You guys truly provide something not found anywhere else on TH-cam. Thank you for all your hard work in providing such detailed info! You're the best! What are the notable differences between the Declivity 92 ti and the Stance 90 (previous and new model with update for 24)?
Thanks! They're pretty similar, especially now that Salomon has adopted some of Armada's Articulated Titanal banding in the forebody of the ski. This makes the Stance a bit livelier and more energetic when it comes to carving on firmer snow while keeping the weight down a bit to boost accessibility and friendliness. I'd rather ski the new 90 when it comes to bumps and trees--anywhere off-piste really, as it is quicker and more agile. The Declivity remains a rock-solid performer when it comes to on-trail carving with a wider bodied format.
Jeff your carving performace is really improving. You're on your way to getting a golden ginsu award 🎉. Its really fun to watch. I demod these skis last year against my enforcer 88 and mantra m5. I liked the 92ti much better than the m5. I feel like the enforcers are better when the snow is bad. I ended up buying the 82 ti to complement the quiver. The 92 ti are AWESOME.
@@SkiEssentials I know. I'm not an early adopter and wasn't interested in 21. What does armada know about ripping and carving? I'm so glad I opened my mind. Probably influenced by your channel.
Jeff, I got myself to Declivity 82TI last year and I couldn't be any happier with them on the groomers and the occasional crud. I'm skiing in the PNW and do encounter deeper snow quite a bit. The 82TIs have give me more confidence in the deeper, softer stuff than others before, but I am curious how much I would loose over the 82TIs by going with the 92TIs. Or, would I?
Not a huge loss of carving properties. Nor a huge gain in soft snow. For a 92, the Declivity still doesn't have a whole lot of rocker/float, keeping it still more in the turny side of a lot of skis in this width. It's more of a "meet in the middle" kind of thing if you go up to the 92, especially if you plan on keeping the 82. If you are keeping the 82 and want something in the 92ish range, you could go more versatile with a ski like the Salomon QST 92 or the Line Blade Optic 92.
Thanks! Very fun skis! We use an Armada branded demo binding when we're testing, but we pair them with Marker Griffon bindings on our site. www.skiessentials.com/products/2024-armada-declivity-92-ti-skis-w-marker-griffon?ski%2520size=180
Hei Jeff! Thanks, again, for another great review! I’m an advanced skier 1,95m high, 100kg. I’m in the market for a mid 90mm ski that is is a good carver but, at the same time good cruising all over the mountain. I love to carve, but I go off piste every chance I get. Do you think that this ski is “skier weight sensitive”? I narrowed my list to the Declivity 92ti, Kore 93, Ripstick 96 Black Edition and the Maverick 95ti. I’m with Bob, turning into the geriatric spectrum of sling, lol, so I’m looking for lighter skis Could you help me? Normally go sling in Chile (steep, open bowls, Europe style runs), Europe Alps and Midwest, USA.
I wouldn't necessarily classify it as weight sensitive. A sheet of metal goes a long way in making it stable and smooth for a variety of skier sizes. I'd say the Kore and Ripstick are more weight sensitive than the Declivity or the Maverick. Matt who skis with us is 6/2 200 and loves this thing in carving, cruising, and all-mountain terrain.
Love the content you and your team put out. Trying to decide between these and the Ripstick black addition. What are your thoughts.? Also sizing wise I am 6ft 170 ish. How long of a ski should I order from you?
Thanks! I think if you're looking for something that's more versatile and pliable, the Elan is the way to go. The Declivity can be versatile, but it requires more effort to get it there. On-trail, the Armada is about as smooth and quiet as it gets with excellent grip and a consistent flex from tip to tail. The Elan is slightly more flexible in the shovel, so it does take a bit away from the top end that the Armada possesses, especially on firmer snow and in a carved turn. That said, in anything soft or technical, I like the Elan a whole lot. I'd go 180 in either ski.
Awesome review - like the format and detail. How does this compare with the Stance 90? I like to set down some good turns on the east side of the continent. 5'11, 185lbs - 172cm or 180cm length?
Declivity has more of a kick. New Stance is somewhat easier to ski than old Stance, which I'd put more on par with the Declivity. Now there's more of a difference, with the Stance being more approachable and versatile while the Declivity is stiffer, burlier, and a very strong turning ski for Eastern US skiing. I'd go 172 in that ski since they're pretty stable by nature--no need to size up to access performance. Have fun!
Heavy praise there! Graphics are subjective - at first I wasn't a fan of how they went to these super dull colours compared to having that bit of colour pop from previous seasons, but it's growing on me. I've got my mind set on these, Rustler 9, or the Elan Ripstick 96 Black edition... How do they compare? I'm on the west coast have have Animas for anything deeper than 4 or 5 inches. These will be for rocking the groomers with my kids and occasional tree runs. I've been skiing for a bunch of years so I know what I'm doing... I guess I'm just looking for the answer on if the Elans will rip through chunder? Are the Armadas as "fun" as the Rustler 9? As someone who has access to everything... and you could only have one... Thanks!
The Elan will go through chunder. It will not rip through it like a Bonafide or Mantra, but it's pretty darn good for its weight--just the shovel is on the softer side is all. Armada is considerably more business-like than the Rustler 9, which is about as fun as it gets, especially if you consider skis that fall on the "round" side of the spectrum to be fun, like me. I'd say the Elan is an excellent mix of the three--fun enough to be satisfying, but high-end enough to warrant some serious performance. I'd take the Elan, but the Rustler isn't far behind.
Great review and 💯 the reason I bought my Declivity 92s. Best decision I ever made, they can do it all: they rip, make great turns, fast but can surf too. If you’re a “fun/surfy” skier, this ski is great. And it’s fun chasing the kids too!
I have a pair on Armada ARV 96s. I don’t ski park at all, but I do like the way the ARVs are nimble in trees and bumps as I ski mainly at Sugarbush and Mad River Glen. The issue I have with the ARVs is that carving and hard pack, especially at speed doesn’t feel great. I think I’m going to pick up a pair of these, but how much will I loose on nimbleness in the bumps and trees in comparison? Any other suggestions? Thank you
I'd say you'll lose about 18% nimbleness in the bumps and trees. Stiffer tails of the Declivity make it just that much harder to release the turn, but you're getting a similar boost in on-trail performance, so perhaps that's worth the trade to you? Salomon QST 92 is a nice mix of the models, and also check out the Fischer Ranger 96. Have fun!
Factory recommended mount point or slightly forward? I’m used to riding twin tips at center or -2.5. Just visually looking at the mount point on this it looks soooo far back. Excited to try something new either way.
We tend to trust the engineers when it comes to directional skis like these. You may feel that there's a lot of shovel, but that's the point in a smooth carved turn. I also don't think a +1 would hurt the ski at all!
Thank you for a great review Jeff! I'm 5' 9" (175cm), 135lb, and want to get a good all mountain skis which is good for bumps, crud, choppy snow condition and maybe some jumps. I'm narrowing down my list to Declivity 92 ti & K2 MindBender 89 ti (I've demoed QST, doesn't like the feel it carves), which one you feel might be a better choice for me? From the spec it seems Declivity is a better carver and Mindbender is more versatile and nimble? also what size will be a better fit for me? I feel it ok when demo-ing K2 170cm, but for Declivity 172cm might be too long for me (With the same length, Declivity has longer sidecut length then K2)? Thanks in advance!
Overall, I feel we've had more positive experiences on the Declivity--it's smooth, energetic, and quite nimble for how powerful it can be. The K2 has nice energy out of the turn, but I don't find that it's a better pure carver than the Armada, nor is it as versatile. I think the 172 will be fine. Have fun!
Could you comment on how this ski will differ from the Enforcer 100 (185 length)? Ive skied the Enforcer for the last 4 years. Im 63 years old but am an aggressive skier. Ski Vermont all year and want 1 ski solution that can handle it all but maybe be alittle "easier" (lighter, softer possibly) than the Enforcer. I so appreciate your thoughts!!
The Declivity will answer this call in terms of being lighter and slightly more flexible than the Enforcer 100. As good as the Nordica carves, the Armada is a surprising contender. You're moving down in width as well, so the torsional stiffness underfoot gets a boost. The Declivity is a bit better of an all-arounder for here in Vermont as the Enforcer does function slightly better in softer and more mixed conditions. For groomers, bumps, light trees, and adventure, the lighter Armada makes good sense as a transition to the "easier" side of the spectrum without giving up too much off the top.
I have been skiing for years on some old Scott crusades also with a 92 waist. I'm really thinking of upgrading to these, spend most of my time on piste but I do like to venture off. Im 6,2 but ski the crusades at 179 and love the idea of a slightly smaller ski for playfulness. Would these suit me in the 180 length? And does anyone know how they might compare to the Scott crusades of old?
I'd say the 180 is the way to go. I can't speak to a Crusade comparison, but the Armada has an excellent blend of energy and stability. They turn great on groomers but are also relatively easy to use off-piste.
As much as I'm impressed with the versatile nature of the Blade Optic 92, I'm choosing the Declivity due to the added power and stability. Since I spend most of my time on groomed terrain, the Declivity is the smarter play here.
This list gets progressively more playful in this way: Declivty, QST, Captis. As such, the Armada is considerably more attuned to ripping turns on groomers first and foremost while the Captis is the most creative and freestyle oriented. QST, as per usual, finds itself smack in the middle with almost equal attributes on both ends of the spectrum.
The Declivity has more energy, grip, and consistency from tip to tail. The Ranger has pretty light and flexible tips and tails and that helps with initiation and softer snow, but for reactivity and precision, it's not quite where the Declivity is. In an on-trail format, I'd take the Armada any day. Of-trail, the Rangers are mobile, but that's about it.
The 88C is a very stiff and light ski that makes snappy and quick turns with tons of energy. The Declivity, with the metal laminate, is smoother and quieter. It's more stable at speed and in longer turns. If you are looking for a higher end product with power to spare, the 92 Ti is the way to go. For less effort but a lot of pep, the 88 C is one of my favorites.
You guys truly provide something not found anywhere else on TH-cam. Thank you for all your hard work in providing such detailed info! You're the best! What are the notable differences between the Declivity 92 ti and the Stance 90 (previous and new model with update for 24)?
Thanks! They're pretty similar, especially now that Salomon has adopted some of Armada's Articulated Titanal banding in the forebody of the ski. This makes the Stance a bit livelier and more energetic when it comes to carving on firmer snow while keeping the weight down a bit to boost accessibility and friendliness. I'd rather ski the new 90 when it comes to bumps and trees--anywhere off-piste really, as it is quicker and more agile. The Declivity remains a rock-solid performer when it comes to on-trail carving with a wider bodied format.
Thank you so much! I really appreciate all you do!
@@SkiEssentials
How does the Stance 90 compare to the Rustler 9? @@SkiEssentials
Jeff your carving performace is really improving. You're on your way to getting a golden ginsu award 🎉. Its really fun to watch. I demod these skis last year against my enforcer 88 and mantra m5. I liked the 92ti much better than the m5. I feel like the enforcers are better when the snow is bad. I ended up buying the 82 ti to complement the quiver. The 92 ti are AWESOME.
Thanks! Declivity series is surprising a lot of people with their composed and energetic feel. Very quiet and smooth!
@@SkiEssentials I know. I'm not an early adopter and wasn't interested in 21. What does armada know about ripping and carving? I'm so glad I opened my mind. Probably influenced by your channel.
Jeff, I got myself to Declivity 82TI last year and I couldn't be any happier with them on the groomers and the occasional crud. I'm skiing in the PNW and do encounter deeper snow quite a bit. The 82TIs have give me more confidence in the deeper, softer stuff than others before, but I am curious how much I would loose over the 82TIs by going with the 92TIs. Or, would I?
Not a huge loss of carving properties. Nor a huge gain in soft snow. For a 92, the Declivity still doesn't have a whole lot of rocker/float, keeping it still more in the turny side of a lot of skis in this width. It's more of a "meet in the middle" kind of thing if you go up to the 92, especially if you plan on keeping the 82. If you are keeping the 82 and want something in the 92ish range, you could go more versatile with a ski like the Salomon QST 92 or the Line Blade Optic 92.
Jeff, thank you for highly detailed review, especially regarding construction/weight and associted feel. What bindings were you using or recommend?
Thanks! Very fun skis! We use an Armada branded demo binding when we're testing, but we pair them with Marker Griffon bindings on our site. www.skiessentials.com/products/2024-armada-declivity-92-ti-skis-w-marker-griffon?ski%2520size=180
❤👍
Hei Jeff! Thanks, again, for another great review! I’m an advanced skier 1,95m high, 100kg. I’m in the market for a mid 90mm ski that is is a good carver but, at the same time good cruising all over the mountain. I love to carve, but I go off piste every chance I get. Do you think that this ski is “skier weight sensitive”? I narrowed my list to the Declivity 92ti, Kore 93, Ripstick 96 Black Edition and the Maverick 95ti. I’m with Bob, turning into the geriatric spectrum of sling, lol, so I’m looking for lighter skis Could you help me? Normally go sling in Chile (steep, open bowls, Europe style runs), Europe Alps and Midwest, USA.
I wouldn't necessarily classify it as weight sensitive. A sheet of metal goes a long way in making it stable and smooth for a variety of skier sizes. I'd say the Kore and Ripstick are more weight sensitive than the Declivity or the Maverick. Matt who skis with us is 6/2 200 and loves this thing in carving, cruising, and all-mountain terrain.
Love the content you and your team put out. Trying to decide between these and the Ripstick black addition. What are your thoughts.? Also sizing wise I am 6ft 170 ish. How long of a ski should I order from you?
Thanks!
I think if you're looking for something that's more versatile and pliable, the Elan is the way to go. The Declivity can be versatile, but it requires more effort to get it there. On-trail, the Armada is about as smooth and quiet as it gets with excellent grip and a consistent flex from tip to tail. The Elan is slightly more flexible in the shovel, so it does take a bit away from the top end that the Armada possesses, especially on firmer snow and in a carved turn. That said, in anything soft or technical, I like the Elan a whole lot. I'd go 180 in either ski.
Awesome review - like the format and detail.
How does this compare with the Stance 90? I like to set down some good turns on the east side of the continent. 5'11, 185lbs - 172cm or 180cm length?
Declivity has more of a kick. New Stance is somewhat easier to ski than old Stance, which I'd put more on par with the Declivity. Now there's more of a difference, with the Stance being more approachable and versatile while the Declivity is stiffer, burlier, and a very strong turning ski for Eastern US skiing. I'd go 172 in that ski since they're pretty stable by nature--no need to size up to access performance. Have fun!
Heavy praise there! Graphics are subjective - at first I wasn't a fan of how they went to these super dull colours compared to having that bit of colour pop from previous seasons, but it's growing on me. I've got my mind set on these, Rustler 9, or the Elan Ripstick 96 Black edition... How do they compare? I'm on the west coast have have Animas for anything deeper than 4 or 5 inches. These will be for rocking the groomers with my kids and occasional tree runs. I've been skiing for a bunch of years so I know what I'm doing... I guess I'm just looking for the answer on if the Elans will rip through chunder? Are the Armadas as "fun" as the Rustler 9? As someone who has access to everything... and you could only have one... Thanks!
The Elan will go through chunder. It will not rip through it like a Bonafide or Mantra, but it's pretty darn good for its weight--just the shovel is on the softer side is all. Armada is considerably more business-like than the Rustler 9, which is about as fun as it gets, especially if you consider skis that fall on the "round" side of the spectrum to be fun, like me. I'd say the Elan is an excellent mix of the three--fun enough to be satisfying, but high-end enough to warrant some serious performance. I'd take the Elan, but the Rustler isn't far behind.
Awesome, thanks for the quick reply. @@SkiEssentials
Great review and 💯 the reason I bought my Declivity 92s. Best decision I ever made, they can do it all: they rip, make great turns, fast but can surf too. If you’re a “fun/surfy” skier, this ski is great. And it’s fun chasing the kids too!
I have a pair on Armada ARV 96s. I don’t ski park at all, but I do like the way the ARVs are nimble in trees and bumps as I ski mainly at Sugarbush and Mad River Glen. The issue I have with the ARVs is that carving and hard pack, especially at speed doesn’t feel great. I think I’m going to pick up a pair of these, but how much will I loose on nimbleness in the bumps and trees in comparison? Any other suggestions? Thank you
I'd say you'll lose about 18% nimbleness in the bumps and trees. Stiffer tails of the Declivity make it just that much harder to release the turn, but you're getting a similar boost in on-trail performance, so perhaps that's worth the trade to you? Salomon QST 92 is a nice mix of the models, and also check out the Fischer Ranger 96. Have fun!
Would it be ok to mount these +2 or +3? I am more used to skis like the enforcer that are -8 ish. The declivity 92s are close to -11. Thank you!
I think 3 is pushing it but the 2 might be fun!
Factory recommended mount point or slightly forward? I’m used to riding twin tips at center or -2.5. Just visually looking at the mount point on this it looks soooo far back. Excited to try something new either way.
We tend to trust the engineers when it comes to directional skis like these. You may feel that there's a lot of shovel, but that's the point in a smooth carved turn. I also don't think a +1 would hurt the ski at all!
Thank you for a great review Jeff! I'm 5' 9" (175cm), 135lb, and want to get a good all mountain skis which is good for bumps, crud, choppy snow condition and maybe some jumps. I'm narrowing down my list to Declivity 92 ti & K2 MindBender 89 ti (I've demoed QST, doesn't like the feel it carves), which one you feel might be a better choice for me?
From the spec it seems Declivity is a better carver and Mindbender is more versatile and nimble? also what size will be a better fit for me? I feel it ok when demo-ing K2 170cm, but for Declivity 172cm might be too long for me (With the same length, Declivity has longer sidecut length then K2)? Thanks in advance!
Overall, I feel we've had more positive experiences on the Declivity--it's smooth, energetic, and quite nimble for how powerful it can be. The K2 has nice energy out of the turn, but I don't find that it's a better pure carver than the Armada, nor is it as versatile. I think the 172 will be fine. Have fun!
Could you comment on how this ski will differ from the Enforcer 100 (185 length)? Ive skied the Enforcer for the last 4 years. Im 63 years old but am an aggressive skier. Ski Vermont all year and want 1 ski solution that can handle it all but maybe be alittle "easier" (lighter, softer possibly) than the Enforcer. I so appreciate your thoughts!!
The Declivity will answer this call in terms of being lighter and slightly more flexible than the Enforcer 100. As good as the Nordica carves, the Armada is a surprising contender. You're moving down in width as well, so the torsional stiffness underfoot gets a boost. The Declivity is a bit better of an all-arounder for here in Vermont as the Enforcer does function slightly better in softer and more mixed conditions. For groomers, bumps, light trees, and adventure, the lighter Armada makes good sense as a transition to the "easier" side of the spectrum without giving up too much off the top.
I have been skiing for years on some old Scott crusades also with a 92 waist. I'm really thinking of upgrading to these, spend most of my time on piste but I do like to venture off. Im 6,2 but ski the crusades at 179 and love the idea of a slightly smaller ski for playfulness. Would these suit me in the 180 length? And does anyone know how they might compare to the Scott crusades of old?
I'd say the 180 is the way to go. I can't speak to a Crusade comparison, but the Armada has an excellent blend of energy and stability. They turn great on groomers but are also relatively easy to use off-piste.
6 foot tall, could i get away with a 172 in these? Great vid
Yes, especially if you're not looking to prioritize stability at speed.
Line blade optic 92 or the declivity 92ti and why
?
As much as I'm impressed with the versatile nature of the Blade Optic 92, I'm choosing the Declivity due to the added power and stability. Since I spend most of my time on groomed terrain, the Declivity is the smarter play here.
How would you compare it to the Captis and the qst 92?
This list gets progressively more playful in this way: Declivty, QST, Captis. As such, the Armada is considerably more attuned to ripping turns on groomers first and foremost while the Captis is the most creative and freestyle oriented. QST, as per usual, finds itself smack in the middle with almost equal attributes on both ends of the spectrum.
How does the Declivity compare to a Fischer Ranger 90?
The Declivity has more energy, grip, and consistency from tip to tail. The Ranger has pretty light and flexible tips and tails and that helps with initiation and softer snow, but for reactivity and precision, it's not quite where the Declivity is. In an on-trail format, I'd take the Armada any day. Of-trail, the Rangers are mobile, but that's about it.
Sounds like the Declivity will be my next Ski. Thanks a lot!
How do these compare to the Declivity 88c?
The 88C is a very stiff and light ski that makes snappy and quick turns with tons of energy. The Declivity, with the metal laminate, is smoother and quieter. It's more stable at speed and in longer turns. If you are looking for a higher end product with power to spare, the 92 Ti is the way to go. For less effort but a lot of pep, the 88 C is one of my favorites.