Armada ANT vs. other big skis

**slim** · 03-07-2006, 01:20 AM

Originally Posted by Vicious

FWIW, I think the 'line' is actually only 5 back of center.

The line on mine measured up -7cm from chord center. I measured. Twice. On each ski.

**El Chupacabra** · 03-07-2006, 08:17 AM

So -9 should be 2cm further back from the Armada line marked on the ski. Sounds good.

**Vicious** · 03-07-2006, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by slim

The line on mine measured up -7cm from chord center. I measured. Twice. On each ski.

My fault...it's been quite a while since I measured and mounted mine.

**bryanthebold** · 03-08-2006, 12:38 AM

Alright, I got them in some deep snow today, finally!

First couple turns...I was confused on how to ski them, and I ended up riding the back seat and making terrible turns. Half way down the slope, I got my groove back and started to rock them. Made a run down West Baldy which had to be one of the best powder runs I have ever made. The ANTs absolutly KILL anything in their way. It took me a bit to find the optimal riding position for them, but once I found it I was taking things at speeds that my gotamas would have shit them selves at. I experienced no tip dive, except the usual low speed deep snow tip dive. The snow that was chopped up was easier than I imagined to ski. They just blow right through it. Did some drops, which I found them a great landing platform. It was nice to feel in control after a fast drop and keep the speed up and just bomb it out. I got beat bad late in the day once I got tired, but otherwise, they rock

**marshalolson** · 03-08-2006, 10:28 AM

i'd like to add that for bigger guys (190+ lb'ers) the ski is a great big teady bear. kicks gotama ass. so much more stable.

**bio-smear** · 03-08-2006, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by marshalolson

i'd like to add that for bigger guys (190+ lb'ers) the ski is a great big teady bear. kicks gotama ass. so much more stable.

I must try this ski. I took my 190cm Jaks out (really 188's mounted at the Bro 40 7/8 point) yesterday in the shallow pow, and was reminded what a joy a longer ski is. I instantly felt better and was able to fly thru the cut up mounds at speed. It was nice after spending so much time on 186 twins. The Jak is my AT ski though, so I have determined that I need to get my hands on a pair of ANTs.

**El Chupacabra** · 03-08-2006, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by bio-smear

I must try this ski. ... I have determined that I need to get my hands on a pair of ANTs.

I'll sell you mine (fresh coat of wax, undrilled), for $600.

**El Chupacabra** · 03-08-2006, 11:51 AM

More serious post:

I'm trying to pick the mounting point on these skis. I looked at 2cm and 3cm rearward of the Armada line, but that still looks really far forward to me.

I don't have a metric tape measure, so I have to convert longer measurements to inches. Here's what I've got comparing a 190 Explosiv and a 188 Bro Model to the ANT, all measurements with the tape measure pressed flat to the ski:

2cm back on the ANT: 34 1/2" from the tail
3cm back on the ANT: 34" from the tail

190 Explosiv: 31 1/4" from the tail
188 Bro Model: 32 7/8" from the tail

All these skis are really about the same length. The 191 ANT has a huge twin, so the running length looks about the same as the 188 Bro, maybe a bit shorter.

The ANT mounting point at 2cm or 3cm back still looks like it's about 2 inches too far forward. Thoughts, comments, feedback, abuse?

**slim** · 03-08-2006, 11:55 AM

I mounted mine 3cm back from the factory line. I only have a half day of them but it still feels like a lot of tail. 3cm back is still slightly forward, running length wise, of my 186cm Legend Pros.

My initial reaction was that they needed to go another 2cm back. This had more to do with getting that stiff tail around in my turns than it had to do with tip dive. However, by the end of the morning it wasn't so noticeable. The verdict for me is that I need more days on them before I'll consider a remount.

**marshalolson** · 03-08-2006, 11:59 AM

el c - once you negate the huge twin, they are actually 176's

compare the shovel length to something in that length. then the -2cm makes sense

**El Chupacabra** · 03-08-2006, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by marshalolson

el c - once you negate the huge twin, they are actually 176's

compare the shovel length to something in that length. then the -2cm makes sense

Makes sense. I was trying to eyeball the huge twin and figure out how that affected the ideal mount point.

What I'm trying to avoid is the "wheelie" feeling by mounting too far back on a twin. The stiffness of the ANT should will offset any wheelie tendencies though. OTOH, I don't want to mount too far forward, since skis with a lot of tail just feel weird to me.

**Pow4Brains** · 03-08-2006, 12:12 PM

I had never skied a twin before these and have them mounted at factory…….sure feel good to me. I wouldn't dick with them.

**Vicious** · 03-08-2006, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Pow4Brains

I had never skied a twin before these and have them mounted at factory…….sure feel good to me. I wouldn't dick with them.

IMO, they ski much better back a bit. On the line felt awful.

I'm going to go measure mine.

**bio-smear** · 03-08-2006, 12:44 PM

As long as the tips don't dive in pow, the more forward the better. They turn easier but still enjoy the high speed stability. You commented the other day at Rose that your Bros did pretty well in powder, perhaps compare the contact points of the Bros to the ones on the ANTs, and remeasure using that reference instead of the end of the tail.

I mounted my Big Troubles -1cm from the factory line despite recommendations to go -2 or as much as -4. They rule everything EXCEPT POW, where I might as well have a banana seat I am riding so far back. The Big Trouble is a stiffer ski than my Jak, which isn't too much different in terms of tip vs tail length and mount point. The Jaks float super easy while the Big Troubles want to make me somersault. Prob a product of soft vs stiff.

**Vicious** · 03-08-2006, 12:56 PM

Alright, my original mount was -11 from center, which works out to be 84cm (33.9 in) from the tail measured straight (not flat with the curve of the tail).

I then moved up to -9, or 86cm (33.1 in) from tail and find this spot to be $$$ in terms of usage in all conditions, including very minimal tip dive in the deep.

Edit to fix numbers.

**El Chupacabra** · 03-08-2006, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by bio-smear

As long as the tips don't dive in pow, the more forward the better. They turn easier but still enjoy the high speed stability. You commented the other day at Rose that your Bros did pretty well in powder, perhaps compare the contact points of the Bros to the ones on the ANTs, and remeasure using that reference instead of the end of the tail.

I am going to remeasure based on contact point on the ANTs vs. other skis, but still go with a rearward mount, either -2 or -3 from the Armada line. Just not so far back that I end up with the wheelie feeling skis.

I much prefer the feel of the rearward-mounted skis I have (AK Lab, Explosiv) than the forward-mounted skis I have or have had (Bros, long-gone Big Daddies). I think they turn easier and feel more stable with a rearward mounting position.

Bros are stable enough at the forward mount, but they still feel like there's a little too much tail; would've preferred them back 1 or 1.5cm. I'll just live with them how they are.

**good4nothing** · 03-08-2006, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Vicious

Alright, my original mount was -11 from center, which works out to be 86cm (33.9 in) from the tail measured straight (not flat with the curve of the tail).

I then moved up to -9, or 84cm (33.1 in) from tail and find this spot to be $$$ in terms of usage in all conditions, including very minimal tip dive in the deep.

Confusion.......

wouldnt going from 86cm from tail to 84 cm from tail mean you're actually getting closer to the tail, i.e. farther back?

EDIT: i know you've been nitpicked to death on ANT measurements, but I'm beginning round 2 on mounting these fucklers so i'm curious.

**bio-smear** · 03-08-2006, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by good4nothing

but I'm beginning round 2 on mounting these fucklers so i'm curious.

No luck on your shop comp for bad mount job?

**good4nothing** · 03-08-2006, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by bio-smear

No luck on your shop comp for bad mount job?

Yea, they're definitly replacing the skis, but turns out that availability is pretty much zero (some rabid group of assholes seems to have hit the existing stock pretty hard.....

). So they cant get any from their distributor, and it's now an armada issue. Turns out that the topsheets and thus midsole line being off is being considered a legit warranty issue, or so i'm being told. Either way new boards are forthcoming.

Anyway, supposedly i'll know by the end of the week, but with the sky finally opening up i dont know if i'll last that long. the difference is only 7mm (yea yea, but fuck it - free shit is free shit) and their shop manager (buddy) is cool with letting me ski them until the new boards come in. i guess we'll see and i'll let all parties interested in the mis-drilled(barely) pair know as soon as i get the new boards.

**Vicious** · 03-08-2006, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by good4nothing

Confusion.......

wouldnt going from 86cm from tail to 84 cm from tail mean you're actually getting closer to the tail, i.e. farther back?

EDIT: i know you've been nitpicked to death on ANT measurements, but I'm beginning round 2 on mounting these fucklers so i'm curious.

My fault, original mount was 84 from tail and then moved up to 86 from tail.

Edited my original post to make sense.

BTW, is it snowing up in Breck...I want to ski tomorrow.

**sfotex** · 03-09-2006, 12:46 PM

Called Armada - they said *ding*ding*ding* -
the magic number is 88 1/2 cm from the tail, or -7cm.

Edit: changed from inches-cm.

**El Chupacabra** · 03-09-2006, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by sfotex

Called Armada - they said *ding*ding*ding* -
the magic number is 88 1/2 inches from the tail.

You mean 88.5cm from tail, right?

Sounds about right for the Armada line printed on the topsheet, and also about right for going 2-3cm back for more stability and less tip dive.

**seanpistol** · 03-09-2006, 02:19 PM

i think i'd mount them at the -7 from center line.

**Vicious** · 03-09-2006, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by El Chupacabra

You mean 88.5cm from tail, right?

Sounds about right for the Armada line printed on the topsheet, and also about right for going 2-3cm back for more stability and less tip dive.

Yes.

5678