Bibby Pro or Lhasa???

[WhiteHunter]

I've tried to avoid starting a thread like this, but I can't make up my f'ing mind. So I am submitting my soul for whatever abuse may come with this pathetic plea for opinions from the collective.

The question: 190 Bibby Pro or 186 Lhasa Pow?
The skier: early 40's, 6', 180lbs with reasonable skills, no desire to ski with my wind blowing up my ass, very infrequent straightliner, tolerant of smaller air
Current skis: 190 Goats ('05) and 186 Mojo 90
Quiver desire: I travel to ski. On longer trips (6+ days) I don't have a problem bringing two sets. Shorter trips I want one ski that will rip pow and soft conditions with the versatility to also ski beaten down chop very well and be at least adequate on hardpack
Other potentially relevant baggage: I'm getting old. Although I'm in pretty good shape, my reflexes are not going to get better than they are now. When the snow gets firm and the mountain starts getting bumped up, I'm starting to see more days where I think I'd like to have a shorter ski. Pow days never contain those thoughts. But because of those thoughts, I am starting to shy away from the initial lust I had for the new 191 Lhasa.

I've skied the 186 Lhasa and liked it a lot in every condition I skied it in from a foot of fresh, to 3-4" of crud on top of a firm base, and even windblown crust. But would the Bibby do all of that with similar manueverability on firmer conditions, but also give me the benefit of the extra 4cm in the deep? Are there other performance differences I should consider?

Thoughts and opinions appreciated. Scorn and ridicule admittedly deserved.

[iscariot]

Both.





Done and done.








Don't look for common sense amongst enablers ;)


Sweet avatar BTW.

[Daywalker]

You're going to be totally stoked on either one. At 170lbs, I enjoyed the Lhasa more. The increased stiffness and camber of the Bibby underfoot was noticeable. However, I'm more used to skiing the PMGear skis and only got to ski the Bibby's for a day. They were a lot of fun and GREAT on groomers and in pow (due to soft rockered tip) but in the moguls and tight/quick areas I felt like there was some off/on weirdness due to me not fully getting into the ski. I kept thinking if I was a few pounds heavier I could really start using that to pop them.

Again, both skis were a ton of fun, but to me the Lhasa was a bit smoother all-around at my weight. I would give the Bibby an edge railing groomers due to the sidecut and non-pintail. Both slay in powder/crud. Also, I think they'll ski extremely similar in length because the Bibby is mounted more forward due to its tail rocker. As a disclaimer, I did ski a pre-production Bibby so maybe the flex has been rounded a bit or camber toned down.

[zab]

Lhasas were fucking insane for me. I haven't skied the bibbys but The 186 lhasas were amazing in everything I skied them in. You would be stoked on either is my guess.

[saddy]

Only Lhasa can makey happy, only Lhasa. Lhasa is a cornerstone

[todug27]

You're going to be totally stoked on either one. At 170lbs, I enjoyed the Lhasa more. The increased stiffness and camber of the Bibby underfoot was noticeable. However, I'm more used to skiing the PMGear skis and only got to ski the Bibby's for a day. They were a lot of fun and GREAT on groomers and in pow (due to soft rockered tip) but in the moguls and tight/quick areas I felt like there was some off/on weirdness due to me not fully getting into the ski. I kept thinking if I was a few pounds heavier I could really start using that to pop them.

Again, both skis were a ton of fun, but to me the Lhasa was a bit smoother all-around at my weight. I would give the Bibby an edge railing groomers due to the sidecut and non-pintail. Both slay in powder/crud. Also, I think they'll ski extremely similar in length because the Bibby is mounted more forward due to its tail rocker. As a disclaimer, I did ski a pre-production Bibby so maybe the flex has been rounded a bit or camber toned down.

were you on the carbon or glass lhasa's if they were a lot less stiff than the bibby?

[Daywalker]

were you on the carbon or glass lhasa's if they were a lot less stiff than the bibby?

First: I said they felt noticeably stiffer than the Lhasa underfoot. By "noticeably", I mean I was able to feel it. I would translate that to a little more stiff. Maybe I don't speak-ah the english too good.

I was on 186 (proto) Lhasa's, but also own 196 Carbons and have a decent amount of time on 196 Glasses. I would say that the underfoot feel of the Bibby (taking into consideration both flex and camber) was more rigid than any of the Lhasa's. By hand flex below the rocker, they all flex similar with the Carbons being a smidge stiffer.

I could also compare to 192 Bro's, them fuckers feel more stiff.

[saddy]

Lhasas have that beautiful bullet-shaped nose that slices through crust and crud while Bibby's have a huge square shovel that will be knocked around in all that types of cut up snow. They also weigh a lot more.

[ego7man]

I skied some lhasas in 186 carbon. They were soo sick in everything I threw at them. I was really pleased and if I had cash I would own them.

[saddy]

Hey, man make a poll finally!-)

[todug27]

First: I said they felt noticeably stiffer than the Lhasa underfoot. By "noticeably", I mean I was able to feel it. I would translate that to a little more stiff. Maybe I don't speak-ah the english too good.

I was on 186 (proto) Lhasa's, but also own 196 Carbons and have a decent amount of time on 196 Glasses. I would say that the underfoot feel of the Bibby (taking into consideration both flex and camber) was more rigid than any of the Lhasa's. By hand flex below the rocker, they all flex similar with the Carbons being a smidge stiffer.

I could also compare to 192 Bro's, them fuckers feel more stiff.

not to make this a lhasa only thread, but....

Comparing the 196's glass and carbon, I know the Carbon's are poppier/lighter, but you've said you've skied both some. Would you ever chose the glass ones over the carbon's if you were heading to the hill, or is Carbon just all around superior?

[cpj.slc]

So I have only skied the Bibby, but I will throw in my $.02. The ski handles groomers really well, like gs type ski well. The powder performance was pretty good. I ski Praxis Powders as my powder, and well pretty much everyday ski, the Bibby didn't ski powder as well as that by a good bit, but it was extremely fun in powder. You mentioned you don't really want to ski switch and I thought that was one of the main things the Bibby Pro did really well. It was a blast to pop off little cliffs and land switch, then throw a 180 of a little feature after that. If you don't want to ski switch, the Lhasa might be the ticket for directional skiing, but I haven't skied it, so I can't really say. The Bibby was fun, fun, fun and I am planning on getting a pair this year for my day after storms ski and backcountry goof around ski.

[Daywalker]

Comparing the 196's glass and carbon, I know the Carbon's are poppier/lighter, but you've said you've skied both some. Would you ever chose the glass ones over the carbon's if you were heading to the hill, or is Carbon just all around superior?

Carbon, every time. I never noticed the weight difference (metal bindings on carbon, plastic on glass) even when it came down to swing weight. They were definitely poppier. To be honest, despite the fact that I'm on the light end of the spectrum for these puppies, I didn't even notice the increased stiffness except when hand-flexing.

[PappaG]

Lhasas have that beautiful bullet-shaped nose that slices through crust and crud while Bibby's have a huge square shovel that will be knocked around in all that types of cut up snow. They also weigh a lot more.
No clue what ski you were looking at, but this is the topsheet profile of the Bibby which has a less pronounced shovel:

http://thomas-armento.smugmug.com/photos/507961637_KJHZw-X3.jpg



And they don't get knocked around in all types of cut up snow ... at least the stiffer 190 length doesn't. The snow at 2:11 and 2:45 into this clip was pretty firm and the Bibby Pro handled it fine:

4056083

[saddy]

Yeah, Thomas, the 2010 version looks mucho better!

Have you ever skied the Lhasa, bTW?

[PappaG]

Yeah, Thomas, the 2010 version looks mucho better!

Have you ever skied the Lhasa, bTW?
Unfortunately I haven't skied them since Daywalker wasn't so willing to give them up. I think his love life went down the drain when he got those skis.

But regardless, either of the two skis will get the job done. I think the ultimate decision will come down to weight and tail design.

[bklyn]

Lhasas have that beautiful bullet-shaped nose that slices through crust and crud while Bibby's have a huge square shovel that will be knocked around in all that types of cut up snow. They also weigh a lot more.

Having a pair of Praxis in my quiver for two seasons, I seriously doubt that the shape of a rockered ski's tip has any bearing at all since it never touches the snow. My feeling is that the shape at the very tip is cosmetic/aesthetic only.

I'm sure both skis are great. Just buy one.

[Daywalker]

Unfortunately I haven't skied them since Daywalker wasn't so willing to give them up. I think his love life went down the drain when he got those skis.

Heh, no comment. Love life = vast overstatement.

I owe you a return ski on both the Powder RX and the Lhasa. You name the time and place this season and it's on.

[Zesty Not Spicy]

No time on the Bibby and only a few spring AT days on the 196 Lhasa Carbon's at the end of this season. So basically my opinion isn't worth shit but so far I'm digging the Lhasa's and haven't even got them in good snow yet!

[otto parts]

As a disclaimer, I did ski a pre-production Bibby so maybe the flex has been rounded a bit or camber toned down.


per pm from Melee:

Proto-camber is the same. The flex is pretty much the same....maybe the slightest bit stiffer



I own 186 Lhasas and will prolly buy 191's. But the Bibbys sound awesome-like a more serious JJ. (which I sold to keep the Lhasas)

[Melee]

per pm from Melee:

Proto-camber is the same. The flex is pretty much the same....maybe the slightest bit stiffer



I own 186 Lhasas and will prolly buy 191's. But the Bibbys sound awesome-like a more serious JJ. (which I sold to keep the Lhasas)


Bibby's don't ski like the JJ's as much as the Night Trains do. Also, the weight of the production Bibby 190 isn't bad. I will have a weight for you guys tomorrow.

[otto parts]

Bibby's don't ski like the JJ's as much as the Night Trains do


How do the 3 compare? I liked the JJs but found the 15m radius a bit too
squirrelly, and I'm not a super aggressive skier. Felt like it should be a bit longer and a bit wider underfoot (to raise the turn radius).

[WhiteHunter]

I think the ultimate decision will come down to weight and tail design.

OK we're getting warm. Weight is not so much an issue for me. I don't plan on doing much touring. Will probably mount with Dukes as I'd like do a little side country stuff. The tail design and flex are the main differentials and I'm just not sure I grasp how that will impact performance.

With the tail rocker on the Bibby, they should operate on a fairly similar effective edge. In terms of the overall feel of the length of the ski, they should be very similar on hardpack or firmer snow, if you negate the effects of sidecut and flex. However in deeper snow, would you get noticably more effective surface/length from the Bibby?

And if that assumption is correct, what is the downside of the tail design? Will that tail design tend to hook in conditions that the flatter tail will not? Also both seem to have some taper to the tip with the Lhasa appearing to have more taper. I thought I heard that this may help cut through windblown crust, but I'm not sure how much that really matters with the rockered tip.

I know I'm diving into minutia here, but my chances of getting on some Bibby's for a test drive are slim to none, so I want to make my best educated guess. I know melee and splat probably try to avoid these discussions to keep some level of integrity, but I wouldn't mind hearing the ski designer's thought's on these issues as they probably weighed them in designing the skis. If they prefer to weigh in privately to avoid potential flaming, pm me. I'm capable of judging unintentionally biased opinions without starting a future thread calling you out as snake oil salesmen if I decide you're wrong after the skiing the goods. ;)

[WhiteHunter]

Unfortunately I haven't skied them since Daywalker wasn't so willing to give them up. I think his love life went down the drain when he got those skis.

Are curly haired redheads the only guys getting any love in Colorado? What up with that?

[otto parts]

If they prefer to weigh in privately to avoid potential flaming, pm me.


Dude, maybe I'm cranky (not) working late, but having a pm sales challenge is maybe a bit much to ask? There is a shitload of Lhasa design and review info out there. Bibby not so much, but NPG review was pretty comprehensive. Iscariot was right-buy them both, try em out, sell #2.

[WhiteHunter]

Dude, maybe I'm cranky (not) working late, but having a pm sales challenge is maybe a bit much to ask? There is a shitload of Lhasa design and review info out there. Bibby not so much, but NPG review was pretty comprehensive. Iscariot was right-buy them both, try em out, sell #2.

Not looking for a sales challenge, just explanations on design from designers. I think there's a distinct difference. Since melee posted in this thread already, and Pat regularly responds to specific questions, it didn't seem too far fetched to think they may respond to a specific design questions.

I've read virtually every thread regarding these skis but have not seen anything comparing them or addressing these specific questions. Whether I get responses or not, I'm going to make a decision. If answers get posted, we all benefit.

But I'm not hemorraging cash, and therefore am not buying both.

[splat]

Hang on, I need to read a few ski descriptions on the web so I can load it up with all kinds of impressive sounding gobbledegook that will leave you spinning.....;)

OK, I'm ready.

I haven't skied the Bibbys, so I can only address the Lhasas. All I can tell you is what I like about the Lhasas and why they are the way they are. Here's my take and when, for possibly the first time, I'll disagree with bklyn. Where do I start? The Lhasas is a low camber (2-3mm), low slung (not too much rocker) semi-pintail ski with a semi-twintip tail rise. It's a piece of cake in anything over an inch or two of soft, easily allowing a more centered stance the deeper it gets. On hardpack you are best served driving the shovel (like they teach in ski school or racing). If you are a backseater, it will punish you. It's a powder specific ski that slays the groom, too, the degree to which is dependent upon you as a skier.

The Lhasas (first the 186, but I have totally flipped to the 196 now) have been my everyday ski everyday, except when I blew the shit out of my knee when I gave my pair to someone to demo and threw on a pair of 192s. I love the tips. Let me say that again...I love those tips. They really do slice crust and cake. I have never seen a tip slice crap as well as that tip. No hook, just slice. I love the slarvy semi-pintail that allows me to start and stop any turn size without thought. I love the many different ways I can make the edge work by adjusting minor nuances in my stance. And I love the afterbang that carbon gives me when I flex the ski down into the bottom of the turn and rocket out of it. Among a few other things....

That's all I got.

[skifishbum]

Dude think about the

http://www.agoravox.com/IMG/jpg/hookers.jpg
For as little as $2 a day you could make a difference in their lives
This message brought to you by a bro pimp and U.N.I.H.E.F

[Melee]

I haven't skied the Lhasa's so I cant personally say anything about them. I know a lot of friends that are really into them and like them more than the Bibby's. I also know people who like the Bibby's more than the Lhasa's. Both are great skis, you just need to determine what you want to get out of it.

The Bibby is really easy to pivot since it has a more modern boot center. The 190 has camber underfoot, something the 186 lacks. I really like the camber underfoot with the tip and tail rocker. It allows for all the great aspects of a rockered ski but still maintains a lot of pop since you can load up the camber. It provides a lot more confidence for me when I am setting myself up for take-offs on cliffs. You also don't get the same washout that you would with a purely rockered ski.

On the hardpack and the crud this ski charges. It holds and edge incredibly well....better than we thought it would. It also has taper at the tip so it doesn't get hooky. I skied the 190 with Dukes in Europe everyday I was there this season and it is by far my favorite ski we have ever made.

If you have any other questions I will do my best to answer them.

[gisforgaper]

This is all a very intersting read.

Because I'm a giant vag, I'm thinking of trading in my 185 Motherships because they are just too stiff, too heavy and don't float well enough in the newest snow. The two skis I've been looking at strangely enough are the 191 Lhasa and the 190 Bibby.

Can anyone who has skied each talk a little about how the Lhasa and Bibby compare to the Mo'ship?

For me the Motherships are fantastic on hardpack, in crud and wide open spaces. But in honesty, I'm really looking for something that is a bit faster in the trees, less effort and just plain floats better. With the Mo'ships I can't maintain a foward stance without the tips diving, even when carrying a lot of speed (I'm mounted 1cm back too).

[PappaG]

I've put on 20+ days on the 190 Bibby but only 1 on the 195 Mothership (a shallow pow day no less with a crust layer on the surface). The Lines are no doubt more stable at high speeds and feel like tanks under your feet through the crud that allow you to blast right through effortlessly. The one thing I didn't like about them is that they required a longer turn initiation and weren't quick edge to edge - felt like you had to input some extra effort in tighter spots (or perhaps I wasn't going fast and didn't have the legs to drive them). While not as stupid stable and smooth through the chop, there's no question that the Bibby is much easier to pilot and ski in the trees. Wherever you point the Bibby, they will react right away without the noticeable delay you might experience with the Mothership - with rockered tip and tail, they are just silly easy in tight areas.

[Shepherd Wong]

Carbon, every time. I never noticed the weight difference (metal bindings on carbon, plastic on glass) even when it came down to swing weight. They were definitely poppier. To be honest, despite the fact that I'm on the light end of the spectrum for these puppies, I didn't even notice the increased stiffness except when hand-flexing.

I'm the opposite, I have about 10 days on carbons and 20 on the glass. The glasses are a bit softer, and have a more controled/refined feel to them. The carbons have a more springy/lively feel. It's a fairly subtle difference but it's there. I like the fiberglass better but understand why others like the carbon.

[altasnowbirdripper]

both ski well but the Bibby's (and moment skis) seem to be way more durable - I like the Bibby much better in tracked out to mank & going fast - in fresh the Lhasa's have a very nice sweet feel. It's splitting hairs but I'd give the nod to the bibby's...

[Thatcher]

Lhasas have that beautiful bullet-shaped nose that slices through crust and crud while Bibby's have a huge square shovel that will be knocked around in all that types of cut up snow. They also weigh a lot more.

I'm confused by the second sentence - which weigh more? The Bibby or the Lhasa?

[Vitamin I]

I'm confused by the second sentence - which weigh more? The Bibby or the Lhasa?

Bibby's weigh more than Lhasas.

Even 196 Lhasa is slightly lighter than 190 Bibby. But I wouldn't say 190 Bibby's are heavy at all (2223g measured by NPG)---it's more like fiberglass Lhasa's are towards the light side, and the carbon Lhasa's are quite light.

.