Warning: Great Wall of Text Ahead
OK, to start off I know this appears to be an odd ski comparison and it is.
So basically my Armada Pipe Cleaners broke and I was going to replace them with either AR6s, Alpha 2s, Alpha 1s, Pipe Cleaners, or ARVs. Then I remembered I have a pair of 06/07 Rossignol Scratch FS WRS with around 40 days of groomer, pow, and tree use on them. I didn't ski park much back when I had those so they didn't hit any rails or boxes with them and seldom hit jumps or hips with them. Thus, I figure if the only touched groomers, pow and trees for 40 days they should have tons of use left in them. I decided I would mount those up and use them as my park, pipe, ice, sketchy early and late season conditions, and rock skis.
I still have some money saved up and wanted to expand my quiver even when I had my Pipe Cleaners. Lots of skis are on sale now that its spring so I figure now is a good a time as any to pick up something to complement a narrow (84mm) park ski. I narrowed it down to 2 skis I have always wanted to own, the ANTs and the Bacons. I know these are 2 completely different skis, but both would be a good addition to the quiver. I'd like to have both a big mountain charger and a fat playful jibber in my quiver, so the question is which do I get first?
I'm really on the fence 50-50 right now. I could go either way. I think either way I'll be happy. Just want something fatter to go with your standard park ski. Either one should be fun to ski and definitely a change of pace from narrow park skis. Each should also handle all softer snow better too.
I'm 5'10" and weigh 180 lbs but am losing weight right now. Could be down to 150 or 160 by next winter. Already lost 20 lbs since September. Am a good skier but by no means am I the best. I'm no EP or Candide or Tanner Hall. Level 3 by shop terms. Can do all trails at my home mountain. I ski the east but hit up places like Tucks and Mt Mansfield in terms of back/side country terrain and ski places like Jay, Stowe, Whiteface, and Gore for inbounds stuff. I get out west whenever I can.
I've made a pros and cons list for each:
ANTs:
Pros:
-Similar flex patterning as Pipe Cleaners. Soft nose or playfulness, medium underfoot, stiff tail for stomping big heavy landings and powering through turns.
-Stomps drops and heavy landings.
-Can go fast comfortably.
-Stiff as a whole. Great damp feel for soaking up imperfections in the snow. Blasts through heavy or wet pow, rain, sun, and wind crusts, wind pack, wind slab, crud, chopped up or tracked out pow, corn snow, slush. Stiff flex and traditional sidecut and camber lend itself to handling well in hardpack and ice.
-Fast but durable base. 50/50 Armada base. Faster than S7 but more durable then Comp.
-Great graphics. I like them. Also the black base with red Armada logos and Armada looks sick.
-133-107-123 dimensions. Wide enough to float in the pow and a 26m turn radius for fast long gs/super g turns.
-Sidewall construction.
-Lightweight full wood core.
-1.7mm edges are lightweight.
-Great Armada reputation and durability.
-Cheaper of the 2 at roughly $420.
Cons:
-Stiffer as a whole makes it less playful. Less jibby, less "use the whole mountain as one big terrain park"
-26m turn radius will probably turn quick short turns into sloppy skidded turns.
-Not as wide as the SFB so maybe slightly less pow performance.
-Could be really burly and cumbersome around 2pm when my quads are burning and I just want an easy ski to ski.
-Could be tricky in tight areas and tight trees.
-1.7mm edges might be weak.
-Might not be too fun in the park, but who knows.
-Not as fun at low speeds.
Bacons:
Pros:
-Soft flex. Great jibby feel. Make the entire mountain one big terrain park.
-Stiff enough flex to be fairly usable in a variety of snow conditions, not just a pow/park noodle.
-Slays powder and trees.
-Great on drops and landings.
-Good in the park as well as groomers, trees, pow, and all mountain.
-115mm waist something like 142 and 139 in the tip and tail. Great flotation. 18m turn radius. Great for medium gs turns and can crank out smaller ones if needed.
-Early taper. Less hooking in pow and other 3D snow types. Allows the ski to pivot and turn easier.
-Sidewall construction.
-Lightweight full wood core.
-2.5mm edge.
-Everyone that has SFBs loves them. Ski has a great reputation as being a great do anything ski and a fun, fat, playful, jibby ski.
-Amazing EP artwork. Sick topsheet and base graphics.
Cons:
-Pricier at roughly $450
-Not as good as ANTs in variable conditions and less than ideal snow.
-At 115 underfoot it might be clumsy and unwieldy?
-Can't go as fast as ANTs comfortably.
-Is Line's durability as good as Armada's?
-2.5mm edge and base might be heavy.
-Might be heavier overall than ANTs
-Not too good in the park? Spins and rails/boxes might be tricky?
-Not great at any one thing just OK at a lot of things?
What fat ski should I add to go with my park ski? +K to all who help
