or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Watea questions.

post #1 of 4
Thread Starter 
Seriously considering picking up a pair of Fischer Watea

Couple of quick questions first though:
  • Did 2009 Watea 101 come in anything other than 192cm or are shorter sizes new this year?
  • The boat hull tip is new on 2010 ski right?
  • Is there any consensus on the boat hull? - Good? Bad? Gimmick? Pain to scrape wax? Difficult to attach skins?

I am also debating getting the 94 (178cm) vs 101 (182cm) .
While I'm not really asking for input on this issue since its been covered here before and its partially personal preference and where I'm headed with my quiver, nonetheless please feel free to weigh in if you feel the urge.

Me: 165lbs, level 8+, live in CO.
This is going to be soft snow wider alpine ski for me.
94 should be more versatile but I have a hankering for something a bit wider without going huge or rocker.
I've got a pair of Big Stix 7.6 for firmer days. 
Have pocket rockets in 185 that are ostensibly being replaced by whichever Watea. 
I've also got a brand new pair of unmounted Watea 84's sitting which I can't decide whether to put an alpine or tele binding on.

If I ditch the pocket rockets and the 84s then gap from 76 to 101 may be too great --> 94 better choice
If I keep the 84's then 94 too close --> 101   (albeit making the 76 a bit redundant)

I love my Fischer Kehua's as a tele set up (92 underfoot) and very rarely wish for wider.  Figure Wateas are a tad lighter due to carbon beam but should have similar characteristics.
Even living in CO the reality is we don't have that many days where its super deep and untracked for me to warrant a specialized rocker ski.
post #2 of 4
2010 is first year for boat hull, and shorter sizes with the 101.  IMO, the boat hull looks a little gimicky, but seems to work ok, and haven't had any tuning or skin attachment issues with it.  The hull is difficult to scrape wax out of, but it is in front of contact points, so extra wax there doesn't seem to effect anything - you probably don't even need to wax this area, but I do, just because.

Both the 101 and 94 ski considerably narrower than one would think.  I consider the 94, a wide all-mountain ski, it does about anything reasonably well, its only weakness is truly hard snow. The 101 is an absolute hoot to ski if conditions are even a little bit soft, it is very easy to turn and is super manuverable in tight quarters.  

Comparing these two, the 101 is far superior in crud and powder, but gives up some precision on firmer or groomed snow conditions - although is carves pretty dogone well for it's width. I think of the Watea 94 as an everyday driver/one ski quiver type of ski, and the 101 more as a more specialized crud/powder type of ski.  Hope that this helps.

post #3 of 4
I have some older 193 Watea 101s mounted alpine as my dedicated powder ski, but not the boat hull model.  I have skied them repeatedly in very deep snow, and can see no reason for a wider or rockered ski.  The zero camber and soft even flex make them a delight in the deep stuff, even in soft bumps, but they definitely come up short on the groomed or hard snow because of their flex and lack of sidecut.  They have an amazing ability to turn when going slow, yet will rock when you turn up the amps.  I am 6'5" and 215 lbs, so the 193 works well for me.  At your size I think you would want to step down in length.  Although they are not advertised as a twin tip, the upturned tail is equivalent to the tip, so they lose about10 cm in running length.  I am not sure if the current model has the same tail, but I think they do come shorter.

I also have the Watea 94s mounted tele and use them for everything. They are one of the smoothest all around skis I have ever been on, and I've been on quite a few.  I love them in the bumps and powder.  Skied 14" of blower over the weekend and they were as stable and turny as anyone could want.  They also will rail a carve on hardpack very well, but their lightness makes them not as solid as beefier skis.  I cannot say enough about how easy these skis are to use.  One of the best one ski quivers available.

Though similar in waist size, 101 and 94 are very different skis.  The flex, and lack of camber and sidecut on the 101 makes it ski much wider and softer than the 94.  The 94 is one of the widest 50/50 skis around, but if you want a real powder board, the 101 is a fine choice.  It is a dream boat in the pow, but still more versatil than the super fats and rockers.

Hope that is of some help.
post #4 of 4
Thread Starter 

I hadn't really realized the 94 and 101 had noticeably different camber and flex as Mudfoot describes.

I think I'm leaning toward the 101 despite not being too keen on the boat hull.
I'm after a pow, crud, day after storm ski with more verstility than a super fat or rockered ski and this is not a quiver of one ski for me (if it were the 94 would be obvious choice).

I think 182cm should be good - I tend to prefer my skis a tad shorter (more like 174-178) because of maneuverability in trees and tight spots but I suspect it'll be fine because of the slightly turned up tail.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion