Declivity vs Declivity X

I’m hoping for insight here, and any thoughts as I look to expand my quiver this season.

Essentially, I’m looking for a mid-waist (100-106) ski that will be my go to for times when the mtn hasn’t seen fresh snow in a few days, the groomers get firm and off piste gets chunky. Maybe a little slack country as well (pivot + CAST). I’ve basically narrowed it down to the 102 Declivity by Armada. Question is, if I want the Declivity X 102 or the Declivity ti102. A lot easier to find the ti pre-season and I won’t have a shot at the X until late season with deals on this year’s model.

That being said, I haven’t found a lot comparing the two, and the performance sacrifices one makes for the other. From my understanding, the X will be heavier and as a result a little less playful, more for open bowl charging. The 102Ti will be a little more nimble but still retain a lot of that chargy aspect. Like I said, I want this to be my icy/firm groomer day. I have plenty of skis for soft, deep days and dedicated backcountry setups. I like technical riding in tight spots but also want to be able to open it up and have the stability to be confident.

Everyone seems to love both, but more curious on the input of the difference between the X and normal model. Cheers!




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

This is from my mate who is a very good skier, and tests lots of skis for his shop. I asked him about the Declivity 102 last year (so guessing before the 'X' existed), and he called it "soft and skiddy and not at all a ski for going fast".

"For 2 years I wanted a Declivity. I finally mounted a pair up with pivots. For 3 days I felt like a beginner, it was so far from what I expected. I sold them pretty quick"

That’s a weird way to spell deathwish 104.

I’m an Armada guy and want something similar specs and I’m not even looking twice at this ski.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buzzworthy

I’m an Armada guy and want something similar specs and I’m not even looking twice at this ski.

---

How come? I’ve seen countless amount of praise for its ability to hold an edge


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Island Bay

This is from my mate who is a very good skier, and tests lots of skis for his shop. I asked him about the Declivity 102 last year (so guessing before the 'X' existed), and he called it "soft and skiddy and not at all a ski for going fast".

"For 2 years I wanted a Declivity. I finally mounted a pair up with pivots. For 3 days I felt like a beginner, it was so far from what I expected. I sold them pretty quick"

---

Interesting, what was he expecting?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKIman182

Interesting, what was he expecting?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

He was hoping for what it sort of said on the box: a big mountain ski with some backbone.

I was all keen on them as a replacement for my old Fischer Ranger 102fr, but he knows my tastes and I got cool on the idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKIman182

I’m hoping for insight here, and any thoughts as I look to expand my quiver this season.

Essentially, I’m looking for a mid-waist (100-106) ski that will be my go to for times when the mtn hasn’t seen fresh snow in a few days, the groomers get firm and off piste gets chunky. Maybe a little slack country as well (pivot + CAST). I’ve basically narrowed it down to the 102 Declivity by Armada. Question is, if I want the Declivity X 102 or the Declivity ti102. A lot easier to find the ti pre-season and I won’t have a shot at the X until late season with deals on this year’s model.

That being said, I haven’t found a lot comparing the two, and the performance sacrifices one makes for the other. From my understanding, the X will be heavier and as a result a little less playful, more for open bowl charging. The 102Ti will be a little more nimble but still retain a lot of that chargy aspect. Like I said, I want this to be my icy/firm groomer day. I have plenty of skis for soft, deep days and dedicated backcountry setups. I like technical riding in tight spots but also want to be able to open it up and have the stability to be confident.

Everyone seems to love both, but more curious on the input of the difference between the X and normal model. Cheers!




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

I’m not sure you are comparing the right skis.
The X is 13mm wider at the waist and no Titinal
The Declivity 102Ti and the 108Ti is better comparison. The 108 has plenty plenty of “backbone” and the 102 is more middle of the road when it comes to stiffness. Check the reviews on ski essentials. Many people love the 102 as an everyday ski out west.
As always…. demo, demo, demo!

Not such a crazy comparison - 108ti and 102ti have been replaced by “108 x” and “102 x” for 2025.

Blister flash review suggests 102ti and 102 x are similar in character, different sprinkles on the same ice cream. Haven’t seen any mag reviews of 102 x but if you’re committed to armada declivity 102 of any flavor I’d personally go for whatever I could snag a deal on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKIman182

I’m hoping for insight here, and any thoughts as I look to expand my quiver this season.

Essentially, I’m looking for a mid-waist (100-106) ski that will be my go to for times when the mtn hasn’t seen fresh snow in a few days, the groomers get firm and off piste gets chunky. Maybe a little slack country as well (pivot + CAST). I’ve basically narrowed it down to the 102 Declivity by Armada. Question is, if I want the Declivity X 102 or the Declivity ti102. A lot easier to find the ti pre-season and I won’t have a shot at the X until late season with deals on this year’s model.

That being said, I haven’t found a lot comparing the two, and the performance sacrifices one makes for the other. From my understanding, the X will be heavier and as a result a little less playful, more for open bowl charging. The 102Ti will be a little more nimble but still retain a lot of that chargy aspect. Like I said, I want this to be my icy/firm groomer day. I have plenty of skis for soft, deep days and dedicated backcountry setups. I like technical riding in tight spots but also want to be able to open it up and have the stability to be confident.

Everyone seems to love both, but more curious on the input of the difference between the X and normal model. Cheers!




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shank

Not such a crazy comparison - 108ti and 102ti have been replaced by “108 x” and “102 x” for 2025.

Blister flash review suggests 102ti and 102 x are similar in character, different sprinkles on the same ice cream. Haven’t seen any mag reviews of 102 x but if you’re committed to armada declivity 102 of any flavor I’d personally go for whatever I could snag a deal on.

---

Yeah, I would go 102ti for cost and the 108ti is much stiffer and could fill a different spot in someone’s quiver.
The Dx is even wider and has no metal and could fill an even different role.

yeah I posed that question before I realized the 2025 102 ti and 108 ti became the X respectively, basically just a name change. I know the original X was much wider and different core, built slightly differently

Snagged a '23 102 off evo the other night for 360 dollars new, which is unchanged from the 2024 version. At that price, I had to give them a shot.

Anyone been on the xoneohtwo? A pair found their way into my office and I’m deciding if I should mount them, if so on the line or otherwise.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

Bring back the original Declivity, JP’s touring ski. Same shape and turn radius as the Invictus one o eight, twenty six meter radius with a single sheet of titanal.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums