or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wateas Back East - Page 2

post #31 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post
I demo'd the Watea 84's and Legend 8K's at the end of the season (I wanted to try the iM 78 too, but they were unavailable) - see my review @ http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?p=895437

IMO the choice will depend on your technique, which one comes in the length that works for you best, and how you like a ski to feel (the not-to-helpful "it depends" answer - sorry). I found the Watea more of a carver (i.e., it works best while holding a controlled, edged turn), while the 8K preferred straightlining and swiveling/skidding a bit more.

Of course, here in Colorado, like UT, fatter is probably better (unless you want to use these as a harpack ski), so that would give a nod to the Watea's (they performed great in a foot of fresh snow - the 8K's worked almost as well but were definitely less floaty).

OTOH the Wateas are fairly forgiving and respond better to subtle input, even for a 130lbs lightweight like me. So a hardcharger probably wouldn't like them (or the 8K's), which seems to be the consensus on this website. The iM78's or even the 82's are supposedly beefier and welcome more powerful input (again based on what I've read on this website).

The conclusion - the Watea's fit my technique better than the 8K's (and better than a few other skis that I tried that day, along with possibly many others from my skiing memory bank). I loved them and now own a pair of 167's.

Happy shopping and then waiting for the next ski season!

I have tried the Mythic Rider and I, contrary to most reviews I have read, felt it was extremely stiff and did not do well at slower speeds. My conclusion from that is that I am NOT a hard charger. FWIW I skiied with Peter Keelty and he said that I am a "strong" which is mostly traditional technique ranking 8/9 on a scale of 10. I have also tried the Legend 4800 which was great until you got some speed and then I wasn't comfortable with it. So, It seems to me that for an everyday ski at Solitude and Snowbird (unless deep powder day) the ideal would be in order of preference: the Watea, Legend 8k and then the Head. Does this seem logical?
post #32 of 59
Thread Starter 
Speaking of my RX6 carvers and speed limit, have I reached their limit when they start shimmying beneath my feet? I've only recently returned to skiing from snowboarding. I recall my snowboards doing that when I reached speed.

Mango, are you a jazz fan or musician? I'm a trombone player who recently started a music teaching career. I toured as a pro for years, playing with various pop and jazz groups. If you ever saw Eddie Palmieri's band, I was probably the trombone player.
post #33 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince F View Post
I have tried the Mythic Rider and I, contrary to most reviews I have read, felt it was extremely stiff and did not do well at slower speeds. My conclusion from that is that I am NOT a hard charger. FWIW I skiied with Peter Keelty and he said that I am a "strong" which is mostly traditional technique ranking 8/9 on a scale of 10. I have also tried the Legend 4800 which was great until you got some speed and then I wasn't comfortable with it. So, It seems to me that for an everyday ski at Solitude and Snowbird (unless deep powder day) the ideal would be in order of preference: the Watea, Legend 8k and then the Head. Does this seem logical?
Any of these skis would work at Snowbird unless the skier is much larger and/or much faster than normal. It really gets down to style. Both the Head and the Watea are easy carvers that can be used in soft snow. I don't have an opinion on the 8000, its one of the few Dynastars I have not skied. The Head will feel more technical and the Fischer is more playfull. The wider & softer Watea will do well in knee deep snow while the Head will not want to float when the snow is truly deep IMHO.

The Bigger & faster skiers at Snowbird will want a Watea 101 or Dynastar XXL and will not want use a smaller ski unless its a no-new-snow in 5 days situation.

Michael

Michael
post #34 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by peobus View Post
Speaking of my RX6 carvers and speed limit, have I reached their limit when they start shimmying beneath my feet? I've only recently returned to skiing from snowboarding. I recall my snowboards doing that when I reached speed.
At higher speeds most skis are like a guitar string. The vibrations can cause a loss of edge grip even if the ski is tracking well. Worst than this, is when a ski fails to track well. Most skiers will scrub off speed and limit themselves to the performance level of the ski.

Michael
post #35 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by peobus View Post
I'm thinking of mounting the Fischer X14 on them. I can get a nice deal and the Fischer web site shows the Watea 92 mounted with them, outfitted with the wide break. What do you think?
Looks like you picked them up already, but as a Tyrolia/Fischer/Head fan, I think they're a fine choice, and IIRC, will double the warranty on the ski. No brainer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peobus View Post
Wildcat, I was thinking flat mounted bindings on these. Wrong?
Tyrolia/Fischer/Head have three basic types of mounting: Flat with entirely separate toe and heel (e.g., Mojo 15, X14); FreeFlex, in which a band connects the toe and heel; and RailFlex, where the rail is mounted to the ski, and the bindings attach with a single centered bolt. I own and ski examples of all three -- Mojo 15 on Praxis 195s, d10 FF17s on Dynastar 4x4 Vertical Limiteds, and RF12s on Fischer AMC79s.

The difference in stand height among these models is so negligible that I would've mounted d10s on the Praxis were I not concerned that the FreeFlex band might not be compatible with reverse camber skis.

The advantage of RailFlex on a ski like the Watea, particularly if they will be your primary or sole ski, is that you can move the bindings depending on conditions -- forward for hardpack days, aft for fresh days.

In short, the X14s will be fine with them, but I think I'd probably go RailFlex unless I got a smoking deal on flat bindings. (I bought three pairs of 17-DIN d10 FF17s at $60 each.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince F View Post
I have narrowed down my search to the Watea 84, Legend 8000 and Head iM 78. Leaning towards the Watea unless someone can talk me out of it. Would the 176 or 184 be the best fit for me? I am 6' 1", 205 lbs., level 7 skier. My home mountains are Snowbird and Solitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince F View Post
I have tried the Mythic Rider and I, contrary to most reviews I have read, felt it was extremely stiff and did not do well at slower speeds. My conclusion from that is that I am NOT a hard charger. FWIW I skiied with Peter Keelty and he said that I am a "strong" which is mostly traditional technique ranking 8/9 on a scale of 10. I have also tried the Legend 4800 which was great until you got some speed and then I wasn't comfortable with it. So, It seems to me that for an everyday ski at Solitude and Snowbird (unless deep powder day) the ideal would be in order of preference: the Watea, Legend 8k and then the Head. Does this seem logical?
I did a comparison of the Watea 84 and Mythic Rider earlier this year in Gear Reviews, and I entirely concur with your evaluation of the Mythic Rider.

Having skied with you for a total of 45 minutes or so, I think you'd really enjoy the Watea, and that they'd encourage you to head off-piste with confidence. I'd probably go 184 as a one-ski quiver where you ski, especially coming from the 200s you currently ski. Honestly, I'd also consider the 94, based on my experience using the 99mm-wide 188 Bro as my one-ski quiver for almost a full season in the Sierra. Coming from straight skis, you might find the 22m radius of the 94 more to your liking than the 18m radius of the 84, and you'd gain extra float in the process.
post #36 of 59
Actually the 94 looks interesting but I was backing away from it due to the same radius as the Mythic Rider. Maybe I just like shorter turns. I do know I did not care for the Mythic. Honestly, the one ski that appears ideal is the Scott Mission. I just can't seem to find a lot on it. I would love to hear from someone who has actually skied it and how it compares to the Watea's or the Legend.
post #37 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince F View Post
Actually the 94 looks interesting but I was backing away from it due to the same radius as the Mythic Rider. Maybe I just like shorter turns. I do know I did not care for the Mythic. Honestly, the one ski that appears ideal is the Scott Mission. I just can't seem to find a lot on it. I would love to hear from someone who has actually skied it and how it compares to the Watea's or the Legend.
Radius isn't the whole story. My Bros have a 36m radius, but I found them much easier to turn than the Mythics.
post #38 of 59
Thread Starter 
I haven't bought the X14s yet, but the deal is $100. I could probably pick up a RailFlex binding for $40 more. Stand height has always confused me. I'm a surfer/skateboarder as well. In both instances, I want my feet as close the the water/pavement as possible. My RX6's have Marker Free 1200s, which are up, and I've always wanted to be closer to the ski. Am I wrong?
post #39 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by peobus View Post
I haven't bought the X14s yet, but the deal is $100. I could probably pick up a RailFlex binding for $40 more. Stand height has always confused me. I'm a surfer/skateboarder as well. In both instances, I want my feet as close the the water/pavement as possible. My RX6's have Marker Free 1200s, which are up, and I've always wanted to be closer to the ski. Am I wrong?
Are you wrong? Depends. Lifts tend to improve carving performance, even on wider skis, because they increase your leverage. In soft stuff, it doesn't really make a difference. IMHO, obviously. Anyway, with the exception of my Praxis, I wish I had put plates on my skis that lack them.

In the Tyrolia binding family, both the Mojo 15 and FF17 have a 21mm stand height unless mounted on a plate, while the current incarnation of Railflex has a 35mm stand height.

Railflex will entail some compromises over a flat mount. By definition, you're introducing an additional interface into the boot-ski connection, which at least potentially introduces an additional point of failure, or at least slop. The question is whether you gain enough to offset that disadvantage. I think that would depend in part on whether you're looking at them as a one-ski quiver or a quiver ski. If they're going to be your only ski (or a quiver ski that you might lend to others), I think you'll appreciate the flexibility of being able to move the bindings fore and aft with Railflex. If they're going to be a quiver ski for you and you alone, you'll save some money by going with the X14, particularly since they come with the wide brake.
post #40 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by peobus View Post
I haven't bought the X14s yet, but the deal is $100. I could probably pick up a RailFlex binding for $40 more. Stand height has always confused me. I'm a surfer/skateboarder as well. In both instances, I want my feet as close the the water/pavement as possible. My RX6's have Marker Free 1200s, which are up, and I've always wanted to be closer to the ski. Am I wrong?
I don't think these cost $40 more than the X14's.
http://www.levelninesports.com/tyrol...red-p-905.html
post #41 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince F View Post
I don't think these cost $40 more than the X14's.
http://www.levelninesports.com/tyrol...red-p-905.html
$80 + $30 for the 95mm brake, +$10 shipping.

But yeah -- when I'm looking for Tyrolia bindings, the first place I look is Level Nine. I picked up two pairs of Railflex bindings sans bases on eBay, knowing I could get the bases for $10 at Level Nine.
post #42 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad View Post
$80 + $30 for the 95mm brake, +$10 shipping.

But yeah -- when I'm looking for Tyrolia bindings, the first place I look is Level Nine. I picked up two pairs of Railflex bindings sans bases on eBay, knowing I could get the bases for $10 at Level Nine.

You don't need the wide brake for the 84's. The regular brake will bend out far enough very easily. I had the LD12's with the regular brakes on my K2 PE's which are 85 in the waist.

I am currently in the market for some wide brakes though, since I sold the PE's and moved up to the Watea 94. Anyone have any wide tyrolia brakes?

Mike
post #43 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeC View Post
You don't need the wide brake for the 84's. The regular brake will bend out far enough very easily.
Good to know. My only Tyrolia brake-bending experience involved bending the 115mm-wide brakes to fit the 136mm Praxis Powders. The 115s were incredibly hard. I broke one pair, had to order a second, and was only able to make them fit with the help of a friend -- an engineer and sculptor with an awesome shop.
post #44 of 59
SAC just had the Scott Mission for $215.63
I pulled the trigger and took a chance on the 178cm. Would have preferred the 183cm but they only listed the 158 and 178
post #45 of 59
Just need to pick bindings. Will most likely go with the Railflex from Level Nine. Will try to do a review when I ski them since there doesn't seem to be much on them on this site.
post #46 of 59
Binding from LevelNine $79 + $30 for wide brake. They are local so no shipping as I am going there to pick up. Skis with tax and shipping = $244.92. Grand Total = $353.92. I can live with it.
post #47 of 59
Congrats, Vince! And welcome to the present day!
post #48 of 59
Thanks! The 90mm waist of the Scott is a good compromise between the Watea 84 and the Watea 94. I'll let you know how they run.
post #49 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince F View Post
SAC just had the Scott Mission for $215.63
I pulled the trigger and took a chance on the 178cm. Would have preferred the 183cm but they only listed the 158 and 178
Vince F: I sure did miss a lot in one day after giving you my $0.02 - the discussion went from "talk me out of the Wateas" to the Scott Missions. I wouldn't have been any help on this matter anyway since I've never even seen a pair of these. Nevertheless, the press on these skis are quite good and the reviews talk like they will be more appropriate for you than a beefier or more technical ski given your reaction to the Dyna MRs. One thing for sure: at 178cm under 200lbs. of skier you should get your wish for short turnability.... It will be interesting to hear how this length works out for you - give us a holler in x months and enjoy dreaming about your new skis this summer/fall!
:
post #50 of 59
Actually, I was going to pull the trigger on the Watea's this weekend while Sierra Jim still had some at less than $300. Suddenly up pops the SAC alert with the Scott's at $215. Great price and one of the skis I was intrigued with. So, I just went ahead and gambled. Hopefully, it lives up to the European press as ski of the year last year over there.
post #51 of 59
I wouldn't get RF, flat is better on a free-ride type ski. I actually find lift to be a detriment on skis when I ski powder/crud, and for this type of ski, I don't care about the small benefit for carving on a groomer. The Wateas have a pretty healthy sidecut anyhow.

One major downside of RF on a wider ski is that it ends up giving the bindings a narrower mount footprint on the ski and adds some slop. Flat mounts will feel a lot more solid on wider skis.

As far as fore/aft adjustability, if you plan/verify the mount point, I don't think it's needed. Mounting on the line put me about 1cm back of a BOF/CRS mount on the 84s, which is exactly where I like to be. The skis are great in that position, and I haven't really felt the desire to move the bindings around. I should note that it took me a few years and some trial and error to figure out where I want to be on a ski for my own sweet spot, so adjustability might be desirable for some.

All that said, I have RF bindings on my narrower groomer/carver skis and they are fine. I've had them on 2-3 skis and liked them.

BTW, regarding the RX-6 getting squirrely, did you notice that when the skis are on their flats? All narrow waisted carver skis will have this tendency if you don't have a little edge pressure. My RX-8 would be quite squirrely at any speed if they were on their flats. Yet they were among the strongest high-speed skis (when on edge) I have owned. I never found their speed limit myself. So it's possible to experience squirrelly behavior on a ski that has nothing to do with "the limit".
post #52 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeC View Post
You don't need the wide brake for the 84's. The regular brake will bend out far enough very easily. I had the LD12's with the regular brakes on my K2 PE's which are 85 in the waist.

I am currently in the market for some wide brakes though, since I sold the PE's and moved up to the Watea 94. Anyone have any wide tyrolia brakes?

Mike
I have some (lightly used) 95mm brakes for RF bindings, is that what you need? Let me know. The only ones I have for the flat LD12 are in use! These brakes require some minor bending to fit on a Watea 94, but it's more like fine tuning rather then a full on widening.

As a general note for those talking about the 84: the 93mm brake on the flat LD12 (and other Fischer/Tyro/Head equivalents) is a great fit on the Watea 84. I would spend the $$ on that rather than trying to bend the stock 78mm brake. By the time you bend the stock brake the right way, the arms are shorter than is usually desirable. And it's one thing to just bend the brakes -- to do it right, you need to splay them wider at the top, and then bow the tips back in, so that they stow properly and don't stick out when skiing. It's not hard to do, but if wide brakes are readily available for not a lot of $$, I'd just buy them.
post #53 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
As far as fore/aft adjustability, if you plan/verify the mount point, I don't think it's needed. Mounting on the line put me about 1cm back of a BOF/CRS mount on the 84s, which is exactly where I like to be. The skis are great in that position, and I haven't really felt the desire to move the bindings around. I should note that it took me a few years and some trial and error to figure out where I want to be on a ski for my own sweet spot, so adjustability might be desirable for some.

BTW, regarding the RX-6 getting squirrely, did you notice that when the skis are on their flats?
You're right about the RX6's getting squirrely on their flats. On edge they're fine. I almost got RX8's but opted for a more forgiving RX6 with bumps in mind. Maybe I'll step up to the RX8 (Cool Heat?) for a carver.

The Watea 84's will be my East Coast Free Ski (if there is such a thing!). Not sure if I thoroughly understand binding placement. What's a BOF/CRS mount?
post #54 of 59
CRS refers to the center of running surface, basically, halfway between the tip and tail contact points (which you can see when the ski is on a flat surface). There has been a theory that aligning that point with the ball of foot (BOF) places equal parts of the ski in front and behind the foot's inherent pivot point. I have tried BOF/CRS mounts and they are OK for a groomer ski. For the 84, when I mount on the factory midsole mark, my BOF is about 1cm back of the CRS and I like it a lot. Through experimentation, I have found that being 1-2 cm back of BOF/CRS gives a great feel for my freeride skis. At least with the Wateas, that corresponds to mounting midsole to the factory line (so their "calibration" agrees with my personal tastes). Other skis are different, for instance, several of my Elans put me forward of BOF/CRS and I did not like the feel. Those skis felt better when I moved back.

So with all new skis, I first figure out where the CRS is, and then see where the factory line would put my BOF relative to the CRS. Then I decide where to mount.
post #55 of 59
Thread Starter 
Great info, thanks! All of you have been terrific.
post #56 of 59
Thread Starter 
Here's another question: how much heavier are the Mojo 15s and X17s than the 12 DIN bindings?
post #57 of 59
I would guess 20 to 40% more.

Michael
post #58 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WILDCAT View Post
I would guess 20 to 40% more.

Michael
You know, I missed the X14 deal, but found a Mojo 15 at a nice price. I think that's what I'll get.
post #59 of 59
Thread Starter 
First off-Thanks for all of the great advice! Picked up a set of Mojo 15's on sale. I'll have my buddy at Stowe mount everything when I head up to VT for a gig (I'm a musician). Then the waiting game begins...

Thanks to all of you for your help. Cheers!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion