Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9

    Volkl BMT, Armada Declivity, 4FRNT Raven or Down CD102/107?

    Looking for a do it all ski, light enough for touring but great on the down in all sorts of snow, especially crappy snow. At the moment the BMT is my top runner as I tried the 94 and was impressed but would like a bit more width but maybe not as much as 109, I'm also between sizes and would ideally want something about 181 (I'm 5'11 and 180lbs). Not going to get a chance to test as want to buy in the sales at the moment.

    Any feedback from people who've skied any of the models I'm considering, particularly if you have skied more than one of them and can compare would be greatly appreciated.

    Tom

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    4,049
    You know the declivety has metal in it and weighs a fuck ton compared to the others. Skis great, but is really a resort ski marketed as a touring rig.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    3,161
    The categories "do it all ski - great on the down in all sorts of snow" and "light enough for touring" don't play well together in my book. Ski "A" to me is somewhere between 105 and 110mm wide at the waist and weighs 2200-2400 grams per ski. Ski "B" to me is <100mm wide and weighs <1500 grams per ski. Other people have different definitions.

    I love both the BMT 94 and the Declivity, but I wouldn't ski the BMT 94 on the lifts and I wouldn't tour (at least for very far) on the Declivity. If you liked the BMT 94 and are willing to go a bit heavier, the Volkl Nanuq might be a good fit - 2mm wider than the BMT 94, 1640 grams in 184 compared to the V-Werks BMT 94 at 1580 in a 186. There should be plenty available on sale.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Squaw valley
    Posts
    2,573
    I have the vwerks katana, and like it in all conditions.
    Curious, why wouldn't you ski the bmt in the resort?

    I hand flexed it in the shop against the katana, and it seemed a lot softer torsionally, but I an not sure how that translates on the snow.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    3,161
    Quote Originally Posted by rod9301 View Post
    Curious, why wouldn't you ski the bmt in the resort?
    I did ski the V-Werks BMT 94 briefly on hard groomers in the resort, and I was fully aware that it was a 1425 gram ski (I skied the 176). Personally I ski a lot faster in the resort than I do while touring, and prefer to feel a sense of solid confidence underfoot at speed. There's nothing like more weight to induce that feeling. You can't compare the downhill capabilities of the V-Werks Katana at 1905 grams in a 184 (a ski I'd consider if I could only have one ski) with the BMT 94 just because they both use a lot of carbon and say "V-Werks" on the topsheet, they are very different.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    509
    Greg, have you skied the Nanuq? Seems to me that it should ski at bit differently from the BMT since it has camber underfoot and no tail rocker. I've been looking at the BMT for a while now, but the Nanuq is pretty tempting at the prices it can be had. The weight difference doesn't matter at all.

    Has anybody else skied the Nanuq? Not much info to be found really.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Posts
    1,772
    Quote Originally Posted by XavierD View Post
    You know the declivety has metal in it and weighs a fuck ton compared to the others. Skis great, but is really a resort ski marketed as a touring rig.
    evo has the 184cm Declivity listed as 1960g/ski. 4frnt lists the Raven as 4.15#/ski (1890g). Just sayin'.

    CD102 = 1700g/ski. CD107 = 1800g/ski. BMT = 1580g/ski. So these ones are lighter.
    "...if you're not doing a double flip cork something, skiing spines in Haines, or doing double flip cork somethings off spines in Haines, you're pretty much just gaping."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    3,161
    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    Greg, have you skied the Nanuq? Seems to me that it should ski at bit differently from the BMT since it has camber underfoot and no tail rocker. I've been looking at the BMT for a while now, but the Nanuq is pretty tempting at the prices it can be had. The weight difference doesn't matter at all.
    Yes. I really liked it. Regardless of the rocker profile, it skis much like the BMT 94 but more precisely, more smoothly, and with less tip flutter. It's not the flavor of the year, but it's a great ski that's currently somewhat overlooked because it's not super light - though it's not really that heavy.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    509
    Quote Originally Posted by gregL View Post
    Yes. I really liked it. Regardless of the rocker profile, it skis much like the BMT 94 but more precisely, more smoothly, and with less tip flutter. It's not the flavor of the year, but it's a great ski that's currently somewhat overlooked because it's not super light - though it's not really that heavy.
    Ok, thanks. I'll maybe get to demo both soon, but if I understand you correctly I won't go wrong with either one....
    Which is more capable in less than ideal snow conditions? Crusts, still-not-melted-spring-snow etc. And which is the most maneuverable / easiest to throw around in tight terrain? Couloirs and trees etc. Looking at the 184/186 sizes.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    gone
    Posts
    1,136
    Quote Originally Posted by shafty85 View Post
    CD102 = 1700g/ski. CD107 = 1800g/ski. BMT = 1580g/ski. So these ones are lighter.
    the bmt 109 is actually listed with 1740gr in 186cm... 16xx in the next shorter length if i remember correctly...

    i skied the bmt (94 and 109) and the down 107 from your initial selection. all three are good skis, with the down being definitely the most playful and most maneuvrable (and therefore fun, at least to me) not only in pow, but also in bad snow (crust, tracked out, very heavy snow). awesome ski for technical things or tight trees as well, if the length fits you (they ski short). the down 107 is outperformed by both the völkls (especially the 94 of course) on groomers and hard snow. they offer more edge and therefore better grip, better carvability and also more stability.

    personally i would not consider any of those three skis to be "great on the down in all sorts of snow". like gregl said this is hard (prob. impossible, at least at the moment) to achieve with light skis. the down 107 is great in anything but hard snow (as long as you prefer a more playful ski to a more charger-type one), the bmt 94 is not only to small for good conditions but also not stable enough to be really shine in shitty conditions (although it performs well there). bmt 109 is nice overall, but not great anywhere.

    freak~[&]

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    3,161
    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    I won't go wrong with either one....
    If the weight is not a factor, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    Which is more capable in less than ideal snow conditions? Crusts, still-not-melted-spring-snow etc. And which is the most maneuverable / easiest to throw around in tight terrain? Couloirs and trees etc.
    Keep in mind I skied these as demos, I don't own either ski. The Nanuq is quite powerful for a relatively light ski and will probably blast through variable snow better. The BMT 94 will probably be easier to toss around in trees and tight spots due to the weight. Neither is a pivoty, turny ski, it isn't Volkl's style. There are other skis in this class that initiate turns with less effort and come around more reliably, but they won't necessarily be as good on hard snow. Like everything in touring skis, it's a compromise.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Posts
    1,772
    Quote Originally Posted by freak View Post
    the bmt 109 is actually listed with 1740gr in 186cm... 16xx in the next shorter length if i remember correctly...
    Ah yes, I was looking at the 94.
    "...if you're not doing a double flip cork something, skiing spines in Haines, or doing double flip cork somethings off spines in Haines, you're pretty much just gaping."

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9
    Thanks for the feedback. Realise it's a bit of a compromise ski that I'm looking for as beefier and heavier is generally better for the down but I'm not looking for a spring touring ski, just something light enough that I won't hate touring with it.

    Swaying more and more to the BMT 109 as despite what some have said it has a reputation as holding a good edge on hard snow despite the full rocker (wild snow and earn your turns reviews plus other feedback), plus the rocker and width should mean its good in soft condition and crud and crust (where I need the most help!). Volkl's line on it is basically that it's a beefy touring ski designed not to compromise the down, which is basically what I'm after. Just a shame it doesn't come in a 181.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Jackson
    Posts
    892
    Just to throw another option out there. I ordered the Salomon MTN Lab for the same purpose you seem to be describing. Good ski in winter conditions and not too heavy to tour with. 115 underfoot and about 1800gr per ski I think. I skied it mounted with alpine demos and really liked it on a soft spring-like day. 184 might be bigger than you want but...

    Also might be some deals on this year's BC Lab - same ski with some cosmetic changes.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Eagle, CO
    Posts
    2,247
    Another option is to check out the Piton or Yeti from SkiLogik. I have been skiing on the Piton for spring peak season this year: 94 underfoot, touch of rocker, flat tail, light, damp, but still powerful through junky snow. The Yeti is same shape but at 105 underfoot. Both are beautiful, as a bonus.

    And there is the Howitzer BC. 110 underfoot, 22m radius. That thing destroys bad snow but is still easy to ski and skin when your legs get tired.

    SkiLogik has a good website with the all the specs.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9
    Yeti looks very promising but I've pulled the trigger on a pair of half price BMT 109's now so hopefully they'll live up to expectation.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Calgary, Ab
    Posts
    77
    Care to share where you scored the deal on the BMT's?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9

    Square

    I'm in the uk so probably not much use to you unfortunately but they're from Snow and Rock on a price match (it was actually 45% off, I was exaggerating slightly).

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Calgary, Ab
    Posts
    77
    Thanks

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    166
    hijacking this thread...

    male | 5'7" | 140 # | advanced-expert skier

    Looking for a ski mountaineering/touring set up that can be used in-bounds (east coast) from time to time (10-20% of the time). Think Tetons, Shasta, Hood, Rainier, Baker, GNP, and hopefully can handle the Alaskan Range (Denali, Foraker, Hunter) few seasons down the road. So variable, ice, crud, chop ski...

    As I see it, I'm looking for 170-180cm length, 95-105mm waist, tip rocker/camber/flat or minimally rockered tail, under 2000g/ski. Cheaper the better.

    Initially was attracted to the Ravens, but Armada's Declivity, Down's CD102(L), ON3P's Steeple 102, Black Crows' Navis Freebird have caught my attention. Praxis' Yeti and Dynastar's Cham are also on the radar. Definitely leaning towards Down's CD102(L) from reviews and because of price. Would be matched to TLT6s and FT12s.

    For reference, I ski on Bluehouse Mrs, Praxis Protests, and Line Motherships. Big fan of the Protests on a lot of days, whether it be 3", 6", 12", or crust.

    Thoughts? Which is the best on boiler plate (just curious ... not the deciding factor)? Sounds like the Down can handle chop quite well, correct?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    745
    You've got a lot of big peaks on that list. I'd err on the lighter/smaller side. A ski that you're taking up Rainier & Denali doesn't mix well with resort use.

    171 Blizzard Zero G 95? Seems well reviewed and up to the task. Specs/weight look good.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    5,521

    Volkl BMT, Armada Declivity, 4FRNT Raven or Down CD102/107?

    Yeah, is this for fun ski mountaineering or objective ski mountaineering? Which is your priority? (looking for good skiing off a peak or for ticking boxes)

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    166
    Ticking boxes ... objective ski mountaineering, a la Chris Davenport and the Centennial Project. I still want to have some degree of fun on the way down though. I don't want to have to work my way down through 3" of powder.

    Looks like the 171 Blizzard Zero G 95 is the answer. Never even was on my radar. It is for 15/16... Plus, I've always been impressed by the Cochise. Any other options, besides Salomon's MTN 95, K2's Pinnacle 95, and Kastle's offerings? I can prodeal Salomon, Armada, 4FRNT, Liberty. But, tbh I'm not a big fan of Salomon or K2 for some reason. And, I've determined that the Variant 97 is too much ski for me and the Raven is too long.

    Also, for some reason the idea of having a 100mm waisted ski appeals to me. That's why I've been drawn to the CD102 and Steeple 102. Lindahl ... thoughts on the CD102 serving as an objective ski mountaineering ski? I think I've read that you own a pair.

    Any comments on the Zero G's hookiness - http://14erskiers.com/blog/2015/02/g...izzard-zero-g/.

    Thanks.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,633
    Movement Shift could be another option for you

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    3,161
    Quote Originally Posted by aepeak View Post
    Any comments on the Zero G's hookiness - http://14erskiers.com/blog/2015/02/g...izzard-zero-g/.
    The Zero G 95 is available now on a limited basis. I wouldn't call it "hooky" so much as grippy in a way that overpowers the light weight of the ski. Testers at Bend were calling it "chattery" on very smooth and hard groomers (myself included), but I've not had that impression in about 3 months of using it as my primary touring ski. Most people find it more manageable if you aggressively detune the tips and tails, I took the base edge bevel on the tip to about 2.5 degrees about an inch past the contact point (factory is 1 degree) and took the side edge bevel from 2 degrees to 1 degree for the entire ski. They still have tons of edgehold and prefer railing to sliding sideways, but I like that. I'd definitely use the Zero G for the mountaineering stuff you mention.

    FWIW, the new Salomon MTN Explore 95 is exceptional, you should put aside your anti-Salomon bias and try a pair out.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •