EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › PNW ski for 6'5" 250lbs- Fischer Watea 101 or ???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PNW ski for 6'5" 250lbs- Fischer Watea 101 or ???

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
I'm trying to help a friend find a great ski for almost everyday here in the PNW. I love my Watea 94s, but not sure if it would be enough ski for bigger guy? He can use his current skis (Atomic 175 cm) for hard surface days, and the Wateas for softer days. He's about skill level 7 and likes challenging black/dbl. black piste/off piste terrain. thanks
post #2 of 21
From everything I have heard, the 101 would be a better choice for him. Maybe WILDCAT (Michael) can weigh in -- he will likely say 101 over the 94 as well. The 186cm 94 could probably cover it (it's more than enough ski for me at 6'1" 195lb) but the 192cm 101 will definitely cover it.
post #3 of 21
Normally, I'd say that the 101 would be the better choice. OTH, if he is happy with a 175 carver for his on piste ski, possibly the 94 in 186 would be a big enough jump. For most shallow powder and mixte conditions, the 94 would be enough ski. The 101 would only be an advantage in deeper stuff and/or at higher speeds. Given what he is on, I'm guessing that he doesn't ski fast enough or aggressively enough to need the extra length (192) and girth of the 101.

If he does, then he should get the bigger ski.

SJ
post #4 of 21
Given that he has a carver, and considering his size - the ski sizes under discussion seem crazy skinny/small to me for a general off/on piste ski in the Cascades (which is how I interpret "PNW"). I mean just plain crazy inappropriate.

I'd be thinking Huge Trouble, Katana, Hell bent, etc. Perhaps a JJ, S7 or Lhasa Pow??? In their bigger sizes (and wishing for more length...). More conservatively, maybe a Czar. Or perhaps a Gotama (maybe too skinny) or the long Icelantic Nomad or something else similar in a conventional style if I were hung up on more traditional groomer carvy-ness.

Why would you possibly put someone that size on "fat end of quiver" skis smaller than the ones people 30% smaller than he is are rapidly migrating to as everyday skis here?
post #5 of 21
I am 6'5" 215 lbs and ski the Watea 94s and 101s. The 101 is not really beefier than the 94s, in fact it may be softer, plus it has very little sidecut. IMO the 101s are strictly a deep soft snow ski. I love mine, but they have a somewhat limited range of use compared to many other similar 100 mm waisted skis on the market. I think for a guy that's 250 lbs the Wateas are probably not the right ski, particularly for skiing the heavier snow of the PNW. IMO he should be looking at something a little stiffter. Maybe Stocklis or Blizzards, and he could certainly go wider than 100 mm.
post #6 of 21
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the responses so far. Mudfoot, I thought that the 101 was stiffer? I remember seeing a flex test somewhere that showed it being stiffer than the 94, no? I have heard the earlier 101s were softer than the current newer I beam models.

I just thought considering how versatile my (186cm) 94s are (for 5'11" Expert) that a little wider, longer, and stiffer ski would be perfect once ski soft snow ski for a guy that size with that skill level. In other words a ski that he'll find success immediately, but also one to grow with for several years.
post #7 of 21
vaportrail:

You are correct that the I-beam version of the 101s is stiffer than the original model, and I believe they have stiffened them further over the last couple of years. My expeprience is that the 101s ski a lot different than the 94s, but they are not a lot stiffer. I believe the new Wateas are still on the soft end of the spectrum. Going to a 192 cm ski (even though it is essentially a twin tip and skis shorter) with very little sidecut gives you a somewhat unique ski in the overall possiblities for your friend. If he weighs 250 then when he puts on ski boots and gear he's up to about 270, add some momentum to that and the physics are a whole lot different than what you are dealing with on your 94s.

The 101s are an exellent ski, and I'd bet your friend would like them, but I think he might be better served with something just a little stiffer, wider and shorter. Maybe something like the Volkl Katana or PM Bros. Just my opinion. Obvioulsy his best bet is to demo, but as us big guys know, trying to find the length we need in a demo is usually not easy.
post #8 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaportrail View Post
He's about skill level 7 and likes challenging black/dbl. black piste/off piste terrain. thanks
I have a 08/09 Watea 101 and weigh 230#. I found with the 101 does not ski that short. It feels stiff under foot until you really lean on it than the 101 will bend into short turns. It feels like the opposite of progressive flex. It suddenly gives into a deep flex.

Also on the float, the 101 gives me much more float than a 191 94mm waist Mantra. Makes me think the Watea 94 would be a little small for your friend.

That said, I don't think I would recommend Watea 101. For a heavier guy, there are better deep snow skis and for crud I think a stiffer ski (and maybe shorter) would be better for a heavier skier.

So, is this more a crud ski/day after powder day or a powder ski?

If crud or day after, go the stiffer route. A waist of 100mm +/-5mm seems good. I demoed a 183 Bro Stiff last year that I really liked. Dynastar Legend Pro would be worth a demo, also. Plus, this year I'm loving a 89mm waist Stockli as my all-mtn crud buster.

If Powder, I would good wider(110+) and stay with a relativity soft ski. The softer skis will be easier to handle in the powder. The trade off being on harder groomers or heavier crud.


How much is he going have to ski in bumps with this ski? W


BTW: I have had some really fun days on my 101. I use it on shallow powder days and the day after. But, I did find the 101 to be a little more work in some tight trees than I expected.
post #9 of 21
Thread Starter 
Check this chart out. http://www.friflyt.no/files/SFI_2008.pdf

I think it helps to have Adobe Reader. Click on the left layers to see the individual skis graphed.

Thanks for the responses.
post #10 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post
vaportrail:

Obvioulsy his best bet is to demo, but as us big guys know, trying to find the length we need in a demo is usually not easy.
Right you are, Mudfoot. Pretty common to visit the demo shack and be confronted with rows of 170-175's.
post #11 of 21
^^^ I have pretty much given up on demoing.
post #12 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDog View Post
Right you are, Mudfoot. Pretty common to visit the demo shack and be confronted with rows of 170-175's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StormDay View Post
^^^ I have pretty much given up on demoing.
Which is another reason this forum is so useful. Nothing like feedback from actual big guys using the skis I'm interested in.
post #13 of 21
I would think your buddy would be a good fit for a 190 CM Volkl Gotama, or Dynastar LPR in a 190. Both good skis for the PNW conditions. I haven't skied the Rossi S6 but that might also be another consideration too.
post #14 of 21
Thread Starter 
Here's what I've recommended so far in order:

Fischer Watea 101 (192 cm)
Blizzard Titan Argos (187 cm)
Dynastar Legend Pro Rider (???cm)
Volkl Gotama (190 cm)

He'll use these for any day softer than very hard days. A day or two or three after fresh snow, powder, crud, chop, etc.

Thanks, more tips & suggestions appreciated.
post #15 of 21
Since you want an all-around ski, and not a deeper snow-specific ski (I am guessing the Atomic is pretty narrow and stiff, close to a race ski), I would probably cross the Watea 101 off your list. It doesn't seem especially versatile, but is nice in softer snow. Then again, the only length that it currently comes in is so long for me: you might find it better, but even taking into account the length, it didn't want to turn, and seemed like a wide-open, big bowl ski. The Nordica Enforcer should be on your list: a great all-around soft snow ski, and save for 3-4 days, I don't need anything wider. Then again, I am 150lbs. The Huge Trouble is nice for sure, but it depends on how versatile you need that ski to be. If I had them last year, I probably would have skied them around 40% of the time, my Elan 888's another 40%, and the Progressor the other 20%. Then again, last year was a big snow year; most seasons, they would probably be out 25-30% of the time. The Watea 94 you are comparing to is so versatile and literally does everything well except boilerplate and really heavy snow.

Maybe something a little wider, but still more all-around than deep-snow specific might be in order. A Blizzard Argos might be a good choice, obviously the Nordica Enforcer, Volkl Gotama. I didn't find the Dynastar LP to be all that versatile, and would recommend a demo if at all possible. For that matter, probably a demo on any of these would answer some questions.

At Bachelor, the "daily driver" as SJ puts it, is typically something around the 85-95mm waist for people who frequently buy gear. Plenty of people are on something narrower, especially if they only buy skis every 3-4 years. Maybe 1 out of 50 people have something wider than 100, and I have only seen a handful of really wide skis. My Huge Troubles always get gawks in the lift line. I think most of the skis you are looking at are right in that sweet spot.
post #16 of 21
The problem here, it seems to me, is that his weight suggests a ski longer (190cm+) and wider (100mm+) than you can get most mass-market recreational skis these days. Most skis in that length and width are for skiers who charge.

The 191 Scott P4 might fit the bill, similar to the Gotama.

But otherwise, I'd look at one of the boutique manufacturers and see if he can get a softer than competition flex in one of their long and wide models. E.g., 188 or 192 PM Gear Bro Model, or other appropriately sized Praxis or Moment skis.
post #17 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad View Post
The problem here, it seems to me, is that his weight suggests a ski longer (190cm+) and wider (100mm+) than you can get most mass-market recreational skis these days. Most skis in that length and width are for skiers who charge.

The 191 Scott P4 might fit the bill, similar to the Gotama.

But otherwise, I'd look at one of the boutique manufacturers and see if he can get a softer than competition flex in one of their long and wide models. E.g., 188 or 192 PM Gear Bro Model, or other appropriately sized Praxis or Moment skis.
Since the skier in question is 195cm tall, he should probably look at something AT LEAST 194cm, I would think. I personally wouldn't want an all-mountain ski for softer snow that wasn't at least as tall as I am, if not a bit taller. I usually end up on something 175 to 182.

That would eliminate most skis. Thanks for pointing it out!
post #18 of 21
Movement Sluff 184.

134-99-118

23m Radius.

It's stiffer than the 101 (I owened a pair of the 2nd gen 101's) with a much nicer flex profile. The Sluff is not floppy in the tips the way the 101 is. The flex is more progressive and really ramps up under foot. Torsionally the Sluff is also stiffer, it has amazing edge hold and really likes to rail turns.

Big fat tip gives great float in PNW heavy powder.

Where is he located and maybe I can find him a pair of demo's to try out?
post #19 of 21
194 dynastar xxl. if you ski out west and are any good (or even just bigger), you should be able to ski this all day, every day. if i could own just one ski out west, this would be it. it will float well, KILL crud and cut-up, is plenty maneuverable for all but the tightest bumps and trees (and, on those rare occassions when the troughs get too tight or deep, i just start doubling up on moguls), and will rail gs and sg turns on any groomer that is even moderately soft. oh, and they are easy to find for cheap and are built like tanks. done aaand..... done
post #20 of 21
I've got about 6 days on the 101's and they could easily become my soft snow daily drivers in Colorado. I find them easy to use all over except for maybe bumps.

I am curious to try the 94's. I suspect they would be better in bumps but doubt they would give me the float in the loose.

I tried the xxl's a couple of days, but the jury is still out.
post #21 of 21
Thread Starter 
Thanks all! Lurking bear, can I ask you to provide more specifics thoughts about the Watea 101 performance, your dimension, skill level, etc..? I believe these Fischers are much more versatile and higher quality than many realize. Where is Michael B. (Wildcat)?? I think he owns these and would like to see his current review.
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 › PNW ski for 6'5" 250lbs- Fischer Watea 101 or ???