Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,424

    Armada Declivity X

    Anyone get time on these? I loved my TSTs but theyíre now rock skis and these look intriguing. Whatís the mount point?

    Iíve heard next to nothing about them.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,257
    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...s-and-question

    Here’s what I wrote last season:


    Skied the 192 yesterday on blackcomb in some chalky, some windbuff, some ice and some hard snow.
    I’m 6,1, 165lbs

    Mounted at +1 from recommended (84cm from tail, -11cm from center).
    Ski has a pretty symmetrical flex pattern with some flex in the tip and tails, but a large very stiff section in the middle of the ski.

    This ski is fast as fuck.

    It holds a super strong edge on groomers, and carves large super G sized turns really well.

    In the windbuff steeps the ski again has really good edge hold, but the tail is very easy to release into a slarve. This is definitely the strong suit of the ski and Tof Henrys influence shows.

    The ski has a light swingweight and is easy to flick around. In consolidated chop the ski does bounce around, probably since it is very stiff underfoot.

    Again since it is quite easy to slarve, moguls aren’t too bad and you can slither your way through.

    This ski likes to run fast, wants to be pointed down the fall line, but not in a demanding way, easy to make the ski do what you want. Not good for crowded groomers as you pick up speed alarmingly fast.

    Tail feels solid on landings.

    Excited to ski it in pow and see how it does. Predicting it will feel quite traditional based on the tiny bit of consolidated pow I got into.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_pretzel View Post
    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...s-and-question

    Hereís what I wrote last season:


    Skied the 192 yesterday on blackcomb in some chalky, some windbuff, some ice and some hard snow.
    Iím 6,1, 165lbs

    Mounted at +1 from recommended (84cm from tail, -11cm from center).
    Ski has a pretty symmetrical flex pattern with some flex in the tip and tails, but a large very stiff section in the middle of the ski.

    This ski is fast as fuck.

    It holds a super strong edge on groomers, and carves large super G sized turns really well.

    In the windbuff steeps the ski again has really good edge hold, but the tail is very easy to release into a slarve. This is definitely the strong suit of the ski and Tof Henrys influence shows.

    The ski has a light swingweight and is easy to flick around. In consolidated chop the ski does bounce around, probably since it is very stiff underfoot.

    Again since it is quite easy to slarve, moguls arenít too bad and you can slither your way through.

    This ski likes to run fast, wants to be pointed down the fall line, but not in a demanding way, easy to make the ski do what you want. Not good for crowded groomers as you pick up speed alarmingly fast.

    Tail feels solid on landings.

    Excited to ski it in pow and see how it does. Predicting it will feel quite traditional based on the tiny bit of consolidated pow I got into.
    Thanks, this thread didnít show up when I searched. That mount point is probably too far back for me.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    49
    I only have a few days on them but I'm happy with them I agree with just about everything pretzel says other than I did not notice them getting bumped around in chop very much, but I have about 40lbs on him so. They ski great in pow. I was worried the 192 was going to be to long for me but mounted on the line they feel pretty good, if I had to do it over again a bit forward might be a good idea but on the line ski well for me. I skied the qst 118 the day after I skied the declivity x and the declivity are better in my opinion. probably going to sell my qst 118s and K2 darksides as I think the declivity will replace them.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by troth View Post
    I only have a few days on them but I'm happy with them I agree with just about everything pretzel says other than I did not notice them getting bumped around in chop very much, but I have about 40lbs on him so. They ski great in pow. I was worried the 192 was going to be to long for me but mounted on the line they feel pretty good, if I had to do it over again a bit forward might be a good idea but on the line ski well for me. I skied the qst 118 the day after I skied the declivity x and the declivity are better in my opinion. probably going to sell my qst 118s and K2 darksides as I think the declivity will replace them.
    Which year QST 118 do you have?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by thejongiest View Post
    Which year QST 118 do you have?
    2019

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    People's Republic of MN
    Posts
    5,453
    Anyone ski both the Declivity and the Salomon Stance? Seems like they might be in the same/similar category.
    Gravity. It's the law.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    4,570
    Declivity X is a phenomenal ski that wants to go down the fall line but is surprisingly nimble. As mentioned it does want to go fast. Get the 192, mount forward of the line.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,257
    Quote Originally Posted by XavierD View Post
    Declivity X is a phenomenal ski that wants to go down the fall line but is surprisingly nimble. As mentioned it does want to go fast. Get the 192, mount forward of the line.
    Tof mounts +2cm from rec if anyone cares

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_pretzel View Post
    Tof mounts +2cm from rec if anyone cares
    Still -10! Thereís no way the old TST / Norwalk was that far back.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,424
    Well I passed on some in person today. Asking $550 mounted once but never skied. They do look fun, but I think I'd prefer something with a bit more tail rocker. The contact point is very far back in the rear. Definitely a hard charger - I guess these were made in the Salomon facility (that's what the guy told me). Probably not the best for tree skiing.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    292
    Iíve narrowed my search down to the Declivity X or M Free 118s. Bodacious was on the list, but Iím too far in between sizes on those bad boys.

    Which skis do you think would be more versatile as a wide daily driver for out west? I was daily driving Praxis Rx or Wildcat 118s a few years back and loved them for their versatility, but looking for something different.

    Would prefer something that does well in both Sierra Cement and drier stuff in Utah. Needs to be able to slip and slide, or carve, pretty easily through hard and soft bumps.

    Current Daily Drivers are 192 LP105s, I want something wider and looser in bumps and trees.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    9,202
    Quote Originally Posted by AEV View Post
    Iíve narrowed my search down to the Declivity X or M Free 118s. Bodacious was on the list, but Iím too far in between sizes on those bad boys.

    Which skis do you think would be more versatile as a wide daily driver for out west? I was daily driving Praxis Rx or Wildcat 118s a few years back and loved them for their versatility, but looking for something different.

    Would prefer something that does well in both Sierra Cement and drier stuff in Utah. Needs to be able to slip and slide, or carve, pretty easily through hard and soft bumps.

    Current Daily Drivers are 192 LP105s, I want something wider and looser in bumps and trees.
    M Free 108 for a daily driver. Unless itís stupid deep thatís the ski I will grab every day. Iíve had both the LP 105 in 192 and MF 108 in 192. The MF 108 is what you describe in your last paragraph, and it is wider.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn View Post
    M Free 108 for a daily driver. Unless itís stupid deep thatís the ski I will grab every day. Iíve had both the LP 105 in 192 and MF 108 in 192. The MF 108 is what you describe in your last paragraph, and it is wider.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I wish I grabbed that ski for cheap a few weeks back. Sports Basement right up the street from me had them for like $350

    That being said, I prefer wider than 112ish for a daily driver. I know Iím kind of splitting hairs here.

    Iím a bit more interested in the 118mm version. Is it not versatile like a Wildcat 118?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,257
    Quote Originally Posted by AEV View Post
    I wish I grabbed that ski for cheap a few weeks back. Sports Basement right up the street from me had them for like $350

    That being said, I prefer wider than 112ish for a daily driver. I know I’m kind of splitting hairs here.

    I’m a bit more interested in the 118mm version. Is it not versatile like a Wildcat 118?
    I don't think the 118mm is as versatile as the W118, it's pretty good on groomers, but not as fun in chop or moguls, it's more of a inbounds pow ski IMO.

    The 108 version feels wider than 108, I think you'd enjoy it.

    What I said earlier in the thread about the declivity is still my opinion, I don't know if I'd want to daily driver it as it's not that "fun" and playful, both m-frees and the wildcat have it beat for a daily driver.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_pretzel View Post
    I don't think the 118mm is as versatile as the W118, it's pretty good on groomers, but not as fun in chop or moguls, it's more of a inbounds pow ski IMO.

    The 108 version feels wider than 108, I think you'd enjoy it.

    What I said earlier in the thread about the declivity is still my opinion, I don't know if I'd want to daily driver it as it's not that "fun" and playful, both m-frees and the wildcat have it beat for a daily driver.
    Thanks for the info, I truly appreciate it.

    I’m getting Deja Vu lol. Everyone said “feels wider” to me about the 189 Wren 108s, but I didn’t jive with them nearly as much as my 2015 191 Wren 115s (idk what to call that ski, it wasn’t an official model) nor as much as Wildcats or Rx. I thought all of those skied handled both firm and soft snow better than the Wren 108.

    For my tastes, if a ski is 108mm underfoot it better absolutely crush hard snow. I’m in the minority, and I understand that. I don’t need taper like that in a 108. I prefered the Vicik to the Wren 108 for it’s hardsnow performance. I’m super picky, that’s why I bring this stuff to TGR, you guys help me more than you know.

    I shoulda bought the MF108 at $350, but I’d have to try it first before spending more. Too many red flags for me, mainly even more taper than Wren 108. That’s kind of the picture I’m trying to paint here with the MF108, even though I’m sure it’s awesome for lots of people. That shape makes more sense for me at 118.


    damn, I knew I’d come full circle back to Wildcats. I’ve skied the Wildcat/Bibby shape a lot over the past 8 years, and it’s great, but wanted to try something a bit burlier and more directional. And the recent 196 Governors I tried folded more than 190 Wildcats. Wondering if maybe the Commander 118 fixed that, but saw something about tips folding in a review too

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    9,202
    The MF 108 is great on hard off piste snow and on any groomer other than boilerplate they are good. Of course, the softer the better.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,424
    I think the Declivity X could be awesome for you if you're a real charger. Granted I haven't skied them, but I fondled them. They are a pretty rear mount so you should be able to get through bumps no problem and then have some tail splay, but they're definitely directional chargers. I think where they would definitely lose to a WC118 is in the trees.

    I bet they also rip groomers when it's firmer out.

    I passed on them in part because skiing in the Seattle area there's not a lot of above treeline terrain that's accessible consistently through the winter with a long fall line that allows you to really get going for a while.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by XavierD View Post
    Declivity X is a phenomenal ski that wants to go down the fall line but is surprisingly nimble. As mentioned it does want to go fast. Get the 192, mount forward of the line.
    How would the Declivity X do in Sierra Cement or heavy wet snow like that?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    292
    https://youtu.be/inwSh1CtGVI



    These seem so sick. I got my warm and wet powder skis covered now.

    Iím still debating whether to get the DXs or MFREE118S, for cold smoke

Posting Permissions

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