9 comments on “2013-2014 Fischer Watea 106”

  1. If someone were to weight, say, another 40lbs (I’m 6′ and 185lbs in a t-shirt and shorts), do you think that person could make them play a little more, and smear through trees, while still retaining most of the stability? Obviously, it would take a strong pilot, but I’m curious what a heavier skier would think of these guys.

    • As I mentioned in the review, I was able to make the Watea 106 smear and pivot a little bit in the lighter, deeper pockets I encountered. The playful turns on this ski required a different skiing style than those I would make on something that is softer, more center mounted and tail rockered, like the Atomic Ritual.

      In deeper, soft snow when the ski is planing I think a strong skier will be able make them smear through trees, but this will not be the effortless smearing that many of us have become used to on wider ski with rockered tips and tails.

      I do not expect any loss of stability for a heavier skier, but I anticipate less effort required to make surfier slashes and pivots, however, this is not the forte of this ski. Due to the very aft mounting point, you cannot make the surf style turns from a neutral stance, a more aggressive, deliberate smearing move has to be made to drive the tails and allow the tips to feather.

      All in all I think a heavier skier will definitely enjoy this ski if they have good base skill set. I can only see this ski being easier to maneuver given the same skill set between a 150 or 200 pounder.

  2. I demo’d the Watea106 in teh 182Cm version, and I would say that it’s nothing like the review of the 190cm bigger brother. I had demo’d the Salomon 115’s ealier in the day, and THAT is a hard charging ski in the 188cm version. I found the 182 very easy to ski. I like a ski with some camber. I do have a pair of Rossignol S3’s in the 186, and didn’t feel that the Watea106 in the 182cm was much harder to ski. To me, the Watea106 felt like a slightly stiffer version of the S3 in the tip. No tip flap, and I was surprised by how it railed groomers at 106mm underfoot. No problems in the manky spring moguls. In fact it did very well. FWIW, I’m 167lbs and consider myself to be more of a finesse skier.

    It’s probably a case where the Fischer sizing on the Watea 106 is going to be either a bit too long or a tad to short. For me, the 182 was just the right length.

  3. I’m curious what mount point you used. I can’t find any info on mount point anywhere. The little triangle on the sidewall is very far back… I know it is a traditional style ski, but I’m hesitating on putting boot centre that far back! I’d be interested to hear what others have done and how they like it.

  4. Greetings,
    I know these are older ski reviews, but would you say that the Watea 106 skis like a wider Watea 96? I have the Watea 96 and think that ski rips. I pretty much agreed with your review on it and was wondering about the 106. Other skis I have liked that you reviewed and liked are the cochise and the girish. Some great deals on the 106 right now. Also which did you prefer between the 106 and the Salomon Q-Lab? These would both be the 190cm size.


    • Hi Mike, Yea, this stuff is kinda old, but the skis are still for sale out there.
      We are looking at the same skis… Did you get the 106s since you posted in June?

      I am looking at the 106’s and some Salomon’s.

    • I haven’t been on the Watea 106 in a very long time … but I think the new Ranger 107 Ti should very much be on your radar. (And I wouldn’t be concerned about the tighter sidecut radius of the new 107 Ti vs. the Watea 106.)

Leave a Comment