Why isn't anyone talking about the new arvs

1M_peaches

1M_peaches

Member
New core, new side wall, sick ass graphics... why aren't we stoked about the new arvs, especially the arv 100s? At 100mm under foot, and a length of 179, they weigh 1700 grams. To put that in perspective, the TW pro at a length of 171 are 100 grams heaver. With all that aside, Armada is boasting Increased durability. Personally, I am already sold. I have wet dreams of that fat base just stomping down on a slushy landing, and buttering up every little roller in sight.

**This thread was edited on May 1st 2023 at 4:16:03pm
 
because armada always has a good ski collection so no one's surprised by the fact they made another good ski
 
Wtf does this w3dgewall mean? They pour UHMW-PE into the core mold prior to press? What sidewall are they using? Sounds like #marketing

1070324.png
 
14533546:BradFiAusNzCoCa said:
Wtf does this w3dgewall mean?
Click to expand...

wedge wall, they are saying the side wall is in a wedge shape, rather than just being glued to the side, its in a more triangular shape where the side wall sits into the core and better bonds with the base.

1:30
 
I didn't get a chance on them cause the tall sizes were in high demand but a coworker with 30+ years experience really enjoyed the new 88
 
14533615:Juviticus said:
I didn't get a chance on them cause the tall sizes were in high demand but a coworker with 30+ years experience really enjoyed the new 88
Click to expand...

how's the flex? ARVs used to be quite soft, then last several years they were stiffened up a bit. any idea where these ones land?

also very interesting that they're so lightweight. not a concern for me but people do love light skis (unless theyre brittle)
 
14533699:SofaKingSick said:
how's the flex? ARVs used to be quite soft, then last several years they were stiffened up a bit. any idea where these ones land?

also very interesting that they're so lightweight. not a concern for me but people do love light skis (unless theyre brittle)
Click to expand...

Yeah thats my worry with all lighter skis. its a very general rule of thumb that heavier=more durable. Plus as an inbounds-only ski an extra 100-200g isn't overly noticeable outside your first few turns of the season. Not to mention an all mountain ski will get bounced around more without extra weight.
 
Mainly waiting on reviews, people will buy them, probably cop mid season or on sale once we have some solid info. The 96s pretty nice, didn't like the 84s. Although, the low weight for all of them is significantly better than last year's weights.
 
topic:1M_peaches said:
they weigh 1700 grams. To put that in perspective, the TW pro at a length of 171 are 100 grams heaver.

**This thread was edited on May 1st 2023 at 4:16:03pm
Click to expand...

Yo, I could be wrong but I was just looking at them on evo and it said 1700g's for each ski? this would be kinda wack considering that would make them a 3400-gram pair, but I'm just as lost as anyone so if someone knows pls lmk because these look sick.
 
14533910:simontheskiboi said:
Yo, I could be wrong but I was just looking at them on evo and it said 1700g's for each ski? this would be kinda wack considering that would make them a 3400-gram pair, but I'm just as lost as anyone so if someone knows pls lmk because these look sick.
Click to expand...

That's how every ski is measured. 1700g/ski or 3400 per pair is quite light. My touring skis are 1650.

.it's not even possible to get a ski that's 1700g/pair. Maybe some very short very skinny full foam skimo ski? But they would blow up damn near instantly inbounds
 
Wouldn't let me edit but yeah there's skimo skis that get down into the 600s. But they're 60 underfoot and 150cm long. Crazy they're able to get them that light still.
 
14533861:ChristmasRacer said:
Mainly waiting on reviews, people will buy them, probably cop mid season or on sale once we have some solid info. The 96s pretty nice, didn't like the 84s. Although, the low weight for all of them is significantly better than last year's weights.
Click to expand...

Mine J came in, gimme a few weeks and ill compare them to mangos
 
14533910:simontheskiboi said:
Yo, I could be wrong but I was just looking at them on evo and it said 1700g's for each ski? this would be kinda wack considering that would make them a 3400-gram pair, but I'm just as lost as anyone so if someone knows pls lmk because these look sick.
Click to expand...

evo is wrong, i work at a ski shop and have been hands on with the skis. Definitely not 1700 each.
 
14557154:1M_peaches said:
evo is wrong, i work at a ski shop and have been hands on with the skis. Definitely not 1700 each.
Click to expand...

yes i work for evo and the site is indeed incorrect. It also says the 94s have a caruba core even though its poplar. I let them know hopefully they fix it soon
 
14557154:1M_peaches said:
evo is wrong, i work at a ski shop and have been hands on with the skis. Definitely not 1700 each.
Click to expand...

14557433:tdollo said:
yes i work for evo and the site is indeed incorrect. It also says the 94s have a caruba core even though its poplar. I let them know hopefully they fix it soon
Click to expand...

either of you wanna weigh them for us?
 
Caruba has no place in what Armada claims to be an all mountain freestyle ski... It is too light, not nearly torsionally rigid enough or strong enough to be used effectively in a freestyle ski. The ARW 106 was a perfect example of that, they struggled to sell them and they will continue to do so once the new ARV collection drops. People will buy them and realize that they are far too fragile to be slamming into rails all day. Caruba should be used for touring/backcountry skis, not skis that manufacturers want to claim are to be used in the park.
 
Until a pair of bdogs or edollos use it I’d be wary (both are poplar/ash mix). Seems to have a lot of potential and if anyone were to pull it off, it’d be armada. Still, poplar is pretty damn light and tends to be the standard compromise between durability and lightness.

The arv 100 (caruba) at 179 cm is 1700 grams according to evo. For comparison, a surface giver (100 underfoot, full poplar) at 182 is 1800 grams from their website. A mango 100 (bamboo) at 181 is 1810 grams from On3ps website. 100 grams is about the weight of a stick of butter. Is it worth saving that weight if the skis fall apart quicker? Not to mention the actual ski feeling and dampness. Maybe a caruba/poplar blend could be in the future if things don’t go well
 
14557807:animator said:
Caruba has no place in what Armada claims to be an all mountain freestyle ski... It is too light, not nearly torsionally rigid enough or strong enough to be used effectively in a freestyle ski. The ARW 106 was a perfect example of that, they struggled to sell them and they will continue to do so once the new ARV collection drops. People will buy them and realize that they are far too fragile to be slamming into rails all day. Caruba should be used for touring/backcountry skis, not skis that manufacturers want to claim are to be used in the park.
Click to expand...

Looks like AR figured this out in early samples 'cause most now listed as poplar with ash insert. But retailers haven't updated and still list caruba.
 
14558079:tmid3 said:
Looks like AR figured this out in early samples 'cause most now listed as poplar with ash insert. But retailers haven't updated and still list caruba.
Click to expand...

The 100 still says caruba on their website, I’m hoping it’s poplar and they just haven’t changed it. The shape looks great and I think it would ski will with a core that has more rebound and energy, as well as a bit more weight
 
If the 100s don't get a reputation for snapping they'll be my next ski once my 96s go. The light weight and mid soft flex sounds really fun, and 96s are kind of boring lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top