or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Watea 84 - what length should I get?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Watea 84 - what length should I get?

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 

Hi everyone,


I've been researching skis for some time now, and I'm pretty set on the Watea 84.  I was wondering about any opinions on length.


I'm 5'9''  170 lbs.  I've only been skiing for a couple years, but grew up playing hockey and picked it up pretty fast.  I'd probably say I'm a level 7 skiier, 15+ times per year pretty much out in the Pacific Northwest.  I can ski pretty much any part of the mountain, and love getting out into the powder and trees/bumps but want something that will ski the groomers well too.  From what I can tell, the Watea 84 fits my ski style pretty well.


I'm skiing on a pair of beginner skis that I got when I started (I think around 164 cm).  My other experience on other skis this past year include demoing the K2 Apache Xplorer at 170 and Nordica Afterburner at 170.  Loved the afterburner, but felt the Xplorer was a little heavy and hard the maneuver, especially in the trees. 


Anyway, wondering if the 176 cm would be too long given my experience so far has been with a ski much shorter?  Should I stick with the 167cm?  Thanks for your help.

post #2 of 13

Tough call.  I'm 5'8" and 170 lb and I prefer the 167 length but others may feel differently.


If you do decide that's what you want, we have one pair of the Watea 84 flat ski left on closeout in the 167 length for $399 with free domestic shipping.

post #3 of 13

Buy this ski a foot shorter than you are tall. 


(Don't listen to me, I'm not being serious.  I wouldn't be one to recommend either way since I don't know this ski by personal experience.)

post #4 of 13

i vote for the 176. and not to undercut patmoore, but you can get the 176 or the 167 for $288 shipped from sierraskis.com right now

post #5 of 13

You're heavy enough to make the jump to 176cm I think.  Keep in mind that this is a light ski, and is not going to be hard to drive around. 

post #6 of 13
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the info guys.


Sounds like I couldn't really go wrong either way. 


Question:  pros and cons of both sizes?  Seems to be the 167 would definitely be a fine ski for me and probably be very light and maneuvarble in the trees.  What do you think the big downside to going shorter would be?  Any major upside to 176 over the 167 (other than perhaps being a little better in the powder?) 


My concern obviously would be if I get the 176 and its just too big and heavy.  Maybe lighter bindings would even things out? 



post #7 of 13

The Watea is a very light ski, focused on soft snow conditions.  I wouldn't worry about the weight in any of the lengths.  The longer length will be better in powder and crud, as well as being more stable at speed.  It will also offer more edge for control on hard snow, which is something the Wateas are not great on.


The shorter ski will obviously be more maneuverable and easier to ski.


Since you're on the heavy end for your height, I wouldn't worry about the longer ski too much.  If you have doubts about the length, then I would suggest demoing them first.  You can buy skis too long or too short, and both can become frustrating.

post #8 of 13

 I am 5'5" and 130lbs and ski the 167's.  They are the perfect length, though I am a level 8/9 skier that prefers to carve my turns.  I wouldn't recommend the 167's to anyone much over my weight (i.e., up to 150lb) since they are so light and not very damp (i.e., the 167's don't provide a stable ride even at my weight).  However, I'm saying this for a level 8/9 skier.  The challenge for you will be the fact that these ski's, while longitudinally forgiving, are torsionally fairly rigid and do not take well to skidding/swiveling (i.e., some of the things that a level 7 skier might do) - they want to carve. 


The Xplorers are fairly long for their length (when you add in the upturned tail of the W84's they may ski just as long if not longer due to their beefier construction).  Based on your experience with this ski I would have expected a similar response to the ABs (the 170's were waaaaay too much ski for me).  Personally I'd stick with something better suited to your abilities while providing a damper ride, something like a Dynastar 8000 or maybe the Salomon Lord (I'm guessing about the latter). 


Heed skier219's advice and demo 'em (heck you may end of with the AB's).

post #9 of 13

I'm 185 lbs (but taller than you) and bought 184 cm 84s, but have yet to mount them up.  I own shorter and longer skis, but bought these in the longest size based in part on the info here. 


Given that you describe yourself as an athletic person who has progressed quickly, I think you would do fine with the 176s once you got the feel for them.  I agree that it is a good idea to demo, but understand wanting to pull the trigger with some of the off season deals around...good luck.

post #10 of 13

I am 5' 9" at 185 and I ski a Volkl AC30 at 170, which is a pretty stiff/rigid ski.  If I were buying the Watea 84, I would probably go with the 176 for general purpose off piste.  However if you do ski the glades and moguls, I could see going a little shorter for the quick turns/maneuverability.  If you want a more all round ski, I think the 176 would not be a problem.  In general I would not get too hung up on the length.  You should do fine in the crude, off piste as well as get decent stability with the 167.  So sierraski still has a great deal on the 84's......I am thinking about getting another pair, but since I already bought a new pair of skis this year the wife would not be too thrilled....



post #11 of 13


Originally Posted by blockhead View Post

...You should do fine in the crude, off piste as well as get decent stability with the 167....

I just don't see a 170lb'er getting good float and stability in the 167 (heck they're not vey stable for me @ 130lbs).  These ski's are highly manueuverable, so a 176 or longer is the right length if a good technique is used.  If the OP loved the 170 AB's (which is not a ski known to be kind to sloppy technique) then the 176 W84's should work well too given how light they are and how much shorter they ski than the AB's.  OTOH if he loved the AB's, that's what he should get....

post #12 of 13
Thread Starter 

Hey everyone,


Thanks for the help.  Seems like there shouldn't be much a downside to going with the 176cm.  I think I'm going that way.


Now I just got to get a new pair of bindings.  Trying to choose between the the Tyrolia LD-12, Head Mojo 12, and the Salomon Z12.  Any thoughts?

post #13 of 13

All decent choices, though the Z12 is on the dainty side.  No difference between the LD and the Mojo except for the friction device at the toe piece (which also affects overall toe lift).  I'm selling a pair of silver LD-12 in gear swap if you're interested -- in fact, they came off some Watea 84s.  Have about 5 days use on them and are in great shape. 

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 › Watea 84 - what length should I get?