Armada ANT or Line Sir Francis Bacon

mmckechnie

mmckechnie

Active member
Warning: Great Wall of Text Ahead

OK, to start off I know this appears to be an odd ski comparison and it is.

So basically my Armada Pipe Cleaners broke and I was going to replace them with either AR6s, Alpha 2s, Alpha 1s, Pipe Cleaners, or ARVs. Then I remembered I have a pair of 06/07 Rossignol Scratch FS WRS with around 40 days of groomer, pow, and tree use on them. I didn't ski park much back when I had those so they didn't hit any rails or boxes with them and seldom hit jumps or hips with them. Thus, I figure if the only touched groomers, pow and trees for 40 days they should have tons of use left in them. I decided I would mount those up and use them as my park, pipe, ice, sketchy early and late season conditions, and rock skis.

I still have some money saved up and wanted to expand my quiver even when I had my Pipe Cleaners. Lots of skis are on sale now that its spring so I figure now is a good a time as any to pick up something to complement a narrow (84mm) park ski. I narrowed it down to 2 skis I have always wanted to own, the ANTs and the Bacons. I know these are 2 completely different skis, but both would be a good addition to the quiver. I'd like to have both a big mountain charger and a fat playful jibber in my quiver, so the question is which do I get first?

I'm really on the fence 50-50 right now. I could go either way. I think either way I'll be happy. Just want something fatter to go with your standard park ski. Either one should be fun to ski and definitely a change of pace from narrow park skis. Each should also handle all softer snow better too.

I'm 5'10" and weigh 180 lbs but am losing weight right now. Could be down to 150 or 160 by next winter. Already lost 20 lbs since September. Am a good skier but by no means am I the best. I'm no EP or Candide or Tanner Hall. Level 3 by shop terms. Can do all trails at my home mountain. I ski the east but hit up places like Tucks and Mt Mansfield in terms of back/side country terrain and ski places like Jay, Stowe, Whiteface, and Gore for inbounds stuff. I get out west whenever I can.

I've made a pros and cons list for each:

ANTs:

Pros:

-Similar flex patterning as Pipe Cleaners. Soft nose or playfulness, medium underfoot, stiff tail for stomping big heavy landings and powering through turns.

-Stomps drops and heavy landings.

-Can go fast comfortably.

-Stiff as a whole. Great damp feel for soaking up imperfections in the snow. Blasts through heavy or wet pow, rain, sun, and wind crusts, wind pack, wind slab, crud, chopped up or tracked out pow, corn snow, slush. Stiff flex and traditional sidecut and camber lend itself to handling well in hardpack and ice.

-Fast but durable base. 50/50 Armada base. Faster than S7 but more durable then Comp.

-Great graphics. I like them. Also the black base with red Armada logos and Armada looks sick.

-133-107-123 dimensions. Wide enough to float in the pow and a 26m turn radius for fast long gs/super g turns.

-Sidewall construction.

-Lightweight full wood core.

-1.7mm edges are lightweight.

-Great Armada reputation and durability.

-Cheaper of the 2 at roughly $420.

Cons:

-Stiffer as a whole makes it less playful. Less jibby, less "use the whole mountain as one big terrain park"

-26m turn radius will probably turn quick short turns into sloppy skidded turns.

-Not as wide as the SFB so maybe slightly less pow performance.

-Could be really burly and cumbersome around 2pm when my quads are burning and I just want an easy ski to ski.

-Could be tricky in tight areas and tight trees.

-1.7mm edges might be weak.

-Might not be too fun in the park, but who knows.

-Not as fun at low speeds.

Bacons:

Pros:

-Soft flex. Great jibby feel. Make the entire mountain one big terrain park.

-Stiff enough flex to be fairly usable in a variety of snow conditions, not just a pow/park noodle.

-Slays powder and trees.

-Great on drops and landings.

-Good in the park as well as groomers, trees, pow, and all mountain.

-115mm waist something like 142 and 139 in the tip and tail. Great flotation. 18m turn radius. Great for medium gs turns and can crank out smaller ones if needed.

-Early taper. Less hooking in pow and other 3D snow types. Allows the ski to pivot and turn easier.

-Sidewall construction.

-Lightweight full wood core.

-2.5mm edge.

-Everyone that has SFBs loves them. Ski has a great reputation as being a great do anything ski and a fun, fat, playful, jibby ski.

-Amazing EP artwork. Sick topsheet and base graphics.

Cons:

-Pricier at roughly $450

-Not as good as ANTs in variable conditions and less than ideal snow.

-At 115 underfoot it might be clumsy and unwieldy?

-Can't go as fast as ANTs comfortably.

-Is Line's durability as good as Armada's?

-2.5mm edge and base might be heavy.

-Might be heavier overall than ANTs

-Not too good in the park? Spins and rails/boxes might be tricky?

-Not great at any one thing just OK at a lot of things?

What fat ski should I add to go with my park ski? +K to all who help
 
Both are some solid skis and personally love the bacons but some ppl may like a stiffer ski but it makes them more playful. The ANTs are also a solid ski but of all the pros and cons listed the one thing that would do it is the fact that Armada has unmatched durability in their skis and line has a history of durability issues. I dont take my bacons in the park but if you are that may be a selling point right there.
 
Yeah. I agree, durability is a huge factor in choosing a ski. I wonder if Line's durability issues affect their higher end skis such as Eric Pollards skis. +K to both of you for the help!
 
I don't really consider the ANT a good ski for the east, its made for charging big lines FAST, not really suited to trees and the kind of terrain you see out east.... Personally I wouldn't go with the Bacon either, I'd probably look into getting the JJ's and get something somewhere in the middle.
 
ANTs are sick, but they do not float well in pow at all. They can however carve nice GS turns on hardpack and handle crud well. If you are strong you can ski them in the trees fine, although slow speed trees with deep snow they are a lot of work.

Personally, I'd pick them over SFB's, especially on the east, because a noodle with rocker is going to suck on hardpack/ice or anything other than pow/slush, especially if you come from a racing background.
 
Since you took the time to write all that then I took the time to read it. I agree with the idea of Park Ski, Fat Jibby Pow Ski and Big Mountain ski being the perfect quiver. From what it sounds like you are skiing (mostly east coast with a bit of west here and there) I'd go with the pow ski first since a big stiff charging ski will be fiddly through the tight eastern trees and your jibby pow ski will charge ok (possibly very well depending on what you pick) assuming it isn't a noodle. At this point I'm discarding the ANT because it is stiff, long and not for tight trees or really jibbing at all.

So you probably want a jibby pow ski that does ok for charging now and again, roughly 105-115 underfoot (don't be scared of width I find it isn't really an issue). You also probably want a rockered ski since it boosts float, definitely helps to land switch in pow (obviously), adds to the jibby feel and helps quick turning through trees etc.

So 2011 Bacons are sounding pretty good tbut might be too pricy if you were looking for an end of season deal. If you are

Moment Bibbys could be another good choice (don't know if you can find these), as could atomic blogs, k2 obsetheds and Armada JJs. Next years Rossi S6 too... There are loads of options and I don't think either of 2010 Bacons or Armada ANTs will be the perfect one for you.
 
Right. I know ANTs won't be as good in the pow as say Bacons or EP pros as at 107 underfoot they aren't the fattest (especially by today's standard) and they don't have any tricks like rocker, early rise, reverse camber, early taper, or 5 dimensions, but they should still be better than a 84mm waisted park ski right? In terms of Bacons I was thinking of this year which will still be soft but fully cambered (no rocker)
 
Yeah in terms of the ANTs being really long, I was thinking of getting 181s as they might be a bit better for trees and EC stuff in general.
 
I'd lean more toward the SFB if I were you. You aren't going to like the ANT in the tight trees at Jay and Stowe, nor do I think it'll blow you away charging all day. If you were out west it would make a better compliment, but here? meh. I'd consider a Surface One Life or Moment Bibby, stiffer rockered jib skis in the 110-120 range, as they'll give you the ability to do both jib and charge. Either would make a better one ski quiver if you were to only take one ski out west too, stiff enough to rip if you don't get great snow, but will give you killer flotation in soft snow.
 
Adding Rossignol S5s to the mix now. Might be a better "fat" ski for the east. Would handle ice and hardpack better, but would still bust through a variety of less than ideal snow conditions. At 98m underfoot and a straightish sidecut it should still float decently especially compared to my Pipe Cleaners and Scratch FS WRS's. Would be easier to throw around in tight trees and narrow chutes and bumps too. I've also been reading they're manageable in the park as well. I can also get last seasons for cheap too.
 
Well even after rocker being around for the past 3 or 4 years it still hasn't dominated the ski scene. There still aren't too many rockered skis out there. Price and availability is also a problem. Rockered skis sell quickly and in general are kind of on the pricey side. Since the sell quickly they often don't remain in a shops inventory until all of the spring/summer sales. I might be wrong, but I'd think you'd lose out on some performance with a ski that has rocker.
 
its an interesting take, but i'd say rocker IS slowly taking over. Next year every company has a rockered pow ski, many have rocker throughout the entire line (every k2 ski will feature rocker)..

I don't find rocker detracts that much from performance (depending on flex, shape etc). You lose a bit of edge hold on piste, but you gain maneuverability through quicker turn initiation, better float, easier buttering etc. Most importantly you gain versatility which seems pretty important to you.

Now that Line has dropped the lizzie, I can't see me skiing any ski that isn't rockered in the future.
 
Yeah. I'd definitely be game to try a rockered ski. Problem for me now is availability and price. Like I said, they seem to sell out pretty quickly and if you can find one you like in your size, its usually pretty pricey. I'd love to get my hands on the JJ or next years Bacon but don't think that is really an option for me. I think a 100 to 110 mm waisted rocker ski with maybe a bit of early taper/5 dimensions would be amazing in just about anything.
 
pretty sure i've seen that on3p are going to have another presale this year (small volume), you might be able to pick some up in that at a good price.. if you look around you might find an end of season deal on moment bibbys, rossignol s3s/s7s etc.. you might need to wait a bit longer but you'll find a deal on the right ski in the end..
 
Ended up getting S5s lol. Couldn't pass up on the price I got them for. Will be looking for a fatter 105mm + ski in the future and will be looking possibly for rocker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top