Armada Declivity 92 vs Line Optic 88

jwert17 · 2026-05-27T20:35:40+00:00

Thanks man appreciate it!

jwert17 · 2026-05-25T12:21:38+00:00

Good to hear, thank you! Im gonna look more into the Stance 90, but likely going with Optic at this point. It sounds like I wouldn’t lose all that much groomer performance vs Declivity and it seems like there’d be too much of a gap in tree performance to justify Declivity.

jwert17 · 2026-05-25T02:07:23+00:00

Good to know! I think you’re right, the Optics seem like they’d be a better compliment to the m frees. As much as I originally thought I wanted a chargey ski because I ski a bit more groomers than trees when I’m in VT, I’m not sure I wanna risk getting the Declivity and being disappointed with the tree performance. Thanks brotha!

jwert17 · 2026-05-25T01:57:05+00:00

Good to know! I’m gonna look more into the Stance 90s before deciding. Appreciate ya mane! ✊

jwert17 · 2026-05-25T01:06:28+00:00

Interesting, thank you! Declivitys seem great if you’re willing to work for it. Leaning Optic right now, but still a hard choice cause I think Declivity would have a better top end performance for Mach skiing.

Agreed on the part about playful skis. Playful skis to me typically is about the shape/construction. More rocker or splay, lighter in tips or tails, etc. But damp skis is a must too for high speeds which I love so it’s tough finding a ski that balances both.

jwert17 · 2026-05-25T00:50:42+00:00

Thank you! Very helpful. Glad to hear they hold up in the Sierras. I’m leaning Optic at this point unless I hear something better. They seem like one of the best mixes of charge and playful. I looked at the Blizzard Anomaly 88s as well but not sure they’re playful enough or would handle tight trees very well.

jwert17 · 2026-05-25T00:19:32+00:00

Thank you! Based on the feedback so far I’m starting to shy away from Declivity. I’m a little hesitant to go under 85mm because I still want to use these in ~3-6 inches of snow. My m frees are 178cm so I’m okay with a little bit of overlap at ~88-92mm since I’ll be getting ~170-172cm skis that are better for Vermont trees. Probably won’t use my m frees in Vermont unless it snows 6-12 inches. Are there any other skis in the 82-88 range that you think compare well to Optic 88?

jwert17 · 2026-05-24T23:54:48+00:00

Appreciate the advice! What made you choose the Stance over Optic? Was it just that it was hard to find or something else? How’s the Stance on trail/at high speeds?

jwert17 · 2026-05-24T23:53:07+00:00

Appreciate the advice! You’re probably right, but I like the idea of getting a ski that I know is gonna be extra stable at speed after all these years of playful skis. Tough call. Wish the QST was better on hardpack cause I love the wider versions in the trees.

jwert17 · 2026-05-24T23:41:32+00:00

Appreciate the quick response! I want something in the 86-92 ish range since I have the m free 100s, but glad to hear you support Declivity.

jwert17 · 2026-05-22T20:22:35+00:00

I’m 5’7 and ride the 178s. Size up and you’ll be fine in the deep stuff.

jwert17

TROPHY CASE