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

[Monique]

Peanut gallery, zip it! I have a coupon, so technically these would not be MSRP. (Open to old new stock, too)

I really didn't expect anything to "pop" for me at the demo day. But then, that's why we demo, right? To tell our spouses we have no intention of doing anything but a little harmless flirting, then come home and suggest we open things up a little?

No? Well, anyway ...

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.

If I thought my knee would magically clear up, I wouldn't consider a new ski. I would spend my season on the Zeldas or the La Ninas. But the knee is still dogging me, and this ski seems to be friendlier than most. I got on it and instantly felt comfortable. That means a lot.

The ARW 96, in waist, fits between The Ski - which I find uninspiring these days - and the original Santa Ana - which feels planky (due to my knee!) unless there's a lot of snow. And if there were a lot of snow, I'd be on the Zeldas. And if there were a WHOLE lot of snow, I'd be on my La Ninas. But either of those will "cost" me in how many runs I can ski before my knee bails. Of course I hope my exercises and stretches will eventually fix up my knee - but all I can really know right now is that it's still cranky 1.5 years after surgery. This implies to me that it probably won't clear up entirely in the next couple of months.

The ARW 96 was easy to ski, but still has some energy. (Versus The Ski, which to me feels easy to ski but milquetoast. And the Santa Ana, which allows me to crud bust but can irritate my knee.)

So I see these as a potential replacement for two skis in my quiver: the The Ski (165cm, always felt it was too short) and the Santa Ana (169, really liked it, but am liking the DPS Zelda Foundation (169) better for the conditions in which both shine).

Now, two questions.

1) Length. I demo'd in a 163 because that was the closest to what I would normally ski, but I would never typically see myself on a 163. 168/169 is usually my sweet spot. And this ski is twin tip with lots of rocker.

So while I had a lot of fun on the few blues available with powder bumps on blues and greens, I tend to think that on bigger, steeper terrain, a longer ski would feel better. I realize a number is just a number, but 163 is awfully short. I'm just wondering - if I go up a size, what do I lose? Would they no longer be fun in the bumps because I'd have more ski to deal with? And what would I gain, other than ego? I got those The Skis in 165 because 175 was too big of a jump - but I've always wanted them to be longer, just about from the moment I got them.

2) ARW vs ARV. At the booth, a rep told me that the ARW is identical to the ARV except for graphics, and the fact that they come in different length ranges. But on the Armada site, the ARW shows softer flex numbers and a slightly different description of materials. Which is correct? If I chose the 170 length, I would prefer the ARV graphics.

Or am I getting ahead of myself? Is there something about this ski that will disappoint me and dash my hopes of being a "no new snow last night, but plenty of leftovers and soft snow on the mountain" tool? Was I fooled by the fact that I was skiing natural snow for the first time this season? (But the other skis I demo'd didn't leave me this happy)

Or am I just feeling New Relationship - er, I mean Ski - Energy?

 

[Ken_R]

IMHO just get the exact ski you demoed. You really liked it and the conditions were not the smoothest so it was a good test for the ski.

 

[Tom K.]

We already helped you decide to buy the car you were going to choose anyway.

You've used up your allotment!

 

[Philpug]

Now, two questions.

1) Length. I demo'd in a 163 because that was the closest to what I would normally ski, but I would never typically see myself on a 163. 168/169 is usually my sweet spot. And this ski is twin tip with lots of rocker.

So while I had a lot of fun on the few blues available with powder bumps on blues and greens, I tend to think that on bigger, steeper terrain, a longer ski would feel better. I realize a number is just a number, but 163 is awfully short. I'm just wondering - if I go up a size, what do I lose? Would they no longer be fun in the bumps because I'd have more ski to deal with? And what would I gain, other than ego? I got those The Skis in 165 because 175 was too big of a jump - but I've always wanted them to be longer, just about from the moment I got them.

2) ARW vs ARV. At the booth, a rep told me that the ARW is identical to the ARV except for graphics, and the fact that they come in different length ranges. But on the Armada site, the ARW shows softer flex numbers and a slightly different description of materials. Which is correct? If I chose the 170 length, I would prefer the ARV graphics.

Or am I getting ahead of myself? Is there something about this ski that will disappoint me and dash my hopes of being a "no new snow last night, but plenty of leftovers and soft snow on the mountain" tool? Was I fooled by the fact that I was skiing natural snow for the first time this season? (But the other skis I demo'd didn't leave me this happy)

Or am I just feeling New Relationship - er, I mean Ski - Energy?

1) Theses in a 163 will ski shorter than your 165 The Ski.

2) The are the same ski. Where the flex numbers differ is that Armada scales their sizing and they use a different reference size for men and women. As far as the demo experience what have we said from day 1 when you are demoing? You are deoming three things, the tune, the condtions and thirdly the ski. Sounds like number two jumped to number one, not a bad thing but just be aware of it. As far asn number one, Armada has one of THE BEST factory tunes on the market so that is a reduced variable here. Going out on other skis though did take some of the others variables out. Yes the ARV/W dies have some rise in the rail but it also has some taper, that made it easier in the fresh new snow but could limit the performance when you get it on firmer conditions. Just something to keep in mind.

 

[François Pugh]

Sorry for not paying attention. Need some facts first, that you probably already provided else where.
1) about the skis: what skis do like (or have liked) skiing, their make and model and length, and if you know it their length in tems of other skis in that make and model (i.e. you bought the 2nd longest of 5, or 2nd shortest of 2).
2) about the knee, is this a recent injury, and are you still rigorously following a physio therapy rehabilitation exercise program? OR is it an old nagging injury that has returned to haunt you in your old age, that you have yet to develop an exercise program for.

 

[RuleMiHa]

Peanut gallery, zip it! I have a coupon, so technically these would not be MSRP. (Open to old new stock, too)

I really didn't expect anything to "pop" for me at the demo day. But then, that's why we demo, right? To tell our spouses we have no intention of doing anything but a little harmless flirting, then come home and suggest we open things up a little?

No? Well, anyway ...

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.

If I thought my knee would magically clear up, I wouldn't consider a new ski. I would spend my season on the Zeldas or the La Ninas. But the knee is still dogging me, and this ski seems to be friendlier than most. I got on it and instantly felt comfortable. That means a lot.

The ARW 96, in waist, fits between The Ski - which I find uninspiring these days - and the original Santa Ana - which feels planky (due to my knee!) unless there's a lot of snow. And if there were a lot of snow, I'd be on the Zeldas. And if there were a WHOLE lot of snow, I'd be on my La Ninas. But either of those will "cost" me in how many runs I can ski before my knee bails. Of course I hope my exercises and stretches will eventually fix up my knee - but all I can really know right now is that it's still cranky 1.5 years after surgery. This implies to me that it probably won't clear up entirely in the next couple of months.

The ARW 96 was easy to ski, but still has some energy. (Versus The Ski, which to me feels easy to ski but milquetoast. And the Santa Ana, which allows me to crud bust but can irritate my knee.)

So I see these as a potential replacement for two skis in my quiver: the The Ski (165cm, always felt it was too short) and the Santa Ana (169, really liked it, but am liking the DPS Zelda Foundation (169) better for the conditions in which both shine).

Now, two questions.

1) Length. I demo'd in a 163 because that was the closest to what I would normally ski, but I would never typically see myself on a 163. 168/169 is usually my sweet spot. And this ski is twin tip with lots of rocker.

So while I had a lot of fun on the few blues available with powder bumps on blues and greens, I tend to think that on bigger, steeper terrain, a longer ski would feel better. I realize a number is just a number, but 163 is awfully short. I'm just wondering - if I go up a size, what do I lose? Would they no longer be fun in the bumps because I'd have more ski to deal with? And what would I gain, other than ego? I got those The Skis in 165 because 175 was too big of a jump - but I've always wanted them to be longer, just about from the moment I got them.

2) ARW vs ARV. At the booth, a rep told me that the ARW is identical to the ARV except for graphics, and the fact that they come in different length ranges. But on the Armada site, the ARW shows softer flex numbers and a slightly different description of materials. Which is correct? If I chose the 170 length, I would prefer the ARV graphics.

Or am I getting ahead of myself? Is there something about this ski that will disappoint me and dash my hopes of being a "no new snow last night, but plenty of leftovers and soft snow on the mountain" tool? Was I fooled by the fact that I was skiing natural snow for the first time this season? (But the other skis I demo'd didn't leave me this happy)

Or am I just feeling New Relationship - er, I mean Ski - Energy?

I have two thoughts:

1) Are you sure the ARW was knee friendly and that how it felt wasn't just a beginning of the day, stronger less fatigued knee?

2) A longer ski is heavier, which could affect it's effect on your knee. I'd be really afraid to size up without trying, especially on a ski you are buying to avoid knee pain.

 

[Monique]

IMHO just get the exact ski you demoed. You really liked it and the conditions were not the smoothest so it was a good test for the ski.

I didn't actually think the conditions were all that challenging ... some bumps, some natural snow, some scrape ... definitely less challenging than what I'll be skiing mid winter. Although, strangely, there seemed to be fewer completely insane, out of control wackos on the slopes, so that helped. I guess the bumps chased them away.

1) Theses in a 163 will ski shorter than your 165 The Ski.

2) The are the same ski. Where the flex numbers differ is that Armada scales their sizing and they use a different reference size for men and women. As far as the demo experience what have we said from day 1 when you are demoing? You are deoming three things, the tune, the condtions and thirdly the ski. Sounds like number two jumped to number one, not a bad thing but just be aware of it. As far asn number one, Armada has one of THE BEST factory tunes on the market so that is a reduced variable here. Going out on other skis though did take some of the others variables out. Yes the ARV/W dies have some rise in the rail but it also has some taper, that made it easier in the fresh new snow but could limit the performance when you get it on firmer conditions. Just something to keep in mind.

#1 suggests to me that I really should size up. What I don't really know is what I lose by doing so. They won't be any longer than skis I've happily skied in bumps and trees before, so does that mean they'll be fine?

Would they end up being softer in a longer length? Some other consideration?

Tune - I actually thought that they must have been poorly sharpened, because the one place they did poorly was on the scraped section two turns before the bumps started. Do you think I was just experiencing the sort of hold I should expect from this ski on scraped/hard snow?

Conditions - that's a good point, for sure. I do have the Kaestles and Factions to compare to, though, and they were not as fun/easy for me, and harder on the knee. But I don't have experience with either ski beforehand, so maybe those skis are just fundamentally unsuited to my style of skiing, anyway. I can say with confidence that, with similar snow, I have never skied as confidently on a low-angle bump run as I did with the ARWs. Not even on The Ski. (Could that just be the length?? Or is it maybe the twin tip easy release? I haven't had a twin tip in a long time, and I was worse at bumps then than I am now!)

I also wonder if they would be bounced around easily in crud. I mean, I don't expect them to be crud busters, but I wonder if they'd be bounced around as bad as my old Line Sick Day 110s? I found those difficult unless I was on/in hero snow or slush.

Sorry for not paying attention. Need some facts first, that you probably already provided else where.
1) about the skis: what skis do like (or have liked) skiing, their make and model and length, and if you know it their length in tems of other skis in that make and model (i.e. you bought the 2nd longest of 5, or 2nd shortest of 2).
2) about the knee, is this a recent injury, and are you still rigorously following a physio therapy rehabilitation exercise program? OR is it an old nagging injury that has returned to haunt you in your old age, that you have yet to develop an exercise program for.

So, what I like is tricky because the knee has changed the rules.

My absolute favorite two seasons ago was the Nordica La Nina @ 169cm. It's a softer Patron, highly rockered fore and aft with some camber in the middle, 113mm waist. I happily skied them from hardpack to two feet of snow. But when I tried to ski it last season - well, actual powder was great, but the run outs were tough. Trying to tip them hurt my knee. The La Nina went up into the 180s - which VERY FEW women's skis do - so 169 was the second shortest of four.

Another favorite is the DPS Zelda Foundation @ 168cm. Also rockered with camber, but less rocker than the La Ninas. Holds an edge nicely and busts through crud. Evo shows the only two sizes being 158 and 168 (that can't be right!), in which case I'd be on the longest of two. I did ski the Zelda in winter variable snow and enjoy them. Right now, it seems like my knee is even angrier than it was in February - but I might have been willing to ignore more pain last season. Certainly my knee doesn't swell up this season the way it did before.

As for skiing style, I still use turns to brake, though I'm working on it - I smear more than I carve, and I haven't really learned how to carve well, but that's at least in part because I spend the majority of my time on steeps, in trees, bowls, some chutes, soft snow, etc.

I own the Blizzard Viva 80s, which I bought entirely as a rehab ski and it's ... fine, I guess, for manmade groomers. I believe I'd like it a lot more if I were any good at carving. The idea is that the width is easier on the knee.

I ruptured my ACL and tore my meniscus May of 2015. Surgery in June for both, autografted patellar tendon. Skiing easy stuff December 2015. Fully cleared for any terrain March 2016. I had a couple of fun weeks, but then spring hit, and glorpy spring snow was hell on my knee.

So it's been not quite a year and a half. My problems lately seem to stem largely from muscles that tighten whenever I exercise. The patella holds too tight to the knee. There are multiple areas that my knee can hurt, and often over the day, it will transition from one area to another.

Right now I do a number of stretches and exercises daily. My trainer and I are still discovering exercises and stretches that improve my knee, so I do not believe that it will be this bad forever. At least, I hope not. Recently I discovered that tipping back and forth on a Bosu ball, sort of like weighting/unweighting for skiing, replicates the knee pain. This made it much easier for my trainer to start figuring out what exactly is going wrong, and gives me a quick way to evaluate how it's doing (instead of having to go ski to find out).

Yoga also seems to often help.

I have two thoughts:

1) Are you sure the ARW was knee friendly and that how it felt wasn't just a beginning of the day, stronger less fatigued knee?

2) A longer ski is heavier, which could affect it's effect on your knee. I'd be really afraid to size up without trying, especially on a ski you are buying to avoid knee pain.

1) Actually, yes, because it wasn't the beginning of the day. It was the third of four skis I took out. The first two pairs I tried were the Kaestle FX95s and the Faction Candide 2.0s. They were harder on my knee, although I have to admit that it was cold enough early in the day that the snow was also grabby, and that didn't help.

2) Weight is a good point. The skis seemed very light in general, though. Actually, that's one of the reasons I'm wondering how it would do in more assertive crud.

 

[François Pugh]

Get the ARW in 163 (the middle length).
Less width (on hard snow) and less weight (everywhere) will indeed be easier on the knee.

For spring glop/crud the ideal ski might be a little different, but for most conditions the ski you tried and liked at that length seems like the one you should be on.

 

[Tony S]

I ruptured my ACL and tore my meniscus May of 2015.

Hmmm. I thought it was 2016 (1.5 years ago. A Basin. "What happened to Monique?")

Your height, again?

IME Armadas ski very easy. (I like them, as a tribe.) Twins definitely feel less harsh at the end of a turn. Contrary to the majority here, I say size up.

 

[Monique]

Hmmm. I thought it was 2016 (1.5 years ago. A Basin. "What happened to Monique?")

Your height, again?

IME Armadas ski very easy. (I like them, as a tribe.) Twins definitely feel less harsh at the end of a turn. Contrary to the majority here, I say size up.

Oops. Timelines are hard. Yes, 2016.

5'5. Typically ski 165-172, depending, but I feel like if I'm on 169 on the Santa Ana, 163 for a twin tip is kinda nuts.

 

[Monique]

Oops. Timelines are hard. Yes, 2016.

5'5. Typically ski 165-172, depending, but I feel like if I'm on 169 on the Santa Ana, 163 for a twin tip is kinda nuts.

Forgot to mention - I weigh between 190-200 pounds and have done so for the last several years. That's another factor in not wanting to get a ski that's shorter than I am.

 

[Ken_R]

Forgot to mention - I weigh between 190-200 pounds and have done so for the last several years. That's another factor in not wanting to get a ski that's shorter than I am.

Im gonna go out on a limb but you might really like the Head Monster 98 in 177 Made chopped up snow feel like fresh groomed. Ditto with the Kastle BMX 105, but that might be too wide for the knees.

Ok, that said you should be able to handle the 170cm no problem. But like I found out yesterday, on some skis, I preferred the shorter version for bumps and the longer version for pow/consistent snow and open spaces. If I had a bad knee I would err on the shorter one. Overall they are easier to ski on typical resort conditions at sane speeds. But, 170cm is not exactly a long ski for any advanced skier, like you.

 

[GregK]

The Armada ARV 96 is a fantastic ski and I’m not surprised you like it or that it was easy on your knee. It is stiffer underfoot in the camber section with softer flex in the rockered tip and tails. The tails are more rockered on the ARV than the Santa Ana as well as being twin tipped so I could see why you are finding the ARV easier on your knee. Santa Ana runs soft in the tips, stiffer underfoot and then even stiffer on the tail.

Being a twin and rockered, the ARV does ski short so always size up. The Santa Ana has lots of tip rocker so it skis short. Would rather see you in the 177cm than the 163cm but I think 170cm might be the perfect size because of the knee and your comfort of skis in that range. The 170 would be more stable than the 163 which is WAY short for you but still be light and quick even in tighter areas. You would gain better edge grip in the longer size, better power through crud and playing with the side edge degree might also help hard snow performance(Armada has a 1/1 degree base, side bevel from the factory and trying a 1/2 base, side bevel might help grip on harder snow).

Could definitely see the 170cm ARV 96 taking over a few skis in your quiver while bringing the fun back into your skiing. The AVR range are very well reviewed from everyone from freestylers to people using them all mountain.

 

[Tony S]

Im gonna go out on a limb but you might really like the Head Monster 98 in 177

LOL. Or not. I'm thinking.

 

[François Pugh]

This is not your spring crud ski. This is not even your healthy ski. It is your enjoy skiing while you get your knee into shape ski. And you did enjoy it. Don't look at it as a "short for a twintip"; look at it as the middle length in a ski the manufacturers chose to make in three lengths.

The Monster 98 might be your crud ski when you get better and decide you like carving over smearing.

 

[Monique]

Im gonna go out on a limb but you might really like the Head Monster 98 in 177 Made chopped up snow feel like fresh groomed. Ditto with the Kastle BMX 105, but that might be too wide for the knees.

Ok, that said you should be able to handle the 170cm no problem. But like I found out yesterday, on some skis, I preferred the shorter version for bumps and the longer version for pow/consistent snow and open spaces. If I had a bad knee I would err on the shorter one. Overall they are easier to ski on typical resort conditions at sane speeds. But, 170cm is not exactly a long ski for any advanced skier, like you.

LOL. Or not. I'm thinking.

Hah, yeah. What Tony said. I demo'd the Kaestle FX95 and it was ... interesting. Not terrible. But I don't think any Kaestle would be my cup of tea, even with a healthy knee. It wants me to ski differently than I do.

The Armada ARV 96 is a fantastic ski and I’m not surprised you like it or that it was easy on your knee. It is stiffer underfoot in the camber section with softer flex in the rockered tip and tails. The tails are more rockered on the ARV than the Santa Ana as well as being twin tipped so I could see why you are finding the ARV easier on your knee. Santa Ana runs soft in the tips, stiffer underfoot and then even stiffer on the tail.

Being a twin and rockered, the ARV does ski short so always size up. The Santa Ana has lots of tip rocker so it skis short. Would rather see you in the 177cm than the 163cm but I think 170cm might be the perfect size because of the knee and your comfort of skis in that range. The 170 would be more stable than the 163 which is WAY short for you but still be light and quick even in tighter areas. You would gain better edge grip in the longer size, better power through crud and playing with the side edge degree might also help hard snow performance(Armada has a 1/1 degree base, side bevel from the factory and trying a 1/2 base, side bevel might help grip on harder snow).

Could definitely see the 170cm ARV 96 taking over a few skis in your quiver while bringing the fun back into your skiing. The AVR range are very well reviewed from everyone from freestylers to people using them all mountain.

See, this is what I want to hear ;-) Which of course means I need to be extra cautious. It's easy to like what you already want to hear.

I don't want to size up to 177 - especially right now. I sized up my Volkl Twos to 176 based on feedback due to my weight, and it was not a good experience. Between the weight of the ski and my imperfect technique (so that the inner ski doesn't always turn exactly in line with the outer ski, especially when I got tired), I crossed tips more than once and did a face plant. I think it was after one of those in the trees that I realized what was going on.

The longest ski I've had was a Sick Day 110 at 172. That's a flat tail. I never noticed a problem with its length.

This is not your spring crud ski. This is not even your healthy ski. It is your enjoy skiing while you get your knee into shape ski. And you did enjoy it. Don't look at it as a "short for a twintip"; look at it as the middle length in a ski the manufacturers chose to make in three lengths.

The Monster 98 might be your crud ski when you get better and decide you like carving over smearing.

The Monster ... isn't that a pretty burly ski? I've never enjoyed a burly ski. Every time I read a positive review of a Monster, I think, that skier does not sound like me, and that doesn't sound like a ski I'd enjoy.

You do make some good points. Actually though, the ARV isn't even made in a 163; the shortest is a 170. The women's line starts at 156 and goes to 170; the men's goes from 163 (hey, waitaminute - I was told it starts at 170!) to 184.

I think your rule of thumb of "relative to the lengths available" gets muddy when you're a person who skis both men's and women's skis. Especially when those skis are actually identical except for the length ranges. In truth, the ARV/ARW line goes from 153 to 184 with five increments, and we're discussing whether I should get the second or third shortest out of five. So the second shortest, or the middle.

So, one point in favor of 163 - it *does* actually exist with the men's graphic (assuming it exists in the wild and not just on paper).

Man, I wish they had had 170s to demo.

I agree it was very fun. But that was on low-angle slopes. Would a short(er than I'm used to) ski be fun on a 40-45* slope with variable snow? My gut says no.

I've been pondering a demo. I have family in town, but I think they'll be flying back Saturday and I could ski on Sunday. But that's going to be a week with no new snow, hardpack groomers. Maybe you could argue that it would be a good test to see if I could stand either length in those conditions.

Perhaps I'll call the Loveland demo center tomorrow and see if they have the ski and those two lengths in stock.

 

[Drahtguy Kevin]

If you get the twin tip you can learn to ski switch. Maybe that would be easier on your knee...

 

[Monique]

If you get the twin tip you can learn to ski switch. Maybe that would be easier on your knee...

It's the transition that's nerve wracking!

 

[Lauren]

@Monique - Based on many of your posts that I've read over the time I've been on SkiDiva and here, I think you and I ski, and enjoy, many of the same skis. I think GregK hit the nail on the head with his description:

The Armada ARV 96 is a fantastic ski and I’m not surprised you like it or that it was easy on your knee. It is stiffer underfoot in the camber section with softer flex in the rockered tip and tails. The tails are more rockered on the ARV than the Santa Ana as well as being twin tipped so I could see why you are finding the ARV easier on your knee. Santa Ana runs soft in the tips, stiffer underfoot and then even stiffer on the tail.

As you probably know, I've skied the Santa Ana in a 169 for the past 2 years as a daily driver. Personally, I think the Santa Ana 169 skis shorter than the ARW in a 170, Which I would attribute to the short turn radius. However, the ARW in that length is more forgiving, less aggressive, and more playful. The Santa Ana carves better, the ARV slarves better. Neither one of them are going to charge "through" crud and mixed conditions (although I'd put the Santa Ana ahead in this category).

I've skied the 2017 ARW 96 in a 170, and the 2018 ARV 96 in a 177. Enjoyed both of them, the 170 was definitely the "right" size for me...would not even consider going shorter. I will confirm what others have said that they're the same ski (reference person being the local Armada rep in my area). I skied the ARW 170 on a rock hard, groomer, ice coast day, and still had fun on it, although the conditions limited what the ski could do on that day. I skied the ARV 177 in spring conditions, firm morning but softened up nicely and the trails turned into to crud and bumps galore. Although the 177 was definitely longer than I wanted, they were manageable, even in bumps. They pivot nicely, which I would attribute to the park ski characteristics the ARV has as well as it's large turn radius. Here's links to my reviews on both of them...

177s...
https://forum.pugski.com/threads/a-weekend-on-armada-2018s.4647/

170s (definitely wrote the wrong dimension on this one, supposed to be 96 not 98)...
https://www.theskidiva.com/forums/i...17-part-1-head-blizzard-armada-fischer.20522/

 

[bbinder]

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?”