08-27-2011, 10:17 PM #26
08-27-2011, 10:20 PM #27Do I detect a lot of anger flowing around this place? Kind of like a pubescent volatility, some angst, a lot of I'm-sixteen-and-angry-at-my-father syndrome?
fuck that noise.
08-27-2011, 10:57 PM #28
I want some. Comparable to the bridge?My drinking buddies say i have a skiing problem...
08-28-2011, 02:37 PM #29
wtbthree, however, did ski the Bridge and this is his review:
And here's an important paragraph from Will's review:
"However, while the subtle, full-rocker profile preserves the Bridge’s effective edge length, the ski’s stability at speed is compromised to some degree, especially during high angle turns with increased edge pressure. It was not hard to take the Bridge to its stable limit in carving up groomers. A ski with the exact same dimensions and length, but with traditional camber, would have felt more stable and locked in during an aggressive carve."
I've got to be careful here since I didn't ski the Bridge. Plus, Will's Bridge was a size 179cm, my PB&Js were 188cm.
Will talks about finding the Bridge's speed limit. When he and I were maching groomers, he mentioned this several times. All I can say is that, on the exact same runs, I definitely was not finding the PB&Js speed limit.
It's important to remember, too, that the PB&J is cambered underfoot, whereas the Bridge is flat.
So yeah, loosely "comparable" in the sense that they are both easy and intuitive to ski, but really, it doesn't seem like a very direct comparison.
08-30-2011, 01:23 AM #30
That's fucking interesting, man...
Good review. Blister's been killing it. There was also a rave review of these things in TTips late last spring. Just to assuage my conscience, is there any sort of a weight number that we can get on these skis?
08-30-2011, 03:32 PM #31
Whether on your feet or in your hand, they don't feel noticeably light, and they don't feel noticeably heavy for a 188cm ski.
(No extra charge for that super helpful tidbit.)
Will post some "sort of a weight number" soon.
09-02-2011, 03:50 AM #32
09-03-2011, 02:09 PM #33
Thanks, man! Appreciate it a great deal!
09-08-2011, 10:57 AM #34
JFE... Every description I read mentions this "centered mount" --- quote from several websites: symmetrical flex and center mount for the park" is it meant to be center mounted?.... I assume there is more than one mount line on these skis, how'd you decide on your -4.25 mount?Do I detect a lot of anger flowing around this place? Kind of like a pubescent volatility, some angst, a lot of I'm-sixteen-and-angry-at-my-father syndrome?
fuck that noise.
09-08-2011, 12:15 PM #35
The PB&Js we received from MOMENT for testing were prototypes - prototypes that underwent no changes that I am aware of for production. The skis had no line on them, but had been mounted with Marker Jester demo tracks and bindings. I basically just liked the look of the mount position when I clicked in (my 306mm Lange RX 130) with the heel and toe at 306 on the tracks, and figured I'd adjust to taste as I skied them.
I liked the taste a lot, and never adjusted. That's why I'll be sort of curious to see where MOMENT draws their factory recommended, but truth is, I now don't care where they set the line, I like life at -4.25.
09-08-2011, 01:12 PM #36
how are these in terms of stiffness? how would they do in bumps? .. I assume these are fairly nimble/playful and quick?
09-08-2011, 04:27 PM #37
Definitely "nimble/playful and quick." As I say in the review, these tails, while they don't flex all that stiff, are certainly there. I'm a bit of a tailgunner in bumps (cause it's fun), and unlike, say, the Rossi S3s where you can just sort of ride along on the soft tails all nice and happy, the PB&J will ask you to stay forward. The tails aren't beasts by any means, but tailgunning steeper zipperlines wasn't the ideal way to ski the PB&J.
And to be clear, personally, I wouldn't change the tail at all. That flex felt just about perfect everywhere else on the mountain, so I'll just tail gun less.
09-08-2011, 06:22 PM #38
I don't know why, but some dude from BC.com was adamant that I buy the TST as opposed to the PB&J for my EC daily driver.. I couldn't understand why.. between your review on Blister and the specs of the ski, it seems absolutely perfect for an EC rockered ski. .. Freeskier gave it a 5/5 for carving ability.
09-08-2011, 06:53 PM #39
I haven't skied the TST, so can't say. Did the BC.com guy say he'd skied both?
Other thing, I sort of hate "5/5" type ratings. If we can assume that by 5/5, they're talking about other 100mm, tail rockered skis, then okay, yeah, it's a very good carver in that class. But Jesus, compared to a race ski, the PB&J is what, maybe a 1/5? 2/5?
I suppose that's obvious and so ought to go without saying.
09-08-2011, 08:14 PM #40
that's a good point.. I assume it's across their 4 categories of All Mtn, Powder, Park, Big Mtn... makes sense because the pow skis get 4-5/5 on float and mediocre scores on carving.
but yeah.. I don't put a lot of stock in those point rating systems. it's totally subjective based on ability, size, and ski preference.
09-08-2011, 09:03 PM #41
Jfe24... I had the first generation of the nighttrains, and i believe the reco line on those was -5 from true center. I weigh 205 and the nt dove on me quite a bit. I moved the mount back about 2 cm and did not like the way they skied, so i got rid of them. Im looking for a @100 waist everyday all mtn ski, and these have me intrigued, but im wondering if the will end up skiing like the nt. I live in northern nevada and like supporting the local companies. Maybe it wouldnt be an issue because the pbandj isnt a straight up powder ski like i was using the train for. Anyhow, interested in your thoughts
09-08-2011, 10:49 PM #42
I've written up some thoughts on the Night Train vs. the Bibby Pro (and the Night Train vs. the Jaguar Shark.) You might want to take a look at the NT vs. the Bibby Pro part, especially the stuff about people falling either into the Bibby camp or the Night Train camp:
The PB&J skis like a narrower Bibby Pro, NOT like a narrower Night Train. Night Train is almost flat underfoot, the PB&J has camber. Very different skis, very different feel. If you told me you didn't like the Bibby, I don't see how or why you'd dig the PB&J. But telling me you didn't dig the NT leads the door open for the PB&J, for sure. (Sorry, not sure how helpful that is.)
09-08-2011, 11:04 PM #43
09-08-2011, 11:11 PM #44
09-12-2011, 09:24 PM #45
I'm having a tough time deciding between these and S3's.
I'm a lanky bastard, 6'4", 165#. I'm not a charger so much, I more try to get as much enjoyment out of every foot of vertical I can. Quite enjoy smaller cliffs (15' max so far). I have pow skis (Icelantic Keeper), groomer skis (60-some underfoot). I'm looking for a ski for the <6" days.
JFE, you were saying that the S3 tip was too flimsy. Do you think that will hold true for a light guy like me? Will I be wishing that I bought a burlier ski than the S3 as the season starts up?
09-13-2011, 12:14 AM #46
More important question? Do you ski steep, bumped up or chopped up faces? Or lines with big, fast, often chopped up run outs. (West Rustler, Alta; West Basin Ridge runouts, Taos.) In this stuff, I can't imagine that you'd prefer the S3 to the PB&J.
If I was going to ski zipperlines all day, I'd prefer to be on the s3. It's a soft, quick, short ski, with a tail that will allow you to tailgun. The PB&J is very good in bumps, but it is longer, with stiffer shovels, and a tail that will be less happy to let you get away with tailgunning.
If I was going to ski 6" of fresh, I'd be very happy on either.
The faster I was ripping groomers, the more I would favor the PB&J.
The deeper stuff gets, the more I would lean toward the PB&J.
The steeper stuff gets, the more I would run for the PB&J.
The choppier stuff gets, the more I would insist on the PB&J.
Both are fun, very easy and intuitive skis. Both do mellow very well, the s3 maybe does mellow a bit better. The more you want to dial up the speed and the slope angle, the harder you should look at the PB&J.
p.s. For whatever it's worth (not much, perhaps): Just remembered that wtbthree skied some runs on the s3 at A-Basin. He's about 6'2," 165. We did a couple laps down East Wall, (open, bumped up face) and he was pretty over the s3. I believe the quote was, "Dude. It's an intermediate ski." If pressed, wtbthree would certainly admit that, for the right person and in the right places, the s3 is far more than an intermediate ski. (Back in the day, Cody Barnhill used to do sick things on the s3). Point is just that, on that terrain, I know of one guy about your size who definitely wished the s3 was burlier. (Do what you like with that anecdote.)
Last edited by JFE24; 09-13-2011 at 12:28 AM.
09-13-2011, 01:25 AM #47Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
Dude, JFE, you are the awesomeness. Thanks again for providing solid feedback on a number of skis."Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers
09-14-2011, 08:14 AM #48Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Turin, Italy, Europe, World
09-14-2011, 10:50 AM #49
Thanks, guys. Glad to hear it's been helpful.
09-14-2011, 09:14 PM #50
Wow, that was a lot more info than I was expecting. Thanks man.
I'm leaning rather heavily toward PB&J now. I don't suppose you also got the chance to ski the 182 length as well? Because that would be sweet.