Due to their weight and flex, they are about a B+ in park.
They are, depending on where you mount them, between a B and an A- in powder
I give them a B- in crud and ice conditions, as expected.
Overall, they are worth of a solid B rating. Nothing too special, but they are certainly fun skis.
Very good in the park and powder. The soft flex allows them to butter really well, and hold some floatation in the park. They arent big fatties, but they are just fat enough to keep really nice floatation (especially if you're on the lighter side) and narrow enough that they dont get in the way doing jibs. Really really nice in the park, especially on jumps. Really light, and can pound out landings well. I have Mojos on them and they are really nice and light, and make the ski oh so fun. They arent as good i the crud, or at super high speeds as I would like, but they are incredibly fun for mashin treelines, and on those 4-9 inch snowdays.
Really nice dimensions with 89 underfoot in the 165, 92 at 175, and 95mm at 185cm length. They are definitely a little bit directionally minded, with a much larger shovel in the front than in the rear, so they clobber things going forward, yet, they have enough in the tails to still do switch skiing fairly easy. They arent that great if you're to centermount them, so I suggest not mounting them higher than 2 back of center. Also, the mounting lines tend to be off on these earlier gen. armadas, so be sure to measure them for mounting.
Other than that... i'd say they are a pretty sweet design. plain wooden core, sandwitch construction... abs sidewalls. Perfecto..
although.. i will say, the bases dont seem to be the burliest in the world. Edges are fine, but i've definitely hit some things that have taken bits out of the base, but everything just stopped at the core.. didnt even penetrate anything but the base...
Still.. everything i've done is realy easy to repair. so they are still a fair deal.
If you find these around still, snag them, because you'll probably find a fantastic deal on them. If not, at least go for the 06 or 07 models, which have different sidewalls and lighter cores. Perhaps better bases as well.
I got the 175 length. Its pretty good for those between 140 and 170 lbs. or, if you're under about 5'10. If you're 180+, I say go for the 185 length, if you're under 5'8 or so, or superflyweight, go for the 165 length.
Definitely one of the softer skis out there. Really easy to throw around and butter on. Allows a little more floatation. Not as stable at high speeds as many skis in this all mountain mid-fat genre, but definitely a good offering for those who are going to be spending more time in park and powder than ice and big steep deathlines.
Other than my petty griping about the base (which was really only torn up during early season powder with sketchy snowbase) they have held up well. Slight chipping on topsheets, but nothing that serious at all. In fact, they have held up remarkably well. The edges are burly and really nice. They are really soft, but seem to be holding up really well even when i'm hammering full speed through rough terrain.
Very good ski, I used to have fujatives and those were pretty good as far as park, just not as much in the all-mountain catagory and I got a core shot with those. If your under 160 pounds these will do you well in any condition except maybe ice where they're not that spectacular. On a 1-10 scale I'd give a 7 ice 9 park 9 pow and 10 for all-mountain.
They're really good if you're lightweight(under 160). They kill in the park, I'm able to do sweet switch 3s and I'll be working on my 5s this season. As for all-mountain performance:AMAZING.
I think it's a cool design. They're like wide, all-mountain park skis.
ummm I got them for $210, so I'm pretty happy with the deal
soft in the front stiffer in the back stiffest underfoot
no edge cracks in the 10 days I've been hitting S boxes