Armada Declivity X

[Sylvan]

Anyone able to measure the rocker length and splay on these?

If I like to drive pow skis like a race ski, old skool, will the tips dive? The pict above looks like they have quite a bit of tip rocker which has me intrigued. Would really appreciate it if anyone could measure the rocker.

Hopefully someone else can measure the tip rocker/splay for ya. What I can say is that, at plus 1, I could drive these hard in untracked pow no problem, and without tip dive. That said, if I could remount, I would have put them on the line (-12), to aid in blowing up chop, as at plus 1, I couldn't simply pressure my boots, go straight, and smash through stuff, or I was worried I'd go over the bars. Skiing more centered worked, but I like having the option of laying into my boots as a kinda lazy default. Hope this helps; these really are a cool ski, just wish they were a little longer for my preferences.

Edit to add: Not sure if you've skied em, but for context, I dealt with tip dive on 192 R11s on the line (-8ish), but at -2 they were money. Mounts I get along with are usually around -10 to ensure I can drive a ski in 3D.

[comish]

Hopefully someone else can measure the tip rocker/splay for ya. What I can say is that, at plus 1, I could drive these hard in untracked pow no problem, and without tip dive. That said, if I could remount, I would have put them on the line (-12), to aid in blowing up chop, as at plus 1, I couldn't simply pressure my boots, go straight, and smash through stuff, or I was worried I'd go over the bars. Skiing more centered worked, but I like having the option of laying into my boots as a kinda lazy default. Hope this helps; these really are a cool ski, just wish they were a little longer for my preferences.

Edit to add: Not sure if you've skied em, but for context, I dealt with tip dive on 192 R11s on the line (-8ish), but at -2 they were money. Mounts I get along with are usually around -10 to ensure I can drive a ski in 3D.

We sound like we like a similar mount for similar reasons. I haven't tried the R11's. Thx!

[slashy]

I cannot seem to upload the webp file. but on the 185 it is 44cm of front rocker / 74mm splay / 47 cm taper.

[blitzraider]

I'm 5ft8 175lbs. I'm seriously thinking about a Declivity X in at 185 to replace my Ranger 107ti as my charger but maneuverable ski. A shift binding seems like a really heavy touring setup. This seems more like a resort ski at its weight. Thoughts?

[TCNROMPER]

I'm 5ft8 175lbs. I'm seriously thinking about a Declivity X in at 185 to replace my Ranger 107ti as my charger but maneuverable ski. A shift binding seems like a really heavy touring setup. This seems more like a resort ski at its weight. Thoughts?

Funny enough I just picked up a pair myself and had a pair of rangers (that I did tour with) that they are kind of replacing. I was on the longer length of the ranger and got the longer length of the declivity. My plan is to cast them and use them as a side county resort ski. They definitely are heavier than most people would like to tour on, but I think they should be manageable for short tours. I do have a pair of the 102 declivity that I do tour on and really like, which is what led me to pick up the X. I do expect them to be a different ski, but different in the ways that I would like. Out of curiosity, why are you going with the X over the 108 if you are looking to replace your ranger 107?

[XavierD]

It seems like a resort ski because it is a resort ski.

[blitzraider]

Funny enough I just picked up a pair myself and had a pair of rangers (that I did tour with) that they are kind of replacing. I was on the longer length of the ranger and got the longer length of the declivity. My plan is to cast them and use them as a side county resort ski. They definitely are heavier than most people would like to tour on, but I think they should be manageable for short tours. I do have a pair of the 102 declivity that I do tour on and really like, which is what led me to pick up the X. I do expect them to be a different ski, but different in the ways that I would like. Out of curiosity, why are you going with the X over the 108 if you are looking to replace your ranger 107?

All the reviews I've read say the 108 is more forgiving than the 107ti, and I felt the 107ti was already perfect for me as far as dampness/stability. I was also mainly looking for a longer version and I can't find a 107ti in a 182 for sale anywhere. The Declivity X though I seem to find more availability and deals in my preferred size (185)

[Velomayniac]

I’m on 192 Declivity X and they are great resort powder skis, but soft for a daily driver for me at 225lbs. They have great edge hold on 2D snow, but I prefer something stiffer on low snow days.

My current quiver is Declivity X, 105 Pro Rider, and OG 186 Blizzard Bodacious. I wish for a 190cm unicorn Bodacious length.

What would be a good replacement for Declivity X. I like skis around this width for DDs.

I’ve been looking at the Line Blade Optic 114, it seems heavier and some of the reviews say it’s a a comp ski. Katana 108 could work.

what do you guys think?

[mr_pretzel]

The new optic is much softer than the declivity. The Katana might work for you or something stiff and custom from folsom. Your quiver is already full of the more stout skis that are made today.

[XavierD]

The whole point of a quiver is not having a ‘daily driver’

The K108 will solve a ton of your issues just by being a cm narrower. Declivity 108 would do the same. Same as the LP105s you already own.

If your looking for a 115-120mm ski that skis form snow like those three you’re going to be disappointed.

[jacob_dbu]

Does anyone have a blister membership who can tell me if the 23/24 Declivity 102 Ti is the same as the last few years? https://blisterreview.com/flash-revi...clivity-102-ti

[arild]

Does anyone have a blister membership who can tell me if the 23/24 Declivity 102 Ti is the same as the last few years? https://blisterreview.com/flash-revi...clivity-102-ti

Luke Koppa (5’8”, 155 lbs / 173 cm, 70 kg): I’ve now logged a few days on the 180 cm Declivity 102 Ti, which returns unchanged from the 22/23 version, apart from graphics.

support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com

[jacob_dbu]

support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com

Thanks and will do next season

[GuyonaBuffalo]

Ok, there's not a lot of info on the Declivity X (Dx) out there so I'll help spread the word here. (below is crossposted from another forum). Although I ski mine in the 185 length, the 192 ski does weigh 2450g according to Armada website, so it looks appropriate to TGR readers (ie chargers).

I'm an intermediate but cautious skiier. I say "intermediate" because my local big mountain (Whistler) has many tremendous skiers that are sponsored athletes appearing on magazine covers OR are racers/instructors who do steep mogul runs as their "warm up" laps. I'm comfortable skiing all over the mountain though, even if not always elegantly (ie. 80% to 90%% of the available runs)

To quote another user here, this ski is indeed "Fast As Fuck". The base feels very fast. On groomers, you start hearing wind noise blow past your ears in short notice. 2 or 3 fully carved turns later, you're flying. With such a wide platform, the "charginess" of this ski is from the stiffer tail relative to the front. You can "charge" down a fall line with the skis flat, but on edge the skis just don't charge as good as an Enforcer or a Mantra. It could just be my imagination, but proper metal in a ski absorbs variable snow unlike other materials. The Dx does have a stiff underfoot, but I'm pretty sure there's no metal in there.

At 22m radius in the 185 length, the ski isn't very "turny". However, what surprised me the most about this ski (and many other 100mm+ wide skis actually) is their turning agility is not from the sidecut, but from the underfoot. At 115mm underfoot, you have such a wide side to side balance point relative to a narrower carving ski, that if your fore-aft is resonably balanced, you can pivot (rotate) the ski quite easily. In moguls, I can navigate well by pivoting once my underfoot is on top of a mogul (ie the "lazier" mogul line).

However, I choose to ski this not for moguls or groomers, but for powder bowls and powder tree skiing. With a massive tip rocker, this ski floats once you pick up any amount of speed. In the little tree skiing I did, I was happy with them despite their length (these are my longest skis). In open pow bowls (fresh or soft chop), these skis are a dream. The only issue is you don't get too many turns in due the sidecut, it's more likely 5 to 10 long turns and it's over. More testing and pow days are needed

Finally here are some notes of the Dx compared to the other 2 100mm+ skis I have, the Fischer Ranger 107ti and the Rossignol Savory 7 (basically a 1st generation Soul 7)

Fischer Ranger 107ti (175cm) The Ranger has much more edge stability. If I'm anticipating mostly firm snowpack (melt freeze cycles), crud, or if I'm sticking to groomers, I'm taking this ski out. What I hate the most about the Ranger that the Dx does so much better is the Ranger doesn't float like a 107mm underfoot ski should just because it's so stiff. Because of this, in icy trees I hate it because it's not very mobile, and in powder trees I hate it because you just start sinking into the snow too easily. I just need to try a 182 which would probably make me happier. The Dx is actually easier to turn than the Ranger, and probably just as good in a straight line in most situations (probably except firm chop)

Rossignol Savory 7 (Soul 7) (178cm) This is my favorite tree ski. It's easy going and relatively light. It has a reputation for being a "dad" ski and always seems to get a lot of hate online. People always complained that the Rossi 7 skis have a lot of tip flap. I always found the "tip flap" comment odd, WHY ARE PEOPLE LOOKING AT THEIR SKIS AND NOT AHEAD WHEN SKIING?? Do I notice the tip flap? Yes. Does the ski deflect a lot because the tips are "flapping"? I don't think so. This ski is definitely not a "charger" ski unlike the Dx, but when I feel like cruising or not using my brain too much when skiing, this ski comes out.

Here's how I would rank them:
Straight line charging: Dx=Ranger>>>Soul 7
On edge charging: Ranger>Dx>>>Soul 7
Moguls: Soul 7>Dx>Ranger
Pow trees: Soul 7>Dx>Ranger
Pow bowls: Dx>Soul 7>Ranger
Groomers: Ranger>Dx>Soul 7

[blitzraider]

I recently skiied the Dx and QST Blank back to back, very different style of skis. Wondering if I should share it here or on the QST Blank thread?

[Velomayniac]

Is anyone interested in a set of 192s from last year? One mount. In excellent shape. Great, versatile ski.

My pair are not nearly as charger (nor demanding) as a Head/Volkl/Blizzard charger, so don’t be afraid. Idk how this ski gets the reviews it does, maybe I got a soft pair. I find it’s just a bit burlier than the old Atomic Automatic 193. I can ski faster on Moment Wildcats.

[blitzraider]

Is anyone interested in a set of 192s from last year? One mount. In excellent shape. Great, versatile ski.

My pair are not nearly as charger (nor demanding) as a Head/Volkl/Blizzard charger, so don’t be afraid. Idk how this ski gets the reviews it does, maybe I got a soft pair. I find it’s just a bit burlier than the old Atomic Automatic 193. I can ski faster on Moment Wildcats.

It's interesting because they are not stiff tip to tail. The Dx has a noticeably stiffer tail vs tip, so mount point really matters. Perhaps that's what you're experiencing?

[Velomayniac]

I mounted at +2cm based on recommendations from here. I think Armada changed the mount point on the production ski versus the prototype, and people were just skiing it on the prototype mount location. I think -10cm on proto versus -12cm on production. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I can ski a little faster through all different conditions on 190 Wildcats and especially 186 Bodacious, and then I’m also more maneuverable on those skis for bumps and trees and weird stuff. The Wildcats have a much more consistent flex pattern, which I find more confidence inspiring at speed in cruddy/chunky/funky conditions. Bodacious are in a league above Declivity X in terms of stability:maneuverability ratio, but Bodacious are the King so..

Declivity X is noticeably better in untracked powder than Wildcat or Bodacious, with that softer tip, and also noticeably better at holding an edge on ice, even with all that taper. It’s a very versatile ski for smooth fast surface, different snow types. I’d set it up as a touring ski if it were a bit lighter.

I think it’d be a great resort powder charger for someone under 200lbs and doesn’t like a plank.

[kiril.gueorguiev@gmail.com]

Hey Slashy, Just reread my previous post, and I'd say it's still accurate, with the exception that once I got some time on Commander 118s, I moved on from the 192 DX as I didn't think there was room for both. If I skied at a smaller resort, or was lighter (210#), I think it would have been a great ski for me, as it is stiff from tail up to the shovel, but the shovel is quite soft meaning they just didn't ski long enough for me in chop in the open spaces at my resort (unlike CMD 118s which are stiff from tip to tail), but for someone who doesn't need (or prefers not) to rely on the shovel as much for stability, but simply to aid in float, I think it could be a very interesting ski. For context, other skis I've enjoyed this year: 188 CMD 108/118; 191 Katana 108, 189 Bonafide 97. My 2 cents; hope this helps.

Hey Sylvan,

Could you please compare the DeclivityX 192 with the Katana108 in 191 and the Heritage Lab FL113 in 194?
At 6.3, 220, I loved the K108 in 184 a lot but now I am looking to go over the 190 lenght in a chargier and even more damp ski.
Have been contemplating the Black Crows Corvus at 193 as well.
A lot of people here are loving that last one I believe so any comments are welcome.

BR
Kiril