EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 101 or not? Attention Watea 101 skiers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

101 or not? Attention Watea 101 skiers

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
Question: I am considering buying a 101, It will be used at Steamboat, Jhole and hopefully Utah. I have the 94 and love them. I a was thinking it would be fun on big dump days or when it's slabbed or heavy. I can get it for a very good price so it's very tempting. The issue is: will the 192 length just be too much for trees, big soft bumps? Steamboat isn't that big or steep and I am just concerned my obsession with gear is tempting me to buy something I really don't need. 6', 175ish, level 8.
post #2 of 28

Things to consider

The 101s would be a fantastic ski for what you are proposing. They are actually a twin tip and lose almost 10 cm off their running length. They are soft flexing and light, so they ski short.

BUT, they would not be all that different than your 94s. Same personality, just with a bit more float. I think the overlap would be about 75% of the conditions. IMHO, if you want to step up in powder performance from the 94s the money would be better spent going bigger than 101s. They are both great skis, but in the powder spectrum pretty darn similar. Wider and shorter than the 101s would probably serve you better. Just my 2 cents worth from a guy who has been alpining on 101s for a couple years and just bought 94s, but for a one-ski tele quiver.
post #3 of 28

biggER

i tend to agree with the previous poster: for the resort you have listed you may want more than 101 under foot. i think the gain in powder performance still goes up, and hey, you dont have them for groomer
performance.

if you decide to jump, i might be interested in the 94s for my steamboat
trip Mar21-29. pm me if interested.

brad
post #4 of 28
Thread Starter 
BRad, the 94's are staying with me! I apprecitae the comments and I tend to agree. MAybe something more in the 105-110 range and mid 180's. I don't think I want a got, I am really interested in the Icelantics? I have seen a few pair at the boat and they are interesting.... Suggestions?
post #5 of 28
finn,
I got your pm as well,
I pretty much agree w/ the above comments.

I was also thinking of the 101 to accent my 94, but I believe my accent ski will end up being 110 to 115 under foot.

i'm thinking of next years dynastar huge trouble (115, no camber, 185) and Dawg is loving it and I respect his opinion.

cheers,
holiday
post #6 of 28
Xxl.....187??......



Sj
post #7 of 28
Thread Starter 
Holiday, I was eying that one up as well. XXL, Jim, too stiff for me unless I am mistaken, I love the feel of the 94, so that's what I am looking for with maybe a little more softness for pow. Keep the suggestions coming!
post #8 of 28
Not so stiff as you might think. In comparing the XXL in 94 to the 101 the Watea is somewhat softer in the tail but the rest of the ski is fairly similar. I havn't flexed the 187 yet but have a pallet full of stuff in the back to break down in the next couple days.

Just a thought.........

BTW, I really like the HT too but haven't had it in anything deep yet. It does much better in general conditions than expected.

SJ
post #9 of 28
Thread Starter 
Jim, you sure about that? If the 101 is anything like the 94, the tip is semi soft with a nice progessive flex. Every review I've read says the XXl is a monster. Very stiff ride. Only for true experts: not me!
post #10 of 28
Finndog has it right.. An XXL as a dump day and heavy/slabby snow ski for normal mortals? You gotta be kidding! Let's at least try to stay credible.

I think Holiday's general direction is correct. Open up a decent sized gap. My bias would be toward Praxis, Kuros, Pontoons, Hell Bents, or speculatively maybe EP Pros or P 130s or even Bacons --- but obviously not everyone here would love those... They key is get wider enough to make a real difference, while keeping other design elements appropriate for the target conditions. Other design elements play too - but a 5-10% difference in surface area would be eaten up by throwing on a pack - or in my case, by a big lunch
post #11 of 28
Thread Starter 
You know I love a bargain but if its better wait, I will. I just spoke with Phil, he is bring the 08/09 Hart 102 out to the boat, I will demo that. No rush, its the end of the season for me (that sucks!)
post #12 of 28
Stay credible?......................OK





SJ
post #13 of 28
You crack me up. I mean look at the differential placement of the supports. Nice try though. But you did motivate me to go back to: http://www.friflyt.no/files/SFI_2008.pdf

Feel free to compare the actual measurements & normalized flex indices. One interesting component is the computation of their Ski Flex Index measured at 5 points (back to front) on the ski and adjusted for length, etc. Low = relatively soft & high equals relatively stiff. 5 is "average"

Watea 94 = 5 5 4 5 5
Watea 101 = 6 6 5 6 6

Legend XXL = 6 6 6 7 7

For discussion purposes, the trusty Goat = 5 4 5 5 6

Those are, however, normalized numbers (which still has some real utility). As for absolute measurements - for much of the ski, a 194 XXL is about 50% or more stiffer than a 186 Watea 94 and it is about a third stiffer than a 192cm Watea 101. (although there is an interesting crossover point near the tips with the 101)
post #14 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
You crack me up. I mean look at the differential placement of the supports. Nice try though.
I think you're mistaking the poles which he appears to be using to support himself, for something the ski is resting on. The skis appear to me, to be supported in pretty close to the exact same spot.

For some reason, I can't see all the data in that PDF, it just loads up the first, explanatory page, I'm not sure why. But the pics here certainly do seem to support the statement that the XXL is not substantially stiffer.

Thanks Jim, for the pics, I personally think it's great that you take the time to do stuff like this and post it up.
post #15 of 28
Got it on the poles. My bad on that. All due apologies for misconstruing that part of the image. Nonetheless, the point stands - a few cm at the ends where flex varies dramatically - or a minor difference in relative weight placement - can change the subjective picture a ton. The link is the best "objective" flex data I am aware of. And it very much contradicts some of the assertions made above.

If everything is garbled - save it and open it directly in acrobat. Get the ski list/index & select what you want to see.
post #16 of 28
The assertions made above were exactly as follows with emphasis this time for clarity..................

Quote:
Not so stiff as you might think. In comparing the XXL in 94 to the 101 the Watea is somewhat softer in the tail but the rest of the ski is fairly similar.
As one can see, the flex shown with a 195 lb guy trying not to fall off, is about as asserted. To me (visual learner) this is quite a bit more clear than a batch of numbers which are not dramatically different either. The point here being THEY ARE FAIRLY SIMILAR. Which is exactly what I said and not what some folks think.

Is that clear enough or should YOU argue some more??


SJ
post #17 of 28
I ski on the wateau 101 in the 192 lenghth and they do fine for me in all kinds of snow. I feel no need for a fatter ski as these skis take care of all forms of powder very well. Hell they rail groomers pretty good. 192 length is a bit tough in hard packed bumps and the very tightest of trees. These skis are not a true twin-tip and I don't think they ski that short. They do like big sweeping turns.


They were selling them dirt cheap last fall (I paid 239 I think).I got them thinking they would be good for powder days and ski them most of the time now.
post #18 of 28
Thread Starter 
In taking close look, I think what throughs the picture off is the poles that he is using to blance himslef. I can the confusion but the support points are pretty much dead equal. I don't doubt what you are saying Jim but how is the flex say a foot in from tip and how stiff are those tails? got me thinking now.....
post #19 of 28
I've skied the 187cm XXL and I now own the 192cm Watea 101.

The XXL is slightly more demanding of skill, input & speed. A good skier could ski both. Both are great skis.

Jims comments are right on IMHO.

Michael
post #20 of 28
The numbers and graphs - absolute and normalized - tell a consistent story and speak for themselves. As objectively as possible for anyone who cares to pay attention.

But let's assume for a second that those 2 skis are "fairly similar" by your definition. If so, why would you suggest either one as a dump day and heavy/slabby snow ski for someone who likes the flex/feel of the 94? They did not ask about a big mountain/all mountain/all conditions punch anything power ski. And they did not pitch themselves as uber-skier. There are a ton of skis made for the circumstances described. Why put, or keep, challenging skis that demand an unusually skilled and athletic rider for those conditions in the mix?
post #21 of 28
I have the 06-07 101's-all black with the face graphic on the tips. I'm 6'-1" and 175 lbs. For me they are absolutely great skis and get used 75% of time. I have some SX11 B4 supercross for days when off piste is nothing but frozen chickenheads or whatever. I WOULD NOT want them to be any stiffer at my weight. I can flex them through rounded medium deep bumps fine, but rutted bumps are a handfull. They will rail on groomers and feel great at high speed.

My main message here is I believe there are 3 stiffnesses out there: Earlier than mine are reportedly softer, and this years are reportedly stiffer but not that much stiffer. The Watea 101=soft reputation is based on heavier skiers and the earlier models more than anything else I think.
post #22 of 28
Thread Starter 
anyone advocate going to the 101's and selling the 94's?
post #23 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
anyone advocate going to the 101's and selling the 94's?
Considering your repeatedly professed love for the 94s, why would you do that? It is becoming evident that you really really want to buy the 101s because they are a great ski at a great price, no matter what it takes, even sacrificing your beloved 94s. The 94s are so much more versatile than the 101s, don't get rid of them, you'll be sorry.

From my perspective the bottom line is that the 94s are a superb ski for up to around 8" of powder/crud. The question is what do you go to after that? You don't seem to be looking for an all around big ski, just a powder specific board. You want something that feels like the 94s, so the first question is are you totally ruling out rockered skis and reverse camber? If so then your choices in 105+ skis just got limited. The other issue is a primary use in the Boat's tight trees. Can you get fat conventional skis that do that to your satisfaction, or are you going to need a smear machine? It is starting to sound like maybe you need some Spatulas.
post #24 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
The assertions made above were exactly as follows with emphasis this time for clarity..................



As one can see, the flex shown with a 195 lb guy trying not to fall off, is about as asserted. To me (visual learner) this is quite a bit more clear than a batch of numbers which are not dramatically different either. The point here being THEY ARE FAIRLY SIMILAR. Which is exactly what I said and not what some folks think.

Is that clear enough or should YOU argue some more??


SJ
no but i'll argue a little bit. I've skied both. They really don't ski that similarly I will agree that the xxls aren't as stiff as everyone seems to think but the 101 skis A LOT friendlier.

edit to qualify that they do ski similarly enough to be in the same category but in that category, not that similar
post #25 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
anyone advocate going to the 101's and selling the 94's?
Ya wanna ski on a 192 all day everyday?

SJ
post #26 of 28
Thread Starter 
Well, I have the 84's now and they are fine for up to 6" or more. SO the thought was, hey go tot the 100 width for more of the dedicated powder ski for those days and ski the 84's as my everyday and loose snow ski. To answer Mudfoot, I have skied the 94's in knee-high with no real issues but it would be great to have a ski for those foot plus days when you want to bomb around but still be useable for when it's tracked.
post #27 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
Ya wanna ski on a 192 all day everyday?

SJ
Why not:?

To the original poster. From what you describe, you are in a position to purchase a great bargain that you don't need.

"Sir would you like to buy a white elephant?"
"No. I have no use for a white elephant."
"Well how about two white elephants for the price of one?"
"Deal!"

The hole in your quiver sounds like you want a wider ski than the 101.

The XXL would fill another hole. I don't really know how much difference is between 6 and 7 on the number's scale, but a stiffer tail is not the best way to go in a deep powder ski. Not having skied it I can't really say, but judging by other experience, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of this "expert's only" crap is just marketing hype designed to flatter the customer. Heck it's not a DH race ski is it?
post #28 of 28
Thread Starter 
YES, a wise man speaketh..... What sizes to those elephants come in anyway???

BTW- the expert thing actually makes me think I don't want it. A man's gott know his limits....
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 › 101 or not? Attention Watea 101 skiers