Author Topic: Watea 98 review  (Read 1132 times)

LivingProof

  • Global Moderator
  • 400 Posts
  • *
  • Posts: 892
Re: Watea 98 review
« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2011, 08:34:03 am »

I only skied with you a little but I would recommend you grab a pair of 195 S7's or something at least 115 if you get even 6" or so, 

Ron,

Are you really suggesting that in 6? of pow to leave a Watea 98 in the condo and go rent a 115. My read of the reviews of many 100ish waisted soft snow skis is they are great in those conditions and a lot deeper. It?s your right to advocate for fat skis, trees and pow, but, having one ski that works great 95 percent of the time and figuring it out in the other 5 percent is fine, and fun, for most.

And of course, if your going into deep pow in tight trees, the archer is a lot more important than the arrow.

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
Re: Watea 98 review
« Reply #16 on: January 26, 2011, 08:44:49 am »
Mike, try to leave the archer/arrow anaology (since I have attempted to explain many times before) thing out of the situation, It has ZERO to do with it, its not about technique or anything else. Skiing 6" on nice fat skis brings a totally different experience. I like the bottomless floating feeling of flying,weightlessness and smooth quiet skiing. So yes, I would be on my 123 underfoot BC's in 2 seconds even on 4" of fresh. I suggest that if you make it out west and have the same opportunity to try it as well. Even for novice powder skiers, it makes for a lot easier, more enjoyable day.? In his case, skiing at Steamboat a decent storm will enable pretty much untracked or broken lines all day If he's wants to be off-piste. If you prefer the groomers, then a good half day of decent skiing of broken. Either way, why not try something new that so many seem to have realized is a good thing? 115 is not that wide and you would hardly even notice on powder.

on a side note: I just skied with my friend Randy who is in his mid-60's and was on the same 40* plus lines and faces as the rest of us on his Black Diamond Megawatts, 125 underfoot, His comment was if it wasn't for these skis (meaning fat rockered) he wouldn't be out there on that kind of terrain.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 09:00:31 am by Ron »

jbotti

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 400 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 961
Re: Watea 98 review
« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2011, 09:05:26 am »
I think this is an interesting discussion (about when to bring out the realy fat boys and when not to). I find that when it starts to feel like I am trying to duplicate the feeling I had yesterdya or the day before when it snowed a foot) I often find that I am disappointed and often go in and switch skis. 3-4 inches of fresh can be very different depending what is just below it. If it is on top of quite a bit of new snow in the previous week, it can be pretty sweet and might warrant the BC's or wide skis. If it is on top of an iced up mountain with no new snow for weeks, it isn't going to be all that much fun on wide skis.

At the end of the day, a lot depends on what you are trying to do when you are skiing. Ron has said what he likes, he wants that floaty feeling and he will ski the fat skis all day so that he can feel that feeling at least some of the day on a 4" day. I often find that I get that feeling only a few times on a day like that and the rest ofthe time i really don't enjoy the fatter ski. For me on that kind of day I am most likely on the IM 78's. But that is me.

There is no right answer here. The real question is "what will give you the most enjoyment for the conditions at hand?" And this is going to be different for different people. Every ski has plusses and minuses in different conditions. If I don't have a good amount of fresh snow I want to be able to carve tight arcs on the groomers and have greater manueverabilty off piste. Ron, is going for a different experience, and one that he enjoys more.

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
Re: Watea 98 review
« Reply #18 on: January 26, 2011, 09:20:44 am »
THANK YOU JOHN!  yes, and if you haven't tried it, why not?

Perry

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 200 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 397
Re: Watea 98 review
« Reply #19 on: January 26, 2011, 10:55:18 am »
definite food for thought, and a 195 S7, well, it sound unique enough to warrant the experience

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
Re: Watea 98 review
« Reply #20 on: January 26, 2011, 11:01:55 am »
the 188 might be tad short or you but still worthwhile

Gary

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2590
Re: Watea 98 review
« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2011, 12:08:52 pm »
For me if I might add my 2cents....

Simple...if the snow is boot high and below...Kastle MX78's...because in most cases this snow is broken and compacted....the 78 underfoot is quicker edge to edge, lighter and easier to arc and higher on my fun factor.

Above the boot to shin...not having skied my Rossi S3 above knee high yet, I know for a fact FOR ME, they provide plenty of float and quickness in these conditions. Another important factor is that on the way to the pow over the hardpack and groomers, the S3 can carve and can crank out some serious GS speeds, very stable.

What is amazing to me is some of the fatties in that 110-125 boards actually can be carved. These skis have become much more versatile than ever. For me matching the "Fun Factor" of the ski to the conditions your skiing is what each skier must determine.

I did just what JB was commenting on....after 12-14" of fresh pow last Wed and Jackson Hole, I brought out the S3's looking for more of the same. Well what I found was stiff, hard, and packed down....not ideal for the S3...I mean skiable but low on the fun factor. Next day I brought out the 78's and found soft pockets of snow and amazing soft groomed snow to play in.

Find your fun factor ski...and "life is good"! G

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
Re: Watea 98 review
« Reply #22 on: January 26, 2011, 12:56:18 pm »
to each his/her own but I was discussing off-piste/side country powder skiing as opposed to groomed or tracked out front side.?its just a matter of preference in yuor scenario I would have probably grabbed the one.  If it was hard snow, maybe the 88.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 01:14:14 pm by Ron »

Gary

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2590
Re: Watea 98 review
« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2011, 01:25:59 pm »
Ah yes...for sure in backcountry I would concur Professor....fat is good...rocker is sweet and anything over boot high or 2".......ha!

AND you're heavier......it's the ole "float vs lbs!? >:D

I think you're point Ron is that get out and try the new stuff. It's fun stuff and I know for a fact that all who post here have had great ski experiences with a variety of terrain that just seems to get better.

But like you said....each to their own but you can amp up you fun factor with these new skis....the are big time fun for powder skiing.

I personally think that something 100 underfoot does a great job in increasing ones terrain versatiliy with conditions from broken snow to knee high. Then when you get a week like Ron had in BC where the snow was knee to waist high....having big fatties underfoot to me? makes all the sense in the world.

Hoping to get more of that 100mm waist snow in 13 days!!!!? ;D
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 01:40:18 pm by Gary »

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
Re: Watea 98 review
« Reply #24 on: January 26, 2011, 01:46:48 pm »
ouch!? I resemble that fat remark......?  I prefer it expressed this way "float vs, bloat"   ;D ;D ;D


 Its just winter blubber....? ;D

well said though....?
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 01:59:25 pm by Ron »

Gary

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2590
Re: Watea 98 review
« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2011, 02:05:21 pm »
Well let's just call it "rocker blubber".....it will keep you boyant in that deep stuff!

I'm just too kind!  ::)

LivingProof

  • Global Moderator
  • 400 Posts
  • *
  • Posts: 892
Re: Watea 98 review
« Reply #26 on: January 27, 2011, 12:09:12 pm »
No sense in being a member of a discussion board if you can?t have a good discussion. >:D

As this is not the PMTS forum, it?s ok to disagree with someone with 4000 posts, is a super hero moderator and ?pow skier of the year?. So in the best traditions of Saturday Night Live, ?Ron, you fat-ski loving, chauvinst pig, I?d love to take Perry?s Watea?s 98 for a day of 6 inch (or more) powder?. ;D

Seriously, Dawg, in his Epic review of 3 - 100 ish waisted skis wrote the Watea 94 is the best off piste ski of the group plus great in moguls. Does that not qualify it for 6 inches of pow? Who needs a 115 for this? John Botti has spoken, said ?not I?. Gary dumped his 115 Atomics and went with a 100ish Rossi. Phil skis his 88?s and Sultan 94 for new, non-dump snow. Jim opted for a narrower waist Chariot, and, heck, I?d love my MX88?s in it.

Not talking about what ski you choose from your quiver, but, it does not appear that the very fat skis revolution is pervasive in the Real Skiers forum. Of course, we can all be wrong.

And technique/skier skill does not count in trees and powder? The madman who lives between my ears, respects trees very much and sure does not want to kiss one. I?ll take the ski I know over a demo for those conditions.

Just sayin

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
Re: Watea 98 review
« Reply #27 on: January 27, 2011, 01:26:05 pm »
Sounds great Mike, obviously we disagree and thats fine, I am not sure sure we are comparing apples to apples here in your examples but that's OK.  What's the problem with skiing my bent chetlers?  Whats the harm? Do you think I will be a better skier? BTw- i have no problem skiing trees with the BC's. THey turn on a dime and are super easy. Is that bad?

Gary

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2590
Re: Watea 98 review
« Reply #28 on: January 27, 2011, 01:34:21 pm »
You raise some interesting points Mike...

True you don't see much discuss of fat skis on on the PMTS site I think because most of their technical discussions are front side realated. I have to admit just like a good craftsman...there are some tools for the job that make things easier than others....they'll all get the job done but, some tools just make it more fun.

I did sell my Armada JJ's at 115 underfoot cause their "window of versatility" was just to narrow for my taste. I personally find my 98 underfoot "elperfecto" for my style of skiing.

I like you and others here love the feeling of creating matching carving skis....I know this can be done on my 98 as well as on the JJ's ...BUT the 98's did it way way way better and much easier.

Another thing to consider is that in boot high and above pow, silky and light, blower type snow...skiing my Head SS at 67 underfoot was a blast. BUT....skiing boot high thats compacted, heavier snow, skiing something with some girth just crushes that stuff and makes me less fatigued...Truly, not all need the fat ski, but there are days that a little more underfoot is a fun soultion to certain conditions.

Best, G

jbotti

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 400 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 961
Re: Watea 98 review
« Reply #29 on: January 27, 2011, 01:42:22 pm »
One of the things that is wonderful about this country is that if you want to ski slalom race skis on a powder day or Pontoons on an iced up groomer day you can!! I see guys all the time on ultra wide rockered skis on days where it hasn't snowed in a week and I say to myself, what are they finding that I am not? Maybe I should follow them. Maybe they are skiing the truly secret stashes!! Some people just like fat skis in almost all conditions. To each his own.

I will say that I skied my Peak 88's one day when the conditions did not warrantt it IMO. By the end of the day I was really loving the skis. It took me a while to really figure out exactly how to ski them in the conditions I was in. Again by the end of the day I had a new appreciation for the ski.

Having said all this, I am a large quiver guy at heart. I own skis for specific conditions, and I get excited when the conditions seem perfect for the ski that I have for that day. But that doesn't mean you can't have fun on a different ski (one less ideal for the conditions) that day. And that of course is the whole point!! To some degree if you are having fun, then you are on the right ski!!

If I was on the PMTS forum where the whole focus is abouut improving ones PMTS technique, I would say something different. But that is there and this is here!!