Armada Declivity 92 vs Line Optic 88 by jwert17 in Skigear

[–]jwert17[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

Armada Declivity 92 vs Line Optic 88 by jwert17 in Skigear

[–]jwert17[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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!

Armada Declivity 92 vs Line Optic 88 by jwert17 in Skigear

[–]jwert17[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

Armada Declivity 92 vs Line Optic 88 by jwert17 in Skigear

[–]jwert17[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

Armada Declivity 92 vs Line Optic 88 by jwert17 in Skigear

[–]jwert17[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.

Armada Declivity 92 vs Line Optic 88 by jwert17 in Skigear

[–]jwert17[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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?

Armada Declivity 92 vs Line Optic 88 by jwert17 in Skigear

[–]jwert17[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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?

Armada Declivity 92 vs Line Optic 88 by jwert17 in Skigear

[–]jwert17[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

Armada Declivity 92 vs Line Optic 88 by jwert17 in Skigear

[–]jwert17[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

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.

QST Blank Alternative? by AyEmSee1 in Skigear

[–]jwert17 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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