Author Topic: Watea 84 & 94, Monster 78, Progressor, Plus 8 more  (Read 1284 times)

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
Re: Watea 84 & 94, Monster 78, Progressor, Plus 8 more
« Reply #30 on: February 25, 2008, 01:01:37 pm »
yes, that does help. From your earlier description, it sounded much more intermediate with a slower more deliberate pace. I gotta tell you, its a preference thing. You could probably handle a Head 78 which is a great ski, just not enough engery or pop for my liking, Jim ratcliffe here has it and loves it. Gary and I both own the 84. I also own the 94. I have a head Mojo90 which is actually 89mm wide. It's another great ski. Easy to control, good energy and carves pretty darn well. It depends really on what you like in skis, I like lighter, more responsive skis, I like energy and feedback. Heads are typically very damp but quick. I used to really like them but once I got on some of the new Dynastars and fischers I loved that feel. If it were me (and it's not!) I would get a pair of 84's with LD12's on them. It a great ski and right now Dawg (at Epic) is selling them for $389. O2gear may have a pair or 2 left of the 176's. If you can wait, get them or another ski over the summer. There's always deals out there!!!!!

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
Re: Watea 84 & 94, Monster 78, Progressor, Plus 8 more
« Reply #31 on: February 25, 2008, 01:43:49 pm »
Hey, I was just reading Epic and I would agree with Sierra Jim on the Legend 8000. Thats a great ski as well. DAwg has those on sale too.

monologuist

  • Guest
Re: Watea 84 & 94, Monster 78, Progressor, Plus 8 more
« Reply #32 on: February 25, 2008, 06:25:49 pm »
yes, that does help. From your earlier description, it sounded much more intermediate with a slower more deliberate pace. I gotta tell you, its a preference thing. You could probably handle a Head 78 which is a great ski, just not enough engery or pop for my liking, Jim ratcliffe here has it and loves it. Gary and I both own the 84. I also own the 94. I have a head Mojo90 which is actually 89mm wide. It's another great ski. Easy to control, good energy and carves pretty darn well. It depends really on what you like in skis, I like lighter, more responsive skis, I like energy and feedback. Heads are typically very damp but quick. I used to really like them but once I got on some of the new Dynastars and fischers I loved that feel. If it were me (and it's not!) I would get a pair of 84's with LD12's on them. It a great ski and right now Dawg (at Epic) is selling them for $389. O2gear may have a pair or 2 left of the 176's. If you can wait, get them or another ski over the summer. There's always deals out there!!!!!

I think I will go ahead and get some Watea 84's.  The guys over at Footloose sports, the pre-eminent ski gurus in Mammoth, CA, are saying the 84 and the 94 are their picks out of any ski for Mammoth! 

Unfortunately, there seems to be some conflicting opinions on length.  Both SierraJim and the guys over at O2gear have told me I would be better off on 167's than 176's.  Guys at O2gear said 176 only if I will be off-piste more than 50% of the time.  But you say 176 and seem to know the ski wel, and some other reviews on Epicski also suggest closer to head-height, which would be 176 for me.  Do I believe the salesmen or the consumers, LOl?!  Unfortunately, I won't be able to demo the 2 lengths to compare...:(  I could probably wait until summer, but it seems that the Wateas are becoming very popular, at least out here, so I'd be afraid they might be limited in availability...plus would I really be able to get them for much cheaper than 329$ shipped, from O2gear?!

By LD-12 bindings, do you mean LD-12 railflex bindings or normal LD-12? 
Thanks so much for your extremely helpful advice!
-Howe
« Last Edit: February 25, 2008, 06:29:39 pm by monologuist »

Gary

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2590
  • Location: Rochester, NY
Re: Watea 84 & 94, Monster 78, Progressor, Plus 8 more
« Reply #33 on: February 26, 2008, 08:11:52 am »
Oh boy...for sure Howe....the 176 length....this ski turns quicker than it's length suggests.

You will love the 84...I'm 5'81/2, 155lbs and ski it in a 176 length....great ride, extremely versatile.
Mine is mounted flat with the Mojo15 binding because it's my boot high and above ski.

The railflex may give you a bit quicker edge to edge. Have to tell you I had my binding mounted 2 cm forward. If you go with the railflex, I'm guessing you'll have better performance in the forward mounting position.

Let's us know how things work out,
Best,
Gary

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
Re: Watea 84 & 94, Monster 78, Progressor, Plus 8 more
« Reply #34 on: February 26, 2008, 10:24:08 am »
railflex rfd12's or eqivelent. Remember that tyrolia makes the bindings for head and fischer so any of these are fine. get whichever. I have head rfd12's on mine.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2008, 10:27:02 am by Ron »

monologuist

  • Guest
Re: Watea 84 & 94, Monster 78, Progressor, Plus 8 more
« Reply #35 on: February 26, 2008, 04:26:32 pm »
Oh boy...for sure Howe....the 176 length....this ski turns quicker than it's length suggests.

You will love the 84...I'm 5'81/2, 155lbs and ski it in a 176 length....great ride, extremely versatile.
Mine is mounted flat with the Mojo15 binding because it's my boot high and above ski.

The railflex may give you a bit quicker edge to edge. Have to tell you I had my binding mounted 2 cm forward. If you go with the railflex, I'm guessing you'll have better performance in the forward mounting position.

Let's us know how things work out,
Best,
Gary

OK...another vote for the 176!  Just for good humor, I asked the guy at O2gear again which length to get, and he still maintained that for 70/30 use, to get the 167!  I told him that there were some folks on the ski forums telling me that 176 was the way to go, and he warned me that he reads these forums and that I should be careful b/c most of the poeple really didn't know what they're talking about!  I told him that the guys I had been corresponding with seemed to be particularly knowledgeable though, and that they were in fact moderators...Upon further reflection, he said , yeah, I could really go either way, but 167 would be better for all-mountain 70/30, but I should go 176 if I were going to be going 50/50, 30/70 or just as a soft snow specialist.  He was worried mainly about my light weight, not my height or ability so much.

Sierrajim also still maintains 167 would be the best fit, citing that he'd only put me on the 176 if I were 180 lbs.+ or level 8 +...he felt that at my weight, I'd get pushed around too much by the 176, at my ability...

Too bad there isn't a 170 to split the difference!  Out of curiosity, where do you guys ski?  I'm having a tough time going against what Sierrajim is telling me, mainly b/c not only is he familiar with this ski, which  you guys obviously are too, but he is particularly familiar with Mammoth...

My only point of reference in terms of shaped skis and length is the Volkl AC2, which I rented for a week up at Mammoth recently in a 170cm.  That seemed about right to me in that ski, so as a final point of reference, are you guys still gonna say , no question the 176, or is more of a toss-up?


Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
Re: Watea 84 & 94, Monster 78, Progressor, Plus 8 more
« Reply #36 on: February 27, 2008, 11:49:57 am »
Did you ask the gurus at Footloose? You are 5' 10'' and 160, Right? you ski blacks and plan to ski this on groomed soft snow and pow? You are a level 7. If you are really a 7, meaning you can carve parallell turns, handle some speed, are comfortable on any blue and can handle easy bumps? You can do all of this with confidence and good form? . I agree regarding the 70/30 however if the groomers are soft groomed powder, it could be 60/40. I thought the idea was to ski more off-piste? If not, I still love the dynastar 10. you can get that in  172 I think.

I ski primarilly at Steamboat. I am a solid 8. Gary is a 9, skis in Rochester NY and out west.

Go with what you feel is best. I don't want to talk you into a ski you won't like.  As I said in one of the first posts to you , if in doubt, go shorter. I am 2" taller and have 15 pounds on you.  Get the 167 and ski it for a couple of seasons, improve and buy a new pair! :)

Gary

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2590
  • Location: Rochester, NY
Re: Watea 84 & 94, Monster 78, Progressor, Plus 8 more
« Reply #37 on: February 27, 2008, 01:27:05 pm »
Alright Howe....you could ski either length for sure.

If you are more of a laid back skier that likes to cruise, nice easy turns with similar turn shapes... then go with the 167...if you like to crush, use lots of energy skiing the trails edges, look for off camber stuff, get air on jumps, love speed and the forces of  GS turns  and dance in the slopped and crud snow...get the 176's.

If you ski at all out west, the 176 for certain is the better choice. If you ski eastern snow only, then figure out if your a cruiser or crusher!

I'm extremely comfortable on the 176 length but then again, I like to crush mostly and cruise partially. Just depends on your mental attitude on skis.

The rest we've talked about. I've got about 30 days on my 84's so I think I know a little something about that ski...well beyond demo.

Just understand who you are and buy accordingly!

Gary

monologuist

  • Guest
So I pulled the trigger on the Watea 84.  Sierra Snowboard has em on sale for 299$ right now....I went with the 167cm.after asking a dozen or so people about it.  If it is too short, I will know after a day or two, then I'll just unload them.  In the meantime the 167 is sold out from Fischer and they have lots of 176 left, so I can always get the larger size if I regret the 167 I figure. 

Since I can't seem to find any demos of this ski or the Atomic Highnoon and Blackeye, I might just buy all of them if I can find good deals on them and then sell off the ones I don't like!  Is this stupid?

Anyway regarding bindings, I think I will go the way of the Railflex as you suggested Ron.  My question is this...It seems that I can get either 78mm brakes or 95mm brakes for them...is it usually done to bend a set of 78mm brakes to fit an 84mm ski?  And if I go with 95mm brakes, will that be problematic on 84mm skis? 

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
I suspected as much!  Good job. You will love them out west for sure. The 78's should be fine. Who ever mounts them should be able to adjust for you. Enjoy them but please let us know how you wish you bought the 176's :)

monologuist

  • Guest
I suspected as much!  Good job. You will love them out west for sure. The 78's should be fine. Who ever mounts them should be able to adjust for you. Enjoy them but please let us know how you wish you bought the 176's :)

So I just want to report that I did end up getting a pair of the Watea 84's in a 167cm. and put some LD12 railflex on them.  I've skied on them a  couple times now and the descriptions you guys have given are pretty much spot on.  As far as the length goes, yes, I could easily see myself skiing the 176cm instead.  The 167's are fine for the most part on the groomers, but I haven't been able to test them in some fresh powder at this late point in the season, but I can imagine that I might want a little extra length.  Bottom line is for a 70/30 ski, 167 for me is ok and 176 might be better as a 50/50 or 30/70 ski. 

I'm now considering getting a second ski as a on-piste/skill-improvement type ski...something in the 68-74mm range maybe?  Turning radius under 15m?  Something that will facilitate a transition to modern technique, excel at short and medium turns, excel at the harder end of western-snow.

You guyys mentioned the Dynastar Contact line.  Which would be most appropriate for me?  The Limited/11 is billed as an expert ski, but I've heard that it is actually a forgiving ski?  Is it appropriate for a 160lb. level 7 skier trying to improve carving skills?  The 9 on the other hand seems to get more mixed reviews and the 10 even more so...Is the 9 enough ski for me?  I hear it is a pretty soft and light ski; can it handle mixed western conditions or will it falter in crud and wetter spring stuff?  Is the 10 just a compromise between the 2?

One thing I've realized is that I am perhaps a little more aggressive and faster skier than I was thinking before I got the Wateas.  THere are certainly some who rip down the mountain harder and faster than me, but the last couple of times out, I noticed that I probably ski faster and more aggressively than about 80-90% of the people around me....not sure if that is really saying anything as I'm not sure how skiing ability breaks down by % of people?...

Gary

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2590
  • Location: Rochester, NY
Hey Howe...Ok..now that you have the Watea 84, you want to make sure you don't get a ski that is "too" similar in turning radius and versatility. As you stated, the longer Watea might have been the spot on choice but having said that, what you have will take you dancing in shin to knee high powder using good technique.

I think from how you described your skiing, finding a ski with a side cut that would give you around a 13 meter turning radius would be the "ying in your yang"!

The question here is which ski.......I'm thinking something in a 160 or 165 length. I ski the Head SS in a 165 length and ski that up to boot high snow. That other personal favorite of mine is the Fischer RX8...I think these 2 skis are great choices .....

The RX8 is probably the more forgiving of the two.

I can tell you from what I see on the mountain that skiing fast is certainly no indication of a skiers skills or the rating format for ski levels. Being able to ski a variety of conditions and terrain in control at a variety of speeds probably is more of the benchmark.

Still, you want a ski that is fun, versatile, and fits your skiing style. If the Watea worked....I know the RX8 would be a homerun.

Best,
Gary

jim-ratliff

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2739

I would throw the Contact 9 in there as well.  I don't think it is quite in the same class as the SuperShape or RX8, but I demoed it recently and was really quite impressed.  Although it feels lighter (and sounds different) than my Head i.SL Chips it was an extremely capable ski.  Also, as you and Gary mentioned, for working on skills and technique you want a pretty versatile ski, one that you can arc and edge at slower speeds but one that also remains stable at higher speeds.  I didn't find anything that the Contact 9 didn't do pretty well including some soft snow and some icy Black trails (I'm 5/11" 190 pounds, 59 years old, green icon and I believe it was a mid 160's.)  I would certainly rate the Contact 9 as a better fit than either the 10 or 11.
"If you're gonna play the game boy, ya gotta learn to play it right."

monologuist

  • Guest
Hey Howe...Ok..now that you have the Watea 84, you want to make sure you don't get a ski that is "too" similar in turning radius and versatility. As you stated, the longer Watea might have been the spot on choice but having said that, what you have will take you dancing in shin to knee high powder using good technique.

I think from how you described your skiing, finding a ski with a side cut that would give you around a 13 meter turning radius would be the "ying in your yang"!

The question here is which ski.......I'm thinking something in a 160 or 165 length. I ski the Head SS in a 165 length and ski that up to boot high snow. That other personal favorite of mine is the Fischer RX8...I think these 2 skis are great choices .....

The RX8 is probably the more forgiving of the two.

I can tell you from what I see on the mountain that skiing fast is certainly no indication of a skiers skills or the rating format for ski levels. Being able to ski a variety of conditions and terrain in control at a variety of speeds probably is more of the benchmark.

Still, you want a ski that is fun, versatile, and fits your skiing style. If the Watea worked....I know the RX8 would be a homerun.

Best,
Gary


Yeah seems like the RX8 is a pretty popular ski...but most people who ski them seem to be east coast skiers, no?  Is the RX8 a good choice for a frontside ski for big western mountains where you need to be able to deal with quite variable snow, loads of afternoon crud, heavy springtime " mashed potatoes" and corn?

monologuist

  • Guest

I would throw the Contact 9 in there as well.  I don't think it is quite in the same class as the SuperShape or RX8, but I demoed it recently and was really quite impressed.  Although it feels lighter (and sounds different) than my Head i.SL Chips it was an extremely capable ski.  Also, as you and Gary mentioned, for working on skills and technique you want a pretty versatile ski, one that you can arc and edge at slower speeds but one that also remains stable at higher speeds.  I didn't find anything that the Contact 9 didn't do pretty well including some soft snow and some icy Black trails (I'm 5/11" 190 pounds, 59 years old, green icon and I believe it was a mid 160's.)  I would certainly rate the Contact 9 as a better fit than either the 10 or 11.

Again, is the Contact 9 a ski that can deal with heavier cruddy conditions, or wetter spring stuff?  How does it compare to the RX8?