Ski: 2024-2025 Armada Declivity X 102, 180 cm
Test Locations: Taos Ski Valley, NM & Crested Butte Mountain Resort, CO
Days Skied: ~20
Available Lengths: 164, 172, 180, 188 cm
Blister’s Measured Tip-to-Tail Length (straight-tape pull): 179.1 cm
Stated Weight per Ski (180 cm): 2075 grams
Blister’s Measured Weight per Ski (180 cm): 2026 & 2038 grams
Stated Dimensions: 135-102-125 mm
Blister’s Measured Dimensions: 134.5-101.5-124 mm
Stated Sidecut Radius (180 cm): 18 meters
Measured Tip & Tail Splay (ski decambered): 55.5 mm / 21.5 mm
Measured Traditional Camber Underfoot: 7 mm
Core Materials: poplar + partial titanal layer + elastic compound + fiberglass laminate
Base Material: “Comp Base” (sintered UHMPE w/ carbon additive)
Factory Recommended Mount Point: -8.5 cm from center / 81 cm from tail
Boots Used: Lange Shadow LV 130, Atomic Redster CS 130, Armada AR ONE 130, phaenom FS 01 120
Bindings Used: Armada Shift 12 GW
Intro
For several years now, the Declivity and Reliance series have served as Armada’s most directional all-mountain / freeride skis, spanning widths from 82 mm underfoot all the way up to 115 mm.
Armada tweaked most of the lineup for the 24/25 season, including a switch to slightly heavier poplar cores on many of the narrower Declivity and Reliance models. More significant changes were made to the wider Declivity skis, including the addition of “X” to their names, a heartfelt nod to Armada athlete, Tof Henry; Tof played a large role in designing the original “Declivity X” big-mountain ski but passed away in a skiing accident last year.
We had spent considerable time on the previous-generation Declivity 102 Ti, so we were eager to see just how similar or different the new Declivity X 102 would prove to be, and what sorts of skiers would most appreciate this metal-laminate all-mountain ski.
What Armada says about the Declivity X 102:
“The Declivity X 102 brings a completely new construction to a proven shape, adding some big mountain chops to narrower chassis that excels in a variety of conditions. The poplar core adds some pop and stability, while the redesigned ATBX Titanal layer cuts out chatter and vibrations while letting the tail pop and slash with ease in deeper snow. The Declivity X 102 transforms from a frontside carver to a backside freeride ski without skipping a beat.”
Construction
The primary differences between the 23/24 Declivity 102 Ti and 24/25 Declivity X 102 come down to the two skis’ core materials.
For starters, the Declivity X 102 features a poplar wood core, whereas the previous 102 Ti used a lighter caruba wood core.
The new Declivity X 102 now features Armada’s “ATB-X” metal layer, whereas the 102 Ti used their standard ATB layer. ATB stands for “Articulated Titanal Banding,” and the standard ATB consists of an edge-to-edge and tip-to-tail layer of titanal metal with slits cut into it near the shovel. Those gaps are filled with an elastomer layer, and the main goal behind the design is to get some of the damping and torsional rigidity of a full titanal layer, but with improved rebound and easier turn initiation from the shovel.
ATB-X still features a metal layer with elastomer inserts, but the execution is a bit different. Here’s how Armada describes it: “A more condensed version of our ATB, ATB-X has been modified for a focused, damp feeling underfoot, but by reducing the amount of metal & weight in the extremities of the ski it becomes much more poppy, loose, and freeride feeling.”
I haven’t seen a picture of the ATB-X layer used in the Declivity X 102, but it sounds like it stops or tapers as you move from the binding area toward the tip and tail. That’s an approach we’ve seen from several other brands aiming to optimize edge hold underfoot while getting a looser, surfier feel at the extremities.
That aside, the Declivity X 102 maintains a triaxial fiberglass laminate, Armada’s 2.1 mm “All-Mountain Edge,” and sintered “Comp Series Base.” It also features their “AR100 Sidewall,” which means there is sidewall material along the whole length of the ski (though it steps down to more of a semi-cap construction near the ends of the ski).
Shape & Rocker Profile
No changes here — the Declivity X 102 maintains the same shape and rocker profile as the Declivity 102 Ti. These skis feature a bit more early tapering at the tips and tails than some of the more traditional directional skis in this class (e.g., Volkl Mantra 102), but they have longer effective edges than Armada’s freestyle-oriented ARV skis.
The Declivity X 102’s rocker profile is pretty typical for its class; it has a fairly deep tip rocker line and a shallower tail rocker line, with traditional camber in between.
Flex Pattern
Here’s how we’d characterize the flex pattern of the Declivity X 102:
Tips: 6
Shovels: 6-8
In Front of Toe Piece: 8.5-10
Underfoot: 10
Behind the Heel Piece: 9.5-8.5
Tails: 8-6.5
This flex pattern feels very similar to the previous Declivity 102 Ti. Both skis feature pretty soft tips and shovels but quickly get stiffer as you move from the rockered portions of the skis to the cambered middle. Overall, this is a fairly accessible and slightly more symmetrical flex pattern compared to many other directional metal-laminate skis. The back half of the Declivity X 102 is stiffer than the front, but it’s not as drastic a contrast as many directional skis.
Sidecut Radius
At 18 meters for the 180 cm length, the Declivity X 102’s stated sidecut radius is pretty typical for this class, if not a touch on the tighter end of the spectrum.
Mount Point
The Declivity X 102’s recommended mount point is about -8.5 cm from true center. That’s on the more rearward / directional end of the spectrum overall, but it’s closer to center than many comparable directional skis in its class (some of which have recommended mount points around -10 cm or farther back).
Weight (and Comparisons)
Between its slightly heavier wood core and slightly smaller metal layer, the Declivity X 102’s weight hasn’t changed all that much, relative to the previous Declivity 102 Ti. Our 180 cm Declivity X 102 weighs about 2030 grams per ski, which is on the lighter end of the spectrum for a metal-laminate, ~100mm-wide ski.
For reference, below is a list of some of our measured weights (per ski in grams) for some notable skis. As always, keep in mind the length and width differences to try to keep things more apples-to-apples.
1731 & 1750 Liberty Radian 100, 179 cm
1762 & 1830 DPS Kaizen 105, 179 cm
1816 & 1819 Head Kore 99, 184 cm
1867 & 1908 DPS Kaizen 105, 184 cm
1893 & 1925 Icelantic Nomad 100, 188 cm
1901 & 1902 Renoun Endurance 98, 184 cm
1916 & 1963 DPS Carbon Wailer 100, 184 cm
1925 & 1934 Black Crows Camox, 186 cm
1946 & 1962 Black Crows Atris, 184 cm
1956 & 1976 Blizzard Rustler 10, 186 cm
1967 & 1972 Dynastar M-Pro 100 Ti, 186cm
1976 & 2000 Line Pandora 99, 184 cm
1975 & 2028 Armada Declivity 102 Ti, 180 cm (20/21–23/24)
1976 & 2028 Parlor Cardinal Pro, 182 cm
1981 & 1991 Faction Dancer 2, 182 cm
1990 & 2045 Peak 104 by Bode, 184 cm
1998 & 2010 Stöckli Stormrider 102, 182 cm
1997 & 2001 ZAG Slap 104, 188 cm
1999 & 2012 RMU Apostle 106, 184 cm
2014 & 2038 Atomic Maverick 105 CTi, 185 cm
2019 & 2024 Salomon Stance 102, 183 cm
2022 & 2029 Icelantic Nomad 106, 188 cm
2025 & 2090 Line Pandora 106, 183cm
2026 & 2038 Armada Declivity X 102, 180 cm
2032 & 2037 Kästle Paragon 101, 182 cm
2032 & 2040 Majesty Havoc 100 Ti, 188 cm
2034 & 2060 Peak 98 by Bode, 184 cm
2050 & 2084 K2 Mindbender 106C, 183 cm
2054 & 2063 Salomon QST 98, 189 cm
2057 & 2061 Fischer Ranger 102, 183 cm
2068 & 2178 Salomon QST 106, 181 cm
2078 & 2138 Black Crows Justis, 183 cm
2079 & 2089 Shaggy’s Mohawk 98, 186 cm
2085 & 2120 K2 Mindbender 99Ti, 184 cm
2097 & 2098 Rossignol Sender Soul 102, 180 cm
2112 & 2149 J Skis Masterblaster, 181 cm
2114 & 2130 4FRNT MSP 99, 181 cm
2161 & 2167 Armada Declivity X 108, 184 cm
2166 & 2237 Völkl Mantra 102, 184 cm
2199 & 2229 Nordica Enforcer 99, 185 cm
2202 & 2209 Shaggy’s Ahmeek 105, 186 cm
2215 & 2231 Romp Oso 105, 188 cm
2230 & 2290 Line Optic 104, 185 cm
2273 & 2297 Nordica Enforcer 104, 185 cm
Now that we’ve covered the background and specs for this ski, let’s discuss how it actually performs on snow:
For the 2024-2025 season, we’ve partnered with Carv to use their Carv 2 sensors and digital ski coach app to not only learn more about our own skiing technique, but also add more useful info to our ski reviews. Here, you’ll see us reference some of the data that the Carv 2 sensors record and analyze while we’re skiing. Check out our announcement to learn more about how Carv works, why we’re excited to use it as a tool for our reviews, and how to get a discount on your own Carv setup.
FULL REVIEW
Luke Koppa (5’8”, 155 lbs / 173 cm, 70 kg): First, some context. We started testing the prior-generation Declivity 102 Ti during the 22/23 season, and I happened to really like it. So much, in fact, that I selected it as my daily driver in most of my personal ski-quiver selections the following fall.
Then, right as I was about to publish our long-term review of that ski, we got word that Armada was updating it for the 24/25 season. Immediately, I started to worry that I’d like this new ski less. But, personal considerations aside (and, more importantly), I was curious to see how different the Declivity X 102 would feel, and whether it would now work for a different demographic of skiers.
After many days on it last season and several refresher laps this winter, I’m happy to report that Armada didn’t drastically change the ski, and I think there’s a certain subset of skiers out there who will love it just as much as I do.
Groomers / On-Piste Performance
Luke: I’ll start with on-piste performance, not because that’s where this ski excels, but because it’s where I thought the 24/25 changes might be most evident.
The Declivity X 102 reportedly features a shorter metal layer than the Declivity 102 Ti it replaced, and Armada’s talk of the ‘X’ being easier to slash around made me think that it wouldn’t be as capable on groomed slopes.
Fortunately, I haven’t noticed much of a difference on piste. The Declivity X 102 is a respectable carver, given that it’s a 102mm-wide all-mountain ski. It’s by no means best-in-class when it comes to edge hold or on-piste power, but I enjoy laying down high-edge-angle GS turns on this ski on the majority of groomed slopes I encounter.
There are better options in this class if you want to carve clean turns on really firm, scraped-off slopes, but pretty much every ski I can think of that fits that description isn’t as maneuverable or agile off piste (see our Deep Dive comparisons).
Outside of icy conditions, the Declivity X 102 is an intuitive and fun carver. It doesn’t automatically pull you into a turn the way that minimally tapered, minimally rockered skis can, but put a bit of force into the Declivity X 102’s shovels, and it’ll bend nicely and start cutting across the fall line. I can do so at speeds as low as about 20 mph (32 kph) on slopes steeper than about 15°.
While its tips and tails don’t feel ultra precise, I appreciate that the Declivity X 102 doesn’t feel like a “tale of two halves.” Some skis that promise edge hold underfoot and maneuverability elsewhere can be less intuitive (or at least, less confidence-inspiring) when trying to carve firm groomers, since you have to commit to driving them through the vague part of their shovels and just hope that their more precise midsections grip once you get to that part of the turn. On the Declivity X 102, I find the ramp-up in edge grip from turn initiation to apex to be more progressive and predictable — like steadily wading into a pool, rather than blindly jumping off a cliff and hoping you hit some water at the bottom.
Looking at my Carv data, my best runs on the Declivity X 102 were on slopes ranging from about 18° to about 27°, where my average speed ranged from about 20-30 mph (32-48 kph), and I was pretty consistently hitting edge angles near or just over 60°.
When really pushing the ski, Carv says my turn radius tended to range from about 15-17 meters. It also feels quite comfortable making bigger GS and Super-G turns at lower edge angles, unless I start hitting big clumps of pushed-around snow over ~40 mph (65 kph), in which case it’ll get knocked around and feel a bit nervous.
When it comes to Carv’s “Ski:IQ” score (which basically aims to sum up how well, overall, you’re skiing), on the Declivity X 102, I’ve hit slightly above average numbers relative to the other comparable all-mountain skis I’ve been on this season.
That said, one aspect where the Declivity X 102 falls slightly short of some of its competitors on piste is how powerfully and energetically it finishes carved turns. I can create a decent amount of g-force at the apex of a turn on this ski (up to 2-2.5 g’s), but it doesn’t launch me into the next turn with as much energy as some of the best carvers in the ~100mm-wide all-mountain class.
The Declivity X 102 is far from a dead or sloppy ski on piste, but if overall carving performance is a top priority for your ~100mm-wide all-mountain skis, there are some more precise, powerful, and snappier options.
Moguls, Trees, & Tight Terrain
Luke: Personally, I love the Declivity X 102 in all sorts of tight, off-piste terrain. It happens to just work really well for my particular preferences, which have become highly specific after years of being able to try so many skis across so many different categories.
More importantly, I think lots of skiers could also appreciate this ski in bumps and trees, and some will love it just as much as I do.
For starters, the Declivity X 102 has a pretty low swing weight — especially if you’re considering other metal-laminate skis, many of which are heavier. The Declivity X 102 is also quite easy to release, pivot, and slash, provided you keep your weight over the front (or at least, off the back) of the ski.
Jonathan Ellsworth (5’10”, 180 lbs / 178 cm, 81.5 kg): I’m jumping in here, since I’ve spent most of my time on the Declivity X 102 skiing moguled-up terrain (e.g., CBMR’s Resurrection, Sylvanite, Crystal / Twister, Jokerville, Tower 11 Chutes, etc). I’m a little surprised to hear Luke talk about the ‘pretty low swing weight’ of these 102’s. To be clear, like Luke, I really like this ski in moguls. But I have to imagine that a good number of other all-mountain skis out there will have noticeably lighter swing weights than the Declivity X 102? Granted, I personally don’t tend to love lightweight skis with low swing weights for inbound skiing. But the more you do, the less I think you’ll love the Declivity X 102 in moguled-up terrain.
But with that little caveat aside, I agree with everything else Luke just said in this section — perhaps especially his last sentence right before I butted in here.
Luke: The sweet spot of this ski also seems pretty large. I don’t feel like I have to always be driving its shovels for the ski to feel intuitive, but I also never feel like its shovels or tails are lacking in support or ‘folding’ on me. The Declivity X 102 doesn’t respond well to extended tail-gunning from a backseat stance, but I usually have an easy time regaining my balance on this ski following a sloppy turn.
Jonathan: Totally agree.
Luke: As a result of all this, the Declivity X 102 is pretty easy to casually skid and slide through moguls. However, I think it really shines when you ramp up the speeds and put a bit more force into it.
Jonathan: Yep. My first day on the Declivity X 102 I was skiing moguls defensively — worried that on any given turn, I might gouge the hell out of the bases on a barely-covered rock. As we got a bit more early-season snowfall and I stopped worrying so much about rock hits and started focusing on faster, more fluid skiing, the Declivity X 102 really opened up for me, and started to become an all-mountain ski that I really like. In short, you do not need to be some bat-out-of-hell comp skier to get these skis to come alive, but if you are someone who prefers to pick your way cautiously down the mountain in bumped-up terrain, that’s not where this ski shines.
Luke: I.e., if you primarily want a ski that’s forgiving and easy to take through moguls, I’d probably point you toward something that’s a bit softer and maybe with a bit more tail rocker. But if you, like me, enjoy testing your skills in bumps to see how quickly you can get through them, and are always on the lookout for gaps to clear and loose snow to slash, the Declivity X 102 should be on your list.
Jonathan: I just read Luke’s previous paragraph after writing my last one, and … yep.
Luke: When pushed harder, the Declivity X 102’s low swing weight and relatively loose / surfy ride (for its class) become big assets, as does its strong-but-not-wildly-stiff flex pattern. It’s supportive enough to not throw me ‘over the handlebars’ if I come in too hot to the face of a mogul, but its tail doesn’t immediately send me for a ride the moment I lean on it. And the more aggressive I get, the more the Declivity X 102 pops me from one turn to the next.
All that said, I don’t think this ski will be a great fit if you prefer a very damp, planted ski and/or a really precise one that encourages you to carve through moguls, rather than hop and slash between them. And, as I touched on above, you’ve got better options if you want a very accessible ski that’s particularly forgiving when you get knocked into the backseat.
Powder & Soft Chop
Luke: The Declivity X 102 is a decent ski in fresh snow for what it is, but I wouldn’t call it particularly special in this regard.
Compared to some of the less tapered, less rockered skis in its class (e.g., Nordica Enforcer 100, Blizzard Anomaly 102), the Declivity X 102 does provide a looser, surfier feel in pow and soft chop. But if that’s your priority, something even more rockered and/or tapered makes more sense (e.g., the Armada ARV 106).
Still, the Declivity X 102 can be a lot of fun when soft snow is on the menu, especially when you’re still able to feel the firm base underneath. In snow deeper than that, I’d much prefer to be on the Declivity X 108 (a great pow ski for its width) or something wider, mostly because those skis are less likely to pitch me forward if I hit a deep spot and are generally easier to maneuver in those conditions.
But, especially in cut-up powder, many of the things I like about the Declivity X 102 in tight terrain become beneficial. It’s agile and pretty maneuverable for its class, but it’s also supportive enough to encourage aggressive skiing in these forgiving conditions. It’s no straight-line charger, but it does respond very well to a nimble, light-on-your-feet style in chop.
Firm Chop & Crud
Luke: The Declivity X 102 is not particularly heavy, nor does it have the longest effective edge. I.e., it’s not a chop-destroying tool on paper, and that holds true in practice.
In really nasty conditions — think firm snow but a very inconsistent surface / texture — the Declivity X 102 encourages me to dial back my speed and aggression. When it comes to crud, it’s more of a “let’s just get through this” ski than a “let’s see how fast we can blast through these frozen chicken heads” one.
The Declivity X 102’s suspension is plenty good, relative to its weight, and I have no qualms about skiing it when the snow is firm. But if I’m tasked with making big, fast turns through snow that’s both firm and rough / bumpy, I’d prefer to be on a much heavier setup.
Chalk / Steep Chalk
Jonathan: Ok, I haven’t actually skied the Declivity X 102 on a ton of steep chalk yet, and granted, lots of skis are good on steep chalk. Still, I keep thinking about my first turns on it at Taos Ski Valley (when I was still getting used to it) and get excited about once again flying down and popping around on steep chalk later this season. Everything we’ve said about its shape, weight, and flex pattern has me thinking about how awesome it will feel on one of the greatest types of snow on earth: chalk. (And chalky steeps? Commence hot & heavy breathing.)
Mount Point
Luke: I spent most of my time on the Declivity X 102 with it mounted on its recommended mount point (about -8.5 cm from true center). I think most people who will get along with this ski will also get along with that recommended mount point.
I also tried it mounted about +1 cm and +2 cm forward of the recommended line. Personally, I preferred it mounted around -7 cm from true center since the ski felt more intuitive when skiing with a more centered stance, but I didn’t feel like I compromised a lot in terms of support from the front of the ski or overall carving performance. So, if you’re more familiar with skis with more centered mount points — but you still think the Declivity X 102 is a ski you want to try — it might be worth testing a mount point just a little forward of the recommended line.
Jonathan: I’ve only been skiing the Declivity X 102 on the recommended line, but if I was mounting up a pair for myself, I think I would follow Luke’s lead here and go at least 1 cm in front of recommended (aka, -7.5 cm behind true center). I think that would quicken up the ski just a touch in lines where I feel a bit more forced to pick my way through sections of tight, technical terrain, and Luke and I have compared notes on skis long enough that I’m not worried about any downsides here. But if you will be mostly skiing more open terrain anyway on this ski, I think you’ll be fine on the recommended line.
Playfulness
Luke: Playfulness is an ambiguous word, meaning different things to different people. But I think it’s fair to say that the Declivity X 102 is a bit more “playful” than many other directional, metal-laminate skis around the same width.
By that, I’m mostly referring to the fact that the Declivity X 102 is (1) pretty loose / surfy for its class, (2) is more agile than it is sluggish, and (3) it responds pretty well to a fairly centered stance, rather than requiring a very traditional, forward stance all the time.
Armada and other companies make plenty of skis that are better options for those who prioritize freestyle performance. That’s not what the Declivity X 102 is for. But it does work really well for someone like me, who likes to think they ski “playfully” but who doesn’t spend a ton of time spinning, buttering, or skiing switch.
Length
Luke (5’8”, 155 lbs / 173 cm, 70 kg): For reference, I’ve gotten along well with a wide variety of ~100mm-wide all-mountain skis in lengths spanning from 178 cm all the way up to 188 cm.
In the case of the Declivity X 102, the 180 cm version we tested definitely feels like the right length for me and where I ski most. I might be curious to try the 188 cm if I skied somewhere with a lot more open terrain (e.g., Snowbird), but for the generally tight and technical terrain at Crested Butte Mountain Resort, the 180 cm Declivity X 102 feels spot on for me.
Jonathan (5’10”, 180 lbs / 178 cm, 81.5 kg): Same. For the tighter terrain of Crested Butte, I have not felt the need to bump up to the 188 cm model. For a place like Snowbird or Mt. Bachelor where more open terrain is plentiful, I suspect I’d get along great with the 188, but I still am not certain that I’d prefer it to the 180. What I’m about to say might not be helpful at all, but I’m tempted to say that this “180” feels and skis like a lot of “184” or “185” ~102mm-wide skis I’ve reviewed.
Luke: I’d mostly agree there, though I think the 180 cm Declivity X 102 only feels longer than some other ~180 cm skis that are fairly similar to it on paper. E.g., the heavier, stiffer, and less tapered 184 cm Volkl Mantra 102 and 185 cm Nordica Enforcer 104 definitely feel like ‘bigger’ skis to me than the 180 cm Declivity X 102. But the 180 cm Declivity X 102 feels like an apples-to-apples comparison for, say, the 183 cm Salomon Stance 102 and 183 cm Fischer Ranger 102, which have more similar weights, shapes, and rocker profiles to the Declivity X 102.
Who’s It For?
Luke: The Declivity X 102 makes the most sense for directional skiers seeking a well-rounded all-mountain ski that’s capable in most conditions, and that caters a bit more toward agility and maneuverability than high-speed stability.
Check out softer and/or more rockered skis if you want something very forgiving and/or freestyle-friendly. Or, if precision, suspension, and rock-solid composure are what you’re after, take a look at heavier, less tapered, and/or less rockered alternatives.
For those who don’t fall into those ends of the spectrum, the Declivity X 102 might warrant consideration. It does a good job of doing what this sort of ski should — be enjoyable on everything from fresh corduroy to tight moguls, moderate pow days, and all the mixed conditions in between.
It’s more accessible than its more stable competitors, making the Declivity X 102 a viable option for those who want a fairly strong, directional ski but who prefer a more nimble setup over a really planted one.
Where I think it really shines, though, is under the feet of folks who meet that description and who like to ski dynamically all over the mountain. The Declivity X 102 is fairly accessible at moderate speeds, but it truly comes alive when you utilize its low-ish weight, moderately stiff flex pattern, and fairly maneuverable rocker profile to carve hard, get in the air, and make all sorts of other on-the-fly adjustments.
Bottom Line
The ~100mm-wide all-mountain category is a competitive one, but the Armada Declivity X 102 still manages to set itself apart within it.
Of the directional skis in that class, the Declivity X 102 stands out for its (relatively) playful and agile ride, but it does so while still carving well, offering respectable suspension for its weight, and rewarding aggressive-yet-dynamic skiing.
Our Deep Dives, Winter Buyer’s Guide, & Flash Reviews
BLISTER+ members and those who purchase our Digital Access Pass can check out the Deep Dive comparisons linked below, where we compare a given ski, bike, etc. to a whole bunch of other comparable products in its class. Don’t have access? Get our Digital Access Pass to read all of our Deep Dive comparisons, as well as our Flash Reviews, where we provide our initial impressions as soon as we start testing gear.
Or, even better, become a BLISTER+ member to get that + the best worldwide Outdoor Injury Insurance, exclusive deals and discounts on skis, personalized gear recommendations from us, access to our annual Winter Buyer’s Guide, and much more.
On that note, you can also get our thoughts on this ski and 300+ others in our 2024-2025 Blister Winter Buyer’s Guide. BLISTER+ members already have access, or you can purchase the guide on its own to get the the print copy + digital version at no extra cost, or the digital-only edition.
Deep Dive: Armada Declivity X 102
We compare the Declivity X 102 to the Armada Declivity 102 Ti, Armada Declivity X 108, K2 Mindbender 99Ti, Salomon Stance 102, Rossignol Sender Soul 102, Dynastar M-Pro 100 Ti, Head Kore 99, Völkl Mantra 102, Nordica Enforcer 104, Stöckli Stormrider 102, Atomic Maverick 105 CTI, Fischer Ranger 102, Blizzard Rustler 10, and Line Optic 104.
2024-2025 Blister Digital Winter Buyer’s Guide
350+ skis, 65 boots, and 280+ pages of honest, accurate product reviews and comparisons. Order our 24/25 Winter Buyer’s Guide or become a BLISTER+ member to read the Digital Guide NOW.
If you’re already a Blister Member or have purchased the 24/25 Winter Buyer’s Guide and are seeing this message, please log in and then refresh this page.
24/25 Armada Declivity X 102
Armada updated a lot of their directional freeride skis for the 24/25 season, including a favorite of our managing editor, the Declivity 102. Here are his initial thoughts on how the new Declivity X 102 compares.
Blister’s Flash Reviews and Deep Dives are accessible to those who purchase one of our paid subscriptions
To get our comprehensive Deep Dives and our initial, unfiltered reports on new gear, become a member and receive many other services, deals, and discounts.
If you’re already an active member, please log in.
(If you’re already logged in and a member in good standing and seeing this message in error, please refresh this page in your browser.)
This looks really interesting. Sounds a bit like a lighter j skis hotshot.
Hope to get a shot at riding this one.
Just got back from trying these out for the first time. At my size, 5’10” and 165lbs, the 180cm was perfect; I mounted +1 cm from recommended and have plenty of ski out in front of me to inspire confidence.
On piste, the turn initiation you get from the “front corner” of the sidecut is absolutely incredible. It rails tight arcs and feels like it has a perfect balance of power, energy, and lightness – the most notable point being the snappy rebound you get between turns. You can make a bunch of different turn shapes, and adjust mid turn easily. The grip is great on everything except straight up ice. Stong enough to be a great carver at the highest speeds, but still really fun just cruising around.
In bumps and in natural terrain off-trail, it is surprisingly maneuverable given the traits listed above. It rewards both a weight-forward, shins on the front of the boot, style with precision, but unlike a many other directional skis, you can pilot it from a balanced stance and bend the tails without being punished by any harshness. Stability is impressive for its length and more forgiving qualities. Very, very well rounded.
I really genuinely enjoyed this ski; it feels like driving a sports car: it feels powerful yet agile, stable but light and easy to throw around; it feels expensive, packed with impressive engineering. I will be taking this thing out a lot this season, and it’s got me really excited to do so.
Due to age and health, I am now forced to “pick my way cautiously down the mountain in bumped-up terrain”. So my question is since the Armada Declivity 102X doesn’t shine in that regard, would the alternative be the Rossignol Sender Soul 102, or some other ski?