Anyone get time on these? I loved my TSTs but they’re now rock skis and these look intriguing. What’s the mount point?
I’ve heard next to nothing about them.
Printable View
Anyone get time on these? I loved my TSTs but they’re now rock skis and these look intriguing. What’s the mount point?
I’ve heard next to nothing about them.
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.
Thanks, this thread didn’t show up when I searched. That mount point is probably too far back for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_pretzel
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by troth
2019Quote:
Originally Posted by thejongiest
Anyone ski both the Declivity and the Salomon Stance? Seems like they might be in the same/similar category.
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 caresQuote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
Still -10! There’s no way the old TST / Norwalk was that far back.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_pretzel
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.
I’ve narrowed my search down to the Declivity X or M Free 118s. Bodacious was on the list, but I’m 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 it’s stupid deep that’s the ski I will grab every day. I’ve 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AEV
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 $350Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AEV
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_pretzel
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
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
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.
How would the Declivity X do in Sierra Cement or heavy wet snow like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
https://youtu.be/inwSh1CtGVI
These seem so sick. I got my warm and wet powder skis covered now.
I’m still debating whether to get the DXs or MFREE118S, for cold smoke
hi, it's awfully quiet around this ski. did you guys keep yours, you moved on to something else or you just use it for very specific conditions ?
I still have mine and love them. The X replaced the k2 darkside(looking to sell if anyone is interested) in my lineup. defiantly don't ski like they are 192 which works well for me at 5'9" 190. They do everything I want in a powder ski, rip bowls at speed, maneuverable enough for trees and strong enough to plow the harbor chop at the end of the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by slashy
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.
We sound like we like a similar mount for similar reasons. I haven't tried the R11's. Thx!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvan
I cannot seem to upload the webp file. but on the 185 it is 44cm of front rocker / 74mm splay / 47 cm taper.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzraider
It seems like a resort ski because it is a resort ski.
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by TCNROMPER
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?
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.
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.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by thejongiest
support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.comQuote:
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.
Thanks and will do next season :DQuote:
Originally Posted by arild
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
Attachment 451903
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?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.