or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Skis comparable to Fischer Watea 84?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skis comparable to Fischer Watea 84?

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
I was planning to demo a pair of Watea 84s in the coming weeks, but found that the demo shop near Homewood doesn't have this ski; the reports I've read of this ski seem like it'd be a great do-it-all ski for the Tahoe area; so was hoping to get suggestions on other skis in this class that'd be comparable to the Watea 84, so I can check them out as well?

I'm 5'9", 155lbs ... solid intermediate, figure I currently ride 60/40 on/off-piste ... and only rarely go superfast.  I currently have the Dynastar D'stinct 166, purchased them last year mainly due to the low, low cost (hadn't skied for quite a few years, so was looking to buy some cheap gear to get back into it).  It's ok, but really nowhere near floaty enough when off-piste - far too narrow.

So first off, am I right on having the wateo 84 on the short list?  If so, any other skis of that type to consider?

post #2 of 15
starthaus in truckee sells wateas in various widths and prolly has some setup for demo...  I ski the 94 as an everyday ski around tahoe
post #3 of 15
The Watea 84 is a good starting point. There are also other skis you could consider depending on how you wanted a ski to be different from the 84 after skiing them.

We have the 84 in demo in 176 and 184, the 94 in 178 and several other contenders in the 172-178 range.

post #4 of 15
The Watea 84 is a very good ski but as an alternative yiou might want to check out the Dynastar Sultan 85.  I've had both and prefer the Dynastar.
post #5 of 15
The Sultan is a great ski for sure, but very different from the Watea (stiffness, metal layers, damping -- which the Sultan possesses and the Watea doesn't).  Offhand, I can't think of very many good skis from competing brands that match the Watea recipe of construction and weight, sidecut and camber, and the light/snappy feel.  The old Sweet Daddy in the Atomic's lineup was close, but doesn't exist anymore. 
post #6 of 15
Thread Starter 
Interesting - thanks for the pointer to the Sultan 85s ... did some reading on that, found some threads where SierraJim posits some advise - it looks like the Sultan 85 may be a better fit for my 60/40 on/off-trail skiing; in particular, SJ had suggested...

Watea 84: Fun, easygoing ski that is fairly soft overall and torsionally as well. Superb in soft snow and bumps but challenged by hard snow.
Sultan 85: Stiffer, both overall but especially in torsion. Gripper on hard snow, still fun and nimble in soft  snow and bumps. (Tweener)

Hopefully the shop near Homewood, where I'm headed in a couple of weeks, will have the Sultan 85 in ~165 avail for me to demo - thanks!
post #7 of 15
Thread Starter 
BTW, I see that the Sultan 85 is available in standard and "fluid" version ... is the latter indicate an integrated binding?  Any suggestions re: which setup to go for, standard v. fluid?  Not sure of the pros/cons of either...
post #8 of 15
Thread Starter 
What are folks thoughts on the Dynastar Trouble Maker Alpine Ski compared to the Sultan and/or Watea?
post #9 of 15

Assuming Dynastar is using the same terminology with the Sultan as the original Legend series...the fluid system does have the binding plate and it must come with the Look bindings no?  The usual answer to all ski questions is.."it depends" in terms of which is better.  I don't like the binding plate as it adds a ton of weight to the ski and I'm not convinced it makes the ski flex any better (that's what Dynastar's claim is).  I also prefer to be closer to the deck..ie closer to the snow and don't want any additional height or material between my boots and the ski.  Its really personal preference.  Generally ( I stress generally b/c there are always exceptions ), folks who want to use a ski in a more freeride oriented way (think on and off piste all over the mtn...) tend to mount the bindings directly on the ski.  Folks who take their carving very seriously might prefer the Fluid system.  IMHO..I would go without the fluid system but you might want to do it differently.  BTW...I own the old Legend 8000 and don't have the fluid system. 
post #10 of 15
Thread Starter 
very helpful, thanks! 
post #11 of 15
 I haven't tried the sultans, but own the watea 84, 176mm. I am 5'10" 160 lbs, level 7.   Ski is great in crude, bumps, soft snow.  it doesn't provide a ton of float in deep powder nor hold a great edge on hard pack.  Stable on soft snow with speed, but when carving on hard pack, they chatter quite a bit and are work.   

if you want more off-piste/mogul, watea 84 is it.  I think given my skiing habits (greater than 50% piste) I should have opened my eyes to the several others (most people point to the dynastar).  

Just to reiterate, the Watea's are great in bumps.
post #12 of 15
 fluid version is with binding plate and the bindings are the look bindings , models px12 and more advanced px14
post #13 of 15
Based on my recent demos (and my limited skills/knowledge), the Watea skis somewhere between the Legend 8K (which I own) and the Sultan 85. Under most typical conditions, IMHO they all have similar feels to each other but ride differently to other all mountain skis.
post #14 of 15
 What are folks thoughts on the Dynastar Trouble Maker Alpine Ski compared to the Sultan and/or Watea?

the troublemaker is very soft, great bump ski. the sultan is stiffer and more of an all mountain ski. never tried the fischer....
post #15 of 15
i trred to answer your question and hit send.

the troublemaker is a soft ski, very good in the bumps. the sultan is much stiffer and more of an all-mountain ski.
ive never tried the watea....
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 › Skis comparable to Fischer Watea 84?