Armada Tracer 118 CHX

[skibrd]

Has anyone tried the Armada Tracer 118 CHX? Or any of the other Armada Tracer skis?

I spent a good chunk of last winter on the Armada Arv JJ 116 and over time it really grew on me. It’s not a bash through things stick like everyone on TGR claims to only ski, but more of a precision tool. It definitely got tossed around a bit in heavy cut up pow compared to the Praxis Quixote (which I also spent time on last winter).

I like the length and weight of the ARV JJ 116, just not how it hinges at the end of the AVR/Spoon section. The tip and tail seem to want to have a hard hinge point there, and I’m wondering if the Tracer 118 might be smoother.

I do realize I said I’d write a review if the ARV JJ 116 and still haven’t. I’ll get to it maybe later this week.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[XavierD]

Definitely smoother and damper. Much more support in the tails too, but also not as light or quick to pivot. It’s a good ‘don’t notice it’ ski. Does everything well, doesn’t really leap out at you either.

Declivity X on the other hand...

[mfe708]

Definitely smoother and damper. Much more support in the tails too, but also not as light or quick to pivot. It’s a good ‘don’t notice it’ ski. Does everything well, doesn’t really leap out at you either.

Declivity X on the other hand...

REALLY dying to know more about the Declivity X. Legit made an account just to respond to this, ha. Please tell all.

[skibrd]

REALLY dying to know more about the Declivity X. Legit made an account just to respond to this, ha. Please tell all.

I wish it was a 195 but I’m still curious


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[VON]

The big comparison for me has always been the Tracer 118 vs the QST 118. On specs alone, they both seem like great backcountry touring skis. Really curious to know which one's got a little more backbone.

[dub_xion]

Bump, anyone been on these?

[mr_pretzel]

I just got some 195s to give a try

[skibrd]

Sort of want you to report back and sort of don’t. I’ve been pretty happy with the MB116, and BMX115


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[SchralphMacchio]

Bump!

I'm on the 18/19 Tracer 118 CHX, which are slightly heavier and possibly stiffer in the tails than the current batch ...
Wondering if anyone else has any feedback on mount point for the current or previous generation?


I got these last season but didn't have a chance to mount and ski until this season. Was totally surprised to find the factory mount point at -13 cm from ski center. I mounted them at +1 cm (-12 cm center) and they are pretty fun in super deep snow there, manageable on soft groomers, but kind of sucky on packed and firm snow especially when the snow has been packed to the point where the surface between moguls is hardpack or old crust. I'm struggling to get the ski sideways fast enough and enough edge pressure to slide/skid off the tops of moguls and stay out of the trenches, kind of a necessary evil for the afternoon or day after storm where you're hunting for scraps but the main runs have been hammered. I'm thinking about remounting at -10 cm center for quicker turning, better edge hold on firm, and thinking that shouldn't sacrifice too much float from those big tips, and because there isn't a ton of tail rocker I don't want to get too far forward ... hopefully some others here have experience on these skis and can provide feedback.


Here's more overall impressions and review:
2019 180 cm Tracer 118 CHX mounted w/ Marker Lord SP 13 @ -12 cm ski center
Skier 5' 8" 135 lbs using an old BD Method (Factor 110) boot
Often skiing backseat without the best form, but not afraid of letting the skis run when it's clear below ... my other skis have varying mount points from -6 cm to -12 cm

Rough and dirty measurements:
Tip height 6 cm, Tip rocker length roughly about 40 cm
Camber height 7mm
Tail height 3 cm, Tail rocker length about 23.5 cm
(tip and tail rocker lengths were tricky to measure since there was a decently long area of flat contact point on the ground)

Overall the ski is very smooth and damp with progressive and fairly forgiving flex - at my weight these skis have never felt punishing or unwieldy to me. It makes me wonder if they might feel soft for heavier skiers, but I've never seen any comments in any reviews saying that, so it's likely a testament to the smooth flex transition and dampness of the ski's construction. Good support in the rear, likes takeoffs, but never has punished me in the backseat. Very directional at this mount, likes to make GS turns and charge untracked snow, damp through soft chop. Feels like it wants more fall line than sideways skiing at this mount ... doesn't feel super playful or jibby, seems like it wants to just keep charging the fall line (without actually being a megastiff charging plank).

I did my usual 5-point sidecut detune - completely rounding off the reverse sidecut / tip and tail taper zones with a dremel, using a file to soften the edge at the wide contact points, then a coarse stone to transition to a sharp edge about 2-3 cm forward of the tail contact (tips sharp just behind the contact point) ... the detune feels right but like I said the ski seems to not want to get a strong edge grip on firm snow or go sideways in packed snow, and it just seems to want me to bring the mount forward.

On Armada's website, it looks like the flex number they assigned to the tail dropped from "8.0" to "7.0" from the '20 to '21 version ... if the tail flex has changed since my ski, that possibly would make the ski a little more playful and easier to throw sideways ...

A buddy on Bentchetler 120s traded skis with me in the afternoon after everything was packed down, and it was like completely different personality ... I loved how easy to turn and playful the BC120s were (those skis WANT to turn whichever way you initiate/angulate), especially given -3 cm from center mount point, and he loved how much more you could drive the Tracers and charge them more, lol.

Anyways as the mount stands right now, these skis feel more like a ski that's awesome for the first few hours of the resort day, or as a dedicated heli/cat/sled/touring freeride setup, than they do a ski that's fun all day inbounds from open to close on a pow day.

[Benneke10]

I used to have the 18/19 Tracer 98s and they are a totally different ski than the 19-newer versions. 200g+ lighter per ski, different construction and more modern shape. No more super traditional mount, the new ones are like -8 or -9 depending on the model. I'm thinking of getting the newer Tracer 118, and it kind of looks like the old Tracer 118 and the BC 120 had a baby

[SchralphMacchio]

I'm thinking of getting the newer Tracer 118, and it kind of looks like the old Tracer 118 and the BC 120 had a baby

If true that seems like a ski I’d like - more versatile and playful than my current experience. Report back if you end up pulling the trigger!

[mr_pretzel]

The 118s have been the same shape for years, I think you might have a messed up mount point line as my 2019 195 tracer 118s have a mount of -9cm from true center and I’m 90% sure that all the tracers have a mount point from -8 to -9,, they are very easy to ski from there.

The new models are just a much lighter construction that does not work remotely as well for inbounds skiing IMO, flex feels pretty similar, but I don’t consider my 195s stiff.

[SchralphMacchio]

Hmm, if the 188 graphics were laid on top of a 180 core blank at the tip, that would push the marked line back -4 cm ... I’ll measure one more time but it smells too fitting to be a coincidence.

Edit: graphics are marked as 180cm but the line is definitely around -13 cm from true ski center.

So probably I should re mount at -9?

I got these new, on clearance from a shop seller, should look into whether I have recourse or not for the blem ... I wouldn’t mind a bro deal on some Declivity 102s or Tracer 98s ...

[SchralphMacchio]

I got in touch with Armada and they told me specified mount point on my skis is 80 cm from tail. I remounted as close to there as possible (still wanted 5-6 mm between the new rear toe holes and old front toe holes) and the ski is way way easier to turn, slides and drifts much more easily through soft bumps, and still doesn’t sink the tip (I got bucked forward in thick deep PNW concrete and the tip pushed through and back up to the surface).

Overall I think the major defining quality of this ski is its smoothness. Very smooth under all types of inputs and conditions.

I still wouldn’t say it’s playful - which is probably what the ARV line would get you anyways - it still wants to bomb the fall line directionally, but at the right mount it steers easily and holds float and stability very well, also allowing me to control the level of slip and slarve I want through the turn.