise medium radius turns easily.

There wasn't anything approaching a real bump field, but there were piles of pushed-up snow that were "absorbable" and a couple short sections of real bumps. I was pleasantly surprised at the ease at which I could make some pretty short radius turns and bump my way down such as the conditions allowed. Basically, the ease at which I could throw the skis around was impressive. I'm thinking this is a very nice "tight spots" ski.

Downsides: this being New England, there were some icy spots forming as the afternoon wore on. The Watea isn't frighteningly bad on hard snow, but to compare it to my Nordica Nitrous' or Elan Speedwave (my hard-snow ski of choice) is laughable.

Summary: very adaptable to a variety of turn shapes, and no real issues of the ski being deflected by the conditions. Ice isn't nice though. I'll take a little additional slide on the hard stuff though as a fair tradeoff for the crud-busting and quick-turning capabilities of the ski.
post #40 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post
Ditto that. I am 130lbs and own the Watea 84.
May I ask what length you're on, and whether you tried more than one length before settling on the one you have?

(I'm the same size as you. East coaster looking for a soft snow ski to complement my Fisher RCs. Currently that role is filled by a pair of 172cm Dynastar Legend 4800s, which I like very much. But I want something a bit wider next time. It has to be light and quick enough to ski tight trees and bumps here in the east, but also serve me out west once every couple of years.)
post #41 of 54
I demoed the Fischer Watea 84 176cm on Fri. 1/23/09 at Elk Mtn. PA. Conditions: Temp. 35, packed powder groomed, a little ice, some moguls. Weight 210 lbs., solid advanced intermeadiate.

It took 2 runs to really see how awesome this ski is. I found it not so good in long sweeping high speed turns, or super quick tight short radius turns. BUT it would do World class quick medium radius turns to perfection. In fact it seemed like it would bang out quick medium radius turns all day long in any condition, be it groomers, soft snow, ice, or even moguls.
post #42 of 54
Thread Starter 
I think you'd want to try the 184cm at your weight, but don't forget this is a soft snow ski.
post #43 of 54
post #44 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaportrail View Post
I saw this: le Watea 114, large, bi-spatulé et dans de très jolis tons de bois.

Michael
post #45 of 54
Thread Starter 
oo-la-la!
post #46 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
May I ask what length you're on, and whether you tried more than one length before settling on the one you have?
I ski the 167's. Didn't try them in a different length (the 167 is the shortest available and I know from enough experience that the 176 would be too long for me). I did try a few other skis on the same day last spring, including the 165 Dyna 8K's which felt a bit short for me, and the 170cm Nordica AB's which were waaaay too long given their weight and power. I really wanted to try more similar to the W84's in a slightly longer or shorter length (like the Solly Fury in a 163 or 170), but I wasn't able to and the W84's seemed close enough to perfection that I chose to look no further.

Skiing on them this year has only further fortified my decision (in particular that I wouldn't want these or any similar ski in a much longer or shorter length, and that it has more power then I realized when demo'ing them).

Does that answer your question?
post #47 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
(I'm the same size as you. East coaster looking for a soft snow ski to complement my Fisher RCs. Currently that role is filled by a pair of 172cm Dynastar Legend 4800s, which I like very much. But I want something a bit wider next time. It has to be light and quick enough to ski tight trees and bumps here in the east, but also serve me out west once every couple of years.)
P.S. The W84's definitely ski light and quick for me - they are very much at home on Winter Park bumps and Steamboat trees. OTOH I didn't find them them to be significantly superior to the Dyna 8K's in deeper snow (which I believe are similar in profile to the 4800's).

Not to steer you away from the W84's (which will work great in a variety of conditions though they are not powder skis by any stretch), but if you like your 4800's then you probably want to look at something wider than the W84's....

FWIW I also replaced my 90mm "powder" skis this year with 105mm Gotamas and have found that they edge so well that my next "mixed condition" ski will probably be wider than the W84's.

I hope this hasn't added confusion to the mix.
post #48 of 54
Thanks. Good info.

I don't understand this comment, though:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post
if you like your 4800's then you probably want to look at something wider than the W84's....
My 4800s from 4 or 5 years ago are only 74mm (nominally 75mm) at the waist. So they're a full cm narrower than your 84s. So why would I want something WIDER than the 84s? Did you mean narrower?

FYI, your comment about the 165cm 8Ks being too short sounds right to me. I love the 4800s in the 172cm length, but the 165s did nothing for me. I actually owned a pair of the 165s briefly and went back to the longer length, which turns out to be way more versatile for me on this model. The shorter ones were okay in the bumps but just not enough ski when arcing on the groomers.
post #49 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
Thanks. Good info.

I don't understand this comment, though:

My 4800s from 4 or 5 years ago are only 74mm (nominally 75mm) at the waist....
I assumed that your 4800s were newer and with the same 79mm waist as the 8K's. Now that I know otherwise the W84's will definitely be a step up from the 4800's in deep/soft snow capabilities without giving anything up in stability and power (the 4800's are supposedly not very torsionally rigid). In fact vs. the 4800's there's a good chance that you will find the W84's to be more maneuverable (due to the shorter length vs. the 4800's) and superior in edge grip (they ain't wimpy skis underneath a lightweight). Enjoy....
post #50 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
....I love the 4800s in the 172cm length, but the 165s did nothing for me.
P.S. If you are enough heavier/taller than me and/or like a longer ski (I don't know how a 172cm 4800 skis vs. a more powerful 167cm W84), you may want to first demo them vs. the 170cm Solly Fury which is also supposely is slightly more hard-snow biased ski. You never know - you might like those better due to their length and/or personality even though the W84's are clearly the popular favorite on this forum (as I said that's what I wanted to do, though it probably wouldn't have changed the result given that the W84's ski long enough for me).

Perhaps if you gave us some more information on you - weight, height, capabilities, terrain intended, length of your RC4's, etc. I or others might be able to give you a better read on this matter...rather than to confuse you further....
post #51 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
....I love the 4800s in the 172cm length, but the 165s did nothing for me.
P.S. If you are enough heavier/taller than me.
[snip]

Perhaps if you gave us some more information on you

 

Nope, I'm the same weight as you (130 - 135). That's why I specifically was looking at your posts on this matter. I'm 5' 7". Middle-aged guy with a desk job and a kid, who keeps in reasonable shape in summer (mountain biking), not quite so much in winter mostly because of the daylight factor. (I hate the gym.) Level 7 - 8 skier, depending on which day and who's watching. ;-) Been skiing 40 years, but only for the past 5 with any frequency. Now I ski 20 - 25 days a season. Beer league racer - middle or upper middle of the pack. But obviously we're not talking about my race skis here. Live and ski (mostly) in Maine. Have had 3 amazing deep / soft snow days in the last two weeks, which is unprecedented. Normally I'm lucky to get that many in two years. Need a ski that is easy and forgiving in bumps and tight trees, but that I can also arc on, um, firm corduroy if needed, since that's often all that's on offer around here. Do not need a serious ice / speed ski, as I already have a pair of those.

post #52 of 54
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

Nope, I'm the same weight as you (130 - 135). That's why I specifically was looking at your posts on this matter. I'm 5' 7". Middle-aged guy with a desk job and a kid, who keeps in reasonable shape in summer (mountain biking), not quite so much in winter mostly because of the daylight factor. (I hate the gym.) Level 7 - 8 skier, depending on which day and who's watching. ;-) Been skiing 40 years, but only for the past 5 with any frequency. Now I ski 20 - 25 days a season. Beer league racer - middle or upper middle of the pack. But obviously we're not talking about my race skis here. Live and ski (mostly) in Maine. Have had 3 amazing deep / soft snow days in the last two weeks, which is unprecedented. Normally I'm lucky to get that many in two years. Need a ski that is easy and forgiving in bumps and tight trees, but that I can also arc on, um, firm corduroy if needed, since that's often all that's on offer around here. Do not need a serious ice / speed ski, as I already have a pair of those.


I gonna go out on a limb and state that, given the width and intermediate-level rigidity of the 4800, you'll find a shorter W84 or Fury to be more than  the equal of the 4800 in power and stability.  Further, given our similarity in weight and ability (I may be more like level 8/9 but I've never raced and I'm getting a bit beyond  middle aged...) my bet is that you'll prefer the 167cm W84 over the 170cm Fury in the forgiving, nimbleness, bump and tight trees categories.  But YMMV, so try to demo if you can (though it sounds like the W84's should be perfect).  Enjoy and report back with the results!

post #53 of 54

I skied the 84s last weekend. I ski at Bristol Mountain in NYS. Conditions were firm and a trail had some small bumps but nothing to really speak of. The ski performed very well. I didnt experience any chatter when stopping or having to edge a bit to slow down. Skis moved very well at high speed and were very responsive. I am 5' 7 " 145lbs and 53 an excellent skiier having skiied for over 45 years. I have been demoing skis all winter and these are the best skis I have been on. I skied on 167 or 168 cm.

 

 

 

post #54 of 54
Me...6' 1" 215' advanced skier. Been tele skiing for 20 years.

I mounted the 2012 version of this ski with some NTN Bindings. Just got back from my first day on these. The day was all groomers so I can only speak to that but overall I'm pleasantly surprised. Edge hold is very good for such a light ski with no metal in them. Held their natural radius really well. Solid for short swing and medium radius turns.

The light was flat and the hill was busy so I didn't get a chance to run at Mach stupid but they were solid at the speeds I reached. Looking forward to a sunny day.

Other skis I like in this area. 2009 Volkl Bridge, which is closer to the Kendo than the new Bridge, and the Rossi Experience 83.

The Wateas has softer tips and tails than both of these which made turn initiation easier. That's enjoyable with free heels. I also appreciate the notch for climbing skins on the tails.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Review: Fischer Watea 84