looking to get a mid 90mm twin-tip all-mountain pair, try to choose between Arv94/ Camox 96/ bent 90 or maybe Rulster 9, 30% grooms/30% off trail/ 30% mogul /10% park. versatile and playful. love to hear your thoughts. Bought the unleashed 98 from you guys last season based on the review. will try that next week too !
I think the Bent offers more difference from the Unleashed, so if you're looking for spacing, I'd go that route. rustler and Camox are very close to Unleashed 98, while the ARV 94 presents an interesting option. I'd say Bent first with ARV just behind.
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.
I'm going with the ARV for this specific application. I will say, though, that I have yet to ski the 91 in the 188. When I got on the Playmaker 101 in the 188, it opened that ski up for me. For the ARV in the 178, it feels more substantial than the Elan in the 180, giving it more stability when it comes to chop and crud.
Hey! Your videos have been like a visual bible for me as I navigate getting new skis. Thank you! 6 ' 4" 200lbs intermediate east coast skier that's deciding between the ARV 94s and 100s. I'm leaning towards the 94 as it makes the most sense for our conditions. Also trying to lock in which length to buy. Would love any insight you have!
How do these compare to the Nordica Unleashed 98s? Looking to buy my 1st pair and narrowed it down to these two but can’t decide which one to go for! I’m 5’9 77kg and looking for a playful all mountain twin tip that can handle pretty much anything you throw at it from hard packed groomers to off piste and the park!
The new ARV 94 is quite a bit quicker and more agile. The Unleashed is stable and damp, and that comes along with the metal involved. You're getting more true and dedicated park performance with the ARV while the Unleashed strikes more of an all-mountain note.
Between these, Prodigy 2.0 and Black Crows Captis/Camox, which one would you say offers the best All-Mountain performance. Looking for a fun All-Montain ski that can go switch, feels poppy and can still lay some decent carves. Thanks!
Here in Vermont, I'd say the the ARV checks those boxes the best. Captis is right there, offering a slightly narrower option for lower snow days/zones and the Camox is just on the other end of ARV when it comes to both energy and versatility. I don't find a lot of excitement around the Prodigy, personally, but I do think I'm too heavy for it at 225 pounds. ARV and Captis have wonderful pop that adds to the all-mountain experience while holding up to freestyle skiing and some decent carving.
Thank you so much for the review, awesome video! I'm looking to buy my first ski, 30% grooms/30% off trail/30% park and looking at the ARV94, ARV100, Prodigy 2.0.. Mostly skiing in Europe, so some powder days but nothing crazy most of the season... I'm 6.0 and 160 pounds. Do you have an opinion on the choice?
You'll probably have the most to gain from the ARV 94 as it mixes energy on groomers, versatility in off-piste, and strong freestyle componentry for park.
Hey, I just started skiing in the park with an arv 106, and i want to buy a ski that is lighter and softer. I tried a friends Faction Candide 2.0 2020 and i love how it skis and how soft it is. Currently I'm deciding between a Reckoner 102, the arv 94 and Prodigy 2.0. I want to mostly ski park, some side hits and definietly butter when there is no powder. How do these compare in stiffness to de Candide 2.0?
The Reckoner is pretty darn flexible. I'd say the ARV is a bit stiffer than the Candide, but the K2 stands out as a very flexy and playful ski. For more normal skiing, I'd go ARV, but for pure park, it's nice to see the Reckoner out there in the discussion.
Hey guys, I f'ing love your clear reviews/explanations. Chronic 94 v ARV 94, which has better edge hold on icy groomers. I think they sound pretty similar in other aspects? Cheers!
Thanks! The difference between these two skis is in the consistency. The ARV has it while the Chronic not so much. Chronic is thick and burly underfoot but light and flexible in the tips and tails. ARV is pretty much the same from tip to tail. If you're looking for edge hold on icy groomers, I think you'll get more out of the ARV. I do love that Chronic, though, but you do have to stay central on it in order to access performance in the grip realm.
Ha, I was definitely leading towards the Chronic, until I watched this review of the ARV! I need something to mess around on while skiing low angle and low speed with my (4yr old) daughter, and something for when the snow is not good enough for my fatties. But something that'll also handle some speed and gnarlier conditions between hot chocolate laps.
Are these suitable for groomers at mt hutt New Zealand? Really keen to learn riding backwards and do some spins on blue and later in the Season black runs off piste, including the park.what length do you think is best I’m 182cm and 82kg as well as binding placement recommendations . I’m used to carving skis bare in mind
They are very energetic and poppy with surprising grip for how light they are. Once you get them up to speed, you'll start to notice a lack of performance and power, but if you keep them to moderate speeds you'll enjoy the feedback. I'd go with the 178 in this ski.
As someone who’s 181 cm tall and weighs 170 what size would you recommend for these? I’d say I’m an intermediate to advanced skier and I ski mostly on east coast groomers while also getting in the park a decent amount. I am thinking either the 171 or the 178 since I do prefer a slightly shorter ski.
Hi @SkiEssentials, in your demo were you actually riding the 171cm length of the ARV94? l am in between whether to go for the 171 or 178cm length (my height 176cm; my weight: 70kg). I would be using it more for groomers, chop, crud, and some switch riding so perhaps 178cm would give me more stability given my ability is a little more than intermediate ?
I think your stats and application point to the 171. You may miss out on some stability at speed, but how often is that happening versus everything else?
Would this ski be good for touring? I’m looking for a ski that performs well on both piste, off-piste that has twin-tip free style element. I’m 6ft 1, weighing 100-105kg. I’ve been looking at Black Crow Captis and Armada ARV 94s. I’m truly trying to find that “all mountain ski” and it’s a difficult battle. Thank you
It's pretty light, so that'll certainly help with uphill efficiency. Lighter than Captis. You're in the right zone, especially if you're looking to add in some twin tip and creativity to the mix. I'd go long in these ones.
I might be a bit late on here hope you will see this, but can these skis be used for tough terrain since the mountain I ski at is mostly advanced slope, its a mix of moguls and really steep terrain, sometimes you are cruising nice steep zone, sometimes you are in big bumps, and its not a park. Basically what I am looking for is doing some tricks on a slope, that mostly doesn't get prepared and the slope is just really hard to ski on.
The ARV 94 is very versatile. It's not quite as stable as some other twin tips that have metal or denser cores, but for the weight and the strength, it's very impressive. Black Crows Camox or Rossignol Blackops 98 also make a lot of sense here and fall to the more stable side of the spectrum.
What are your thoughts on this ARV 94 vs the Bent 90 when it comes to the All Mountain side of the ski? Setup on the recommended mount points and not the forward mount points?
The ARV has a bit more tip to tail engagement while the Bent is more flexible in the tips and tails. This skews the ARV slightly towards the responsive side of the spectrum, and that makes it more energetic for all-mountain.
@@SkiEssentialsOne last question to slightly complicate this some more. If you were going to put the CAST system on it and use it for some touring, mostly early morning resort laps and touring in typical snow conditions. Which would would you look towards?
The Revolt has some heft to it and isn't quite as poppy as the ARV. As a heavier skier, I had a blast on the Revolt--I did have to move the bindings back from the line to get more all-mountain feel to it, but loved the round, clean carves it made. The ARV is more energetic and will be easier for more skiers to use in the park and all-mountain. Revolt may be more of an acquired taste for most.
I have a poacher and faction prodigy 1, Would this ski be redundant? Would the arv 88 be a better option? Or should i just look for something different overall
The ARV 94 (and 88 for that matter) have different/more energy than the other two skis. There's some application and shape redundancies here for sure, but the feel is pretty different. The 88 is definitely more like a traditional competition park ski while the 94 falls more to the all-mountain side (within ARV for sure).
I debating about getting the armada arw 88, I love to ski the park but still do all mounting and some powder days when we get enough snow. I’m 5 ft 5in and roughly 105-110 pounds. Would I still somewhat float in the snow with only 88 mm wide skis?
My biggest question is if I should get them in 179 or 185? I‘m 185 cm myself and weigh 170 pounds. I‘d like to use it as an allmountain ski and also butter them.
Your stats and application will work for either--it's more about preference at this point, as well as aggressiveness. If you're looking for more speed and longer turns, then you can go 185, but if your aim is to be more playful and mobile with your skiing, I don't think the 179 will be too short.
I'm 6'2 225 lbs and wondering if I'm too big for these skis, I'm looking for an all around ski that wont be sketch at higher speeds (like 30-40 mph for me) on edge
It's pretty close. I think if you're looking for stability at those speeds, you may want to move a bit sturdier. In the mid-90's there's a lot. Blizzard Rustler 9, Black Crows Serpo, Armada Declivity 92 all are fantastic options here.
Hey, i was looking to buy a new pair of Head Oblivion 94's but cant find any for sale anywhere close to me. Do these feel kind of similar to those? i might settle for these if that is the case.
On the fence whether to get this ARV 94 or the Santa Ana 98 (being discounted to $380 due to being the 22/23 graphic). What's your tip for a guy that wants something a bit more playful and suited for those days when up to 4-5 inches of powder land on the groomers before the resort opens? I normally ride a 172cm Nordica Navigator 85 when the groomers are perfect. Also, is the ARW 94 really that different apart from the graphics?
@@SkiEssentialsThanks for the tip, gonna try to get either a pair of ARV or ARW 94 on my boots as soon as possible, lots of mornings like the one I mentioned this year and I want to get the most out of them =) Thanks for all your hard work and awesome reviews, you are the best!
The Chronic 94 will have more flexible tips and tails than the Revolt 95. The ARV 94 is on the lighter side, but is a bit more consistent with the flex (albeit stiffer than the Chronic) from tip to tail. This makes the Chronic more playful and smeary while the ARV is poppier and more energetic.
I’m a big all mountain skier and enjoy jumps and lips but am looking to branch out and learn some park. Are the arv 100s or 94s better? I’m on the east coast
@@SkiEssentials I’m a pretty advanced skier but have slim to no park experience but would like to learn. Will 94s perform well on glades and just outside the park in general
A lot of skiers like the cabrio style boots like the K2 Fl3x or the Dalbello Krypton, but as always, the main thing is fit, and if your boots fit properly then you're going to be a lot more comfortable in the park rather than a freestyle-oriented boot that is of improper fit.
The ARV 94 has a lot to offer when it comes to quickness and mobility. The Rustler is slightly more lumbering due to the metal especially if you're using the ski in a park format. Most skiers who are leaning to the park side of the spectrum will gravitate to the ARV while those with more of a penchant for freeride and carving will love the new Rustler's stability and smoothness.
Was this a “prototype” ARV 94 that armada sent you? It appears on their website that they changed the core from caruba to poplar. Also the 178 I weighed is 1800 grams.
@@SkiEssentials Interesting to know and thanks for sharing. Did Armada share any insight into their reasoning for this? And what is your opinion on the change, is it a good or bad thing?
@@12f8ewfo It sounds like the move to caruba in the skis without additives (Ti or C) was too light for most skiers. The sturdier poplar should smooth things out a bit. This is a good thing!
Yoo great review, I was about to buy the arv 96, but am now leaning more towards the 94 as my "do everything" ski, are you the dude in the black and yellow gear?
Hi, i've ridden the Maverick 88Ti's and i liked them a lot. Tho i'm looking into some more playful skis that opens up some new opportunities for riding style. I do love me some groomers and carves, but also to an extent some freeriding and jumps. Would this be a good option?
Yup! Great pop and energy, so they do carve quite well for a twin tip, all the while keeping the ski very fun-loving and playful. This ski blends entertainment and purpose quite effectively.
I think if any type of soft snow performance on a consistent basis is required, the 100 makes more sense. That's the biggest difference--other than that, the 94 is highly useful and versatile for most conditions and terrain, including park.
There's a decent difference in the flex of the TW in that it's softer and more playful, but less all-mountain oriented and versatile. As a pro model, the TW is really built to the specs and application of a slopestyle skier while the ARV is more open in terms of range and application.
I think the 171 is the move here, especially if park or freestyle is any where near your priority list. If you're just cruising groomers and looking for stability, I don't think the longer one will be too long, but overall my bet is the 171 will offer more.
Gonna sit n watch every single one of these 2024 uploads then I'm gonna go buy a pair of Moments.
I'm doing this just because I want every single ski because my ski style changes like 3 times a day
@@PreciousLettucelate to reply but real asf
looking to get a mid 90mm twin-tip all-mountain pair, try to choose between Arv94/ Camox 96/ bent 90 or maybe Rulster 9, 30% grooms/30% off trail/ 30% mogul /10% park. versatile and playful. love to hear your thoughts. Bought the unleashed 98 from you guys last season based on the review. will try that next week too !
I think the Bent offers more difference from the Unleashed, so if you're looking for spacing, I'd go that route. rustler and Camox are very close to Unleashed 98, while the ARV 94 presents an interesting option. I'd say Bent first with ARV just behind.
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.
Quick question. Between the ARV 94 and the Playmaker 91, which ski is more stable and better in chop/crud? Thanks, and great review as always!
I'm going with the ARV for this specific application. I will say, though, that I have yet to ski the 91 in the 188. When I got on the Playmaker 101 in the 188, it opened that ski up for me. For the ARV in the 178, it feels more substantial than the Elan in the 180, giving it more stability when it comes to chop and crud.
Hey! Your videos have been like a visual bible for me as I navigate getting new skis. Thank you! 6 ' 4" 200lbs intermediate east coast skier that's deciding between the ARV 94s and 100s. I'm leaning towards the 94 as it makes the most sense for our conditions. Also trying to lock in which length to buy. Would love any insight you have!
I think aligning your ski width with your largest percentage of conditions makes perfect sense. I'd go with the 185 in the 94.
🙏@@SkiEssentials
How do these compare to the Nordica Unleashed 98s? Looking to buy my 1st pair and narrowed it down to these two but can’t decide which one to go for! I’m 5’9 77kg and looking for a playful all mountain twin tip that can handle pretty much anything you throw at it from hard packed groomers to off piste and the park!
The new ARV 94 is quite a bit quicker and more agile. The Unleashed is stable and damp, and that comes along with the metal involved. You're getting more true and dedicated park performance with the ARV while the Unleashed strikes more of an all-mountain note.
Between these, Prodigy 2.0 and Black Crows Captis/Camox, which one would you say offers the best All-Mountain performance. Looking for a fun All-Montain ski that can go switch, feels poppy and can still lay some decent carves. Thanks!
Here in Vermont, I'd say the the ARV checks those boxes the best. Captis is right there, offering a slightly narrower option for lower snow days/zones and the Camox is just on the other end of ARV when it comes to both energy and versatility. I don't find a lot of excitement around the Prodigy, personally, but I do think I'm too heavy for it at 225 pounds. ARV and Captis have wonderful pop that adds to the all-mountain experience while holding up to freestyle skiing and some decent carving.
Thank you so much for the review, awesome video!
I'm looking to buy my first ski, 30% grooms/30% off trail/30% park and looking at the ARV94, ARV100, Prodigy 2.0..
Mostly skiing in Europe, so some powder days but nothing crazy most of the season...
I'm 6.0 and 160 pounds. Do you have an opinion on the choice?
You'll probably have the most to gain from the ARV 94 as it mixes energy on groomers, versatility in off-piste, and strong freestyle componentry for park.
Hey man i ski just the way you do and ive got stuck between arv 94 and prodigy 2.0 which ski did you go with and are you satisfied with your result?
Hey, I just started skiing in the park with an arv 106, and i want to buy a ski that is lighter and softer. I tried a friends Faction Candide 2.0 2020 and i love how it skis and how soft it is. Currently I'm deciding between a Reckoner 102, the arv 94 and Prodigy 2.0. I want to mostly ski park, some side hits and definietly butter when there is no powder. How do these compare in stiffness to de Candide 2.0?
The Reckoner is pretty darn flexible. I'd say the ARV is a bit stiffer than the Candide, but the K2 stands out as a very flexy and playful ski. For more normal skiing, I'd go ARV, but for pure park, it's nice to see the Reckoner out there in the discussion.
Hey guys, I f'ing love your clear reviews/explanations.
Chronic 94 v ARV 94, which has better edge hold on icy groomers. I think they sound pretty similar in other aspects? Cheers!
Thanks!
The difference between these two skis is in the consistency. The ARV has it while the Chronic not so much. Chronic is thick and burly underfoot but light and flexible in the tips and tails. ARV is pretty much the same from tip to tail. If you're looking for edge hold on icy groomers, I think you'll get more out of the ARV. I do love that Chronic, though, but you do have to stay central on it in order to access performance in the grip realm.
Ha, I was definitely leading towards the Chronic, until I watched this review of the ARV! I need something to mess around on while skiing low angle and low speed with my (4yr old) daughter, and something for when the snow is not good enough for my fatties.
But something that'll also handle some speed and gnarlier conditions between hot chocolate laps.
Are these suitable for groomers at mt hutt New Zealand? Really keen to learn riding backwards and do some spins on blue and later in the Season black runs off piste, including the park.what length do you think is best I’m 182cm and 82kg as well as binding placement recommendations . I’m used to carving skis bare in mind
They are very energetic and poppy with surprising grip for how light they are. Once you get them up to speed, you'll start to notice a lack of performance and power, but if you keep them to moderate speeds you'll enjoy the feedback. I'd go with the 178 in this ski.
As someone who’s 181 cm tall and weighs 170 what size would you recommend for these? I’d say I’m an intermediate to advanced skier and I ski mostly on east coast groomers while also getting in the park a decent amount. I am thinking either the 171 or the 178 since I do prefer a slightly shorter ski.
I'd go with the 171 since you seem to prefer shorter.
Jeff did you do a park tune on your edges, for sliding rails?
Not for these skis, but for my park skis in the past, that I owned, I'd go with a 2-degree base edge.
Hi @SkiEssentials, in your demo were you actually riding the 171cm length of the ARV94? l am in between whether to go for the 171 or 178cm length (my height 176cm; my weight: 70kg). I would be using it more for groomers, chop, crud, and some switch riding so perhaps 178cm would give me more stability given my ability is a little more than intermediate ?
I think your stats and application point to the 171. You may miss out on some stability at speed, but how often is that happening versus everything else?
@@SkiEssentials Thanks so much for replying. You made me think wisely about the trade-offs. Cheers.
Would this ski be good for touring? I’m looking for a ski that performs well on both piste, off-piste that has twin-tip free style element.
I’m 6ft 1, weighing 100-105kg. I’ve been looking at Black Crow Captis and Armada ARV 94s.
I’m truly trying to find that “all mountain ski” and it’s a difficult battle.
Thank you
It's pretty light, so that'll certainly help with uphill efficiency. Lighter than Captis. You're in the right zone, especially if you're looking to add in some twin tip and creativity to the mix. I'd go long in these ones.
I might be a bit late on here hope you will see this, but can these skis be used for tough terrain since the mountain I ski at is mostly advanced slope, its a mix of moguls and really steep terrain, sometimes you are cruising nice steep zone, sometimes you are in big bumps, and its not a park. Basically what I am looking for is doing some tricks on a slope, that mostly doesn't get prepared and the slope is just really hard to ski on.
The ARV 94 is very versatile. It's not quite as stable as some other twin tips that have metal or denser cores, but for the weight and the strength, it's very impressive. Black Crows Camox or Rossignol Blackops 98 also make a lot of sense here and fall to the more stable side of the spectrum.
What are your thoughts on this ARV 94 vs the Bent 90 when it comes to the All Mountain side of the ski? Setup on the recommended mount points and not the forward mount points?
The ARV has a bit more tip to tail engagement while the Bent is more flexible in the tips and tails. This skews the ARV slightly towards the responsive side of the spectrum, and that makes it more energetic for all-mountain.
@@SkiEssentialsOne last question to slightly complicate this some more. If you were going to put the CAST system on it and use it for some touring, mostly early morning resort laps and touring in typical snow conditions. Which would would you look towards?
Hi, awesome review. How do they compare to the Völkl Revolt 96?
The Revolt has some heft to it and isn't quite as poppy as the ARV. As a heavier skier, I had a blast on the Revolt--I did have to move the bindings back from the line to get more all-mountain feel to it, but loved the round, clean carves it made. The ARV is more energetic and will be easier for more skiers to use in the park and all-mountain. Revolt may be more of an acquired taste for most.
Do you think the Edollo or ARV for mostly all mountain fun poppy ski? Just for cruising, side hits, and trees
I'd say the ARV is the way to go for pop, cruise, trees, and sidehits. The Edollo is a bit more specific to harder-core park skiing.
I have a poacher and faction prodigy 1, Would this ski be redundant? Would the arv 88 be a better option? Or should i just look for something different overall
The ARV 94 (and 88 for that matter) have different/more energy than the other two skis. There's some application and shape redundancies here for sure, but the feel is pretty different. The 88 is definitely more like a traditional competition park ski while the 94 falls more to the all-mountain side (within ARV for sure).
I debating about getting the armada arw 88, I love to ski the park but still do all mounting and some powder days when we get enough snow. I’m 5 ft 5in and roughly 105-110 pounds. Would I still somewhat float in the snow with only 88 mm wide skis?
I think it's totally reasonable. It wasn't that long ago that an 88 underfoot ski would be the widest on the mountain.
My biggest question is if I should get them in 179 or 185? I‘m 185 cm myself and weigh 170 pounds. I‘d like to use it as an allmountain ski and also butter them.
Your stats and application will work for either--it's more about preference at this point, as well as aggressiveness. If you're looking for more speed and longer turns, then you can go 185, but if your aim is to be more playful and mobile with your skiing, I don't think the 179 will be too short.
I'm 6'2 225 lbs and wondering if I'm too big for these skis, I'm looking for an all around ski that wont be sketch at higher speeds (like 30-40 mph for me) on edge
It's pretty close. I think if you're looking for stability at those speeds, you may want to move a bit sturdier. In the mid-90's there's a lot. Blizzard Rustler 9, Black Crows Serpo, Armada Declivity 92 all are fantastic options here.
it looks like it was really cold... was the snow sticky and did it feel like you were going to go head over heals?
Normal cold. Not too sticky!
Hey, i was looking to buy a new pair of Head Oblivion 94's but cant find any for sale anywhere close to me. Do these feel kind of similar to those? i might settle for these if that is the case.
Yes very similar! Maybe a bit better pop and energy out of the ARV while the Head is more flexible at this width.
@@SkiEssentials thank you for the quick answer. Might settle for these this year. Cheers.
On the fence whether to get this ARV 94 or the Santa Ana 98 (being discounted to $380 due to being the 22/23 graphic). What's your tip for a guy that wants something a bit more playful and suited for those days when up to 4-5 inches of powder land on the groomers before the resort opens? I normally ride a 172cm Nordica Navigator 85 when the groomers are perfect. Also, is the ARW 94 really that different apart from the graphics?
ARV and ARW are the same skis. I think the Armada 94 makes a lot of sense here, especially since you have more of a front side ski in the Navigator.
@@SkiEssentialsThanks for the tip, gonna try to get either a pair of ARV or ARW 94 on my boots as soon as possible, lots of mornings like the one I mentioned this year and I want to get the most out of them =) Thanks for all your hard work and awesome reviews, you are the best!
What you think between arv and line chronic 94 i had volk revolt 95 and they were little bit to stiff for me
The Chronic 94 will have more flexible tips and tails than the Revolt 95. The ARV 94 is on the lighter side, but is a bit more consistent with the flex (albeit stiffer than the Chronic) from tip to tail. This makes the Chronic more playful and smeary while the ARV is poppier and more energetic.
Looking to get the arv 94 but unsure of the size to get i am 170cm weighing 187lbs intermediate skier would 164 be better or the 171
I'd go 164 based on your stats and application.
I’m a big all mountain skier and enjoy jumps and lips but am looking to branch out and learn some park. Are the arv 100s or 94s better? I’m on the east coast
I'd say the 94 will offer you a greater chance of overall success and happiness here on the east coast.
@@SkiEssentials I’m a pretty advanced skier but have slim to no park experience but would like to learn. Will 94s perform well on glades and just outside the park in general
I have a question. What ski boots do you recommend for snow park skiing?
the k2 fl3x
A lot of skiers like the cabrio style boots like the K2 Fl3x or the Dalbello Krypton, but as always, the main thing is fit, and if your boots fit properly then you're going to be a lot more comfortable in the park rather than a freestyle-oriented boot that is of improper fit.
Was wondering where “core center” is. I want to mount as close to true center as possible without going over the center of camber.
If you put the ski flat on a table or something, it should be pretty easy to see where that is, especially in relation to the freestyle line.
New rustler 9 or ARV94? Main differences? Thanks!
The ARV 94 has a lot to offer when it comes to quickness and mobility. The Rustler is slightly more lumbering due to the metal especially if you're using the ski in a park format. Most skiers who are leaning to the park side of the spectrum will gravitate to the ARV while those with more of a penchant for freeride and carving will love the new Rustler's stability and smoothness.
What brand of suit are you using in the video?
The tan/black is a Strafe Sickbird suit
Was this a “prototype” ARV 94 that armada sent you? It appears on their website that they changed the core from caruba to poplar. Also the 178 I weighed is 1800 grams.
They are changing the core from caruba to poplar for 2025.
@@SkiEssentials Interesting to know and thanks for sharing. Did Armada share any insight into their reasoning for this? And what is your opinion on the change, is it a good or bad thing?
@@12f8ewfo It sounds like the move to caruba in the skis without additives (Ti or C) was too light for most skiers. The sturdier poplar should smooth things out a bit. This is a good thing!
Yoo great review, I was about to buy the arv 96, but am now leaning more towards the 94 as my "do everything" ski, are you the dude in the black and yellow gear?
Black and tan, I'd say.
Hi, i've ridden the Maverick 88Ti's and i liked them a lot. Tho i'm looking into some more playful skis that opens up some new opportunities for riding style. I do love me some groomers and carves, but also to an extent some freeriding and jumps. Would this be a good option?
Yup! Great pop and energy, so they do carve quite well for a twin tip, all the while keeping the ski very fun-loving and playful. This ski blends entertainment and purpose quite effectively.
how do these compare to the elan playmaker 91s? thanks!
Pretty darn similar. The Elan is a bit lighter and a bit quicker, but the ARV can handle some cleaner carves with more pop out of the turn.
@SkiEssentials which is best for even split of groomers/park/off piste in Europe?
arv 94 vs arv 100, which one should i get!? please help
I think if any type of soft snow performance on a consistent basis is required, the 100 makes more sense. That's the biggest difference--other than that, the 94 is highly useful and versatile for most conditions and terrain, including park.
cant decide if i should get the TW pros or the ARV 94s
There's a decent difference in the flex of the TW in that it's softer and more playful, but less all-mountain oriented and versatile. As a pro model, the TW is really built to the specs and application of a slopestyle skier while the ARV is more open in terms of range and application.
@@SkiEssentials yeah i decided to go ARVs picking them up next week!
What’s the exact freestyle mount point on the 178?
-3 from center
@@SkiEssentials thanks! Do you think going -1.5 would be too far off from side cut? Will be doing 90% park on this ski.
I’m on the east coast and do some park but like 80% all mountain and glades. Are the 94s or 100s better
I think there's more upside to the 94 unless you find yourself in deeper or softer snow a lot of the time.
@@SkiEssentials thank you. Is the arw 94 identical in build to the arv? I like the graphic on that one more
@@TommyBarrett-vz3tq yes! Jeff is skiing the ARW 100 over the ARV 100 for the same reason.
@@SkiEssentials the 94s will do glades and off trail right? I’m primarily skiing that stuff
@@TommyBarrett-vz3tqYup! same ski different graphic. I like the ARW more as well.
Are you sure it’s a caruba wood core? 1:08 Armada’s website says poplar core
Yes there is conflicting information out there. The 2024 has caruba, and we know this for sure because for 2025 they have changed it to poplar.
@@SkiEssentialsinteresting. Hope you guys do a little review of the poplar ones next season
What bindings you running with them?
Those had a Salomon STH 13--worked great!
@@SkiEssentialsnice. I'm looking for an even split of park/piste/off piste - should I mount on factory or freestyle? Thanks
@@peterbayvel-zayats7172 I'd say factory is the way to go if you're not committing to full park.
Is there going to be a video on the ARV 88s?
We actually didn't get the ARV to film this year as of yet--it's on the way, though, so give us about two weeks and we should have that up.
@@SkiEssentials looking forward to it!
Hey I am stuck between the 171 and 178cm I’m 180cm and weight 70kg please help!
I think the 171 is the move here, especially if park or freestyle is any where near your priority list. If you're just cruising groomers and looking for stability, I don't think the longer one will be too long, but overall my bet is the 171 will offer more.
@@SkiEssentials thank you so much for the reply