or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Armada TST: A Well Sorted Elf Shoe
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Armada TST: A Well Sorted Elf Shoe - Page 2

post #31 of 56

I agree with both things stated in the above post. You can enjoy any ski if you understand what it was made for and use it for that purpose. If you try and use a ski for something it was not designed for, you usually aren't going to have a great time doing it. There are some exceptions though!

post #32 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2 ski View Post

Najkn, the TST is not a 1 ski resort quiver, as it has to much tip rocker for my taste, unless I am in powder. While I can rail hard snow on them, I just find they feel to short for my tastes in those conditions.  I was thinking about the TSts characteristics last Thursday-Sunday when I was skiing at Mammoth. Thursday had anywhere from 4 inches, out in the open, to 1 foot of pow in the trees. As the day progressed, it all got cut up/tracked out, and the TST performed perfectly, whether it was in untracked or cut up pow. I had a blast on them. Friday I switched to a pair of Movement Source skis, (a more traditional cambered ski) as Mammoth grooms the heck out of the mountain and I honestly do not like the TST short running length on groomed runs. If I was only using them for touring, I think they would be a great option, as for the most part, that should be soft and untracked snow. The TST can handle variable and hard snow conditions, it just isn't their strongest suit. Being that I spend most of my time in the resort and I just bought some 193 Atomic Automatics, I may be selling my TSTs to get a ski with less tip rocker, that has a longer running length, for firm snow in the resort. I hope these comments help.
 

I recently used a pair of TST's on Powder and I agree 100% with what you said about them.

post #33 of 56

Totally, that´s why I asked for opinions. I haven´t been following the technology and development that much in recent years and didn´t have that good idea what are those skis best for. And reading reviews just made me more confused, since many of them I found contradictory. Some people say those skis hold well on hardpack some say opposite, the same thing with higher speeds, etc.

I hope I did a good decision with P 98, and will maybe try out TST at some other occasion.

Cheers

post #34 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

 

<drift>

I agree with your philosophy. Making that attitude work does depend on good self-awareness and research though. It makes a lot of sense here with the Epic audience. I don't think it works as well among more casual skiers. It is possible to get on a ski that just doesn't work for your particular style or skill set or size or whatever. I once demo'd a pair of Volkl Six Stars, years ago, and almost offered them to another skier halfway down the hill on the first run if he'd let me take his skis - whatever they were, I didn't care, probably rentals - back down to the base instead. The people who get onto skis that are really "wrong" for them are the ones who don't have a realistic sense of how they really ski and what they really like. It's not always their fault that they don't. People begin to go off on the wrong track when they are encouraged to use certain terms about their own skiing that they don't understand, nor do they understand how and whether it actually applies to their personal ski life. As Dawg just pointed out in another thead, "99.8% of the skiers on the hill can't generate the edge angles required to arc a turn on hard snow. Most people think think they are carving while not realizing that sliding sideways, with an edge set at the bottom of the turn, isn't 'carving'." If you're not skiing clean arcs but think you are, because no one has told you any different, you're going to represent your needs incorrectly to the information bank, whether that be the person in the ski shop or Google or what. 25 years ago, when I worked in wine retail, virtually every customer would say, like a, er, Mantra, "Oh, I prefer a really dry wine," thinking that this was a mark of sophistication, without the faintest idea of what it really meant to talk about a dry wine or whether wines that they actually liked were in fact dry or not. (Often they were emphatically not ... remember the White Zinfandel craze?) Similarly, I now hear people say, "I want an all-mountain ski," when in fact they ski heavily groomed man-made snow 100% of the time and wouldn't be caught dead in a mogul field or a glade or whatever. Just musing, not arguing.

</drift>

<continuing to drift>

 

Yes. You are correct. My approach to "loving the skis you're on" does require some honest self assessment. I was responding more the skilled skier who torutures himself over selecting a particular ski from a category of skis with similar over all characteristics that fit his particular style, terrrain, etc--the knowledgeable nitpicker.  Arguing with oneself or others over which ski is really "the best" in this situation is a lot of wasted effort  and the cause of unnecessary regrets. [Perhaps John Nash's "Mini-Max Theory" comes in to play here]  When there is really no "bad decision"  I say "love the boards you're on." Second guessing only causes dissatisfaction.

 

 As you correctly suggest, less self-aware skiers make a different mistake. They buy based on what the magazines or reviews suggest good skiers enjoy (when the buyer actually has little in common with the ability and preferences of the reviewer). When the new ski exposes technical weakness or is simply not suited to the skiers' real-world ability, conditions, and terrain, they blame the ski. They start second guessing their choice of the specific ski within the performance category rather than realizing that they (the skier) don't belong in that perfomance category. In the meantime they assert that the ski is the problem. As my ski buddy often says-- "It's not the arrow, it' the archer."  These folks are, unfortunately, vulnerable to self-centered sales people who recommend skis based on their own preferences rather than the needs of the customer. It would be interesting to see if bringing a video of oneself skiing would help salespeople and the customer both come to better ski selections.

post #35 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

 

<drift>

I agree with your philosophy. Making that attitude work does depend on good self-awareness and research though. It makes a lot of sense here with the Epic audience. I don't think it works as well among more casual skiers. It is possible to get on a ski that just doesn't work for your particular style or skill set or size or whatever. I once demo'd a pair of Volkl Six Stars, years ago, and almost offered them to another skier halfway down the hill on the first run if he'd let me take his skis - whatever they were, I didn't care, probably rentals - back down to the base instead. The people who get onto skis that are really "wrong" for them are the ones who don't have a realistic sense of how they really ski and what they really like. It's not always their fault that they don't. People begin to go off on the wrong track when they are encouraged to use certain terms about their own skiing that they don't understand, nor do they understand how and whether it actually applies to their personal ski life. As Dawg just pointed out in another thead, "99.8% of the skiers on the hill can't generate the edge angles required to arc a turn on hard snow. Most people think think they are carving while not realizing that sliding sideways, with an edge set at the bottom of the turn, isn't 'carving'." If you're not skiing clean arcs but think you are, because no one has told you any different, you're going to represent your needs incorrectly to the information bank, whether that be the person in the ski shop or Google or what. 25 years ago, when I worked in wine retail, virtually every customer would say, like a, er, Mantra, "Oh, I prefer a really dry wine," thinking that this was a mark of sophistication, without the faintest idea of what it really meant to talk about a dry wine or whether wines that they actually liked were in fact dry or not. (Often they were emphatically not ... remember the White Zinfandel craze?) Similarly, I now hear people say, "I want an all-mountain ski," when in fact they ski heavily groomed man-made snow 100% of the time and wouldn't be caught dead in a mogul field or a glade or whatever. Just musing, not arguing.

</drift>

PS.  I love the Mantra reference here in your post. Spot on! Very punny.

post #36 of 56

After thinking about what I didn't like about the TST, the short running length on firm snow, I said screw it and just ordered some 192'sbiggrin.gif  Anyone want to buy my 183's with 10 days on them?

post #37 of 56

Finally got my new 192's out last Tuesday, on what was suppose to be a 5"-7" day.  Was more like dust on frozen crust in the beginning of the day and accumulated to a few inches by days end.  To say I loved the 192 over the 183 would be putting it lightly.  I am only 5'10", but due to the amount of tip rocker, the 183 felt like a 168 ski on firm snow (way to unstable for me).  In steps in the 192, which on firm snow feels like a 178 ski and is just a lot of fun. I had a blast on them last Tuesday and look forward to using them in the resort, whenever we get snow, but not real deep (less than a foot).  The TST is a great ski, but does ski very short unless your in powder.  You really need to step up to a larger size than normal, if you intend to use it in anything but powder conditions.  For people that can justify 3-4 pairs of skis in a quiver, for me it is the perfect for those days it is snowing or snowed and you expect a foot or less.  No need to change skis once the pow gets tracked out, as the TST works great in soft cut up snow and even in soft moguls.  For you Ice Coast fella's, the TST has great grip on dust on frozen crust.  I am really glad I sold my 183's and went with the 192's.

post #38 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashGordon View Post

I think you will really enjoy your Prophets. I selected the same ski last year as my daily driver and am having a blast on it.

 

 My approach is to never second guess a ski purchase. Every ski has something to teach you. Know what you want from your ski and find one that is a good fit for your preferences and conditions--then learn to ski it and love every minute you are on it.

 

The research on decision-making actually suggests that having too many options and trying to obtain the perfect selection actually diminishes satisfaction. Within a given category/size of skis the differences are largely about your preferences. Preference is based on what you are used to--so get out there and get used to brilliantly sking your great new skis!

Indeed, Prophets 98 was a great choice. They feel to ski little short on the groomer, but otherwise lots of fun and great off piste too. In a combination with Dynafit, they are a  great backcountry option. Haven´t  had the chance to ski them in deeper stuff yet, but they did great in 20 cm deep pow. I can definitely report a lot of satisfaction so far :) and I wish I could hang out with them more often :/

post #39 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2 ski View Post

For people that can justify 3-4 pairs of skis in a quiver, for me it is the perfect for those days it is snowing or snowed and you expect a foot or less.  No need to change skis once the pow gets tracked out, as the TST works great in soft cut up snow and even in soft moguls.

 

Yup. Used mine in conditions like these on several days this week and they were perfectly suited. The honeymoon continues as long as the soft stuff persists.

post #40 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

 

Yup. Used mine in conditions like these on several days this week and they were perfectly suited. The honeymoon continues as long as the soft stuff persists.


Right and that is not to say they don't work well on firm snow, because they do.  It is just with a 4 ski quiver, I have other firm snow skis that I prefer to give some usebiggrin.gif

post #41 of 56

Question about size

 

I'm seriously looking at this ski these days, 6'1", 185lbs, very advanced skier. I'm currently on a 185 Rosi ski and I'm wanting something a BIT shorter maybe. I hear these ski very short because of the rocker, so supposedly the 192 are the size for a guy my size. However, I spend most of my time in the tight, technical stuff, (and trees), and a shorter ski might make that easier & more fun. So, for those who have tried it, how short DOES the TST ski? Would the 183 be too short for my purposes? Is a 183 too little for a good powder day, or unstable at speed? Thanks.


Edited by lionlager - 3/5/13 at 12:22pm
post #42 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionlager View Post

Question about size

 

I'm seriously looking at this ski these days, 6'1", 185lbs, very advanced skier. I'm currently on a 185 Rosi ski and I'm wanting something a BIT shorter maybe. I hear these ski very short because of the rocker, so supposedly the 192 are the size for a guy my size. However, I spend most of my time in the tight, technical stuff, (and trees), and a shorter ski might make that easier & more fun. So, for those who have tried it, how short DOES the TST ski? Would the 183 be too short for my purposes? Is a 183 too little for a good powder day, or unstable at speed? Thanks.

 

Did you read the whole thread, and the several other TST threads? This question has been discussed quite a bit. (Hint: Use Google, not the lame EpicSki search feature. Just google "epicski armada tst" and you will get a bunch of hits.) Which Rossi are you on now that feels marginally too long? Where do you ski? Are you running tele or alpine? How many days a year do you ski?

 

Naturally, if you optimize your ski choice for "tight technical stuff (and trees)" you are going to sacrifice something on the "[un]stable at speed" end of things. So, as always, it's a trade-off. From my POV you are in the right ballpark with this ski if you are privileging skiing "tight technical stuff (and trees)" on soft snow, and are happy with a Golden Retriever, not a Doberman. (I am, in those circumstances. For reference, I am 5' 7", 135lbs, use the ski primarily in east coast bumps and trees, am on the 174, and would not want it any shorter.) On the other hand, if you are looking to maximize stability at speed in mixed conditions, a different ski will probably meet your needs better.

post #43 of 56

I read half the comments, then posted, then found some relevant answers. Oops.

 

True, one ski can't have it all... maybe I'm asking too much of one pair. To answer the rest of your questions, I ski about 30 times a year, late 20s, Athletic, I'm currently on some 184 Rossi B3s, and I will mostly be at Kicking Horse and Lake Louise, CAN.

 

I guess I'm wondering if the 192 will be agile enough for the tight stuff. I'm seeing both yes and no answers, but I know that is the size I SHOULD be on, but I'm not able to demo either size so I can't get a feel for them. My B3s currently feel overly heavy, but I've made them work for 2 seasons. I guess you already answered it, but I'm wondering if at 6'1", 185, very advanced skier, if not getting the 192 size is going to be a mistake. Thanks for the input. Maybe I just need to look at a different ski.

post #44 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionlager View Post

Question about size

 

I'm seriously looking at this ski these days, 6'1", 185lbs, very advanced skier.  Would the 183 be too short for my purposes? Is a 183 too little for a good powder day, or unstable at speed? Thanks.

I sold my 183's and bought 192's.  Long story short, the 183's were fun in powder, but just to short a running length on firmer snow.  I am only 5'10" but 210lbs, so short skis are not my preference.  I would tell you to buy the 192 unless this ski will only be used in soft snow or maybe touring soft snow.  In anything firm, you will want the 192.

post #45 of 56

Not TST related, but close enough for after Memorial Day. My Norwalks just arrived! Totally not in the master plan, but too cheap to pass on, meaning perfect for a ski that'll see limited yearly use. Initial impressions: 1) They're short. Straight pull of the tape for the 189's came in at 186 cm. Really glad I didn't go for the 179's. 2) They have a lotta rocker and splay in front; roughly same length, same shape, touch less rise as a pair of JJ's I fondled a few years ago. Ditto about the 179's. 3) The tail is way high, a normal flip on steroids. Very pronounced rise but not a lot of rocker. Should work well for trees and tighter places, but forget sticking these into the snow. 4) The fronts flex noticeably more than the tails. Fronts are a bit stiffer than a 188 S7, call them barely medium. Tails, normal shape and mostly flat, are at least medium firm, bit more than an Unleashed Hell. Overall, they feel firmer than a pair of TST's I hand flexed in a store, not sure if that's the actual construction or the extra 13 mm. So reviews saying this was more of a Big Mountain TST may be about right. Although calling these and a Katana both Big Mountain skis shows the, ah, latitude of the category. 4) Graphics - which I love - are different than pics, not in a bad way. Purplish cast to everything, and the light bits such as space suits are metallic silver-white, so off-angle they reflect. Matt finish with good QC as I'd expect from an Atomic, ah, Armada...biggrin.gif

 

Now for master plan revision # 2,872b, V.2.

post #46 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

 4) Graphics - which I love - are different than pics, not in a bad way. Purplish cast to everything, and the light bits such as space suits are metallic silver-white, so off-angle they reflect. Matt finish with good QC as I'd expect from an Atomic, ah, Armada...biggrin.gif

 

 

Let's see.

post #47 of 56

That has an ominous sound to it. Do the TST's delaminate explosively after 5 days? He asked nervously. 

post #48 of 56
Thread Starter 
No. I meant it very literally. As in, "Bring on the photos!" smile.gif
post #49 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

No. I meant it very literally. As in, "Bring on the photos!" smile.gif


Here is one.  The TST's are the purplish ones.  Very fun ski.

post #50 of 56
Thread Starter 
Thanks, but my comment was about Beyond's Norwalks. Still waiting on that one. smile.gif
post #51 of 56

Well don't be lazy, they are up on the Armada site.  The new graphics for the Norwalk are all time.  Just wish they had about a 126 tail and I would buy a pair of the 189's, as the graphics for this year are very cool.  http://armadaskis.com/product/skis/ltd-series/norwalk/
 

post #52 of 56

Your link is for the 2013 model, which I have. Although pic doesn't quite capture wonderful weirdness of color cast, slightly purplish and greenish, metallic. Checked main site, entirely still 2013 models shown. Here's the 2014 graphic, which is, ah, really really different: http://www.evo.com/skis/armada-norwalk.aspx

post #53 of 56

I didn't know that as I haven't followed that ski.  I would be very curious to know what you think about them after you have a few days in on them.  I still think the tail is a little wide for the slarvy feel I prefer, but I will trust your 2 cents once you give it.

post #54 of 56

Thread revival... @qcanoe care to draw a quick comparison between this and the Hell&Back 169cm?

post #55 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfa81 View Post
 

Thread revival... @qcanoe care to draw a quick comparison between this and the Hell&Back 169cm?

 

Hi mfa. Sorry for the slow response. I can't tell if you're asking me this question because you DID see my Hell & Back review or if it's because you did NOT see it. If you did not see it, I think it will answer your question about what I thought. 

 

But the short version is that the two skis could hardly be more different, considering that they are nearly the same width. FOR ME the TST is a playful noodler that puts a big smile on my face, while the H&B is very much a charger that requires me to sort of suck in my gut and take a deep breath before I drop in. (I'm aware that others think of the Hell & Back as a more jack-of-all-trades kind of ski. That was not my impression, and I feel validated in that by reviews posted by Dawgcatching and other lighter-weight skiers who find the Nordica's flex on the stiff side.) One is great in trees and bumps at moderate speeds and the other is good at making GS turns on groomers and maintaining speed and stability through chop. When I'm on soft enough snow to be on a ski that wide, I'm generally spending a fair amount of time in the glades and on narrower trails here in the east, so the TST is a good fit for me. When I head out west I am more likely to feel its significant limitations. For example, at this year's Utah gathering it was a great ski to be on in the alleys between the trees in the Wildcat and Supreme areas at Alta. However, skiing Little Cloud, Silver Fox, or Mineral Basin at the Bird, a stiffer ski with less tip rocker and sidecut worked better. Hope that helps.

post #56 of 56

^^^thanks! I found your review :-) Kinda go with what I was expecting, but I'm almost 20 heavier than you! Well, it's that time of the year when you don't ski too much and start thinking about skis! :-) Trying to decided if the H&B would be a good replacement for my Line Prophet 98

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Armada TST: A Well Sorted Elf Shoe