EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › why no love for the watea78?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

why no love for the watea78?

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
During my exhaustive search for my mid-fat ski, I keep coming across the Watea 78 as a viable candidate. It's well-reviewed by the "rags" and in Ski Press & Realskiers, but hardly a mention here. Is it too much of an intermediate ski? Just not outstanding?

What's deal?
post #2 of 27
Just guessing it's like an all-season tire. Not enough performance on the hardpack to be a summer only high-performance tire (compare to RC4), and not wide enough to be a snow tire (compare to any super fat).
post #3 of 27
Thread Starter 
ski press loved the ski. rated right along with the Head 78. http://skipressworld-us.v1.myvirtual...2008031901/en/
post #4 of 27
A prefect example that manufactures make too many models of skis.
post #5 of 27
They are great all around skis. wonderful grip on ice. super in the crud and good in moderate powder (up to boot high). super agile in trees. forgiving in bumps. good carver in all size turns. confident in very steep terrain and ugly snow, from slush to frozen chicken heads to cut up crusted old powder. Oh and they are as light as a feather, so they are super for hiking.
post #6 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mom View Post
They are great all around skis. wonderful grip on ice. super in the crud and good in moderate powder (up to boot high). super agile in trees. forgiving in bumps. good carver in all size turns. confident in very steep terrain and ugly snow, from slush to frozen chicken heads to cut up crusted old powder. Oh and they are as light as a feather, so they are super for hiking.
But really, what will a Watea 78 really do for you that a Watea 84 won't?
post #7 of 27
The 84mm+ skis are getting all the attention. It's a marketing thing IMO. I am going the opposite way personally.

My old quiver:

68mm
84mm
98mm

My new quiver:

68mm
76mm
98mm
post #8 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
But really, what will a Watea 78 really do for you that a Watea 84 won't?
What will the Watea 84 do that the Watea 78 won't in the East?

If that is your only ski it might make sense. If you have something wider there is no need IMO.
post #9 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
But really, what will a Watea 78 really do for you that a Watea 84 won't?
the 78 has a different construction, much more groomer-worthy and stiffer. the 84 is decidedly a soft snow oriented ski.
post #10 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattL View Post
What will the Watea 84 do that the Watea 78 won't in the East?

If that is your only ski it makes sense. If you have something wider there is no need IMO.
MAtt, you are a wise man. After a lot of data collection and over-analysis, I came to this conclusion. I am buying for ec groomed and hard pack and wc groomer days, some soft snow and some crud on frozen leftover days (a couple of inches). So yes, you are correct. Since I already have the goats for more than 4-6" and real crud. Why get a wider ski? Why not have a ripper in the quiver. That's where I'm going.
post #11 of 27
Where do the skis compare in the same line?
78
84
94

Anyone ski them all?
post #12 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattL View Post
What will the Watea 84 do that the Watea 78 won't in the East?

If that is your only ski it might make sense. If you have something wider there is no need IMO.
It will bust crud better and float over that late day snow better. Let alone be better in 4+" of fresh. Edge to edge will be marginally less, but I will rather have the other attributes and loose a bit of edge to edge since I can get either ski over w/o issue.
post #13 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
MAtt, you are a wise man. After a lot of data collection and over-analysis, I came to this conclusion. I am buying for ec groomed and hard pack and wc groomer days, some soft snow and some crud on frozen leftover days (a couple of inches). So yes, you are correct. Since I already have the goats for more than 4-6" and real crud. Why get a wider ski? Why not have a ripper in the quiver. That's where I'm going.
That's why I went with the Cool Heat instead of the Watea. If I lived out West it would be different. The Watea was about $30 less than the Cool Heat too.
post #14 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
It will bust crud better and float over that late day snow better. Let alone be better in 4+" of fresh. Edge to edge will be marginally less, but I will rather have the other attributes and loose a bit of edge to edge since I can get either ski over w/o issue.

True, but to Matt's point, if you have something wider, whats the point? If I may speak for Matt (?) the point here is if it's more than 4-6" of fresh or loose, I am taking the goats out (or wider board) if there is no fresh or and just groomers, the narrower ski is more fun overall. In my case a ski like a SS magnum gives you excellent edge hold for EC skiing, a fun rippin' ski that can also handle some crud and bumps; a near perfect blend. I do give up performance for softer snow end but I am really trying to just keep it at the 2 skis.
post #15 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post
Where do the skis compare in the same line?
78
84
94

Anyone ski them all?
You need to add the 101.

I've skied the 84 in two sizes, the 94 in one size and own the 101.

The 78 is a great one ski quiver for a lighter skier, IMO. But I'm not a lighter skier.

Michael
post #16 of 27
Yes that was my point. I think it is personal preference though on how/what you want to ski. The only thing I am "floating" over most of the time is ice and groomers anyway.
post #17 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by WILDCAT View Post
You need to add the 101.

I've skied the 84 in two sizes, the 94 in one size and own the 101.

The 78 is a great one ski quiver for a lighter skier, IMO. But I'm not a lighter skier.

Michael
You going to make me dig for your reviews or are you going to do a comparison for my lazy ass?
post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
True, but to Matt's point, if you have something wider, whats the point? If I may speak for Matt (?) the point here is if it's more than 4-6" of fresh or loose, I am taking the goats out (or wider board) if there is no fresh or and just groomers, the narrower ski is more fun overall. In my case a ski like a SS magnum gives you excellent edge hold for EC skiing, a fun rippin' ski that can also handle some crud and bumps; a near perfect blend. I do give up performance for softer snow end but I am really trying to just keep it at the 2 skis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattL View Post
Yes that was my point. I think it is personal preference though on how/what you want to ski. The only thing I am "floating" over most of the time is ice and groomers anyway.
Take out the lunatic fringe here who have a quiver and look towards 90% of the ski market out there who have just one pair.
post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
Take out the lunatic fringe here who have a quiver and look towards 90% of the ski market out there who have just one pair.
Lunatic? My 3 or 4 pairs seems mild compared to many people here!

For someone going with one pair 84mm seems perfect to me. If you already have something wider I like the 76-78 option. If you had a 68mm ski and wanted to add one other I would go 84mm+.

Reduce overlap as much as possible IMO.
post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post
You going to make me dig for your reviews or are you going to do a comparison for my lazy ass?
OK,

The 84 is a great ski for natural conditions. Not so great on man-made snow, not enough edgegrip or stability IMO. I skied the longest length, it was very fun with most of the performance of the Head 82, a benchmark in this class. The Watea 84 is much easier to use than the Head and floats very well in softer snow but is not as stable or with the same edgegrip. My 130 lbs daughter will use the 176cm size Watea 84 as her soft snow ski.

The 94 is probably the best ski in its class. Easy to use with a much greater performance upside than the 84. Only a few users will ever find its limits in any conditions.

The 101 is a great ski, not as beefy as a Dynastar XXL, but it provides 95% of that skis performance while being much better on hardpack at normal speeds. The most versatile ski in its class, IMHO.

Michael
post #21 of 27
I've skied the wider Wateas a fair amount (the 94 gets my nod as the best of the bunch) but never even gave the 78 a passing thought. I just happened to be expanding my quiver in the width category last season, so the 84 was on the low end of what I looked at.

In terms of construction, a big difference between the 78 and 84-94-101 is that the latter skis have the carbon i-beam construction, which gives them a lighter feel. The 78 has an all-wood core, and more beef. Don't quote me on this, but I seem to recall that the 84-94-101 were new skis with the new i-beam construction for 2008, and only loosely based on the previous models. The 78, in contrast, was more closely related to a previous year's ski model, and may even have been a carryover that got new cosmetics along with the Watea name. I bet somebody will remember the details...
post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
During my exhaustive search for my mid-fat ski, I keep coming across the Watea 78 as a viable candidate. It's well-reviewed by the "rags" and in Ski Press & Realskiers, but hardly a mention here. Is it too much of an intermediate ski? Just not outstanding?

What's deal?
'Cause the Cold Heat is better

Seriously, the Watea 84/78's seem a little floppy in the shorter lengths. Very forgiving, but they are a step down in performance when compared to the Cool/Cold Heat. I would agree that the 78/84 make a good AT-type setup or tele ski, but is a little light for powerful skiing. In that mid-fat length, where you are probably going to ski hardpack as much as off-piste, the Heat series clearly has the edge if you are a good or aggressive skier.
post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
But really, what will a Watea 78 really do for you that a Watea 84 won't?
Come short enough (159) for a diminutive person like me. Also, i already own sugar daddy, so went looking for skis for those no powder days. but, to be honest, i found myself skiing the Wateas a lot more than i expected - and it was a very good snow year in NM and CO. In fact, i think i only took out the SDs one day at Mary Jane when it dumped overnight and even that day i swithed back to the Wateas at midday.
post #24 of 27
If it's groomer time, whatever people go on about 78's being the new 68's, I'd dare them to claim the Watea 78 is as precise and sharp and energetic as the RX8. Or if it's soft snow time, that it's as floaty and good at crushing crud as a Watea 94. What's unclear to me is why anyone now owns ANY ski between the low 70's and the high 80's, whether they own one or 20. But that's just me...
post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
If it's groomer time, whatever people go on about 78's being the new 68's, I'd dare them to claim the Watea 78 is as precise and sharp and energetic as the RX8. Or if it's soft snow time, that it's as floaty and good at crushing crud as a Watea 94. What's unclear to me is why anyone now owns ANY ski between the low 70's and the high 80's, whether they own one or 20. But that's just me...

I beg to differ, sir...
In the region 75-88mm, skis like the Head iM 78/82/88, Blizzard Cronus/8.7 magnum, Fischer Watea 84, Elan Magfires 82/87x, Volkl AC 50, Scott Mission, Nordica Nitrous/A-burner, Dynastar Mythic, Atomic Snoop/Crimson are the preferred models for anything east or west in up to boottop powder....

For over 16", then you "might" need fat skis, and you can rent....and the majority of folks don't get over 16" consistently....less than 95% of the time (except Jer, of course)...

I don't see a need for skis <75mm-waisted skis except for racers on man-made snow...

After the groomers are sliced up to chunky peanut butter, even the RX8 will have trouble, and you might want a 75-88mm ski, no?. So in a sense the 75-88mm category is the new 68mm, mainly because they have gotten better and are more "useful"...

What do I know???
post #26 of 27
Thread Starter 
thnaks to all. I was curious since it was so well rated. Another reason why I look here for reveiws!
post #27 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
'Cause the Cold Heat is better

Seriously, the Watea 84/78's seem a little floppy in the shorter lengths. Very forgiving, but they are a step down in performance when compared to the Cool/Cold Heat. I would agree that the 78/84 make a good AT-type setup or tele ski, but is a little light for powerful skiing. In that mid-fat length, where you are probably going to ski hardpack as much as off-piste, the Heat series clearly has the edge if you are a good or aggressive skier.
Da Dawg said it best!
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 › why no love for the watea78?