I'm fairly new to backcountry and started the season out on zero g 95's. They are great skis but a little hard to drive for me on anything other than corn. So I emailed the folks at Skimo and gave them some details about where I am in my journey and they recommended these skis.
I don't have enough experience to really get into the science of how they work, but I can tell you I was instantly skiing better in the powder and the chunk, and I don't think I lost anything on the corn. I just took them down the SW Chutes of Adams in great corn and loved every minute.
I probably can't say anything about the actual skis that more experienced folks haven't covered in detail, so really this review is about the folks and Skimo.co and how knowledgeable they are. Definitely hit them up if you aren't sure what to buy.
Armada Locator 104 Ski
The goldilocks one-quiver backcountry ski is an elusive beast, requiring extensive R&D, inspired vision, and maybe a hint of fairy dust. Freeride skiers, however, may have found the solution in the Armada Locator 104. The Locator incorporates tip rocker plus moderate camber, with a generous shovel and blended tail shape. The result is a ski geared towards speed while retaining the ability to float on powder or crash through crud without protest. A caruba core keeps weight manageable, making these skis an excellent choice for multi-day trips or collecting laps where conditions can change at a moment’s notice. Fairy tale travelers, take heed: your quest for the perfect everyday ski might end early with the Armada Locator 104 ski.
- Full-length carbon reinforcement dials the stiffness for enhanced speed--without adding weight.
- Minimalist 1.7 lightweight edges are heat-treated for a light, snappy feel.
- "AR Bat Tail" effectively centers skin tail clips.
- Tapered tips and tails guarantee hook-free skiing across various snow types.
| Specifications | |
| Lengths (cm) | 162, 170, 178, 186 |
|
Weight |
1280g [162] 1400g [170] 1450g [178] 1510g [186] |
| Weight (pair) | 2560g [162] 2800g [170] 2900g [178] 3020g [186] |
|
|
129-104-121 [162] 130-104-121 [170] 131-104-122 [178] 132-104-123 [186] |
|
Turn |
20m [162] 21m [170] 22m [178] 23m [186] |
|
Skin |
AR Bat Tail |
| Specs Verified | Yes |
| Design | |
|
|
EST Freeride Rocker |
|
|
Spoon tip, medium radius, flat tail |
|
|
Ti binding dampener + carbon reinforcement |
|
|
Caruba wood |
| Skimo Co Says | |
| Usage | Do-it-all ski touring with a soft snow preference |
| Notes | Less rocker, more camber than the Locator 112 |
| Bottom Line | Balanced, light and fast freeride touring ski |
| Compare to other High-fat Skis | |
Related Products
Questions & Reviews
5/26/2025
Adam Lambert
(used product a few times)
Comment on this review:
I ski the 170, sizing just a cm shorter than me for maneuverability in tight spots and lower weight, F1 XT and Ski Trab Gara Titan. First impressions were, dang these are light for a 104. To lean into the lightness, I cut tip notches for light tip-rip skins.
These excel in any soft conditions, impressively stable even up to speed on a shorter ski. On really firm snow, they do get some chattery feedback but not as much as I expected. Compared to the Fischer Transalp 105 which was impressively damp for 1500g and the Head Crux 105 on the even lighter side, the Armada Locator 104s fall in the middle for me, all pretty in line by weight. Carving fells pretty good for a wide, light ski.
These excel in any soft conditions, impressively stable even up to speed on a shorter ski. On really firm snow, they do get some chattery feedback but not as much as I expected. Compared to the Fischer Transalp 105 which was impressively damp for 1500g and the Head Crux 105 on the even lighter side, the Armada Locator 104s fall in the middle for me, all pretty in line by weight. Carving fells pretty good for a wide, light ski.
Comment on this review:
10/31/2024
Would these work with a pair of S/LAB Summits? I'm 6-2 200#, type III+ skier in Tahoe but would mostly just use these for long tours in settled pow and lapping trees in less than a foot.
11/1/2024
Hi Hamish,
I think that combination would work well! In variable conditions, you might get more out of the ski with a beefier boot. But for cruising around in soft snow, that would be a great setup!
I think that combination would work well! In variable conditions, you might get more out of the ski with a beefier boot. But for cruising around in soft snow, that would be a great setup!
Answer this question:
10/23/2024
Hi,
I just picked up a pair of these in 170 because I found a super good deal on them, even though I think the 178 would be better for me. I am 5'10", and about 150 lbs, and I'm an intermediate to advanced skier (I'll ski most terrain minus high consequence lines, but it may not look pretty!). I'm concerned that the 170 may be a bit too short for me for touring (mostly side country from the resort and day trips in and around Glacier National Park). At the same time, I may enjoy the maneuverability on the downhill and the decreased weight on the uphill. Would you guys point me in one direction or the other? Thanks!
I just picked up a pair of these in 170 because I found a super good deal on them, even though I think the 178 would be better for me. I am 5'10", and about 150 lbs, and I'm an intermediate to advanced skier (I'll ski most terrain minus high consequence lines, but it may not look pretty!). I'm concerned that the 170 may be a bit too short for me for touring (mostly side country from the resort and day trips in and around Glacier National Park). At the same time, I may enjoy the maneuverability on the downhill and the decreased weight on the uphill. Would you guys point me in one direction or the other? Thanks!
10/23/2024
Hi Jeff,
I think the 170cm Locator could work for you! It will not be as stable at higher speeds, or float quite as well, as the 178cm. However, it will be easier to maneuver in tight places, and easier to kick turn on the uphill - and, it'll weigh a bit less. Some people prefer shorter skis for touring, because they are easier to handle. That's the choice you're looking at - longer skis for more aggressive downhill skiing, or shorter skis for easier turning and uphill benefits.
If you are newer to the backcountry and not yet an expert skier, you may also benefit more from the shorter length since you will not be skiing as aggressively, and will enjoy the ease of handling.
I think the 170cm Locator could work for you! It will not be as stable at higher speeds, or float quite as well, as the 178cm. However, it will be easier to maneuver in tight places, and easier to kick turn on the uphill - and, it'll weigh a bit less. Some people prefer shorter skis for touring, because they are easier to handle. That's the choice you're looking at - longer skis for more aggressive downhill skiing, or shorter skis for easier turning and uphill benefits.
If you are newer to the backcountry and not yet an expert skier, you may also benefit more from the shorter length since you will not be skiing as aggressively, and will enjoy the ease of handling.
Answer this question:
8/15/2024
Pretty niche question, but any idea how the 178cm Locator 104 would compare to the 179cm Deathwish Tour 104? (or more specifically, the 179cm Sierra Tour aka the DWT104 minus 200 grams).
Would be putting a 300-400g binding on them for touring in the sea2sky/PNW. Thanks!
Would be putting a 300-400g binding on them for touring in the sea2sky/PNW. Thanks!
8/16/2024
Hi Rhys,
I've skied both the Locator 104 and the Deathwish 104 (non-tour version, although they are the same shape, just heavier construction), so I feel like I can answer this pretty well.
The primary difference is that the Armada has a traditional, rearward mount point and a flat tail with traditional camber, whereas the Deathwish has the unique moustache rocker profile and a much more centered mount point with a twin-tip shape.
My impression of the Deathwish was that it had a much better edge than I expected for the amount of rocker, but still felt like a more progressive ski in that it wanted to be skied more neutral and was very balanced and easy to break loose. It rewards a more playful style. The Armada will want to be driven from the tips more like a traditional ski, and likes to make long, surfy turns in powder, but it is not a particularly loose or neutral feeling ski. I also think the Armada will be more resistant to tip dive in powder, because of how much more ski you have in front of you. The Deathwish 104 would be fun in powder but you will need to be more cognizant of skiing from a neutral stance and not pushing the tips down.
I've skied both the Locator 104 and the Deathwish 104 (non-tour version, although they are the same shape, just heavier construction), so I feel like I can answer this pretty well.
The primary difference is that the Armada has a traditional, rearward mount point and a flat tail with traditional camber, whereas the Deathwish has the unique moustache rocker profile and a much more centered mount point with a twin-tip shape.
My impression of the Deathwish was that it had a much better edge than I expected for the amount of rocker, but still felt like a more progressive ski in that it wanted to be skied more neutral and was very balanced and easy to break loose. It rewards a more playful style. The Armada will want to be driven from the tips more like a traditional ski, and likes to make long, surfy turns in powder, but it is not a particularly loose or neutral feeling ski. I also think the Armada will be more resistant to tip dive in powder, because of how much more ski you have in front of you. The Deathwish 104 would be fun in powder but you will need to be more cognizant of skiing from a neutral stance and not pushing the tips down.
Answer this question:
I skied these both in the resort and while touring. At the resort I am an aggressive skier and in the backcountry I am much more cautious and slow-going, mostly focusing on trying to have fun and not kill myself. In other words I am not a backcountry freerider. However I decided to give these a try last winter in the 178cm lenght, since one of skimo's employees kept recommending them and they were on a good sale at another retailer.
I'm giving these 5 stars because I think they do indeed make an awesome ski if you are looking to freeride in the backcountry, while not exhausting yourself on the uphill. They want to play and go fast. Definitely the most fun I've had skiing a touring ski in the resort. Relatively easy to ski but I had to change my usual skiing style. They don't want to carve but rather bounce around things and preferred when I skied with an especially active style. Tons of fun especially jumping off stuff.
For backcountry use, for me personally, they weren't as good a fit since they are not great at pivoting or slow speeds, and I agree with skimo's description that they have a "soft-snow preference" which makes them not as versatile for hard-snow conditions.
However if you truly are looking to free-ride in the backcountry and usually are out in soft snow, I can't think of a better ski.
PS -- given their soft-snow preference these definitely made me want to try the Locator 112, maybe another winter when WA state gets more snow :D
I'm giving these 5 stars because I think they do indeed make an awesome ski if you are looking to freeride in the backcountry, while not exhausting yourself on the uphill. They want to play and go fast. Definitely the most fun I've had skiing a touring ski in the resort. Relatively easy to ski but I had to change my usual skiing style. They don't want to carve but rather bounce around things and preferred when I skied with an especially active style. Tons of fun especially jumping off stuff.
For backcountry use, for me personally, they weren't as good a fit since they are not great at pivoting or slow speeds, and I agree with skimo's description that they have a "soft-snow preference" which makes them not as versatile for hard-snow conditions.
However if you truly are looking to free-ride in the backcountry and usually are out in soft snow, I can't think of a better ski.
PS -- given their soft-snow preference these definitely made me want to try the Locator 112, maybe another winter when WA state gets more snow :D
1/25/2025
good review, I am looking at this. I had some TT's and now Kufo's. love them both. the Kufo is a rare bird but with the dynafits I blow out on hardpack at the resort sometimes. What binding do you run?
7/3/2025
Couldn't disagree more! Such a damp stiff ski, for a lightweight ski, that I bought them because of their hard snow versatility. Works great everywhere this far. The stiffness could be something that makes them harder in tight trees for som skiers!
Comment on this review:
11/27/2023
Hi! Thank you for the article.
How does the Locator 104 compare to the faction la machine mega? I am looking for a playfull and light ski for backcountry use. Something that excels in soft snow but is nonetheless very reliable in harder and not so good conditions.
How does the Locator 104 compare to the faction la machine mega? I am looking for a playfull and light ski for backcountry use. Something that excels in soft snow but is nonetheless very reliable in harder and not so good conditions.
11/27/2023
Eirik,
I've briefly skied both, here's my thoughts;
Both the skis you've mentioned are very playful, and capable on soft and hard snow. The Locator is very energetic, and loves to slash turns. The La Machine Mega feels more damp and buttery. On hard snow, the Locator gets even more energetic, sometimes almost a little too springy at high speeds. The Mega stays very damp, requiring a bit more effort to drive. Overall both fit your description of light and playful, depends on if you're looking for energetic or buttery sort of playfulness.
I've briefly skied both, here's my thoughts;
Both the skis you've mentioned are very playful, and capable on soft and hard snow. The Locator is very energetic, and loves to slash turns. The La Machine Mega feels more damp and buttery. On hard snow, the Locator gets even more energetic, sometimes almost a little too springy at high speeds. The Mega stays very damp, requiring a bit more effort to drive. Overall both fit your description of light and playful, depends on if you're looking for energetic or buttery sort of playfulness.
Answer this question:
10/29/2023
I can't decide between these or the backland 100/107! How do these skis compare with the locator 104 in terms of edge hold in firmer conditions, but also playfulness/maneuverability in softer snow? I like a directional ski but the ability to slarve, slash, and be more playful is nice. I ski from more-so centered stance.
10/30/2023
Eric,
If you want to go into more detail, shoot us an email at help@skimo.co!
Sounds like the Locator is right up your alley. Very energetic, fun to slash, and can hold their own on firm snow. The Backlands tend to be pretty friendly and damp. Still playful in soft snow, but arguably less so than the Locators. All depends on your skiing style!
If you want to go into more detail, shoot us an email at help@skimo.co!
Sounds like the Locator is right up your alley. Very energetic, fun to slash, and can hold their own on firm snow. The Backlands tend to be pretty friendly and damp. Still playful in soft snow, but arguably less so than the Locators. All depends on your skiing style!
Answer this question:
9/22/2023
How would these compare to the Atomic Backland 100? for touring in variable conditions.
9/22/2023
Hi Jeff, They are fairly comparable skis. I would give the slight edge to the Atomics in variable conditions, being a little bit narrower and with a rounder flex pattern and a bit stronger flex overall. The rocker profile on the Atomics is also longer in the tips and the ski has a bit less camber. I would say the Armadas are going to be more energetic and playful whereas the Atomic would be a bit more of a driver.
Answer this question:
5/4/2023
Love the Armada brand (currently use the Declivity 92s as my everyday driver). Looking for a BC ski for skiing in the Northeast (Tuckermans) and some BC trips out west. Would you recommend this with a shift binding for versatility ? I’m 6’ and 205 lbs, so I’m torn in length.
5/4/2023
Hi Joey, the Locator 104 is certainly a great option for a versatile ski, both in terms of shape and waist width. A Shift would be a good choice if you're looking to use this ski often in both the resort and the backcountry. Otherwise, you might be happier on something lighter.
The 186 would provide a nice supportive platform at your height and weight, but the 178 would be a tad lighter and allow more maneuverability. Please feel free to email us at help@skimo.co to get into more details!
The 186 would provide a nice supportive platform at your height and weight, but the 178 would be a tad lighter and allow more maneuverability. Please feel free to email us at help@skimo.co to get into more details!
Answer this question:
2/10/2023
I'm considering the Armada Locator 104 and am 6 feet tall around 175 lbs. I don't care about going fast in the backcountry. Just want to enjoy those turns in snow up to knee deep and spring corn. I ski Nordica Enforcer 104's (186) mostly at Pallisades and love them. I think I'd prefer the shorter (178) Locator for backcountry for ease of use. Does that make sense, or too short and gotta go 186?
2/10/2023
Hi Tom, many folks prefer shorter skis in the backcountry vs. the resort to drop some weight and easier maneuvering on the uphill. The 178 will be a fine length for you given your use case.
Answer this question:
1/27/2023
How do these ski compare to the DPS Pagoda 106 tours? I will be using for straight backcountry, not a 50/50 ski.
Thx!
Thx!
1/27/2023
Joe- The DPS has more sidecut and the tip engages a little quicker whereas the Armada has a straighter cut which lends it to be a little surfier and the tail slides a little more easily. In other words, the DPS has a more old-school feel and the Armada is a bit more new-school feel.
1/30/2023
Thanks Eric I appreciate your feedback
Answer this question:
12/17/2022
I'm thinking about hybrid usage for this 104, some touring and some half-days in the resort on a soft snow or powder day. Maybe skin up then ride lifts for a couple hours. What do you think? Recognizing it won't have ideal resort performance, does that usage sound reasonable?
I'm 5'9 140 lbs - looking at the 178 and the 170. Sizing thoughts? Float vs maneuverability I guess? I'd need to re-learn skiing with a radius this long, but hopefully I can hack it. Thanks much for this Q&A feature.
I'm 5'9 140 lbs - looking at the 178 and the 170. Sizing thoughts? Float vs maneuverability I guess? I'd need to re-learn skiing with a radius this long, but hopefully I can hack it. Thanks much for this Q&A feature.
12/17/2022
Hi John, the Locator 104 is certainly on the lighter side for a resort ski. But the weight will shine when you're touring, so it sounds like a good compromise. I'd recommend the longer length for your use case, it'll give you more stability.
Given the rockered shape of the ski, you may find these to ski more intuitively than you think!
Given the rockered shape of the ski, you may find these to ski more intuitively than you think!
Answer this question:
12/15/2022
How would you compare the Locator 104 to the Black DIamond Helio 104 - the specs seem almost identical (radius, weight, width...)? Helio uses Paulownia core, Locator Karuba. Both use carbon, both are made in Austria. Can't decide...liked the old BD Helio 105 and looking for a replacement.
12/15/2022
Hi Tom,
Thanks for reaching out! The Armada Locator 104 has a modern freeride shape, with a longer turn radius that likes to go fast. However, ample rocker in the tip allows this ski to be nimble when necessary. It is a pretty lively ski. Great for those that like a faster paced backcountry experience.
The Black Diamond Helio 104 also has a longer turn radius. It is a more subdued ski. It will feel a little less lively. The shape is similarly freeride, and it is pretty stiff as well. As for materials, Karuba is another name for Paulownia. Most touring skis have made the jump to Paulownia for the awesome weight to performance ratio.
If you have further ski questions, feel free to reach out to help@skimo.co!
Thanks for reaching out! The Armada Locator 104 has a modern freeride shape, with a longer turn radius that likes to go fast. However, ample rocker in the tip allows this ski to be nimble when necessary. It is a pretty lively ski. Great for those that like a faster paced backcountry experience.
The Black Diamond Helio 104 also has a longer turn radius. It is a more subdued ski. It will feel a little less lively. The shape is similarly freeride, and it is pretty stiff as well. As for materials, Karuba is another name for Paulownia. Most touring skis have made the jump to Paulownia for the awesome weight to performance ratio.
If you have further ski questions, feel free to reach out to help@skimo.co!
Answer this question:
12/12/2022
Hi - how do these ski compared to the Dynafit Free 97 (or 107), or compared to the Atomic Backland 107?
12/13/2022
Hey Bob- The Armada's are very playful and easy to turn where the Dynafit Free 97 is a little easier to pivot turn on, not as locked in feel. Atomic Backland 107 is more forgiving and not as powerful ski as thge other two.
Answer this question:
11/14/2022
Please help me decide between these and the Ripstick 104. The specs seem nearly identical! Which do you think has the edge in thick PNW powder? In harder than expected conditions? Or should I just go with the color I prefer?
11/14/2022
Hi Eric,
The Ripstick is a bit stiffer and more powerful, while the Locator is more playful and a hair lighter.
The Ripstick has a little more muscle, so it would probably perform better in less-than-ideal conditions.
If you'd like to go more in-depth, email us at help@skimo.co.
Color has been shown to increase performance by up to 150%, so choose wisely!
The Ripstick is a bit stiffer and more powerful, while the Locator is more playful and a hair lighter.
The Ripstick has a little more muscle, so it would probably perform better in less-than-ideal conditions.
If you'd like to go more in-depth, email us at help@skimo.co.
Color has been shown to increase performance by up to 150%, so choose wisely!
Answer this question:
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.
