Armada arv 86 Vs Faction prodigy 1.0

[aidenroulleux]

I know in ways the the arv 86 and 1.0 are in ways the same but what would work better as a all mountain and park ski I ride in Stowe and Killington primarily and ski icy bumps to tight trees and hard pack and with park almost everything and skiing 178 as a length , what would work better ?

**This thread was edited on Dec 28th 2021 at 3:45:42pm

 

[Neives_tiddies]

nordica soul rider 87

 

[RyanWhitdog]

I know in ways the the arv 86 and 1.0 are in ways the same but what would work better as a all mountain and park ski I ride in Stowe and Killington primarily and ski icy bumps to tight trees and hard pack and with park almost everything and skiing 178 as a length , what would work better ?

**This thread was edited on Dec 28th 2021 at 3:45:42pm

I have ridden a few days on both. If your choice is between these two, I’d go Prodigy all day. I liked the ARVs, but I really like the Prodigy’s. They’re just so snappy, sturdy and flexible enough to throw butters around if you want. I just enjoy the way they ride overall much more.

 

[Jems]

Id actually recommend something a little wider in the mid 90s range. The arv 96 and prodigy 2.0 are both more appropriate for all mtn / park.

 

[RyanWhitdog]

Id actually recommend something a little wider in the mid 90s range. The arv 96 and prodigy 2.0 are both more appropriate for all mtn / park.

IMO out east you don’t need anything more than a Prodigy 1.0 or ARV 86. We don’t get any real shit out here you just don’t need to size up especially if you prefer thinner underfoot, which I find much more maneuverable on east coast mountains, dont stress about getting more underfoot. I’d agree if you start riding bigger mountains with more consistent snowfall then start going to the 2.0s, 3,0s

 

[Neives_tiddies]

IMO out east you don’t need anything more than a Prodigy 1.0 or ARV 86. We don’t get any real shit out here you just don’t need to size up especially if you prefer thinner underfoot, which I find much more maneuverable on east coast mountains, dont stress about getting more underfoot. I’d agree if you start riding bigger mountains with more consistent snowfall then start going to the 2.0s, 3,0s

agreed, OP asked for recommendations for icy moguls and tight trees and i dont see how a wider ski would be helpful. Stowe probably does get more snow than most east coast mountains though so having a wider ski as well would be nice for that sweet sweet angels food

 

[PackBombs]

Rumor has it riding prodigys is the key to obtaining AHall’s chiseled jawline

 

[alude]

You can look here to compare them in details.

The ARV 86 is more symmetric front-to-back in all aspects. The Prodigy 1.0 has a longer tip rocker and more camber, but a shorter tail (specially if you look at where it touches the snow). Flex profile is also more symmetric for the ARV, but both are really close otherwise.

 

[Jems]

agreed, OP asked for recommendations for icy moguls and tight trees and i dont see how a wider ski would be helpful. Stowe probably does get more snow than most east coast mountains though so having a wider ski as well would be nice for that sweet sweet angels food

10mm different underfoot will not make a difference

 

[snowpig]

sorry to hijack this thread, but I was looking at exactly the same 2 models. I have the Line Blend and it's great in soft snow and some powder, but on bad days - hard pack, ice, rain, slush - it's not so good. So I was thinking to get a narrower and stiffer ski for those days (but not too stiff, still playful and butterable).

I ski some park, but not that much. Mostly fooling about the natural terrain around the slopes - sidebanks, trees, etc.

The ARV 86 and Prodigy 1.0 seem to be the obvious choices, I can't really figure out the difference between them?

I was also looking at the Line Sick Day 88 , but this might be too directional?

 

[Neives_tiddies]

sorry to hijack this thread, but I was looking at exactly the same 2 models. I have the Line Blend and it's great in soft snow and some powder, but on bad days - hard pack, ice, rain, slush - it's not so good. So I was thinking to get a narrower and stiffer ski for those days (but not too stiff, still playful and butterable).

I ski some park, but not that much. Mostly fooling about the natural terrain around the slopes - sidebanks, trees, etc.

The ARV 86 and Prodigy 1.0 seem to be the obvious choices, I can't really figure out the difference between them?

I was also looking at the Line Sick Day 88 , but this might be too directional?

I stand by my previous suggestion of the soul riders

pros:

narrower, a bit stiffer, still playful and park oriented

cons:

nordica probably isnt core they used to be the ace of spades i think and skis were the shit back in the day

alao the top sheet is pretty boring

 

[snowpig]

my (little) experience with the old school brands' is that they make skis too stiff for my taste, more like GS skis disguised as twin tips haha

that's not the case with the Nordica's?

Who can outline some more differences between the Arv86 and Prodigy 1.0?

 

[RyanWhitdog]

my (little) experience with the old school brands' is that they make skis too stiff for my taste, more like GS skis disguised as twin tips haha

that's not the case with the Nordica's?

Who can outline some more differences between the Arv86 and Prodigy 1.0?

Ones like blue? Ones black.

 

[alude]

my (little) experience with the old school brands' is that they make skis too stiff for my taste, more like GS skis disguised as twin tips haha

that's not the case with the Nordica's?

Who can outline some more differences between the Arv86 and Prodigy 1.0?

To confuse you even more (!), I added the Soul Rider 87 to the comparison in the Sooth's database. They are not really stiffer (just by about 10%, and most of it comes from the underfoot section where you put the binding anyways).

Very similar shape to the prodigy, but with much less camber. Tip is also wider, but the widest part is up in the air so might not be too important. Slightly shorter sidecut radius (16 vs 18). Heavier by 50-120g.

 

[Neives_tiddies]

To confuse you even more (!), I added the Soul Rider 87 to the comparison in the Sooth's database. They are not really stiffer (just by about 10%, and most of it comes from the underfoot section where you put the binding anyways).

Very similar shape to the prodigy, but with much less camber. Tip is also wider, but the widest part is up in the air so might not be too important. Slightly shorter sidecut radius (16 vs 18). Heavier by 50-120g.

Excellent source, ill have to remember that site. Not sure what else to add after that. OP pull the trigger on something and go skiing

 

[snowpig]

This site is very useful indeed!

I have decided to stick with Line/Faction/Armada as they give back a lot to the sport and I would rather give my money to them. I talked to some people on the slopes the last days and I think I am gonna go with the ARV 86 as my first choice.

Now bindings - I wanted to get the Pivot Forza but it seems to be offered with 95mm brakes and the 75mm is an option only for the black pivots? I am confused about the brakes sizing for pivot (only had Attacks so far) , Look says 95 is for skis 75-95? What is the actual brake width? I hate it when my brakes hook and I crash... With Tirolia the specs size is pretty much the brake width, is it the same for pivots?

 

[snowpig]

... so I got the ARV96 a couple of months ago and though I will come back to share some thoughts.

They are nice skis no doubt, but a little bit too stiff for my taste, especially at the tails – I prefer a symmetrical flex, while the ARVs are much stiffer at the tails. They are great for carving on the piste and have a lot of pop, but they are difficult to butter and difficult to ride in a forest. TBH this was listed in the specs site from this thread, but given my not so big experience with different types of ski I couldn't make enough sense of the numbers. Ideally I was looking for something in between the Line Blends and the ARV96. So I will probably sell them for next season and get another pair of Lines, i.e. Chronics.