New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Armada TST Sizing Help

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 

I'm buying new skis soon and decided to go with the TSTs, but I'm not sure whether I should go for the 174 or 183 as I know they ski short due to the early rise tip and that they are a light weight ski.

 

I'm 5'5" and 130lbs (looking to be closer to 150 next season)

 

I'm a pretty aggressive skier and like to mostly ski groomers, powder if its there, do some trees, and hit medium sized kickers

 

Thanks!

post #2 of 15
174
post #3 of 15

I'm also planning on buying TSTs and have the same dillema, 174 or 183?  

 

Advanced level, 5'7'' 155lbs, will ski most in mixed conditions.

 

Any changes at the '13 model except graphics? 

 

Thanks!!

post #4 of 15

I had a chance to demo this ski last year.  Great ski.  With all of its rocker, I definitely would go longer.   It skis much shorter than its size. 

post #5 of 15

Pretty sure this has been addressed if you searched the other TST threads, but the 175 is 5'8.5" long. The 183, which I have, is 6' long. If you look at the actual running length that makes contact with firm snow conditions, the 183 is like a 165 ski. It has a very short running length due to the tip rocker, so they are very easy to ski, period. I prefer using them in soft snow conditions where more of the ski is making contact with the snow. I am 5'10" and wish I had purchased the 192 for a bit more stability on firm snow at speed. The 192 is 7" taller than me, but due to the tip rocker, likely skis like a 175ish ski on firm snow and is way more fun in pow due to the extra length. Just my 2 cents. So to the OP, if you ski pretty good, the 183 would be great on a powder day, but the 174 could work too. Skiks, go 183 for sure.

post #6 of 15

My only concern is that my current skis are 1.60 (slalom skis, 68mm underfoot) and jumping to much wider 1.83 skis will make a massive difference. I'll demo tomorrow last year's TSTs in 1.83, as far as I know there are no differences with this year's model (which I'm interested in purchasing). If I get the feeling of the ski, since tomorrow it's my first skiing day after ACL reconstruction, I'll post my impressions..

post #7 of 15

^^^^^I will be interested to hear your opinion on the TST coming from a 160 cm length ski.  Honestly, the running length on the 183 isn't that much longer and you did say you were an advanced skier, which on a 160cm ski means your seriously under gunned for your build IMO.  Have fun.
 

post #8 of 15

I am 6' (183cm) tall and 160 lbs and recently picked up some TSTs.  I would say its not a cut and dried choice on what length to get.  I tried both the 183 and 192.  The 183s turn lightning-fast and smoke in tight trees. The 192s clearly edge better on pack and are more stable at high speeds.  They also obviously give more float in powder and crud.  At my weight I find I have to get the 192s more on-edge to get a good turn out of them, and in general they more reward high-speed aggressive skiing at my weight.  So I would say go longer if you are heavier or more aggressive, and shorter if you are lighter and not as aggressive.  I would not get a length appreciably shorter than your height, whatever your weight is - there is much less contact edge and at shorter lengths they get unstable.

 

The choice is not a minor one, the skiis character is quite a bit different at the different lengths.  I ended up getting the 192s but if they made 188s I probably would have gotten that length.  I would strongly recommend trying multiple lengths before purchasing.

 

Scott

post #9 of 15

  I had the chance to try TSTs in 183, unfortunately only for one run. To be honest I was a bit prejudiced that the size was big for me, but as soon as I got the skis under my feet and saw the tip rocker I realized that 174 would be short. The ski's weight surprised me, 183 TSTs are definitely lighter than my 160 slalom skis! 

 

  Snow conditions were chopped snow on and off the groomers, the ski's main feeling was CONFIDENCE everywhere. The stop and go feeling over the chopped snow vanished, everything felt sweet and smooth inspiring confidence to explore the whole mountain and focus on skiing technique. The tips were a bit ''chattery'' on higher speeds but nothing to worry about. OTOH these skis require a bit more effort to go from one side to the other in comparison with narrow- waist skis on hardpack, but for 102mm underfoot I think it was very easy.

  

  Still haven't had the chance to try the 174 but finally I agree with your recommendations that 183 is better suited for someone like me. I' ll also ask for the dealer's opinion but I think I found my skis. 

post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2 ski View Post

^^^^^I will be interested to hear your opinion on the TST coming from a 160 cm length ski.  Honestly, the running length on the 183 isn't that much longer and you did say you were an advanced skier, which on a 160cm ski means your seriously under gunned for your build IMO.  Have fun.
 

 You are right but I used to be 145 lbs, intermediate..

post #11 of 15

I just bought a pair of TSTs and had difficulty in deciding whether to go with 174 or 183. Before I made my purchase I went to the local Armada dealer to demo some, but they were sold out. In its place I tried a pair of 179 Norwalks, which is basically the same ski but 115 underfoot. I am fairly agressive, 5'9' tall, and about 160lbs. I loved the Norwalks in the glades and groomers, but in the bumps, especially a bit more aggressive found them a little too long for me. I therefore decided to buy the TSTs in a 175 length. I skied on them this last weekend in all conditions and found them to be an excellent choice. I loved them in the bumps for their shorter length and felt that they handled the groomers very well even when the snow began to set up and get crusty in the middle with sections of hard pack. In the trees they floated over the power and cut through the crud extermely well. I had also tried the Line 90 and Intuition along with the Rossignol Experience 88 and loved the TST for its lively, but forgiving feel. Very happy with my choice.

post #12 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2 ski View Post

you did say you were an advanced skier, which on a 160cm ski means your seriously under gunned for your build IMO.  Have fun.

 

Disagree, if you're talking about an actual slalom ski.
post #13 of 15

I am debating the same as well. The Armada TST 174 or 183. I am 5'9" 165-170 and would classify myself as mildly aggressive skier and done growing unfortunately. I really only find myself searching for good snow through the trees so would like to whip them around but also love finding an open powder stash as well. I have not had a chance to demo however. I am leaning towards the 183 but can get a good deal on the 174. Thanks

post #14 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtbigger View Post

I am debating the same as well. The Armada TST 174 or 183. I am 5'9" 165-170 and would classify myself as mildly aggressive skier and done growing unfortunately. I really only find myself searching for good snow through the trees so would like to whip them around but also love finding an open powder stash as well. I have not had a chance to demo however. I am leaning towards the 183 but can get a good deal on the 174. Thanks

 

If I were your size, and not knowing a whole lot about your skiing or locale, I too would lean towards the 183. I am 5' 7", 135 lbs., skiing the 174. It is none too big for me, and occasionally even feels a bit small, given the short running length. Pretty much every experienced person who has tried this ski agrees that it "skis short." Ideally you'd want to demo both sizes to be sure. The 174 would feel VERY quick for you, but - on the down side - a bit twitchy at speed.

post #15 of 15

I am 5'7, 175 and bought the TST in 174 for my soft snow ski on the east.  I should probably have gone longer as it can feel a little twitchy BUT it does pivot and feel quite quick which was what I was looking for at the time. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion