Sounds like a real nice ski, they kinda missed on the graphics IMO. I don't think I'll be giving up my ARV106's for these yet, they're way too much fun!
Long time park skier, grew up on the east coast. Moved to CO 3 or 4 years ago, and have been skiing a pair of lines which i love, but by all definition they are park skis. Sense moving out here i find myself freeriding 65% of the time and park skiing 35%. Have been looking to get a new pair of boards for a min now and I think the ARV 100s are finally going to be the ones I pull the trigger on. Ideally, looking for something wider underfoot (currently on 88), somethingthat handles itself well on difficult terain (find that I can't always trust my park skis as they get a little lose when i dig into a turn at high speed), is buttery, and has a good swing weight (swing weight needs to be good for me to ride them, will prob ruin my acls if I'm on heavy skis by the end of the year lol) to me, the ARV 100s are the skis I have been looking for, would you agree. if not what ski beats it? Need someone to validate my opinion before i pul the trigger lol
First of all, thank you guys for running such a great page and all the helpful content. I've been riding the ARV 96s for years, but you've got me sold on the 100s! I am 5'10", 185 lbs... strong skier primarily skiing in CO. Torn between the 179cm and 186cm lengths considering I'll be using it on groomers and the park 60-70% of the time. I'm on the 185s now but wouldn't mind jumping down to something a little bit more nimble and maneuverable in the air... only concern is losing some stability at high speeds or rougher snow. Curious to get your take on the two sizes and how the 179 length holds up at speed? Thanks guys!
Thanks! The simple answer, and you may not like it, is that you will lose stability at speed and in variable conditions by downsizing here. The 100's are lighter than the 96's, so you're not only going shorter, you're also getting lighter. If you're used to the 185 in the 96, I'd keep it long with the 186. The nimbleness and maneuverability in the air will be naturally increased as the byproduct of the ski getting lighter, more rockered, and tapered in the tips and tails. Hope that helps! SE
Awesome video! I’m an intermediate skier. 6 ft tall and weigh 220. Typically ski out west near Colorado/Montana with frequent trips to Vermont. Looking to get a pair in the 100m under foot range. Wondering which skis you would recommend and the length I should be looking for. Really like the look and reviews on these, but not sure of the length.
ARV 100 is awesome. Playful and fun, but still has good substance to it. I'd go with the 179 in that ski. I'd also look to the Dynastar M-Free 99 in the same length--very smooth and fun, but with great grip as well.
Love this review! I’m 5’10”, 140lbs and currently skiing on a 171 Invictus ti 89. Looking for a more playful, park oriented, but still all mountain ski. I’m pretty sold on this ski but I’m struggling to decide what length to get. Will jumping to a 179 feel too big with these skis? With the rocker it seems like a 172 might be too short since I’m feeling ready to size up from my 171s. I checked the test cards, but most women were closer to the 5’5” range and riding the 172. Thank you!!
The Oblivion is actually a stronger ski than the Bent with a more traditional sidewall construction. The 84 will hold up to better groomer skiing, and has more tail splay that makes for better switch skiing. I'd lean to the Head.
Hi Jeff! Great video as usual. I'm waiting to try the 179 and 186cm before I buy. I won't be using it for "Park", just all mountain and Free Ride. I asked before, but is 179 long enough length to rail groomers and big bowls?
Love your reviews! I ski in the Pyrenees and don’t always have great powder. I am an advanced skier at 180cm height and 85kg. I’m unsure whether to go for the 100 or 94. I’ll be spending a fair amount of time on groomers, teaching my kid to ski. Otherwise, I like to spend my time in steeper, off-piste terrain. When I get the chance, I love deep powder, but honestly it’s become more rare. I don’t go to the park, I have fun in the forest and like natural jumps. Which width would you recommend?
Thanks! I think the 94 presents more upside. Great groomer ski with enough flotation to handle softer and deeper snow. If you don't think you'll need the extra 6 mm for flotation, it's probably a better idea to get the narrower one. Very fun skis!
@@SkiEssentials awesome! Thank you for you reply and advice. Would you recommend putting a touring binding on these? If yes, which ones? If no, which regular binding would you recommend?
Thanks for such a good review. Im torn between the arv 94 , the arv 100 and the bent 100. I have a carving ski and this would be my second ski for allmountain and park. I am 180lbs . 6'1" ... strong skiier on groomers and looking to improve in the park and in pow. Which length should I get the 179cm oder 186cm.
The M-Free is quite a bit sturdier and stronger than the ARV 100, which is lighter and poppier. I prefer the smoothness and stability of the M-Free over the crisp energy of the Armada.
Please I can’t decide these or the 106s. I like the idea of wider for more snow but the weight and playfulness of the 100s looks incredible. Also I like the idea of the 106 for stability at higher speeds.
If you're realistically in softer and deeper snow more of the time, the 106 makes more sense. If this is more of a dream than a reality, and most of your time is spent not in deep snow, the 100 is a better choice from a percentages standpoint.
Torn between the ARV 100s and the Bent 100s. I ski mostly at whistler during the season but also interior BC along the powder highway. Which of the 2 would you recommend for mostly powder and off piste as well as some park laps throughout the day?
Probably ARV just to get a bit more energy and snap out of the ski. Bent's a great floater and soft snow playful ski, but we're very impressed with the pop of the new ARV.
How do these compare with Solomon QST 98s? Does one float better than the other? I ski mostly off-piste. Love tree skiing, powder, and boosting side hits.
The QST 98 is an uncanny floater for its width thanks to the dramatic rocker profile and taper shape. The ARV is no slouch, but it does not compare to the QST in terms of deep snow performance. That said, the ARV is more energetic and creative when it comes to almost everything else, so you have to do some self-evaluation as to what type of snow you're actually skiing most of the time.
I am a 5’6 145 lb intermediate/advanced skier torn between these, the Dynastar m-free 99, and the Rustler 9. I am only in the park 10% and that usually doesn’t include any rails. I spend most of my time on steeps, bumps, and trees off trail. When I am on groomers I prefer going as fast as possible. I would love to hear your opinion, or see if there’s another option I’m neglecting. Thanks for all you guys do!
Rustler seems like it fits a bit better as it's more directional than the ARV and the M-Free. Seems like you're moving to the stability at speed, and that's where Rustler comes in handy with the metal laminates.
@@jonathangreer2018For me, as a bigger skier, I'm taking the metal and camber of the Unleashed over the more flexible and lighter M-Free when it comes to steeper and more technical terrain.
Hey Jeff, had an interesting comparison with the ARV100 and the K2 Poacher. I understand the armada is significantly lighter but do you lose some higher speed stability with it? How does the edge hold compare in your opinion in an all mountain format.
Stability still goes to the heavier Poacher. What you're mainly looking at for a difference is the energy, and that goes to the Armada--great snap to that ski for sure while the Poacher is on the more lumbering side of the spectrum. Edge hold is pretty equal, although you could argue that the higher camber of the ARV gives it a leg up when it comes to grip.
Hey looking into this arv or the arv 106 from 23. I’m leaning towards the 100 because of how light the new model is but I’m unsure what’s a better fit. The 106 might do everything I want but be better in powder. Also what size would you guys recommend I’m 5ft 9 180lbs was thinking 179cm. Thanks for the awesome reviews!
It honestly depends on how you want to use the skis. Are you looking for quickness, mobility, and agility, or for more power and dampness especially in softer and deeper snow. How often are you truly in snow deep enough to necessitate a 106? I would say the mid to upper 170's is good for length in either ski, but I'm guessing the 100 is realistically a better fit especially for one pair of skis.
Sweet tele setup. Agile and playful yet grippy and predictable. I don't think there'll be any issues with the binding staying put as long as it's mounted properly.
Nice video! At the moment im torn between the bent 100 and the arv 100. Im looking for an all mountain ski thats playfull. I dont ride park a lot. Mostly off piste, deep and trees. But also enjoys carving on wider slopes. How do the 2 compare, and what would youre reccomandation be? Thanks!
The ARV has a sturdier overall feel to it while the Bent is more flexible. If you're looking for off-piste performance with a bit of a kick at the end, the ARV has a stronger character. I'd lean that route if energy or pop is high on your list of priorities.
Thanks! I understand that its not the ideal ski for high speed carving on the slope. But do you prefer one of the 2 if you had to chose? Because thats the other thing i enjoy beside offpiste.
It sounds like a lean to the ARV if you're looking to prioritize high speed carving. There's denser wood and more edge power in that ski vs. the Bent.@@user-fl1fd8st6p
Hello Thanks for all your videos I have been watching them all from the beginning I have a question I am 6 feet 210 I usually ski in Colorado and Juta I currently have Rossi 98 Black Ops 182 skis and I don't like these skis because they are a bit too heavy for me do you think these skis will be better and what length do you think will be good for me Thanks
Thanks! I think the ARV 100 is a great option. It still keeps the fun-loving twin tip aspect, but it is lighter, and I've found it to be considerably poppier and more energetic. Based on your stats, I'd go with the 179 in that ski.
I currently have to decide between the armada 94 vs 100. i like to be playful, if possible in the woods next to the ski slope, sometimes also in the park but not often. I always ski deep snow, if there is any. Would you say I should go for the 94 or the 100? I'm also 1.80 meter tall and an advanced skier, so I think 178/179 would be the right length, right? :) Thanks for your feedback!
Generally I feel the narrower works better for most skiers, most of the time. The 100 is more specific to softer snow while the 94 will hold up better for all other conditions, even while being pretty darn fun in powder. I'd go with the 178 and the 94. Have fun!
Debating between 179 & 186. I am 6'3 and and 205lb and a strong skiier , only in the park for the jumps, but mainly ski trees and natural features like drops, my concern is the skis i have now as 116 under foot and 188cm so more deticated for powder and i want a ski thats more play full and trick savy. I am concerned 179 will be to short as i am use to longer skis or is thats just the move to make if i want a ski that lighter and more playfull?
how would you compare it to the faction mana 2 (ex candide 2.0)? i've bewn riding the factions for three seasons now, mostly in the park while on occasion doing some all mtn ripping and cruising
There's a bit more substance to the Mana than there is the new ARV 100. I'd put the Mana 2 more on the line of the older ARV while this new one is more agile and snappy. It differentiates the ARV from the more athlete driven Edollo, which I always thought felt more Mana-ish.
Duke PT is heavy. I think it kind of kills the intended maneuverability of the ARV 100, especially in a resort setting. In the backcountry, though, it's very nice to have the confidence that the PT provides, especially the 16.
Thanks Guys. I'm torn between the qst 98, arv 100, bent 100, or ranger 102. I ski only in Colorado. We ski moguls, powder, a ton of trees, ungroomed, groomers and 5% park. Any thoughts? I'm 6'3 and weigh 205 lbs. Looking for a fun dad ski. Thanks for any input.I already have the Strive 16 MN and K2 RECON 130 BOA ready to go.
It's tough to argue against the QST 98, but the ARV 100 makes a pretty strong case. I don't think the Bent or the Ranger work as well for your stats, so I'd narrow focus to the Salomon and Armada. Between those, the Salomon is the better floater and more agile performer in trees and deeper snow. The ARV has more pop and pep for the groomers, and functions just fine in the other areas too, but the Salomon is a standout in powder and trees.
Torn between these and the 94s - what are the main differences? 181cm, 70kg, (178/9 cm is the right size ?) advanaced skier looking to progress in park and skiing an equal split of piste/off piste/ park. Thanks !
There's no construction difference, so it's really only the width, and that's up to how you spend your time on the hill. More soft snow? The 100 will hold up better. Find yourself in the park or on firmer groomers? The 94 is a more useful choice.
Not too stiff. They are a bit more flexible, especially in a poppy way, than they used to be in the ARV 96. We feel you find more ability in butters and presses with the new build vs. the old one.
hi, i am a 15yo guy from finland, usually riding in park but also in slopes and trees. I am thinking between Atomic bent 90, armada arv 94 and arv 100. 180cm and 65 kilos. Which one should i buy? i am quite experienced skier, now i have skied about ten years or so.
The ARV is the most substantial of the three. It's got a sturdier feeling to it and provides more pop and energy. It's not nearly as flexible as the Reckoner, nor is it as drifty and smeary as the Bent 100, making the ARV a bit more consistent when it comes to mixed terrain and conditions. Among these 100's, I'd also say it's got the best park chops.
The ARV 100 comes with a new Sidewall technology called „ wedge wall“ . That is a game changer when comes to carving performance and grip🔥 much better carves than the other 100eds… mire power and quicker edge to edge
If you want a closer ski, I'd recommend waiting for the 2025 version to be available. The 2024's use caruba wood which is lighter than the ARV 96's blend of ash, and the 2025's use poplar with an ash insert, so the next year's ski will be more like the ones you are coming out of.
Thank you for this review, I just purchased a pair and can't wait to get on them!!
Awesome, enjoy!
Sounds like a real nice ski, they kinda missed on the graphics IMO. I don't think I'll be giving up my ARV106's for these yet, they're way too much fun!
Long time park skier, grew up on the east coast. Moved to CO 3 or 4 years ago, and have been skiing a pair of lines which i love, but by all definition they are park skis. Sense moving out here i find myself freeriding 65% of the time and park skiing 35%. Have been looking to get a new pair of boards for a min now and I think the ARV 100s are finally going to be the ones I pull the trigger on.
Ideally, looking for something wider underfoot (currently on 88), somethingthat handles itself well on difficult terain (find that I can't always trust my park skis as they get a little lose when i dig into a turn at high speed), is buttery, and has a good swing weight (swing weight needs to be good for me to ride them, will prob ruin my acls if I'm on heavy skis by the end of the year lol) to me, the ARV 100s are the skis I have been looking for, would you agree. if not what ski beats it?
Need someone to validate my opinion before i pul the trigger lol
Tough to argue against the ARV 100. It mixes a lot of things that you're looking for. Line Chronic 101 is worth a look.
First of all, thank you guys for running such a great page and all the helpful content. I've been riding the ARV 96s for years, but you've got me sold on the 100s!
I am 5'10", 185 lbs... strong skier primarily skiing in CO. Torn between the 179cm and 186cm lengths considering I'll be using it on groomers and the park 60-70% of the time. I'm on the 185s now but wouldn't mind jumping down to something a little bit more nimble and maneuverable in the air... only concern is losing some stability at high speeds or rougher snow. Curious to get your take on the two sizes and how the 179 length holds up at speed?
Thanks guys!
Thanks!
The simple answer, and you may not like it, is that you will lose stability at speed and in variable conditions by downsizing here. The 100's are lighter than the 96's, so you're not only going shorter, you're also getting lighter. If you're used to the 185 in the 96, I'd keep it long with the 186. The nimbleness and maneuverability in the air will be naturally increased as the byproduct of the ski getting lighter, more rockered, and tapered in the tips and tails. Hope that helps!
SE
@@SkiEssentials thank you! Cheers to a great season!
Awesome video! I’m an intermediate skier. 6 ft tall and weigh 220. Typically ski out west near Colorado/Montana with frequent trips to Vermont. Looking to get a pair in the 100m under foot range. Wondering which skis you would recommend and the length I should be looking for. Really like the look and reviews on these, but not sure of the length.
ARV 100 is awesome. Playful and fun, but still has good substance to it. I'd go with the 179 in that ski. I'd also look to the Dynastar M-Free 99 in the same length--very smooth and fun, but with great grip as well.
Love this review! I’m 5’10”, 140lbs and currently skiing on a 171 Invictus ti 89. Looking for a more playful, park oriented, but still all mountain ski. I’m pretty sold on this ski but I’m struggling to decide what length to get. Will jumping to a 179 feel too big with these skis? With the rocker it seems like a 172 might be too short since I’m feeling ready to size up from my 171s. I checked the test cards, but most women were closer to the 5’5” range and riding the 172. Thank you!!
The Oblivion is actually a stronger ski than the Bent with a more traditional sidewall construction. The 84 will hold up to better groomer skiing, and has more tail splay that makes for better switch skiing. I'd lean to the Head.
Hi Jeff! Great video as usual. I'm waiting to try the 179 and 186cm before I buy. I won't be using it for "Park", just all mountain and Free Ride. I asked before, but is 179 long enough length to rail groomers and big bowls?
That's the length we skied mostly, and the 179 seemed to be just fine for groomers and wider spaces.
Love your reviews! I ski in the Pyrenees and don’t always have great powder. I am an advanced skier at 180cm height and 85kg. I’m unsure whether to go for the 100 or 94. I’ll be spending a fair amount of time on groomers, teaching my kid to ski. Otherwise, I like to spend my time in steeper, off-piste terrain. When I get the chance, I love deep powder, but honestly it’s become more rare. I don’t go to the park, I have fun in the forest and like natural jumps. Which width would you recommend?
Thanks! I think the 94 presents more upside. Great groomer ski with enough flotation to handle softer and deeper snow. If you don't think you'll need the extra 6 mm for flotation, it's probably a better idea to get the narrower one. Very fun skis!
@@SkiEssentials awesome! Thank you for you reply and advice. Would you recommend putting a touring binding on these? If yes, which ones? If no, which regular binding would you recommend?
Thanks for such a good review. Im torn between the arv 94 , the arv 100 and the bent 100. I have a carving ski and this would be my second ski for allmountain and park. I am 180lbs . 6'1" ... strong skiier on groomers and looking to improve in the park and in pow. Which length should I get the 179cm oder 186cm.
The ARV 100 sounds like a good fit for what you currently have and for what you're looking to do. I'd say the 179 is the say to go in this ski.
Love the videos! How does this ski compare to the m free 99?
The M-Free is quite a bit sturdier and stronger than the ARV 100, which is lighter and poppier. I prefer the smoothness and stability of the M-Free over the crisp energy of the Armada.
Please I can’t decide these or the 106s. I like the idea of wider for more snow but the weight and playfulness of the 100s looks incredible. Also I like the idea of the 106 for stability at higher speeds.
If you're realistically in softer and deeper snow more of the time, the 106 makes more sense. If this is more of a dream than a reality, and most of your time is spent not in deep snow, the 100 is a better choice from a percentages standpoint.
Torn between the ARV 100s and the Bent 100s. I ski mostly at whistler during the season but also interior BC along the powder highway. Which of the 2 would you recommend for mostly powder and off piste as well as some park laps throughout the day?
Probably ARV just to get a bit more energy and snap out of the ski. Bent's a great floater and soft snow playful ski, but we're very impressed with the pop of the new ARV.
How do these compare with Solomon QST 98s? Does one float better than the other? I ski mostly off-piste. Love tree skiing, powder, and boosting side hits.
The QST 98 is an uncanny floater for its width thanks to the dramatic rocker profile and taper shape. The ARV is no slouch, but it does not compare to the QST in terms of deep snow performance. That said, the ARV is more energetic and creative when it comes to almost everything else, so you have to do some self-evaluation as to what type of snow you're actually skiing most of the time.
I am a 5’6 145 lb intermediate/advanced skier torn between these, the Dynastar m-free 99, and the Rustler 9. I am only in the park 10% and that usually doesn’t include any rails. I spend most of my time on steeps, bumps, and trees off trail. When I am on groomers I prefer going as fast as possible. I would love to hear your opinion, or see if there’s another option I’m neglecting. Thanks for all you guys do!
Rustler seems like it fits a bit better as it's more directional than the ARV and the M-Free. Seems like you're moving to the stability at speed, and that's where Rustler comes in handy with the metal laminates.
@@SkiEssentialsawesome, thank you for your insight! Where does the unleashed 98 fit in the conversation?
@@jonathangreer2018 Fits great! More like the Rustler 9 with less rocker.
@@SkiEssentials Thanks! Better for steeps - Unleashed or m free?
@@jonathangreer2018For me, as a bigger skier, I'm taking the metal and camber of the Unleashed over the more flexible and lighter M-Free when it comes to steeper and more technical terrain.
Hey Jeff, had an interesting comparison with the ARV100 and the K2 Poacher. I understand the armada is significantly lighter but do you lose some higher speed stability with it? How does the edge hold compare in your opinion in an all mountain format.
Stability still goes to the heavier Poacher. What you're mainly looking at for a difference is the energy, and that goes to the Armada--great snap to that ski for sure while the Poacher is on the more lumbering side of the spectrum. Edge hold is pretty equal, although you could argue that the higher camber of the ARV gives it a leg up when it comes to grip.
Hey looking into this arv or the arv 106 from 23. I’m leaning towards the 100 because of how light the new model is but I’m unsure what’s a better fit. The 106 might do everything I want but be better in powder. Also what size would you guys recommend I’m 5ft 9 180lbs was thinking 179cm. Thanks for the awesome reviews!
It honestly depends on how you want to use the skis. Are you looking for quickness, mobility, and agility, or for more power and dampness especially in softer and deeper snow. How often are you truly in snow deep enough to necessitate a 106? I would say the mid to upper 170's is good for length in either ski, but I'm guessing the 100 is realistically a better fit especially for one pair of skis.
What do you think about them set up for tele? Is the ash insert stout enough for an outlaw x?
Sweet tele setup. Agile and playful yet grippy and predictable. I don't think there'll be any issues with the binding staying put as long as it's mounted properly.
Nice video! At the moment im torn between the bent 100 and the arv 100. Im looking for an all mountain ski thats playfull. I dont ride park a lot. Mostly off piste, deep and trees. But also enjoys carving on wider slopes. How do the 2 compare, and what would youre reccomandation be? Thanks!
The ARV has a sturdier overall feel to it while the Bent is more flexible. If you're looking for off-piste performance with a bit of a kick at the end, the ARV has a stronger character. I'd lean that route if energy or pop is high on your list of priorities.
Thanks! I understand that its not the ideal ski for high speed carving on the slope. But do you prefer one of the 2 if you had to chose? Because thats the other thing i enjoy beside offpiste.
It sounds like a lean to the ARV if you're looking to prioritize high speed carving. There's denser wood and more edge power in that ski vs. the Bent.@@user-fl1fd8st6p
Thanks for the info! Helped a lot, just ordered the ARV100. 🙌
Hello Thanks for all your videos I have been watching them all from the beginning I have a question I am 6 feet 210 I usually ski in Colorado and Juta I currently have Rossi 98 Black Ops 182 skis and I don't like these skis because they are a bit too heavy for me do you think these skis will be better and what length do you think will be good for me Thanks
Thanks! I think the ARV 100 is a great option. It still keeps the fun-loving twin tip aspect, but it is lighter, and I've found it to be considerably poppier and more energetic. Based on your stats, I'd go with the 179 in that ski.
Thank you for everything.
I currently have to decide between the armada 94 vs 100. i like to be playful, if possible in the woods next to the ski slope, sometimes also in the park but not often. I always ski deep snow, if there is any. Would you say I should go for the 94 or the 100? I'm also 1.80 meter tall and an advanced skier, so I think 178/179 would be the right length, right? :) Thanks for your feedback!
Generally I feel the narrower works better for most skiers, most of the time. The 100 is more specific to softer snow while the 94 will hold up better for all other conditions, even while being pretty darn fun in powder. I'd go with the 178 and the 94. Have fun!
Thank you very much for that fast answer, i will buy them tomorrow :)@@SkiEssentials
Debating between 179 & 186. I am 6'3 and and 205lb and a strong skiier , only in the park for the jumps, but mainly ski trees and natural features like drops, my concern is the skis i have now as 116 under foot and 188cm so more deticated for powder and i want a ski thats more play full and trick savy. I am concerned 179 will be to short as i am use to longer skis or is thats just the move to make if i want a ski that lighter and more playfull?
I'd go 185. It's not a terribly demanding ski so you can size up on it with confidence even if you're using it more creatively.
how would you compare it to the faction mana 2 (ex candide 2.0)? i've bewn riding the factions for three seasons now, mostly in the park while on occasion doing some all mtn ripping and cruising
There's a bit more substance to the Mana than there is the new ARV 100. I'd put the Mana 2 more on the line of the older ARV while this new one is more agile and snappy. It differentiates the ARV from the more athlete driven Edollo, which I always thought felt more Mana-ish.
Should I rather use a 100mm binding or a 115mm. I’m 6,3 and about 180. I don’t know it exactly, amazing video btw I use the bindings on the ARV 100
I think a 100 mm brake would work better than a 115 on this ski.
Where are the recommended mounting lines? Is it like the ARV 96 with -2.5 and -5cm lines?
The Freestyle line is at -3 from center while the Factory line is another -2 from there.
How do we feel about duke pt’s on it? Ridiculous or ridiculously fun?
Duke PT is heavy. I think it kind of kills the intended maneuverability of the ARV 100, especially in a resort setting. In the backcountry, though, it's very nice to have the confidence that the PT provides, especially the 16.
Thanks Guys. I'm torn between the qst 98, arv 100, bent 100, or ranger 102. I ski only in Colorado. We ski moguls, powder, a ton of trees, ungroomed, groomers and 5% park. Any thoughts? I'm 6'3 and weigh 205 lbs. Looking for a fun dad ski. Thanks for any input.I already have the Strive 16 MN and K2 RECON 130 BOA ready to go.
It's tough to argue against the QST 98, but the ARV 100 makes a pretty strong case. I don't think the Bent or the Ranger work as well for your stats, so I'd narrow focus to the Salomon and Armada. Between those, the Salomon is the better floater and more agile performer in trees and deeper snow. The ARV has more pop and pep for the groomers, and functions just fine in the other areas too, but the Salomon is a standout in powder and trees.
Thank you so much for your reply
Torn between these and the 94s - what are the main differences? 181cm, 70kg, (178/9 cm is the right size ?) advanaced skier looking to progress in park and skiing an equal split of piste/off piste/ park. Thanks !
There's no construction difference, so it's really only the width, and that's up to how you spend your time on the hill. More soft snow? The 100 will hold up better. Find yourself in the park or on firmer groomers? The 94 is a more useful choice.
How stiff do you find these skis? Are they easy for buttering and pressing around the mountain?
Not too stiff. They are a bit more flexible, especially in a poppy way, than they used to be in the ARV 96. We feel you find more ability in butters and presses with the new build vs. the old one.
@@SkiEssentials Thanks so much for the reply! You guys are the best!
hi, i am a 15yo guy from finland, usually riding in park but also in slopes and trees. I am thinking between Atomic bent 90, armada arv 94 and arv 100. 180cm and 65 kilos. Which one should i buy? i am quite experienced skier, now i have skied about ten years or so.
no reply so far, tomorrow i am going to the ski shop.
How does it compare to the bent 100 n reckoner 102?
The ARV is the most substantial of the three. It's got a sturdier feeling to it and provides more pop and energy. It's not nearly as flexible as the Reckoner, nor is it as drifty and smeary as the Bent 100, making the ARV a bit more consistent when it comes to mixed terrain and conditions. Among these 100's, I'd also say it's got the best park chops.
The ARV 100 comes with a new Sidewall technology called „ wedge wall“ . That is a game changer when comes to carving performance and grip🔥 much better carves than the other 100eds… mire power and quicker edge to edge
How does it compare to the old arv96? I own a pair which might need replacing soon and I’m considering the arv 100
If you want a closer ski, I'd recommend waiting for the 2025 version to be available. The 2024's use caruba wood which is lighter than the ARV 96's blend of ash, and the 2025's use poplar with an ash insert, so the next year's ski will be more like the ones you are coming out of.
@@SkiEssentials oh great! Thanks