Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 141
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    560
    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...

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by DHogg View Post
    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.
    If you don't plan on doing any park, I would go 188. Otherwise, go 182.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    560
    No Park, but a decent amount of bumps
    My drinking buddies say i have a skiing problem...

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by DHogg View Post
    No Park, but a decent amount of bumps
    There's a considerable amount of tip and tail rocker that I wouldn't worry about the 188 length in bumps. It's effectively more like a mid-to-high 170 ski.

  5. #80
    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)?

  6. #81
    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.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    6,866
    Go with recommended (-5cm from true center if memory serves well).

  8. #83
    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

  9. #84
    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.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Crested Butte
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by avyoung View Post
    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.
    Yes. And I think the PB&J would be a nice addition between an 81 carver and the w112. I know several people who have both skis in their quiver (2 ski and 3 ski quiver), and it's been working well for them.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    3,757
    Quote Originally Posted by PappaG View Post
    Go with recommended (-5cm from true center if memory serves well).
    Can anyone confirm the measurement of the recommended mount in cms straight pull from the tail?

    FYI - there was close to a 1 cm discrepancy on the mounting lines beween left and right ski on my 190 Bibbys so make sure to measure. It looks like it got the previous owner.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Crested Butte
    Posts
    440
    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?

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    3,757
    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?

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by D(C) View Post
    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?
    I just got mine monday and epoxied the inserts in tonight! Got 172cm and the recommended line was 5cm from true centre. Can't wait to try them out!

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Crested Butte
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by D(C) View Post
    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?
    On my 188 PB&Js, the zero / recommended line is 88.27cm from the tail, straight tape pull.

  16. #91
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by JFE24 View Post
    Yes. And I think the PB&J would be a nice addition between an 81 carver and the w112. I know several people who have both skis in their quiver (2 ski and 3 ski quiver), and it's been working well for them.
    That's exactly what I decided to do. I just pulled the trigger on the PB&J to sit between my 112RPs and narrower carving skis.

    Unfortunately unless we see some new snow in CO I'm doubting the PB&Js will see snow until next season.

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by JFE24 View Post
    On my 188 PB&Js, the zero / recommended line is 88.27cm from the tail, straight tape pull.
    And if memory serves correctly, tip-to-tail pull on the 188 actually measures to ~186cm. So effectively, the recommended line is -5cm from true center.

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,270
    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.

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Crested Butte
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by PappaG View Post
    And if memory serves correctly, tip-to-tail pull on the 188 actually measures to ~186cm. So effectively, the recommended line is -5cm from true center.
    Yep, straight tape pull is right about 186.27, so -5 from true center, spot on. D(C) had been asking for a measure from the tail, so D(C) everybody's got you covered, now go mount those damn skis.

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    SW CO
    Posts
    5,588
    Quote Originally Posted by Bird Blaster View Post
    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.
    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

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    3,757
    Quote Originally Posted by JFE24 View Post
    Yep, straight tape pull is right about 186.27, so -5 from true center, spot on. D(C) had been asking for a measure from the tail, so D(C) everybody's got you covered, now go mount those damn skis.
    Thanks all!

  22. #97
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,270
    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    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.
    my thoughts just the same regarding the rocker (esp tail) - glad to see I am not the only one wondering

  23. #98
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    6,866
    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).

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Crested Butte
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by Bird Blaster View Post
    my thoughts just the same regarding the rocker (esp tail) - glad to see I am not the only one wondering
    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.

  25. #100
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •