Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

K2 Seth vs Armada ARV

profile picture
skarmada3
Posts: 15 - Karma: 10

For any of you who have maybe skiied the new models of these skiis or have good opinions, which ski would you recomend more for a tru all mountain ski-powder, crud, groomers,trees, everywhere. Looking at the 07/08 ARV 185cm and the Seth in 179 or 189cm. Never had a K2 before not sure what size to go with, usually ski a 185.

Nov 28 2007 1:57AM
0 0
profile picture
WONTON
Posts: 6951 - Karma: 55
dont htink u could go wrong with either. Seths are prolly a lil stiffer than ARVs but still not a stiff ski by any means. Im not sure if they stiffened the ARVs either but maybe? the 0405 0506 ones were total noodles of fun. How much do u weigh? I own ARVs but if i wanted something for absolutely everything id go with seths myself

Nov 28 2007 2:21AM
0 0
profile picture
skarmada3
Posts: 15 - Karma: 10
coming in at 5'9'' 165lbs, I usually like my skiis to be at least to top of my head but I love skiing trees and just not sure if the 189 seth is too long, I love my 185 ARV's in trees, the original black/pink like 02 model or something
Nov 28 2007 2:29AM
0 0
profile picture
JockinJLoads
Posts: 3480 - Karma: 6
being 5'9"  i wouldnt go with a 189 for trees.....def 179
Nov 28 2007 2:39AM
0 0
profile picture
MrLevel
Posts: 408 - Karma: 10
Keep in mind the new Seths have a mini-rocker which makes them able to turn shorter then a regular camber 189 but still keep most other benefits from a 189.
I've measured the amount of effective edge you "loose" with the mini-rocker on the 189, can't remember how much it was but it's a decent amount and imo not so mini.

Nov 28 2007 7:38AM
0 0
profile picture
Matty_C
Posts: 2598 - Karma: 236
seths ski a little longer than the length quoted- the 179 is actually a 182.
i would think the 189 would be a lot for your size.
if you plan on hitting the park a lot, arvs would be good, if not seths would be spot on.

maybe think about brigades, prophet 100s for different options in that size bracket.
Nov 28 2007 7:38AM
0 0
profile picture
shagboy
Posts: 1431 - Karma: 40
Seth's

mini-camber makes them great all around. Go 179 and you can hit the park everyday. They are also light.
Nov 29 2007 9:55AM
0 0
profile picture
FreeCorkage
Posts: 5 - Karma: 10
I'm getting new skis when I get to Aspen at the end of Jan, and I'm currently leaning towards the ARVs, it's interesting to see the Seths compared to them directly. Can someone confirm that the Seths are stiffer? I would imagine they probably might be, being wider and more of a backcountry charging type ski than an all mountain twin, but does anyone know for sure, comparing both new models. According to Armada's website this year's ARVs are stiffer than in the past. I ski the whole mountain hard, and have some background in SkierX and GS racing, so I want a stiffer than average twin tip...I've been doing my time in the park on old carve and race skis, so any twin is probably going to be softer than what i'm used to, I don't want real noodles...also, the extra width on the Seth (compared to the ARVs at 175cm) puts me off a little, they'd be great in the pow, but most of my skiing is done in Australia where we have quite a bit of ice, crud and slush....not much pow to speak of. 

I'm 5'11'', 150lbs and like my skis shortish and very light...any thoughts? Any other skis I should be considering? Thanks
Dec 13 2007 1:51AM
0 0
profile picture
shagboy
Posts: 1431 - Karma: 40
This year's seth's rip like a GS ski. The tips are a tad noodly but the tail and the rest of the ski is *stiff*
Dec 13 2007 10:28AM
0 0
profile picture
japanada
Posts: 13784 - Karma: 1,957
if you want a stiffer than average twin, the seths and arvs are not for you imo. something like a volkl bridge is a 92 waist and a lot stiffer than your other 2 choices.
Dec 13 2007 11:47AM
0 0
profile picture
liquidsword
Posts: 566 - Karma: 10
i've got 189 hb's and they measure 193-194 so i dunno if the seths do too. I'd go with the ARV's. they are an awesome very versatile ski. can take em through the park too
Dec 13 2007 12:11PM
0 0
profile picture
FreeCorkage
Posts: 5 - Karma: 10
thanks, i'll check out the bridge as well...must say I'm a fan of this year's ARV graphics though.
Dec 19 2007 8:17AM
0 0
profile picture
bbtkd1
Posts: 113 - Karma: 15
dude get armada cause armada is a core company not like k2 man
Dec 19 2007 9:29AM
0 0
profile picture
schmies
Posts: 2032 - Karma: 505
You are ignorant, how is K2 not a core company? Because we are big? Because we made the first modern twin tip with The Poacher 2 years before the 1080? Because we brought the concept of team marketing back into skiing with the K2 Factory team over ten years ago? Because we introduced rivets into the construction to attempt to eliminate delamination? Because we made the first park ski with unique flex patterns for buttering called the Fujative? Because we are not affraid to put graphics on our skis that scare parents? Because we made rocker something that every other company will attempt now after the Pontoon and the HellBent? Yeah I guess you are right, we aren't core at all. We probably don't even ski.
Dec 19 2007 10:50AM
0 0
profile picture
Matty_C
Posts: 2598 - Karma: 236
the strange but apt expression "PWNED" springs to mind at this point...

well put sir...
Dec 19 2007 11:02AM
0 0
profile picture
Dr_Feelgood
Posts: 1176 - Karma: 15
yea i would most definitely go with the 179 seths for all mountain. ive got some k2s now and love em. i dont think you should be riding 185s when your 5'9'' thats crazy. you should be riding like 175s.
Dec 19 2007 11:25AM
0 0
profile picture
Daver_BC
Posts: 1256 - Karma: 307
fuck that dude. longer the better. i mean shiller rides the big armadas.
Dec 19 2007 11:29AM
0 0
profile picture
Matty_C
Posts: 2598 - Karma: 236
pussy.

seriously though- 165lbs + 185 arvs =          :)
179 seths would be schweet too
Dec 19 2007 7:46PM
0 0
profile picture
jahmin44
Posts: 638 - Karma: 37
so cause shiller does it u do it?
Dec 19 2007 7:52PM
0 0
profile picture
Alex_thedroog
Posts: 3433 - Karma: 2
I have 186 big troubles for sale if you are interested.  they fall under that category.
Dec 19 2007 9:40PM
0 0
profile picture
Daver_BC
Posts: 1256 - Karma: 307
do you feel better about yourself putting other people down?


no what i'm saying is that there is no need for a short ski. we know this cause people like shiller crank cab 1440s with huge skis.     


Dec 22 2007 1:51PM
0 0
profile picture
dje84
Posts: 118 - Karma: 10
I'm 5'10 and about 165 and have no problems skiing the 189 Seth.  Although, it does depend on where you ski.  You can get away with a 189 at a place like Whistler for example with lots of off-piste terrain

It really depends on how you ski and how strong of a skier you are.  If you like rippin' and going really fast, then the extra edge on the 189 make that a breeze.  If you like short tight turns in the trees, then 179 is probably a better size. Plus, you can mount the bindings either forward or back to compensate.

The Seths have pretty big tips, so if you actually measure the running edge, you're looking at a lot less than 189 cm. 
Dec 22 2007 4:32PM
0 0
profile picture
schism
Posts: 1705 - Karma: 389
thats because hes like 6 2
Dec 22 2007 4:54PM
0 0
profile picture
skiRay
Posts: 7558 - Karma: 926
honestly, i dont think you can go wrong either way.. 
Feb 22 2008 8:06AM
0 0
profile picture
Tucks
Posts: 2120 - Karma: 161
I would go with the seths. I would rock them in a longer size aswell
Feb 22 2008 8:16AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)