or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › quick hit review, 2010 Fisher Watea 101, new length 182
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

quick hit review, 2010 Fisher Watea 101, new length 182

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 

So,

I'll expand on this as I get more milage and snow conditions, but this is the quick hit first impression after a morning.

 

me, 6ft, 165, level 3 ski instructor, conservative 9ish level, ski at moderate speeds, off piste mostly

snow, packed, cold snow, bumps, some wind deposited and set up snow in hidden areas.

 

I was cruising w/ a client for a couple hours, and this ski behaved really well at slower speeds in a variety of turn shapes on the groomed. It felt a bit bigger and longer then my watea 94, and it is, but felt comfortable, which is what i wanted from my new wide ski.

 

I then took it into some steeps and bumps and the size spoke to me a bit more, and I had to make a couple adjustments. after being a bit more emphatic w/ transition movements, it started working well and had that feel of hte 94, with more width, length. but, I could manuever it around hard snow bumps, down a couple chutes and still be smiling and carving it back to the lift. i also darted into some windblown then cooked snow in the trees and the ski gave me a good indication that it will float like i hope w/ the new boat tip...

 so overall, darn good for my new big ski in this condition, hopefully the snow gods allow me to test in in some deep snow.

 

And, they are damn good looking, not that that matters. The big tips and extra edge look solid and inspire confidence, as well.

 

Cheers,

Holiday

post #2 of 27

Cool, thanks.  I am interested in the new 94 myself. 

post #3 of 27

Nice, thanks Holiday.  Possibly my next 'one' ski after my 94s wear out.  I'm wondering if I'd like the shorter length  (182 vs.186)  in deeper snow since it has the floating hull tip. This could be a one most versatile kind?

post #4 of 27

Hi Holiday,

 

How does the 101 compair to the Coomba?

 

Michael

post #5 of 27

How do these compare with the Dynastar Huge Troubles?

post #6 of 27


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monologuist View Post

 

How do these compare with the Dynastar Huge Troubles?


 

I have yet to ski the Huge trouble, But the 101 is more "all-mountain" while the HG is more "Powder & Crud" specific.

 

The Huge Trouble has no camber, is 115mm underfoot and is a full twin tip. The 101 has normal camber, is 101mm underfoot and has a turned up tail. The Huge Trouble will pivot and smear turns in powder easier than the 101, The 101 will track and carve well on firm hardpack. The HG will be more difficult to use on firm snow than the 101.

 

Michael

post #7 of 27

Actually, I just realized Holiday was talking about the 2010 Watea 101....it was the Watea 115 that I had for some reason assumed he was reviewing...which is more of a direct comparison.

post #8 of 27
Thread Starter 

yes, a different ski then the HT, although if I get a pow day, i'll do a compare.

 

compared to the coomba, the 101 is more lively, feels more shapely and energetic. that said, i have a half day on the 101 and haven't has the coomba in over a year...

so,

I like the 101 so far, and left the coomba not liking it, that's the difference for me... :). of course, being the picky bastard I am, I'm been out of love many times. I still love my watea 94, though, and hope the 101 creates the same longevity while being floatier...

 

cheers,

holiday

post #9 of 27
Thread Starter 

yes, a different ski then the HT, although if I get a pow day, i'll do a compare.

 

compared to the coomba, the 101 is more lively, feels more shapely and energetic. that said, i have a half day on the 101 and haven't has the coomba in over a year...

so,

I like the 101 so far, and left the coomba not liking it, that's the difference for me... :). of course, being the picky bastard I am, I'm been out of love many times. I still love my watea 94, though, and hope the 101 creates the same longevity while being floatier...

 

cheers,

holiday

post #10 of 27
Thread Starter 

2 pow days later,

w/ some wind scoured ice spots,

this ski works well, is predictable and fun.

 

I'm not proclaiming it the one yet, but it's the first over 100mm ski I've owned in this seach that I'll keep for awhile

 

the hull tip seems to direct the snow in a different way, i'm not sure how much i feel it, but i can see it if i look, and the tip does come up predicatably.

 

so, my reservations,

is it too close to my 94, should i have a bigger jump to my pow ski.

is it as playful as i want my pow ski to be?

 

not sure of those answers yet, but i have baggage,

 

but,

this ski is GREAT.

compared to skis i've owned recently:

better float and feel then gotama, or coomba,

better in cut up then either of those,

more playful the either.

 

not as brainless for the first hour of the pow day as the Huge Trouble,

debateable for the 2nd hour,

much better for the 3rd hour on

 

better all around/anywhere for me then moment ruby,

or prior overlord.

 

cheers,

holiday

post #11 of 27

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holiday View Post

 

2 pow days later,

w/ some wind scoured ice spots,

this ski works well, is predictable and fun.

 

I'm not proclaiming it the one yet, but it's the first over 100mm ski I've owned in this seach that I'll keep for awhile

 

the hull tip seems to direct the snow in a different way, i'm not sure how much i feel it, but i can see it if i look, and the tip does come up predicatably.

 

so, my reservations,

is it too close to my 94, should i have a bigger jump to my pow ski.

is it as playful as i want my pow ski to be?

 

not sure of those answers yet, but i have baggage,

 

but,

this ski is GREAT.

compared to skis i've owned recently:

better float and feel then gotama, or coomba,

better in cut up then either of those,

more playful the either.

 

not as brainless for the first hour of the pow day as the Huge Trouble,

debateable for the 2nd hour,

much better for the 3rd hour on

 

better all around/anywhere for me then moment ruby,

or prior overlord.

 

cheers,

holiday

Hi Wade,

 

I'm a big guy as you know (but I am down 25 # from last year). The 192cm length Watea 101 is my middle ski for Utah and my powder ski for Colorado & Alberta.

 

Most no-new-powder days bring out the Contact 4x4. I have yet to try the Praxis Protest, but this will be my deep and deep-n-heavy snow ski. The Watea 101 is for those days that are require 20% or more hardpack skiing while in transit to the slopes covered in crud or untracked snow. Thats the plan anyway.

 

If I was lighter, I might downsize each of my three skis. At 200 lbs plus, the 75mm wide 4x4, 101mm wide Watea and 130mm wide Praxis should do it all.

 

Michael

 

 

 

 

 

post #12 of 27
Quote:

  

is it too close to my 94, should i have a bigger jump to my pow ski.

is it as playful as i want my pow ski to be?

so, my reservations,

 

Yeah when I talked to a rep he said the 182cm 101 would be too comparable (or a wash) with my 186 cm 94s to make a jump for float in pow, etc....So my plan is to switch to the 101s once  my 94s  are dead for a one ski quiver. I may consider a hard snow (dynastar contact 4x4 or progressor) ski like Michael uses, but the big fattys are probably not necessary  for me where I ski  on the biggest days especially after a hour or two like you mentioned.

 

Do the 101s seem stiffer than the 94s?

post #13 of 27
Thread Starter 

they may be a bit stiffer right now,

but that may be because my wateas have maybe 100 days on em.

 

Dawg was talking about a quiver somewhat like you just mentioned as well,

with a skinny ski and a 100 plus ski,

 

i really think that idea is missing the real sweet spot.

 

85 to 95 is still the go to 80% of the time ski for me.

my 94 is still way more playful in hard snow and big bumps then the new 101, the 101 is my pow ski, the 94 is my 90% of the time ski.

 

just my opinion.

 

cheers,

 

wade

post #14 of 27

Suppose I could be content with the 94s gosh darn it

post #15 of 27

Since I am being much maligned here  allow me to explain my position:

 

Simply put, I have been on a 70~80mm ski as my narrower ski forever: it has just worked for me.  No sales agendas, just personal preference.  Last year it was the iM78, Progressor 9+ or Cold Heat, year before it was the Speedwave 12 or RIPstick, year before that it was the iM82, year before that the Elan 666, year before that it was the Elan S12.  I haven't felt any need to have a wider ski as my "narrow" ski: Bachelor is a pretty flat mountain, if it has snowed quite a bit I could always pull a wide ski out of the demo fleet, which is great, as skiers get stuck on a narrow ski in deep snow.  But, if it hasn't snowed much, skiing off-piste, save for the few small bump runs we have, is pretty boring. The snow can get crunchy and sketchy in the trees if it has been warm or wet, and is more fun that work.  So, that pretty much puts you on groomers or the 2 semi-bumped up runs we have here (the runs that are set aside for "bumps" never get bumped up, due to lack of traffic.  Skiers here stay away from anything not groomed).  I have skied the 94 a bunch, in all sorts of conditions, and think it is sluggish, slow, and lazy as a groomer ski.  I like a bit more snap, more of a racy feel, and if it hasn't snowed much or I am skiing spring corn, 70-80mm seems to be the most effective width I have found.  I may be stepping up to the Magnum 8.7 as my "no new snow" ski, but that is more due to the fact it accepts a Duke. Otherwise, it would be an 8.1 if I was sticking with Blizzard, even a 7.6 if it was a stronger ski instead of much detuned from the 8.7.  More width is just getting me a more sluggish ski, and if I don't need the float (remember, I have options as to wider skis) then why go wider?  Personally, out of what we sell, I find myself skiing and liking the 90-100mm stuff the least.  Go up over 100mm and you have a good to great deep snow and crud ski, step down under 85mm and you can get a superb frontside ski that isn't too far off race-ski performance. The 90-100mm stuff, for me, is needlessly narrow for deep snow use, and needlessly sluggish for harder snow use. To me, most of them feel like their bigger brothers (Watea 94 like a 101, Mojo 94 like a bigger Mojo) but without the float that makes them so versatile in the deeper stuff.  

 

One thing to consider: many of the narrower skis these days are pretty stuff, which makes them less versatile than a somewhat softer version of the same ski.  A barely-disguised race carver isn't going to be great in bumps when compared to an Elan 777, which is why Elan brought it out.  Need a versatile ski for off-piste skiing, but don't get a lot of new snow?  

 

Anyways, that is my opinion, and it is what works for me.  Holiday and I have traded skis: I liked my narrower 82's better, and he liked his wider 94's better.  Which is cool: we both have skis that suit our needs and what we are looking for in a ski.  Obviously, there isn't a one-size fits all when choosing skis. One person's (or Realskiers) "ski of the year" and everyday ski (Dynastar 4x4) is another skier's nightmare ski (crap, that ski makes me work WAY too hard) and a 3rd's "would be fun to own, but not really the way I ski" ski.  Having so many choices can be great, or can be terrible, as you can end up on the "what ski to buy" merry-go-round for far too long.  I sometimes think that manufacturers are doing committed skiers a great service by offering such a wide range of product, but are confusing the hell out of weekend warriors who just want to get on a ski that is fun and doesn't make them work too hard.  Far too many customers have contacted me with "what ski to buy" questions and never ended up pulling the trigger: they just couldn't make up their mind, and the plethora of options on the market were making their head spin.  

 

In the end, I figure that most of these reviews are worth just about what you paid for them (hopefully the cost of a supporter subscription).  Only you can figure out what is best (by demoing), but if you absolutely can't determine what is going to work with you, then work with someone you can trust, and they probably can get you pretty close.  Close enough that you can forget about gear for a little while and go enjoy your skiing

Full selection of 2015 skis available right now from Dawgcatching.com.  PM for current deals and discount codes: save up to 25% on mid-season deals. 

Reply
post #16 of 27

This could qualify for "post of the year"

 

Great post

post #17 of 27

I agree with Lars, Dawg and SierraJim need to know that they are appreciated for what they contribute to this site with their expertise. I always look forward to what they have to say.

post #18 of 27

Deciding on ski(s) for the West,

 

1 - ski quiver  80s-90s mm waist (i.e. Watea 94, 84, Head Monster 88, 82,.....)

 

2-  ski quiver   70s mm waist for remotely harder conditions (Progresser, 4 x 4..), and 90s- 100 mm waist for soft conditions (Gotama, Watea 101, Argos,...)

 

3 - ski quiver   70s mm waist for harder (same as above),  80's to 100 mm waist for soft (Watea 84, Mojo 94, Dynastar Pro Rider), and 110+ for biggest POW days  (K2 Pontoons, Katana, Praxis)

 

 

Is that about right?  

 

I tend to like the balance and simplicity of the 2 ski quiver, although I would have used the skinny ski about 25% of the time this year and the fatter the rest, so a lot depends on your ski condition habits.

post #19 of 27

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by vaportrail View Post

 

Deciding on ski(s) for the West,

 

1 - ski quiver  80s-90s mm waist (i.e. Watea 94, 84, Head Monster 88, 82,.....)

 

2-  ski quiver   70s mm waist for remotely harder conditions (Progresser, 4 x 4..), and 90s- 100 mm waist for soft conditions (Gotama, Watea 101, Argos,...)

 

3 - ski quiver   70s mm waist for harder (same as above),  80's to 100 mm waist for soft (Watea 84, Mojo 94, Dynastar Pro Rider), and 110+ for biggest POW days  (K2 Pontoons, Katana, Praxis)

 

 

Is that about right?  

 

I tend to like the balance and simplicity of the 2 ski quiver, although I would have used the skinny ski about 25% of the time this year and the fatter the rest, so a lot depends on your ski condition habits.

My personal preference would be #2, but would probably go with something like an iM78/iM82 narrow, and something 100+ for wider (a ski that can handle crud as well as new snow, and doesn't totally suck getting back to the lift). I am getting a demo pair of 1010's, and am excited to try them out: lots of width with a big tip but still a decent amount of sidecut. 

Full selection of 2015 skis available right now from Dawgcatching.com.  PM for current deals and discount codes: save up to 25% on mid-season deals. 

Reply
post #20 of 27
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

 

Since I am being much maligned here  allow me to explain my position:

 

Simply put, I have been on a 70~80mm ski as my narrower ski forever: it has just worked for me.  No sales agendas, just personal preference.  Last year it was the iM78, Progressor 9+ or Cold Heat, year before it was the Speedwave 12 or RIPstick, year before that it was the iM82, year before that the Elan 666, year before that it was the Elan S12.  I haven't felt any need to have a wider ski as my "narrow" ski: Bachelor is a pretty flat mountain, if it has snowed quite a bit I could always pull a wide ski out of the demo fleet, which is great, as skiers get stuck on a narrow ski in deep snow.  But, if it hasn't snowed much, skiing off-piste, save for the few small bump runs we have, is pretty boring. The snow can get crunchy and sketchy in the trees if it has been warm or wet, and is more fun that work.  So, that pretty much puts you on groomers or the 2 semi-bumped up runs we have here (the runs that are set aside for "bumps" never get bumped up, due to lack of traffic.  Skiers here stay away from anything not groomed).  I have skied the 94 a bunch, in all sorts of conditions, and think it is sluggish, slow, and lazy as a groomer ski.  I like a bit more snap, more of a racy feel, and if it hasn't snowed much or I am skiing spring corn, 70-80mm seems to be the most effective width I have found.  I may be stepping up to the Magnum 8.7 as my "no new snow" ski, but that is more due to the fact it accepts a Duke. Otherwise, it would be an 8.1 if I was sticking with Blizzard, even a 7.6 if it was a stronger ski instead of much detuned from the 8.7.  More width is just getting me a more sluggish ski, and if I don't need the float (remember, I have options as to wider skis) then why go wider?  Personally, out of what we sell, I find myself skiing and liking the 90-100mm stuff the least.  Go up over 100mm and you have a good to great deep snow and crud ski, step down under 85mm and you can get a superb frontside ski that isn't too far off race-ski performance. The 90-100mm stuff, for me, is needlessly narrow for deep snow use, and needlessly sluggish for harder snow use. To me, most of them feel like their bigger brothers (Watea 94 like a 101, Mojo 94 like a bigger Mojo) but without the float that makes them so versatile in the deeper stuff.  

 

One thing to consider: many of the narrower skis these days are pretty stuff, which makes them less versatile than a somewhat softer version of the same ski.  A barely-disguised race carver isn't going to be great in bumps when compared to an Elan 777, which is why Elan brought it out.  Need a versatile ski for off-piste skiing, but don't get a lot of new snow?  

 

Anyways, that is my opinion, and it is what works for me.  Holiday and I have traded skis: I liked my narrower 82's better, and he liked his wider 94's better.  Which is cool: we both have skis that suit our needs and what we are looking for in a ski.  Obviously, there isn't a one-size fits all when choosing skis. One person's (or Realskiers) "ski of the year" and everyday ski (Dynastar 4x4) is another skier's nightmare ski (crap, that ski makes me work WAY too hard) and a 3rd's "would be fun to own, but not really the way I ski" ski.  Having so many choices can be great, or can be terrible, as you can end up on the "what ski to buy" merry-go-round for far too long.  I sometimes think that manufacturers are doing committed skiers a great service by offering such a wide range of product, but are confusing the hell out of weekend warriors who just want to get on a ski that is fun and doesn't make them work too hard.  Far too many customers have contacted me with "what ski to buy" questions and never ended up pulling the trigger: they just couldn't make up their mind, and the plethora of options on the market were making their head spin.  

 

In the end, I figure that most of these reviews are worth just about what you paid for them (hopefully the cost of a supporter subscription).  Only you can figure out what is best (by demoing), but if you absolutely can't determine what is going to work with you, then work with someone you can trust, and they probably can get you pretty close.  Close enough that you can forget about gear for a little while and go enjoy your skiing


 

Hi Dawg,

I would never malign you! (I'm pretty sure I've never used that word before in my life:0)

and

I like your post here. and I like the 8.7 for you, within my parameters:)

 

I also stand by my preferences for a bigger mountain w/ a huge array of snow conditions on any given day.

As you well know, and anyone else whose read my props before, I think you have an great talent for describing skis and not only the black and white numbers, but that intangible feel aspect.

 

I get even more out of it then most, as I've had the enjoyment of making quite a few turns w/ you.

 

So,

I still don't see a 70mm ski making sense at bigger mtn's in the west, unless you race, or just ski groomers and like a high maintenance ride.


Vaportrail's #2 option is closer then a 70's to 115 quiver, where the whole range of skis that most good skiers that I see at Squaw and other tahoe mtns actually want to ski on. If I skied Northstar, that quiver might work. you ski groomers alot, or pow then bumps, so it's more defined. (although it still wouldn't be what I'd recommend to a client).

 

For example, take today at squaw...

it was 60 yesterday, and froze hard after the groomer last night. so glazed boilerplate, everywhere! off piste closed on all N aspect for slide/die consequences in the AM,

seems 70 would be right, and a few parents of race kids were on 'em,

so a couple ice runs,

watea worked fine, i touched up the edge yesterday.

then some frozen bumps i found open, like the width so I don't catch that outside edge on frozen ice piles.

 then I found a great due E steep pitch (far left of the funnel), the was buttery, w/ huge piles of frozen chunks pushed up from the last melt,

watea was great, skinny ski people were catching edges on chunks.

then to tower 16, melted to about 5 inches deep, i'm skiing sweet ca spring corn and loving it, skinnies are getting tossed and trenched more then they want.

 

I think there are 2 points here to think about,

1. on a larger mtn w/ lots of exposure, you can ski a huge variety of conditions on any given day.

I like a ski that will ski the boilerplate on the wind scoured ridge well, to get down to the 2ft of wind deposit, and then float and surf w/ the best of 'em.

 

2. width is much more then float. it effectively puts the outside edge higher off the snow and less likely to catch or get deflected by any piles, debris, or even icey groomer ridge.

 

My perfect ski for today might have been 1cm skinnier, at around 85ish, but I haven't found one I love yet. My wifes 78mm waited victory was great for her (115lbs).

but, my 94 was Great!

 

Anyway,

seems my 101 review may be in the middle of hijack,

 

but to clarify,

 

Dawgcatching (and sierrajim) do a fabulous service. I abuse both of their impressions when I can't find a  ski to demo and greatly respect both opinions. They are true professionals and know their skis very well.

and,

I still think a ski in the mid/high 80's to mid 90's is the money ski for many western resorts.

 

on Vaportrails list, I'd go w/ the 3 ski option, or do a mid 80's do it all, with a pow second that can handle getting to the pow scoured ice.

 

Cheers,

Holiday

post #21 of 27

Getting back to the 101s;  I'm fairly sure that I could be just as happy on the 182 cm 101s as I am on my 186cm 94s for what I ski.  Having skied the 101s (192cm) on semi harder spring like conditions; they provided more of a GS feel (less turny) with more stability (as I think they're stiffer underfoot) and less playfulness than the 94s, but really could do most everything as I could on the 94s with a bit more work. The 182 cm 101s would most likely provide enough stability and hopefully float too (with no tip dive) yet be bit more playful and quicker than the longer (192cm) 101s. 

 

I love the Watea feel in soft, and will put up with the deficiencies on the hard pack or heavy duty crap as some say, but I may rather not be skiing at that point.  So to keep things simple,  I will keep a one ski quiver of the Watea 94s and then maybe move to the shorter Watea 101 in the future.  Ski on brother 

post #22 of 27

Does anyone have a weight on the 182? The TGR thread on this doesn't list one that I can see, and Fischer, like most companies, appears to regard actual weight as a state secret.  

post #23 of 27

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holiday View Post

 


 


 

Hi Dawg,

I would never malign you! (I'm pretty sure I've never used that word before in my life:0)

and

I like your post here. and I like the 8.7 for you, within my parameters:)

 

I also stand by my preferences for a bigger mountain w/ a huge array of snow conditions on any given day.

As you well know, and anyone else whose read my props before, I think you have an great talent for describing skis and not only the black and white numbers, but that intangible feel aspect.

 

I get even more out of it then most, as I've had the enjoyment of making quite a few turns w/ you.

 

So,

I still don't see a 70mm ski making sense at bigger mtn's in the west, unless you race, or just ski groomers and like a high maintenance ride.


Vaportrail's #2 option is closer then a 70's to 115 quiver, where the whole range of skis that most good skiers that I see at Squaw and other tahoe mtns actually want to ski on. If I skied Northstar, that quiver might work. you ski groomers alot, or pow then bumps, so it's more defined. (although it still wouldn't be what I'd recommend to a client).

 

For example, take today at squaw...

it was 60 yesterday, and froze hard after the groomer last night. so glazed boilerplate, everywhere! off piste closed on all N aspect for slide/die consequences in the AM,

seems 70 would be right, and a few parents of race kids were on 'em,

so a couple ice runs,

watea worked fine, i touched up the edge yesterday.

then some frozen bumps i found open, like the width so I don't catch that outside edge on frozen ice piles.

 then I found a great due E steep pitch (far left of the funnel), the was buttery, w/ huge piles of frozen chunks pushed up from the last melt,

watea was great, skinny ski people were catching edges on chunks.

then to tower 16, melted to about 5 inches deep, i'm skiing sweet ca spring corn and loving it, skinnies are getting tossed and trenched more then they want.

 

I think there are 2 points here to think about,

1. on a larger mtn w/ lots of exposure, you can ski a huge variety of conditions on any given day.

I like a ski that will ski the boilerplate on the wind scoured ridge well, to get down to the 2ft of wind deposit, and then float and surf w/ the best of 'em.

 

2. width is much more then float. it effectively puts the outside edge higher off the snow and less likely to catch or get deflected by any piles, debris, or even icey groomer ridge.

 

My perfect ski for today might have been 1cm skinnier, at around 85ish, but I haven't found one I love yet. My wifes 78mm waited victory was great for her (115lbs).

but, my 94 was Great!

 

Anyway,

seems my 101 review may be in the middle of hijack,

 

but to clarify,

 

Dawgcatching (and sierrajim) do a fabulous service. I abuse both of their impressions when I can't find a  ski to demo and greatly respect both opinions. They are true professionals and know their skis very well.

and,

I still think a ski in the mid/high 80's to mid 90's is the money ski for many western resorts.

 

on Vaportrails list, I'd go w/ the 3 ski option, or do a mid 80's do it all, with a pow second that can handle getting to the pow scoured ice.

 

Cheers,

Holiday

 

I think both Wade and Scott need to remember is that you both are superb skiers in top physical and technical form. I've labored to keep up with both of you and know how well you two can ski any conditions.

 

Very good skiers can make any high quality recreational ski work in most conditions. I'm not surprised that Wade likes the Watea 101 for all-mountain skiing and that Scott would enjoy the Head 78 more in the same conditions.

 

My lower skills and larger size require me to select skis more carefully. The Watea 101 is marginal for me on firm snow, doable but not fun. The Head 78 is too narrow for me in any snow deeper than boot-top depth. I've skied with Scott in knee deep powder when he was on the Head 78 and he makes it look effortless. Having skied with Wade, I'm not surprised he can make the Watea 101 work on icy groomers. 

 

I would need to carefully select my gear to ski all conditions. I would need a very good ski to cover icy groomers as fast as I like. I can think of a few midfats that would work, but I would need to very work hard to make tighter turns on any ski wider than my Contact 4X4. I would also be challenged to ski knee deep snow on most skis less than 100mm underfoot. Just not enough float for me at my size.

 

Picking the right gear needs to be based on the skiers needs and skill level. A level 6 skier needs more help in selecting gear than a level 8 (or 9 or 10) skier. 

 

Cheers,

 

Michael

post #24 of 27

Just another factor to throw in the mix. I have been skiing the 101s for several years as my deep snow ski. After not having any good dumps for quite a while, and being relugated to my quiver of 185s, we got 8" of fairly light on top of the frozen spring stuff. I took out the 193 cm 101s and had a blast, but it made me realize once again that a longer ski in powder really is the ticket. Everybody is always talking width, when length probably changes the powder game more than another 10 mm of waist.  The long soft front ends allowed me to stay upright and relaxed in conditions that would have required a lot more attention on my shorter boards.

 

I have skied a lot of deep snow and fat skis in my years, but one of the most outstanding days I have ever had was on a pair of well used 198 cm Atomic 10:EXs with a 84 mm waist in about a foot of fairly dense new snow.  The big length combined with a mellow even fex allowed me to cruise over everything, including good size bumps with unbelievable smoothness.  The length combined with soft (Watea 101 like) flex kept the center of the ski deep in the snow and gave me a fantastic grip on the stiuation, while providing max fore/aft forgiveness.  The sweet spot felt like it was the entire ski. People tend to forget that Increase in surface area can be gained in two ways.

 

What I am trying to say is that a lot of people are rightfully pleased that the 101s are now coming in shorter lengths, but don't get carried away. Although not advertised as a true twin tip, the tails on the  101s lose the same 10cm of  length as a twin.  The beauty of the 101 in deep snow is the sweet flex, and you shouldn't give up any more of that than you have to.  Soft flexing length is not as inhibiting as with a stiff ski.  With my 101s in deep snow when I need a quick turn I can jam my weight on the tips and force a very  small arc, or do the same with the tails.  A ski like the 193 cm 101s gives you two shots at every powder turn, something a shorter or stiffer ski does not possess. Obviously, the 193s are not for everyone, but don't think that length in this ski is a drawback.  The 182s are going to ski like fairly soft 172s in most condtions, so choose wisely.

 

post #25 of 27

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by vaportrail View Post

 

Deciding on ski(s) for the West,

 

1 - ski quiver  80s-90s mm waist (i.e. Watea 94, 84, Head Monster 88, 82,.....)

 

2-  ski quiver   70s mm waist for remotely harder conditions (Progresser, 4 x 4..), and 90s- 100 mm waist for soft conditions (Gotama, Watea 101, Argos,...)

 

3 - ski quiver   70s mm waist for harder (same as above),  80's to 100 mm waist for soft (Watea 84, Mojo 94, Dynastar Pro Rider), and 110+ for biggest POW days  (K2 Pontoons, Katana, Praxis)

 

 

Is that about right?  

 

I tend to like the balance and simplicity of the 2 ski quiver, although I would have used the skinny ski about 25% of the time this year and the fatter the rest, so a lot depends on your ski condition habits.

 

I like the simplicity of the 2 ski quiver, but the 3 ski works for me. I've yet to find the "one" with a big enough grin factor and I go for max enjoyment each day on the slopes. I could get by with a 2 ski lineup - but one would need to be a wide powder ski which leaves me choosing between a 70 or 80 as my other choice, and that's where a compromise has to be made. The 70 skis are generally better on the groomed but can leave you wanting in the light fresh & crud. The 80mm selections are generally better in pow & crud, but don't carve as well.

 

Me:

 

70 mm Nordica Mach 3 for hard snow. When the snow is firm, nothing makes me smile like a good power carver. Arcing high speed turns at high g-force makes me smile ear to ear

 

88mm Dynastar Mythic: the daily driver for mixed conditions. Does everything well. Superb in crud. Master of nothing

 

115mm Huge Trouble.....oh yeah....now we're talking fun :D


Edited by The Squeaky Wheel - 3/31/2009 at 01:56 am
post #26 of 27
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post

 

Just another factor to throw in the mix. I have been skiing the 101s for several years as my deep snow ski. After not having any good dumps for quite a while, and being relugated to my quiver of 185s, we got 8" of fairly light on top of the frozen spring stuff. I took out the 193 cm 101s and had a blast, but it made me realize once again that a longer ski in powder really is the ticket. Everybody is always talking width, when length probably changes the powder game more than another 10 mm of waist.  The long soft front ends allowed me to stay upright and relaxed in conditions that would have required a lot more attention on my shorter boards.

 

I have skied a lot of deep snow and fat skis in my years, but one of the most outstanding days I have ever had was on a pair of well used 198 cm Atomic 10:EXs with a 84 mm waist in about a foot of fairly dense new snow.  The big length combined with a mellow even fex allowed me to cruise over everything, including good size bumps with unbelievable smoothness.  The length combined with soft (Watea 101 like) flex kept the center of the ski deep in the snow and gave me a fantastic grip on the stiuation, while providing max fore/aft forgiveness.  The sweet spot felt like it was the entire ski. People tend to forget that Increase in surface area can be gained in two ways.

 

What I am trying to say is that a lot of people are rightfully pleased that the 101s are now coming in shorter lengths, but don't get carried away. Although not advertised as a true twin tip, the tails on the  101s lose the same 10cm of  length as a twin.  The beauty of the 101 in deep snow is the sweet flex, and you shouldn't give up any more of that than you have to.  Soft flexing length is not as inhibiting as with a stiff ski.  With my 101s in deep snow when I need a quick turn I can jam my weight on the tips and force a very  small arc, or do the same with the tails.  A ski like the 193 cm 101s gives you two shots at every powder turn, something a shorter or stiffer ski does not possess. Obviously, the 193s are not for everyone, but don't think that length in this ski is a drawback.  The 182s are going to ski like fairly soft 172s in most condtions, so choose wisely.

 


 

Good observation, mudfoot.

i was drawn to the 193 originally for that same reason.

 

the issue i had was the extra length wasn't as manageable in the bumps, trees and there was too great a step up from my 90% of time ski. that's why i thought the 182 was perfect, just a bit longer then my 178 watea to give me pow length.

 

that said, if your skiing a 185 most of the time ski, the 193 makes perfect sense

 

the 182 doesn't ski like a soft 172, though. it skis a bit bigger then my 178 watea 94.

 

Wildcat, thx for the compliments.

I agree that higher level guys can make wider skis work in more areas.

Eric D skis his 101's most of the time, and they behave like ice skates for him. it takes not only good technique though, but more strength.

That said,

I also really like Squeaky's reasaoning.

more FUN, and I like your quiver, Squeaky, Great taste.

 

Cheers,

Holiday

post #27 of 27

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post

 

What I am trying to say is that a lot of people are rightfully pleased that the 101s are now coming in shorter lengths, but don't get carried away. Although not advertised as a true twin tip, the tails on the  101s lose the same 10cm of  length as a twin.  The beauty of the 101 in deep snow is the sweet flex, and you shouldn't give up any more of that than you have to.  Soft flexing length is not as inhibiting as with a stiff ski.  With my 101s in deep snow when I need a quick turn I can jam my weight on the tips and force a very  small arc, or do the same with the tails.  A ski like the 193 cm 101s gives you two shots at every powder turn, something a shorter or stiffer ski does not possess. Obviously, the 193s are not for everyone, but don't think that length in this ski is a drawback.  The 182s are going to ski like fairly soft 172s in most condtions, so choose wisely.

 

 

I also agree with this observation. The best pure powder ski I've ever skied was my 193 Volkl Sanouk. 110 underfoot and soft as a noodle with a swallowtail. Just step on the heel and the tips shot straight out of the snow. It was truly effortless.

 

OTOH, it was completely worthless out of it's element and I had to swap by noon for in-bounds resort skiing.

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 › quick hit review, 2010 Fisher Watea 101, new length 182