Armada ANT

**Bring On The Snow** · 06-25-2007, 09:27 PM

I am thinking about getting some Armada ANTs for next season and was wondering what any body who has skied them thinks of them. I am currently skiing on Big Trubs and like them quite a bit but want something a bit wider.
I and 165 5'10'' and like to ski fast and do some smallerish hucks like usually < 15'. Also any one skis that you think would be good that are in the 100-115mm waist range.

**Bandit Man** · 06-25-2007, 10:18 PM

(1) Search...there is a ton of info on the Ants. No spoon feeding here...
(2) What size BT's? The 186, I hope...
(3) You after a twin-tip or will a conventional tail work?
(4) Where are you going to ski these sticks? I see you are in the PNW, but are you ripping the park at The Summit or something more...respectable.
(4) What length? Yes ANT's only come in 191's, but is a 190+ what you are after?
(5) Any ski from 100-115 in the width, huh? That leave a pretty wide field.

**Bring On The Snow** · 06-25-2007, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by Bandit Man

(1) Search...there is a ton of info on the Ants. No spoon feeding here...
(2) What size BT's? The 186, I hope...
(3) You after a twin-tip or will a conventional tail work?
(4) Where are you going to ski these sticks? I see you are in the PNW, but are you ripping the park at The Summit or something more...respectable.
(4) What length? Yes ANT's only come in 191's, but is a 190+ what you are after?
(5) Any ski from 100-115 in the width, huh? That leave a pretty wide field.

1.I couldnt find anything that useful
2.176 i think

but looking for something longer.
3.twin
4.Whistler and Baker mostly
4.looking for something in the 180's but i hear the ANTs ski shorter than 191
5.Basically something fat but not too fat.

Also this probably wouldnt be my everyday ski probably just a pow day ski.

**Mgof** · 06-25-2007, 10:45 PM

Play around in this thread:
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=84718

Not sure about the ANT as a pow-day specific ski, check out fat skis here:
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=41028

**leroy jenkins** · 06-25-2007, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by Bring On The Snow

4.looking for something in the 180's but i hear the ANTs ski shorter than 191
5.Basically something fat but not too fat.

Also this probably wouldnt be my everyday ski probably just a pow day ski.

Ok, every twin skis shorter than their given length.

ANTs are not a powder ski. Too stiff, and with too much camber, they just feel weird in powder. Its really hard to decamber them and get them to surf. I don't think I like rockered/pintailed skis, and prefer burly skis, so I'm not biased either, they just don't ski pow well.

Also, if this is going to be a pow day only ski, why the hell don't you want it to be fatter than 106 underfoot? Thats a midfat, every day width. If this is really for powder days only, I would go at least 115mm underfoot, probably more like 120+.

**gh444** · 06-25-2007, 11:06 PM

my big bros put my ants to shame........

-aaron

**Professor Chaos** · 06-26-2007, 02:20 AM

A great ski for Whistler/Baker. Ive got the same deal here in Van as well and theyre great skis.

As Leroy pointed out certainly not a pow day ski.

**Bring On The Snow** · 06-26-2007, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

Also, if this is going to be a pow day only ski, why the hell don't you want it to be fatter than 106 underfoot? Thats a midfat, every day width. If this is really for powder days only, I would go at least 115mm underfoot, probably more like 120+.

Mostly i was thinking something in the width range of the ANT is because my big trubs are the widest ski I have ever skied on and there only like 94 or something like that so i didn't want to make the jump straight to a 120+ ski.

Also i didn't mean it would be a powder exclusive ski for me (altho i think that is what i said) but I wouldn't have it out on hard pack days and skiing bumps and park on them.
It would be hard for me to have a 100% powder ski that doesn't ski worth shit on anything else because i'm not gunna change skis at noon when resort skiing because the powder is getting scarce.

**gh444** · 06-26-2007, 01:49 PM

with the due respect to armada (the guys who run that operation are top notch and they live down the street), the big bro out performs that ski in just about every way. do yourself a favor and call pmgear. you wont regret it.

-aaron

**Bandit Man** · 06-27-2007, 12:47 PM

I think you should get some longer BT's and see where that gets you. 5'10" and on the 176 doesn't seem quite right. I skied the 186 BT's as my everyday skis in the Central Cascades near Seattle, and they were pretty good in <8" of fresh.

Plus, 176 to 191 ANT will feel like a huge jump, IMO.

**TyeStick** · 06-27-2007, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by gonehuckin

with the due respect to armada (the guys who run that operation are top notch and they live down the street), the big bro out performs that ski in just about every way. do yourself a favor and call pmgear. you wont regret it.

-aaron

Not what I need to hear after picking up your old sticks.

**leroy jenkins** · 06-27-2007, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Bring On The Snow

Mostly i was thinking something in the width range of the ANT is because my big trubs are the widest ski I have ever skied on and there only like 94 or something like that so i didn't want to make the jump straight to a 120+ ski.

Also i didn't mean it would be a powder exclusive ski for me (altho i think that is what i said) but I wouldn't have it out on hard pack days and skiing bumps and park on them.
It would be hard for me to have a 100% powder ski that doesn't ski worth shit on anything else because i'm not gunna change skis at noon when resort skiing because the powder is getting scarce.

I just did the same thing you're doing. This past season I went from ak rockets (95 waist) to ants and squads (106 and 104).

Heres how its going to go for you. (or at least how it went for me, and tons of other people).

You're going to buy the ANTs as a big gun powder ski for hauling ass in soft snow. You're going to realize that they don't float that well, and are much easier to ski than you thought. The big trubs are going to collect dust while you ski the ANTs everyday, and try and decide what you want to get for powder days.

**TyeStick** · 06-27-2007, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

I just did the same thing you're doing. This past season I went from ak rockets (95 waist) to ants and squads (106 and 104).

Heres how its going to go for you. (or at least how it went for me, and tons of other people).

You're going to buy the ANTs as a big gun powder ski for hauling ass in soft snow. You're going to realize that they don't float that well, and are much easier to ski than you thought. The big trubs are going to collect dust while you ski the ANTs everyday, and try and decide what you want to get for powder days.

One pair of skis per year, that is what I limit myself to and I am broke as is(damn college). As long as these ANTS float a little better in pow then my first gen scratch bc's Im all good.

**endlesswntr** · 06-27-2007, 04:54 PM

Honestly, I think the flex of the scratch bc would lend itself better to floating than the ANTs.

**gh444** · 06-27-2007, 04:55 PM

tye-

dont get me wrong, the ANTs are a great ski. they do what they do really well and the ones you picked up from me were a fraction of what new big bros cost. they are a great everyday ski and they are straight enough that they don't have a speed limit. the only reason i sold them is that i had double quiver overlap. this guy wants a pow specific ski, not an everyday charger, also the soft big bros that i've been on, are alot more forgiving, so i stand by what i said, i just need to clarify, the big bros are a better option in every way for what he says he's looking for.

-aaron

**TyeStick** · 06-27-2007, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by endlesswntr

Honestly, I think the flex of the scratch bc would lend itself better to floating than the ANTs.

89mm or 90mm is the waist on my scratch bc's, if the ANT's dont float better at least they will be stiffer.

**TyeStick** · 06-27-2007, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by gonehuckin

tye-

dont get me wrong, the ANTs are a great ski. they do what they do really well and the ones you picked up from me were a fraction of what new big bros cost. they are a great everyday ski and they are straight enough that they don't have a speed limit. the only reason i sold them is that i had double quiver overlap. this guy wants a pow specific ski, not an everyday charger, also the soft big bros that i've been on, are alot more forgiving, so i stand by what i said, i just need to clarify, the big bros are a better option in every way for what he says he's looking for.

-aaron

Gotchya, I doubt I will disappointed with the ANT's, just got a little freaked from all the reviews coming in.

**gh444** · 06-27-2007, 05:13 PM

after my first day on them at mammoth, i was grinning from ear to ear.

did you get the bindings dialed?

-aaron

**TyeStick** · 06-27-2007, 05:20 PM

Yep, was a little confusing at first, but they are ready to go. The indicators looked as if they were a regular part of the binding, but eventually I sorted it out.Might have to make a trip down to hood, tear up the palmer snowfield this summer.

**cpj.slc** · 06-28-2007, 05:07 PM

My .02. I love my ANT's they are a super fun ski, but not a powder ski. Leroy (and some other people) had it right, they are too stiff and have too much camber to float well. On anything other than deep I love them though. This may sound stupid, but it makes sense to me, they feel like a cross between a park ski and a super G ski. They are really poppy and light, and they will arc turns on hard pack if you get them up to speed. If you want something that is about the same size under foot but will float better get an AK Maiden, or whatever K2 called those skis last year. The tips won't dive, they basically go reverse camber when you get them in soft stuff, but are still pretty fun on other stuff to.

**TyeStick** · 06-28-2007, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by cpj.slc

My .02. I love my ANT's they are a super fun ski, but not a powder ski. Leroy (and some other people) had it right, they are too stiff and have too much camber to float well. On anything other than deep I love them though. This may sound stupid, but it makes sense to me, they feel like a cross between a park ski and a super G ski. They are really poppy and light, and they will arc turns on hard pack if you get them up to speed. If you want something that is about the same size under foot but will float better get an AK Maiden, or whatever K2 called those skis last year. The tips won't dive, they basically go reverse camber when you get them in soft stuff, but are still pretty fun on other stuff to.

Roger that, I guess I will see what happens when I get them in some deep snow. I imagine body weight plays some factor in float too. A bunch of people in the other ANT thread seemed impressed with the float they got from the ANT's, so I gues everybody has a different preference.

**Altaholic** · 06-29-2007, 01:52 PM

I really love my Nordica Blowers @ 110 mm waist, it killed me when the sidewall cracked on skis & had to send them back to Nordica to get warenteed, so far they have not sent the skis back to me, so I'm assuming I've got a new pair. But I demoed the '07-08 version seemed a touch stiffer on a spring pow day at snowbird. The Blowers were killer on the pow days (sucks that it was few than we wanted & are used to in LCC) I rode at alta/snowbird. I ride the 193, but they also make them in a 185 as well, plus they have a two year warentee

**Professor Chaos** · 06-29-2007, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by TyeStick

Roger that, I guess I will see what happens when I get them in some deep snow. I imagine body weight plays some factor in float too. A bunch of people in the other ANT thread seemed impressed with the float they got from the ANT's, so I gues everybody has a different preference.

Im kind of in the same boat as you Tye. I just got ANTs and now considering mounting point. Ive read the other ANT(the one regarding mounting) thread through and through and since I like a forward mount and loved my 189 Seths at +5. Im going to go -6 or -7 from true centre on the ANTs.

One thing that the other thread didnt have was not many people posted their body weight, which is fine, but would help a lot since someone thats 185 cm and 170 lbs(like myself) will have different results in the pow compared to someone whos 185cm and 200 lbs.

**memosteve** · 06-29-2007, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by El Duderino

Im kind of in the same boat as you Tye. I just got ANTs and now considering mounting point. Ive read the other ANT(the one regarding mounting) thread through and through and since I like a forward mount and loved my 189 Seths at +5. Im going to go -6 or -7 from true centre on the ANTs.

One thing that the other thread didnt have was not many people posted their body weight, which is fine, but would help a lot since someone thats 185 cm and 170 lbs(like myself) will have different results in the pow compared to someone whos 185cm and 200 lbs.

At -6/-7 from true center you will be close to factory mark. I'm 205lbs and ski them at -9 from true. If deeper snow performance is somewhat important, I'd recommend -9. Then again, I've never really liked a forward mount, except on K2's.

FYI: Anthony Boronowski skis his at -6 from true.

**TyeStick** · 06-29-2007, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by El Duderino

Im kind of in the same boat as you Tye. I just got ANTs and now considering mounting point. Ive read the other ANT(the one regarding mounting) thread through and through and since I like a forward mount and loved my 189 Seths at +5. Im going to go -6 or -7 from true centre on the ANTs.

One thing that the other thread didnt have was not many people posted their body weight, which is fine, but would help a lot since someone thats 185 cm and 170 lbs(like myself) will have different results in the pow compared to someone whos 185cm and 200 lbs.

I am 6', 180-185 lbs, a little bit bigger then you but not a lot. I believe mine are mounted at -9 or -10, Gonehuckin can you confirm?