Armada TST 183 - great ski even for a lightweight

I've talked to a few people who've tried this and said that its an extremely forgiving ski.  

Here's a good review of the 183 with plenty of discussion afterwards: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php/211141-Review-183-Armada-TST It sounds like an interesting ski. Very deep sidecut. Although the discussion stresses that it's pretty stiff, and the reviewer is 200 lbs, so suspect the forgiving quality is related to the fact that its shape is a downsized JJ without the tail rocker, rather than it's a noodle. 

Anyone know where I can rent these in Utah. I demoed them last season at big sky and they were an awesome all around ski. They perform well on anything I tried from groomers to trees with bumps

Anyone know how the 192 size works for a heavier charger?

I am pretty light weight(160) but tall (6'3) and I really liked the 192. I skied it for about a month and a half last year from Dec. to mid-Jan, 4-7 days a week and really enjoyed it. The only reason I sold it and moved on is because of the 195 Super 7 being similar enough. I was hanging out at Targhee a lot in deeper snow. I am not sure if things changed on this years TST, but it was a fun and relatively easy ski to ski. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjm22 

Anyone know how the 192 size works for a heavier charger?

I have a friend who's a big guy and a powerful fast skier, who loves his 192s. However, the general pattern - in this thread and elsewhere - seems to be that it's the lighter-weight folks who are relating particularly well to this ski. Dawg's in-depth comparative review from last year reinforces that rough direction, I think.

This brings up a gorilla in the closet: Do larger skiers necessarily need to be on beefier skis? Or conversely, can lighter skiers find happiness on seriously stiff skis? Obviously the gloss is no. But I can think of some interesting counterexamples, such as our own Dawgcatching, who weighs in at 160 or so, considers himself a power skier, and seems to prefer fairly beefy skis such as Kastles, Blizzards, and Stocklis. For that matter, plenty of lighter WC racers. Conversely, SJ is a bigger guy who considers himself more of a finesse skier and seems particularly to like skis that fall toward the middle, like Nordies, and owned a S7 for two years, no less. Trekchick, cannot speak for whether she's a power or finesse person, has characterized the TST as a easy ski for people who don't like to go fast. 

Now for my patented outrageous Fall claim:  I think that beefy skis attract at least two populations:  Skiers who are pretty good, don't care to constantly adjust their COM to perturbations, and like to go fast (call them # I). And high intermediates to advanced who can't really bend a ski consistently or change their COM quickly enough to adjust, so they ride the radius and let the ski blast through anything that might perturb it (call them # II); if they get back on the tail it's off to the races, but OTOH, it'll also support them for a moment if they can recover. I've seen plenty of intermediates on Mantras, for instance, doing just that, over and over. Notice that I don't mention skier weight, because I think it's mostly irrelevant unless you're above the 90th percentile. Skier height, on the other hand, will be relevant insofar as a stiffer ski will demand some tip pressure if you want to make it do anything outside its innate radius, so stiffer skis may reward a better match to height than moderate flex skis. 

Conversely, I think light and moderate flex skis (won't call them soft because aren't many floppy noodles still around, and the term soft has a connotation that biases our thinking) also attract two populations: Intermediates to advanced who aren't technically proficient and don't like speed yet (Trekchick's citation, call them # III). And pretty good skiers who don't mind adjusting their COM to the ongoing pertubations, ski a bit less fast than the I's, and ski terrain where bending the ski, or more generally, having a light ski, is useful (call them # IV). Not sure where qcanoe's friend fits, but have a feeling he's a # IV, regardless of his size.

So you can imagine this as a high school graph, with Y= stiffness and X = skier skill set. Put stiffest to the top, and best skiers to the right. The top right and bottom right quadrants, then, are 

Now the glitch is that I think power vs finesse is a third axis, usually called Z. So you can have good power or bad power skiers on stiff or moderate skis, and so on. Here's a graph I just ripped off the web, calls its axes "Dimensions" but this should look familiar to anyone who's ever played with Powerpoint or Excel:

The Dimension 3 might correspond to Power to Finesse, Dimension 2 to Expert to Intermediate, and Dimension 1 to Stiff to Moderate Flex. Individual plots of course would be skiers, and obviously the axes still cross at "0," but the background now gives the increments as a visual convention. What's cool, of course, is that if we had real data, we could actually make such a graph, and see if skiers clustered. As many here know, you can do stuff with these clusters to better characterize them. For instance, don't think power and finesse are intrinsic categories as much as strategies, suspect a good enough skier can morph from one to the other depending on terrain. But the bottom line now that I've geeked out  is to suggest we might profit by expanding our thinking past "Good skiers Prefer Skis like 2x4's So They Won't Fold, and Bad Skiers Prefer Noodles That Forgive All." It may depend...

this requires far too much though for skiing however, I totally agree with the last sentence.It still comes down to skiing what you like and in the case of the TST, I do not think its only an intermediate ski; its just not a high speed ski; that doesn't make it any less capable.  I will say that a skilled skier has the ability utilize the strengths  of any ski. Stiffer skis are more stable so as a skier builds skills and confidence, they tend to want to ski faster (stability isn't only determined by stiffness of course). On the other hand, a ski like the TST in a place like Steamboat (where its developing a large following) the TST is prized for its agility and ease in trees and various amounts of powder is an excellent tool for experts who know how to work the ski to its full ability. So again, the relative opinion of a ski's usefulness is relative to where its being skied and by whom.  it doesn't necessitate a skier to be heavy or light within reason, you wouldn't put a 275# skier on a 178 S3. :) 

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond 

This brings up a gorilla in the closet: Do larger skiers necessarily need to be on beefier skis? Or conversely, can lighter skiers find happiness on seriously stiff skis? Obviously the gloss is no. But I can think of some interesting counterexamples, such as our own Dawgcatching, who weighs in at 160 or so, considers himself a power skier, and seems to prefer fairly beefy skis such as Kastles, Blizzards, and Stocklis. For that matter, plenty of lighter WC racers. Conversely, SJ is a bigger guy who considers himself more of a finesse skier and seems particularly to like skis that fall toward the middle, like Nordies, and owned a S7 for two years, no less. Trekchick, cannot speak for whether she's a power or finesse person, has characterized the TST as a easy ski for people who don't like to go fast. 

 

Now for my patented outrageous Fall claim:  I think that beefy skis attract at least two populations:  Skiers who are pretty good, don't care to constantly adjust their COM to perturbations, and like to go fast (call them # I). And high intermediates to advanced who can't really bend a ski consistently or change their COM quickly enough to adjust, so they ride the radius and let the ski blast through anything that might perturb it (call them # II); if they get back on the tail it's off to the races, but OTOH, it'll also support them for a moment if they can recover. I've seen plenty of intermediates on Mantras, for instance, doing just that, over and over. Notice that I don't mention skier weight, because I think it's mostly irrelevant unless you're above the 90th percentile. Skier height, on the other hand, will be relevant insofar as a stiffer ski will demand some tip pressure if you want to make it do anything outside its innate radius, so stiffer skis may reward a better match to height than moderate flex skis. 

 

Conversely, I think light and moderate flex skis (won't call them soft because aren't many floppy noodles still around, and the term soft has a connotation that biases our thinking) also attract two populations: Intermediates to advanced who aren't technically proficient and don't like speed yet (Trekchick's citation, call them # III). And pretty good skiers who don't mind adjusting their COM to the ongoing pertubations, ski a bit less fast than the I's, and ski terrain where bending the ski, or more generally, having a light ski, is useful (call them # IV). Not sure where qcanoe's friend fits, but have a feeling he's a # IV, regardless of his size.

 

So you can imagine this as a high school graph, with Y= stiffness and X = skier skill set. Put stiffest to the top, and best skiers to the right. The top right and bottom right quadrants, then, are 

 

 

 

 

Now the glitch is that I think power vs finesse is a third axis, usually called Z. So you can have good power or bad power skiers on stiff or moderate skis, and so on. Here's a graph I just ripped off the web, calls its axes "Dimensions" but this should look familiar to anyone who's ever played with Powerpoint or Excel:

 

 

 

The Dimension 3 might correspond to Power to Finesse, Dimension 2 to Expert to Intermediate, and Dimension 1 to Stiff to Moderate Flex. Individual plots of course would be skiers, and obviously the axes still cross at "0," but the background now gives the increments as a visual convention. What's cool, of course, is that if we had real data, we could actually make such a graph, and see if skiers clustered. As many here know, you can do stuff with these clusters to better characterize them. For instance, don't think power and finesse are intrinsic categories as much as strategies, suspect a good enough skier can morph from one to the other depending on terrain. But the bottom line now that I've geeked out  is to suggest we might profit by expanding our thinking past "Good skiers Prefer Skis like 2x4's So They Won't Fold, and Bad Skiers Prefer Noodles That Forgive All." It may depend...

 

I have several half formed thoughts about your interesting post, and one that is maybe 3/4 formed. The 3/4 formed one has to do with how I imagine heavy skiers and light skiers, respectively, experience crud or other, um, "perturbations." Imagine a 120lb skier encountering a big pile of heavy glop that puts up 30 lbs of resistance. (I'm not a mechanical engineer, so just work with me on the concept for the moment and resist any urge to nitpick my language for quantifying physical phenomena.) How much deceleration is that skier going to experience, and therefore how much of a balance adjustment is he going to have to make? Now imagine a 240lb skier encountering the exact same pile of glop. Less deceleration and less adjustment. Right? Seems right intuitively to me, anyway, as someone who is much much closer to the 120lb end of things. Now imagine each of the skiers encountering the pile on a stiff ski and a soft ski, trying to factor out rocker and other design attributes. I'm thinking that the light skier, at least, is going to experience a less abrupt deceleration on the softer ski, and therefore a less challenging balance adjustment. Give that softer ski a bit more tip rocker, and the deceleration becomes even less abrupt, I would think. On the other hand, for the big guy, the stiff ski may help him just blow straight through the pile or crush it underfoot in a way that the smaller skier simply cannot do because of his lack of mass. This may actually be less disruptive to the larger skier's balance than dealing with the more deeply flexing ski and changes in vertical trajectory that the softer ski might introduce. It's the same reason I put 70psi in the fork on my MTB and my buddy puts 165 in his. Right? Not disputing what you're saying; just thinking out loud about why different skiers might choose different flexes.

^^^^ Not an engineer either, so... For a 3/4 developed thought, seems like a pretty creative analysis. Where I'd pick this up would be to add in the inertia of the ski - a heavier ski will take more force to actually displace enough for the skier to feel it - and speed, since we're talking about total force at impact, so a lighter skier going faster will get back some of the advantage a heavier skier going slower might have when hitting that glop. And all else equal, better skiers tend to ski faster. My 3D graph just picked up two more axes, now 5D and a PITA to visualize. Easy to handle in mathematical space, though. 

OTOH, my sense is that a lighter skier - all else being equal - will have faster reflexes anyway in the sense of being able to accelerate a smaller body part more quickly. (Don't know about actual neural circuits, doubt weight related.) Smaller skiers are also stronger, oz for oz, than larger skiers, something jockeys have known for centuries; surface area to volume relationships. So I think that the lighter, presumably smaller, skier will be able to react to ski deviations with more mechanical efficiently than the big guy. Which may be why "finesse" skiing has become a synonym for "lighter skier." Like skiing faster, this will cancel out some of the innate advantage a bigger mass will give. But probably not all; bigger guys will still be able to bash glop easier. Another axis then; reaction efficiency makes 6. 

But there are plenty of technical skiers around who are big guys; I'd assume they have high skill sets and are very efficient mechanically, to offset the extra force they need to move in response to jolts. If they don't want to deal with the extra force and constant adjustments, then they like a beefier ski. Just feels better. And there are plenty of power skiers around who are smaller. Although I'd guess that like Dawcatching, they have Thighs of Steel. But I'm sticking with the notion that "finesse" vs "power" is an invalid way of looking at it, since a good skier can and will do either. Or maybe the problem is definitional. "Power" has clear connections to physics (rates of energy used), but also a connotation of strength, ability to achieve some end, make something occur as you want. Clear connotation of "masculine," such that a powerful woman is noteworthy. "Finesse" is variously defined as "refined," "delicate," "skillful," "adroit," and I'd bet a typical connotation of "feminine."  Athough worth recalling that Stenmark was the archetypical finesse/technical skier, and he won more GS than SL, probably could have carried the heaviest skier on Epic around on his back without breaking a sweat.  

And this would go with my intermediate stiff ski idea. Regardless of their size, intermediates aren't going to have the mechanical efficiency or speed to do much with a stiff ski, but many like it because it tolerates mechanical inefficiency more than a moderate flex ski. The ski takes over a lot of the work. Unless they're just cautious enough that they want the ski to match their skill set. There's something here about turning that SJ alluded to, but can't quite nail it down; maybe it revolves around whether intermediates want to actually create a turn or just point and hang on. Also, I've read discussions over at TGR about a version of this, which is that guys who haul and take lots of air want a beefy long ski to allow them to make terrain induced mistakes with their COM and recover. Assume they're far above intermediate, but still have to deal with constantly being out of position.

Anyway, it'd be fun to have some real data to crunch. Maybe I should collect some here? I'm thinking weight, height, leg length, typical skiing speed (good luck on a valid number there), model of ski, ski length, ability level (another interesting self report), style of skiing (ditto, would ban "aggressive" from the choices), and incidence of various terrains (which are nearly incomparable from some regions to others anyway). Sigh. Maybe our various sellers could require a questionnaire from each skier while they're waiting for the credit card to clear. 

Interesting questions. Also thinking about how the TST is a 5 point design back to the boot, then traditional. So it'll be more of a  "fun ski," which to me means less force to change direction rapidly in 3D terrain partly because of the shape in both dimensions, rather than the stiffness. In fact, I'd assume that most rockered skis, regardless of sidecut/shape, are stiffer then a non-rockered. They ski softer but aren't. 

TST is my fav ski pick for the year.  It's like the ARV and the JJ had a baby 

So this is the new "I sure hope it snows soon" thread. Wondered where it was hiding.

Ooh. I like this one. From now on when my friends rag on me for something I'm just going to tell them that "I'm a finesse skier" and that therefore "you just wouldn't understand." 

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond 

Anyway, it'd be fun to have some real data to crunch. Maybe I should collect some here? I'm thinking weight, height, leg length, typical skiing speed (good luck on a valid number there), model of ski, ski length, ability level (another interesting self report), style of skiing (ditto, would ban "aggressive" from the choices), and incidence of various terrains (which are nearly incomparable from some regions to others anyway). Sigh. Maybe our various sellers could require a questionnaire from each skier while they're waiting for the credit card to clear. 

I really liked something that molson posted in a separate thread about powder skis. He tries to talk about aligning ski models with people based on whether they use relatively low edge angles, vs. people who prefer a higher angle and waiting for the ski to come across the fall line a bit more before the transition. This lines up with my experience. My big friend on the TSTs is very much a low edge angle guy. He kind of freight trains along at mach 3 without ever getting his ski tips more than about 20 degrees left or right of "straight down", and handles the numerous consequences with far more quiet aplomb than I would ever be able to muster at those velocities. He's kind of a "James Bond" skier. I think that this style is why the TST works for him despite its deep sidecut and moderate flex. He's just not using most of that sidecut most of the time. Because he tends to keep the skis pretty flat, the effective "turniness factor" is lower. With the minimal amount of tipping he does, a ski with a long radius probably tends to be too much of a straight-liner.

I'm closer to the other extreme, and aspire to the carvier Bob Barnes "ski the slow line fast" approach, even in softer snow when I can manage it (i.e., sometimes in the bumps, seldom in tight trees, but pretty consistently elsewhere). For this reason, I really liked the rocker, deep sidecut, and manageable stiffness on the TST on the day I tried it last spring. (We'll see if that first impression holds up.) It allowed me to just dive into a deep arc more or less effortlessly at will, without necessarily having to have a lot of speed (i.e., force) built up. For me, skis that are too stiff or too straight only turn well when I'm going a buck ten on hard snow ... snow that pushes back hard. That's fine on race night when no other skiers are within fifty meters of me and the surface is like a ping-pong ball, but it just does not work out well at all in tighter quarters or on more variable terrain and surfaces.

Alright, so I've been reading about this ski a lot over the past few weeks and I think I'll definitely pick up a pair. I'm also having a slight issue with length, I know which size I think I should go with (183) but I wanted to get your input first.

Heres the info: 6', 165lbs, aggressive skier, would be using them for trips to Utah, Montana, Wyoming, etc.

The only reason I'm second guessing myself is because I do quite a bit of tree skiing as well as moguls in all types of snow. Are the 183s still nimble enough to work through tight trees and moguls easily? Or should I go with the shorter 174?

Quote:

Originally Posted by yoursham 

Alright, so I've been reading about this ski a lot over the past few weeks and I think I'll definitely pick up a pair. I'm also having a slight issue with length, I know which size I think I should go with (183) but I wanted to get your input first.

 

Heres the info: 6', 165lbs, aggressive skier, would be using them for trips to Utah, Montana, Wyoming, etc.

 

The only reason I'm second guessing myself is because I do quite a bit of tree skiing as well as moguls in all types of snow. Are the 183s still nimble enough to work through tight trees and moguls easily? Or should I go with the shorter 174?

Read the very first post in this thread. My gut says that you should stick with the 183 and that the 174 will be too short. These things have a lot of tip rocker, a lot of sidecut, and a short contact length. I'm on the 174 (based on having skied the 165 and found that length too short), am significantly smaller than you, and I'm in the east where runs are narrow and trees are tight. General consensus is that this ski "skis short."

interesting comments and observation Jim and they make sense. No graph needed. something about graphs and skiing that just seems to kill my buzz. Now if it gets those voices inside my head to stop I may reconsider. 

how does the amount of splay play into that concept? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SierraJim 

So......an interesting thing about aggressive skiers that we hear so much about. Marshal and I talked about this briefly in that other thread that was mentioned and how it relates to different styles of powder skiing for example. There are a fair number of skiers that lean on the tongue of the boot and sort of camp out there and just ride the skis around. In powder they'd be "pushers". Then there are those that tend to use the lateral aspect of the boot via building bigger angles. In powder, they are more the "slicer" type. Interestingly, both can be thought of as aggressive skiers but the guy that pushes the snow around will probably like a stiffer ski than the guy that slices the snow even though the slicer might be a better or at least more technically accomplished skier.

 

Gotta figger out a graph for this.........................

 

SJ

This is a minor gem, this is. We may have actually moved past aggressive = fast right here. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond 

This is a minor gem, this is. We may have actually moved past aggressive = fast right here. 

speed is just one factor of "aggro" for sure but I never viewed aggro as = expert.  Hmm, maybe you just hit on a new thread since there's no snow..  "what's aggro" ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finndog 
"what's aggro" ?

Technically, it's planting seeds with a lot of force.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond 

 

Technically, it's planting seeds with a lot of force.  

I used that term in a tongue and cheek manner . it's an over-used and one of the least descriptive term in skiing.  I think your description may have finally nailed it.  

perfect signature phrase!  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finndog 

 

speed is just one factor of "aggro" for sure but I never viewed aggro as = expert.  Hmm, maybe you just hit on a new thread since there's no snow..  "what's aggro" ?

<drift>

Some of us use "aggressive" to mean "not passive." They're talking about skiing that features vision* and energy and intention and drive and athleticism - basically all good skiing (as opposed to riding on skis and getting by with fundamentally defensive tactics). "Dynamic" might be a better antonym for "passive" in this case.

I think others use "aggressive" when they are trying to refer to skiers or skiing styles that put strength, speed, and force on display. Obviously you can be aggressive in this sense and be a fabulous skier. You can also ski with these attributes and still not be skiing dynamically as I define it above, because your vision and intention aren't sufficiently developed - you're still skiing re-actively, not pro-actively; you're just doing it with a lot of grunting and sweat. And of course all good skiers are aggressive in some moments and conditions (e.g., in the course, or in yucky crud) and not in others (e.g., on an easy soft bump run where every turn might be an exercise in subtlety).

* By "vision" here I mean not literally eyesight, but rather specific visual and kinetic ideas about what you want your skiing to look and feel like.

</drift>