Results 76 to 100 of 141
-
11-15-2011, 10:55 PM #76
Ok, I think i'm gonna have to pull a trigger on a pair of these. Not quite sure on size though. I'm 5'11" 175lbs and would probably use these for when there is no fresh snow. I was originally thinking 188, but they will be used a squaw, and that place an get bumped to shit. I really wish there was something in the middle. 188 or 182?
Have ON3P Wrens in 191 for bigger days.My drinking buddies say i have a skiing problem...
-
11-16-2011, 03:32 PM #77Ski edits | http://vimeo.com/user389737/videos
-
11-16-2011, 09:57 PM #78
No Park, but a decent amount of bumps
My drinking buddies say i have a skiing problem...
-
11-17-2011, 09:17 AM #79Ski edits | http://vimeo.com/user389737/videos
-
01-22-2012, 04:06 PM #80is right behind you
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Posts
- 57
Anyone put skins on these? You have to go with the G3 tip attachment, or is there enough of a rounded tip to work with one of the black diamond systems (either the old tip loops, folding the skin around part of the loop, or the new cut skin system)?
-
01-22-2012, 04:17 PM #81Registered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Location
- South Lake Tahoe
- Posts
- 3,612
S, I fit some oversize BD Adjustable Tip Loops over the tip of a PBJ 182, and there was room to spare, I will try a the standard tip loop that comes with BD 110/125mm skins and get back to you.
Anyone know were to mount a 182 PBJ for non switch, not spinny skiing? I have a bigger ski for deep days.
-
01-22-2012, 04:43 PM #82
Go with recommended (-5cm from true center if memory serves well).
Ski edits | http://vimeo.com/user389737/videos
-
01-22-2012, 04:52 PM #83management problem
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Location
- New States
- Posts
- 837
I'm using an older pair of BD skins (with the 'fold the skin over' loops) with my PB&J's. The attachment isn't great, and I've knocked the loop off the tip once or twice when I crossed the tips a bit. Not a big deal, and it seems to work well enough, particularly if you put a lot of tension on the skin.
I've got my 182's mounted at the zero line and don't use my skis for any flippy spinny stuff. Don't think I'd want to change the position at this stage for general 'mixed use' skiing. The only thing I've 'changed' is that I had a more aggressive edge tune done to them, since I use them frequently on steep firm snow and found that the edge hold with the factory tune wasn't what I'd hoped for in a ski this narrow."I just want to thank everyone who made this day necessary." -Yogi Berra
-
03-21-2012, 01:30 PM #84Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
- Posts
- 17
You guys on the PB&J still stoked on them? I was thinking adding these to be my daily driver: nestled between my 81mm carvers and my DPS 112.
I was thinking a more damp stiffer board compared to my dps might be a nice mix.
-
03-21-2012, 02:23 PM #85
-
03-21-2012, 02:39 PM #86
-
03-21-2012, 07:44 PM #87
Sorry, D(C), I'm in UT right now, and my PB&Js are in NM. But if nobody else gets you an answer, I can by Monday.
Anybody else?
-
03-27-2012, 01:03 PM #88
I have a pair of these on the way and will be mounting Thursday. Is anyone able to confirm a measurement of the recommended line?
-
03-27-2012, 11:36 PM #89Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
- Posts
- 17
-
03-27-2012, 11:52 PM #90
-
03-28-2012, 07:12 AM #91
-
03-28-2012, 09:35 AM #92Ski edits | http://vimeo.com/user389737/videos
-
03-28-2012, 09:39 AM #93
Wanted to get some peoples thoughts on the PB&J as an everyday hardpack ski (more EC ski). Or would other Moment skis fit the bill a bit better (Bellafonte or Tahoe)? I would like to keep a Moment as my hardpack ski.
-
03-28-2012, 09:45 AM #94
-
03-28-2012, 09:55 AM #95Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
- Location
- SW CO
- Posts
- 5,588
I have been wondering the same thing (though I'm not partial to Moment for my hardpack ski). It seems like there's too much tip and tail rocker on the PB&J to make it a true hardpack ski. A great one-ski quiver, but not a true hardpack ski. But that's just speculation and I'd like to hear from those who have actually skied it.
"Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers
photos
-
03-28-2012, 09:57 AM #96
-
03-28-2012, 09:59 AM #97
-
03-28-2012, 10:09 AM #98
I think those trying to decide between the Tahoe, PB&J, and Belafonte might want to demo them first as I think all 3 are different in their own way. Tahoe being light for its size and quite poppy; might be a hair soft for those that demand something stiffer; great for spring/summer touring. PB&J being fully rockered; best of the 3 in tight spots/trees; most versatile. Belafonte being a more directional charger that demands strong skier input. Having skied them all, the Belafonte is the clear winner on hardpack performance, but is something 106mm in the waist too much for an everyday East Coast ski? Something you have to ask yourself. Also, there's the question of rockered tail (PB&J) vs. flat tail (Belafonte) which is ultimately up to the individual skier.
And as a guide, the relative flex on the Tahoe is 7, PB&J at 8, and Belafonte at 9 (Bibby Pro is 8, Governor is 10). If you take into account how well the Bibby Pro does on firm snow, you should get a good idea of how the PB&J will do (which is essentially a 101-waist Bibby).Ski edits | http://vimeo.com/user389737/videos
-
03-28-2012, 10:15 AM #99
My .02:
Birdblaster and auvgeek...you'd both be correct. Belafonte > PB&J on hardpack. But is the Belafonte a "true hardpack ski" ? It's 106 underfoot. Truly true hardpack skis often run closer to 80 underfoot, right? So no, the Belafonte isn't the Rossi Experience 98 or 88, or the DPS Cassiar 80, etc. If you are looking for a ski to truly excel on boilerplate, there are better skis for the job. (At Taos or Alta, however, I could pretty happily ski the Belafonte as an everyday ski, though since I ski more bumps than groomers, when it hasn't snowed, I might still choose the PB&J.)
But if you're wondering which MOMENT ski is better on hardpack - the PB&J, the Tahoe, or the Belafonte, right now, I would go with the Belafonte. I have limited time on the Tahoe, though I'm hoping to change that over the next week. But my first impressions of the Tahoe didn't leave me feeling that it was better than the Belafonte on hardpack - it was, as Pappa G states, certainly softer, and clearly had a lower speed limit than the Belafonte.
-
03-28-2012, 10:16 AM #100Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
- Location
- SW CO
- Posts
- 5,588
Yeah, I've been eyeing up the Tahoe. I'm have been thinking about starting a thread for the ski I want....basically something to replace my old 179 Seth Vicious. Something playful for days when I'm just messing around on the mountain. Needs to be able to carve, throw easy 3s, and be cool with small drops to sketchy landings. Thinking 90-100 underfoot. Tip rocker okay; no tail rocker.
But the thing is, I don't usually ski the resort when it hasn't snowed in a while. I'll just hit up the bc and find some freshies or summit something. So I'm not sure I can really justify another pair of skis that I won't use all that often.
Edit: The above was written before JFE24's response. Interesting to hear Belefonte v. Tahoe comparison. Rather than buy another ski with a 100+ waist, I'll prolly just stick to the 191 Fats, as they carve the shit out of groomers.
Edit 2: And I completely missed PappaG's response! Gah!Last edited by auvgeek; 03-28-2012 at 10:54 AM.
"Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers
photos
Bookmarks