Help me decide: Armada ARV 96 vs ARW 96, and length

[PisteOff]

Funny you should mention this.....I've been looking at both the ARV 116 and the Tracer 118. I sure wish I could demo the two for a side by side comparison in equal conditions.......I believe the Tracer to be more to my style than the ARV but without the comparison.......

I demo'd the ARW 96 in 163cm, and I had a blast. Three runs. The skis just felt "natural" to me. Bumps were fun, not alarming. Didn't even really feel the need to ski cautiously. And they didn't seem to bother my knee the way some of the other skis did.

I demo'd the Tracer 98 as well, in a similar length. I liked it, but I liked the ARW better. The rep suggested this was because the ARW is twin tip - easier to release. That could also partly explain why my knee liked it.

Funny you should mention this......I've been stuck between the ARV 116 and the Tracer 118 as a deep day ski. I wish I could demo them side by side in the same conditions..... I'm leaning more towards the Tracer and I will likely hold off and see if I can find a demo day. I've exchanged email with Armada regarding sizing myself as I feel I am in between sizes on the Tracer. They are quick to respond if you email them.

Good Luck!

 

[Monique]

I have a friend who weighs 185-190 lbs and his go-to ski in steeps, powder, bumps, and chutes is a Gotama in a 168 length. The rest of us are on skis ten cm longer. When I asked him why he skis in such a short ski, his answer says it all (and it should be your answer too!): “Why would I ski something longer when I have so much fun on this length?”

I'm just not convinced that I will have as much fun on a 163 once I get into steeper terrain or more variable conditions.

I've exchanged email with Armada regarding sizing myself as I feel I am in between sizes on the Tracer. They are quick to respond if you email them.

Brilliant! I'll do that.

 

[Monique]

I just got off the phone with a very kind and patient Ed at Armada.

He agreed I could probably ski just fine on either 163 or 170. He thought the ARV might be just a smidge stiffer than the ARW, which he thought might be even better for me and might even help a bit with edge grip on firm snow (can someone elaborate/disagree?). He pointed out that the 163 has a shorter turning radius than the 170. That a shorter ski is easier to turn and thus easier on my knee. That he's never regretted going too short, but he's regretted going too long - and that the older he gets, the shorter he prefers. That I ENJOYED the 163.

Basically all the stuff you guys said.

I summarized for him: "Basically, you're saying that I should ski the shorter ski unless my ego just can't handle it?" That elicited a chuckle.

He allowed that yeah, if I were skiing open bowls all the time, a longer ski might be better - but then I wondered if actually the shorter/shorter turn radius ski would help me minimize "traverses"/dead spots between turns on steeps. He thought it might.

It occurs to me that when I can't ski powder (for which I have other skis, anyway), I like trees - where short skis are good. And further, that my weakest skiing is in bumps - where short skis are good.

So, okay, fine! I will give my ego a bit of time to subside, and then likely get the ARV in 163.

Mount point question!

He pointed out that I probably skied the default center mount, but if I'm not in the park much (at all), I could use the second indicated mount point further back OR I could split the difference, which might improve its performance in steep bowls. Thoughts? @Philpug @Doug Briggs in particular? I can't help noticing that I liked the ski when it had a center mount. I suppose I could get a demo binding to fiddle, but historically I haven't wanted to fiddle all that much. It would be an Attack 13, obviously, no matter what.

 

[Monique]

Forgot to add -

I plan to sell my 165cm Scott The Ski (Salomon Z10 Ti) and 169cm Nordica Santa Ana (Attack 13, also drilled for Marker Griffin) to offset this purchase. It also reduces my ski count by one pair, which will make the husband happy.

 

[Monique]

Second question: were there any changes to ARV from last season to current season? I don't see the 163 available at Christy's (where I have the $100 coupon for a pair of skis), but I do see last season's online.

 

[Philpug]

Mount point question!

He pointed out that I probably skied the default center mount, but if I'm not in the park much (at all), I could use the second indicated mount point further back OR I could split the difference, which might improve its performance in steep bowls. Thoughts? @Philpug @Doug Briggs in particular? I can't help noticing that I liked the ski when it had a center mount. I suppose I could get a demo binding to fiddle, but historically I haven't wanted to fiddle all that much. It would be an Attack 13, obviously, no matter what.

If this is a true center mount, I would use the ball of foot as the center mount then go back from there for the center mount of the boot, about 2.5" or so.

 

[PisteOff]

I just got off the phone with a very kind and patient Ed at Armada.

He agreed I could probably ski just fine on either 163 or 170. He thought the ARV might be just a smidge stiffer than the ARW, which he thought might be even better for me and might even help a bit with edge grip on firm snow (can someone elaborate/disagree?). He pointed out that the 163 has a shorter turning radius than the 170. That a shorter ski is easier to turn and thus easier on my knee. That he's never regretted going too short, but he's regretted going too long - and that the older he gets, the shorter he prefers. That I ENJOYED the 163.

Basically all the stuff you guys said.

I summarized for him: "Basically, you're saying that I should ski the shorter ski unless my ego just can't handle it?" That elicited a chuckle.

He allowed that yeah, if I were skiing open bowls all the time, a longer ski might be better - but then I wondered if actually the shorter/shorter turn radius ski would help me minimize "traverses"/dead spots between turns on steeps. He thought it might.

It occurs to me that when I can't ski powder (for which I have other skis, anyway), I like trees - where short skis are good. And further, that my weakest skiing is in bumps - where short skis are good.

So, okay, fine! I will give my ego a bit of time to subside, and then likely get the ARV in 163.

Mount point question!

He pointed out that I probably skied the default center mount, but if I'm not in the park much (at all), I could use the second indicated mount point further back OR I could split the difference, which might improve its performance in steep bowls. Thoughts? @Philpug @Doug Briggs in particular? I can't help noticing that I liked the ski when it had a center mount. I suppose I could get a demo binding to fiddle, but historically I haven't wanted to fiddle all that much. It would be an Attack 13, obviously, no matter what.

The ARV topsheets are sick!!

 

[Monique]

If this is a true center mount, I would use the ball of foot as the center mount then go back from there for the center mount of the boot, about 2.5" or so.

YIKES that's a huge change. Won't the ski act completely different?

 

[Dwight]

Attack 13 Demo bindings, Problem solved. Put them where you want.

6' 210lb and I've yet to be on skis longer than 171cm. Though that is going to change some this year.

Cool, only 2 pages this time for a purchase decision. Much quicker than the automobile. Way to go.

 

[Monique]

Does the demo Attack 13 have enough play that I can actually get that 2.5" difference?

 

[David Chaus]

So Monique, remember that your purpose for looking at skis this time around, is to help you with your knee the way it is right now. Not the way it was when you bought your other skis, now the way it will be when you have (hopefully) completely recovered from your injury. At that time, you can reconsider something else, or you may not need to.

For now, you want the skis that are easiest on your knee, and still fun to ski. If that’s the ARV 96 in 163, have at it.

 

[Monique]

So Monique, remember that your purpose for looking at skis this time around, is to help you with your knee the way it is right now. Not the way it was when you bought your other skis, now the way it will be when you have (hopefully) completely recovered from your injury. At that time, you can reconsider something else, or you may not need to.

For now, you want the skis that are easiest on your knee, and still fun to ski. If that’s the ARV 96 in 163, have at it.

It looks like my cheapest option is to accept the ARW and its fruity (literally - I don't mean "weird euphemism for gay") graphics. But, yeah, 163 seems like the thing. And you're right - if my knee felt great, my tastes would be different, anyway.

 

[Dwight]

Does the demo Attack 13 have enough play that I can actually get that 2.5" difference?

No, closer to an inch. @Philpug , right?

 

[François Pugh]

My current quiver includes lengths from 165 to 208 cm, and turn radii from 13 m to around 70 m.

Turn Radius: I do notice that the smaller turn radius skis don't feel as nice carving arc-2-arc long radius turns as the longer turn radius skis, but that never stopped me from making long radius turns with them. On the other hand there is a limit to how small a turn I can carve arc-2-arc with the longer radius skis. Short radius non-carved turns are no problem no matter the radius.

Length: the only time the shorter skis feel that they would be better longer is at high speeds going over bumps or other rough terrain. Extra length evens out the vertical undulations in the terrain. If you are not skiing very fast it shouldn't matter. If you are skiing very fast and you accidentally hit some whales made by a snow gun that hasn't moved in a couple of hours, you might go over the tips on the shorter ski and keep it together with the longer ski. Again, only if you ski very fast would it bother you. If you are making turns to control speed, you won't have an issue; it might even be easier. On the other hand I have been in chutes, cracks really, that were smaller than 2 m wide, and that was a problem with the 208s.

Stiffness: All my skis are stiff, but some are stiffer. The stiffest ones make the worst bump skis.

Hope that helps your decision.

 

[GregK]

Mounting position is a very easy one on the Armada ARV Series. If you ride in the park or ski switch often, then you mount on the more centered manufactures mark which is 2.5 cm back of center. If you ski mostly all mountain, then mount at the 2nd mark back which 5cm back of center.

If you mount closer to center, they will swivel easier but they won’t be as stable or carve as well but will be better for freestyle.

It’s good that you said you tried them in the more centered spot if you are planning on staying with the 163cm because moving them back closer to or on to the “all mountain” mounting spot will add a touch more stability and won’t affect your love of the ski and may even improve it.

I’ve got my Armada twins mounted -3.5 cm back of center but go into the park a bit. If I didn’t, they would be at -5cm for all mountain use.

 

[Doug Briggs]

@Monique , I don't have anything to give you on this. I'm not familiar with Armada other than top sheets and haven't been following this thread. Work has gotten in the way. I haven't even skied since last week.

 

[Monique]

@Monique , I don't have anything to give you on this. I'm not familiar with Armada other than top sheets and haven't been following this thread. Work has gotten in the way. I haven't even skied since last week.

Whaaaaat!

Okay, fine, but will you mount the demo binding for me, and will that accommodate my exploration of center mount vs. farther back?

 

[Doug Briggs]

I'd be happy to mount demo bindings on the skis. The Attack Demo, mounted for a 'recommended' boot sole center would let you run the toe forward a couple of inches, at least. I'll look to see what the supported range is tonight when I go into the shop.

What is your BSL? The 'smaller' heel location may be less than the 'larger' toe location so if you want to demo the full range, we might want to mount a bit forward in the range to start. We'll talk about it. I'm sure of that.

 

[Monique]

I'd be happy to mount demo bindings on the skis. The Attack Demo, mounted for a 'recommended' boot sole center would let you run the toe forward a couple of inches, at least. I'll look to see what the supported range is tonight when I go into the shop.

What is your BSL? The 'smaller' heel location may be less than the 'larger' toe location so if you want to demo the full range, we might want to mount a bit forward in the range to start. We'll talk about it. I'm sure of that.

I'll PM you

 

[Started at 53]

We'll talk about it. I'm sure of that.

I think the mount point of these new planks needs it’s own thread.

@Monique ????



I make myself laugh

I'll PM you

Nooooo, not in a PM