# I just picked up the Watea 114 with X13 Binding



## jimmywilson69 (Apr 27, 2011)

on Sierra trading Post for $379 shipped!!!:-o:-o:-o:-o:-o:-o

Now that was the price with my additional 30% off, the going rate is $517 or something like that. 

This is an incredible find especially for a 2010-2011 ski/binding combo.  

I am thinking about selling the binding and getting the marker baron so that I can have a BC setup.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 27, 2011)

Nice.  It is weird how prices can vary on the internet or even on one site.  Above your ski is the same thing without the binding for more money.  It must be a different year or something.  

And another example is that they have the same ski on that page that I just snagged...the Head Joe 105.  I got mine (new and in the plastic) for less than half of what they want for it!  Just got them mounted last weekend and can't wait to take them out west.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Apr 27, 2011)

The Watea 114s are the same I called yesterday and asked them.  I was concerned that the "kit" had to use the bindings but that is not the case which is what I figured.  

The rep told me that they had to sell them as a kit as that was a condition of them selling those pairs of ski's that way.  Since Sierra Trading Post is a close out venue, whoever they are buying the merchandise from must dictate how they can sell it sometimes.

I'm not concerned as I got a sweet deal on a real nice set of boards and bindings.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 27, 2011)

jimmywilson69 said:


> The Watea 114s are the same I called yesterday and asked them. I was concerned that the "kit" had to use the bindings but that is not the case which is what I figured.
> 
> The rep told me that they had to sell them as a kit as that was a condition of them selling those pairs of ski's that way. Since Sierra Trading Post is a close out venue, whoever they are buying the merchandise from must dictate how they can sell it sometimes.
> 
> I'm not concerned as I got a sweet deal on a real nice set of boards and bindings.


 
Oh yes, a great deal. It is always fun to hunt and to learn of how well others did.


----------



## tekweezle (Apr 27, 2011)

that;s a pretty good deal on the wateas.  that's cheaper than buying just the skis!

sign up for their dealflyer email.  occasionally, i get emails for an extra 35% off.  also, link from Fatwallet and you'll get an extra 3% back.


----------



## gmcunni (Apr 27, 2011)

was there a coupon code involved? is so, please share.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 27, 2011)

Sweet!


----------



## bvibert (Apr 27, 2011)

Nice deal!


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Apr 27, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> was there a coupon code involved? is so, please share.



no it was a code that was specfic to me.  sorry.


----------



## RootDKJ (Apr 27, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> was there a coupon code involved? is so, please share.


You can always look here.

http://www.retailmenot.com/view/sierratradingpost.com


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Apr 27, 2011)

I just realized these weren't this years skis (They were the 2010 model) and they aren't rockered.:angry:

So once they arrive I will be sending them back, as they couldn't stop the order eventhough I only orded them less than 4 hours ago.  

I think I'm going to pick up this years ski for $432+shipping.  

I should've known that deal was to good to be true...


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 27, 2011)

jimmywilson69 said:


> I just realized these weren't this years skis (They were the 2010 model) and they aren't rockered.:angry:
> 
> So once they arrive I will be sending them back, as they couldn't stop the order eventhough I only orded them less than 4 hours ago.
> 
> ...


 
I wondered why there was such a price difference and why the graphics on the topsheet looked different.  Weird that the year was not posted on the model...at least I did not see it.  Sorry to hear that!


----------



## 180 (Apr 27, 2011)

Just picked up a pair for my boys to share


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Apr 27, 2011)

there was no model year and even when I called yesterday they told me that they were the same.  when I called again today they were able to find out that they were different, but it was burried in some notes from another inquirey.


Before I send them back, if anyone wants a pair of 2010 Watea 114s, 176 CM long with a brand new pair of Fischer X13 bindings I will sell them to you for $379 (what I paid) + ups shipping to your place.  

If that offer isn't cool on here I'll take it down. or if it is, I'll make a separate thread.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 27, 2011)

jimmywilson69 said:


> there was no model year and even when I called yesterday they told me that they were the same.  when I called again today they were able to find out that they were different, but it was burried in some notes from another inquirey.
> 
> 
> Before I send them back, if anyone wants a pair of 2010 Watea 114s, 176 CM long with a brand new pair of Fischer X13 bindings I will sell them to you for $379 (what I paid) + ups shipping to your place.
> ...



Looks like the newer one's don't come with bindings.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Apr 27, 2011)

they don't but with my code i can still get the 2011 ski for $432 which is a substaintial savings. 

I'd keep the 2010s but a 176 is going to be too long for a non-rockered ski for me, as I Typically ski 167-170 ski length.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 27, 2011)

$379 with bindings vs $432 without bindings, the rocker is really worth that to you?  Are you really going to get enough use out of a ski 114 under foot to justify the cost? I wouldn't go that big and I get almost 15-20 powder days a year. Sorry, someone had to be the debbie downer and say it. 

:beer:

Sick deal for sure. Guess they need to discount a ski that big to get folks to actually buy it.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 27, 2011)

Jimmy--

I hope that you suggested that they fix the listing to make clear what year the ski is so that someone else does not have the same issue.  The graphics are so similar that I could see how someone could be confused.


----------



## roark (Apr 27, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> $379 with bindings vs $432 without bindings, the rocker is really worth that to you?  Are you really going to get enough use out of a ski 114 under foot to justify the cost? I wouldn't go that big and I get almost 15-20 powder days a year. Sorry, someone had to be the debbie downer and say it.
> 
> :beer:
> 
> Sick deal for sure. Guess they need to discount a ski that big to get folks to actually buy it.


I'm going to guess you haven't skied a fat rockered ski in pow yet


----------



## 180 (Apr 27, 2011)

BTW, the code for anyone is SITEBUY411  25% off


----------



## gmcunni (Apr 27, 2011)

i just spent $400 on car repairs so no fat Wateas for me


----------



## RootDKJ (Apr 27, 2011)

I say keep 'em and save them for the really nice days.


----------



## mrksn (Apr 27, 2011)

Rocker rocks period, except on ice


----------



## snoseek (Apr 27, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> $379 with bindings vs $432 without bindings, the rocker is really worth that to you?  Are you really going to get enough use out of a ski 114 under foot to justify the cost? I wouldn't go that big and I get almost 15-20 powder days a year. Sorry, someone had to be the debbie downer and say it.
> 
> :beer:
> 
> Sick deal for sure. Guess they need to discount a ski that big to get folks to actually buy it.




You need to demo a really fat pair of rockered skis on a pow day. :beer:


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Apr 28, 2011)

RootDKJ said:


> I say keep 'em and save them for the really nice days.



176 will be too long without the rocker.  I had a detailed discussion about it with a guy at a shop.  I typically ski 170 max.  the 176 rocker will ski a little less than that.


----------



## gmcunni (Apr 28, 2011)

Hmmm. I ski a 170 and thought going longer for a fat pow ski was 'normal'. I skied a friends 176 a few seasons ago and felt pretty good.


----------



## RootDKJ (Apr 28, 2011)

jimmywilson69 said:


> 176 will be too long without the rocker.  I had a detailed discussion about it with a guy at a shop.  I typically ski 170 max.  the 176 rocker will ski a little less than that.


I guess that depends on your height/weight.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Apr 28, 2011)

When I demoed some ski's in the 176 range in December, I felt like I was fighting the skis too much.  The tips kept wanting to cross.


----------



## gorgonzola (Apr 28, 2011)

to each his own but looking at your sig it doesn;t seem like that great of a ski choice to me rockered or not unless your planning on changing it up big time next year

what does evryone think the cutoff for pow depth and frequency is to justify or realize the benefits of a 100+ rockered ski?
for me i'm think at least a dozen days at 15"plus, otherwise i'm sticking with a mid fat for screaming down the the groomers and bumps and such...


----------



## RootDKJ (Apr 28, 2011)

gorgonzola said:


> to each his own but looking at your sig it doesn;t seem like that great of a ski choice to me rockered or not unless your planning on changing it up big time next year
> 
> what does evryone think the cutoff for pow depth and frequency is to justify or realize the benefits of a 100+ rockered ski?
> for me i'm think at least a dozen days at 15"plus, otherwise i'm sticking with a mid fat for screaming down the the groomers and bumps and such...


I have a feeling we'll be seeing more rockers at Blue next season.


----------



## gmcunni (Apr 28, 2011)

RootDKJ said:


> I have a feeling we'll be seeing more rockers at Blue next season.


----------



## JimG. (Apr 28, 2011)

gorgonzola said:


> to each his own but looking at your sig it doesn;t seem like that great of a ski choice to me rockered or not unless your planning on changing it up big time next year
> 
> what does evryone think the cutoff for pow depth and frequency is to justify or realize the benefits of a 100+ rockered ski?
> for me i'm think at least a dozen days at 15"plus, otherwise i'm sticking with a mid fat for screaming down the the groomers and bumps and such...



Demo a pair.

I didn't think there was any justification to buying a pair of rockers for east coast skiing until I skied at Mt. Ellen in early March after a 3 foot dumping. I was having a great time in the woods until I saw a patroller on rockers. I was turning, he was gliding effortlessly. We both exited at the same time, I was winded and he was barely breathing hard. We talked a little and even he said it was almost cheating to ski on rockers.

So I demoed a pair the next day. Most enjoyable powder experience of my entire life. Took a little bit of getting used to, mostly because it was so effortless. 

I decided then and there to buy a pair for next season. To me, even if I use them 2-3 times it is more than worth it.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (May 3, 2011)

so the ski's and bindings finally came.  I'm actually considering keeping them.  I don't know... I really wanted to "move forward" with technology (rockered skis), but i got such a good deal, that Its hard to want to send them back.  

For a 176, these don't seem to be as long as I thought they would be.  I also didn't realize what exactly the powder hull tip was until now.  the tip of these ski's is actually shapped like a boat.


----------



## wa-loaf (May 3, 2011)

jimmywilson69 said:


> For a 176, these don't seem to be as long as I thought they would be.  I also didn't realize what exactly the powder hull tip was until now.  the tip of these ski's is actually shapped like a boat.



I haven't skied the 114, but the powder hull on the 94 did seem to give it a fair amount more float than the 94 without it.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (May 3, 2011)

I guess the worst thing I could do is mount the bindings on them, ski them and if I don't like them, sell them for $250-$300 (w/ binding) since I will likely ski less than 10 days on them and make most of my money back.


----------



## tekweezle (May 3, 2011)

are these twin tips?  if they are, they may feel smaller than their stated length due to what is actually contacting the snow.

I have a pair of 169 PEs that I thought would be plenty long for me since I normally ski a 167-170 length non twin tip ski.  takes some getting used to but they do feel a little "short"


----------



## thetrailboss (May 3, 2011)

tekweezle said:


> are these twin tips? if they are, they may feel smaller than their stated length due to what is actually contacting the snow.
> 
> I have a pair of 169 PEs that I thought would be plenty long for me since I normally ski a 167-170 length non twin tip ski. takes some getting used to but they do feel a little "short"


 
Yes, you do lose some length between the contact points on both ends with twin tips. I have a pair of Head Joe 105's that are 181 cm in length and I was told that they will ski like a pair of 175-177cm because of the loss of at least 2cm on each end if not more. I liked that. 

If anything the twin tips helped lead to the rocker revolution.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (May 3, 2011)

Interestingly enough these are a 176 cm ski.  But when I measure them from tip to tip they are only 173 cm in length.  I get 176 cm if I follow the profile along the edge.  Also, eventhough these are not rockered the distance between the contact points of the tradditional camber is only 145 cm. I went home at lunch and measured my K2 Apache Outlaws which are 170 cm, and the contact points between the camber was actually 5 cm longer at 150 cm.  

Does this mean that this ski will actually ski shorter than the K2 which only has a partial twin tip tail?


----------



## tekweezle (May 3, 2011)

some people think so.  however "feeling" is subjective so let us know when you ski them.

as for me, took a  couple of runs to get used to the length of the PE's and some adjustment in my skiing.  basically, what I could do on other skis, I couldn;t exactly do on this pair.  that;s not entirely a bad thing though.  they just skied "different".


----------



## bigbog (May 17, 2011)

So...Trailboss you gonna go out West, ski that Joe105(2011?) and post up what you think or what?...LOL.   
Never know what Head will come out with...and never saw that ski available to demo.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 17, 2011)

bigbog said:


> So...Trailboss you gonna go out West, ski that Joe105(2011?) and post up what you think or what?...LOL.
> Never know what Head will come out with...and never saw that ski available to demo.


 
I will be sure to do so!  I also did not see much in the east on that ski, but it was sold out west and in other parts of the world.  I like what I see now have to ski on it!


----------

