Review: 2011-2012 MOMENT PB&J, 188cm

[D(C)]

I was debating between the 3. I recently acquired some 190 Bibbys and have been blown away by their hardpack and groomer performance. The 118 waisted Bibbys are more fun and responsive on groomers than my 104 waisted 4FRNT Turbos - and I had quite liked the Turbos on groomers.

Given how well the Bibbys do on the hard stuff, I decided the PB&J would be more than adequate for my carving needs while having tail rocker to help in the trees and tight stuff for added versatility. I'll post thoughts once I get out on them, but if they are in fact a narrower Bibby as everyone says, I won't be disappointed.

If versatility and prowess in the trees wasn't a priority and I was looking for a ski mainly to go on groomers and skied out open stuff, I may have gone with the Tahoe or Belafonte.

[D(C)]

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.

JFE24 may want to confirm but I had corresponded with him when trying to choose between the 3. He said his experience on the Tahoe was limited to the 180, which he felt was too short for him.

[auvgeek]

Cheers, D(C). Let us know how you like the PB&J.

[Bird Blaster]

For me I definitely am not looking for a true boilerplate ski. I may pick up some skinny skis for this. That being said I still grab 100mm skis for those conditions. This discussion has me leaning towards bellafonte. Maybe 187's

[auvgeek]

Have you thought about the ON3P Jeffrey?

Edit: Oops, lots of tail rocker. Never mind.

[mn_teleswede]

I strongly considered the PB&J as my old snow, groomer ski. However, as some have brought up, the short running length due to the tail rocker pushed me towards another 100mm waisted ski with good reviews- the Armada TST. I like the concept of the Moments, but I really wanted a longer effective edge.

[D(C)]

Day 1 on these. Initial thoughts - the 188 PB&J is not exactly an identical but skinnier version of the 190 Bibby. The PB&J feels softer, more playful and more nimble, but not as confidence-inspiring and stable at speed, and less able to bust through bad snow like the Bibby. They definitely feel like a shorter ski than the 190 Bibby, I'm guessing more similar to the 184 in feel. At times I was wishing for more ski. I'm also wondering if the recommended mount is too far forward at -5 from centre, and -6 would make the skis more aggressive. In pow, the softer tips popped right up to the surface, making them float nicely for their width. I also found I was was able to carry more speed through trees than the Bibby in bad snow. The Bibbys can sometimes be work to bring around whereas the PB&Js flow with little effort.

Overall, they definitely seem like a fun ski, and I think I'll appreciate the increased agility over the Bibby in the harder conditions that warrant a skinnier ski. That being said, the 190 Bibby's level of agility is by no means probematic for me and I wouldn't have complained if the PB&J had similar oomph.

I think the hardest of chargers would be disappointed with the PB&J. But they're a fun, versatile allround ski that's very forgiving, and a lot of people will enjoy it. It feels like an improved S3.

[JFE24]

JFE24 may want to confirm but I had corresponded with him when trying to choose between the 3. He said his experience on the Tahoe was limited to the 180, which he felt was too short for him.

True, D(C): previously, I had only skied the 180 Tahoe. Finally got on the 188 Tahoes this weekend. Conditions were slush groomers, firm bumps, and slush bumps, but the Tahoes were not in the same league as the 182 Belafontes or 187 Belafontes in terms of how hard you can push them. Not close. Very different skis. Light and fairly poppy, yes. But a definite speed limit. If you enjoy more mellow skiing, the Tahoe might be a good choice. If you are pushing your skis hard and need a stable platform, Belafontes.

[Bird Blaster]

, but the Tahoes were not in the same league as the 182 Belafontes or 187 Belafontes in terms of how hard you can push them.

have you gotten some time on the 187's JFE24? blistergear review in the future??

[JFE24]

have you gotten some time on the 187's JFE24? blistergear review in the future??

Yes and yes.

[Bird Blaster]

^^ and yes

[Bird Blaster]

to followup on this thread. I ended up picking up the 188 Tahoes as I thought they would probably fit ok with my wailers and rens

JFE24's review of the 187 belafonte was VERY tempting though!! But too many skis +100mm; so one that is 4mm less makes me feel better

[auvgeek]

Be sure to report back on how they ski and fit into that quiver.

[Bird Blaster]

Be sure to report back on how they ski and fit into that quiver.

Will do - but won't be till next year

[MustangSVT]

I used the 188 PB&J today for the first time, on a combination of hard pack, slush, ice crust and a bit of park. Overall, I was left with a big grin. These just absolutely rip on groomers/hardpack from what I could tell, and even more on spring/slush conditions. They felt very stable at speed, and I didn't feel compromised by the length at any point, even when turning in tighter spots. The skis did not feel long at all for me.

Overall, if I could sum them up, they just felt like a whole lot of fun ski, and I look forward to giving them a try in some fresh powder next season. For now, spring conditions is all I have available, but hey, these made spring that much more fun for me. They seemed easy to pop for a jump here and there as well, and very stable on the landing. Pretty satisfied so far. My regular go-to ski is a 177 Nordica Enforcer.

Some info for reference, I'm 5' 10", weigh about 210 or so, and I would say somewhere around advanced skier rather than expert (not quite as good as what I've seen from others on this forum, but trying to get there anyway). I tested them at Sunshine Village in AB, Canada.

[GoEhuge]

Anyone have an answer to this? I was winding the same thing...

Posted a seperate thread about this, but I figure this might be a better place for it.

Can anyone compare the old style 105 waist Obsethed to the new PB&J/S3/Scimitar. I have read read reviews of the new skis. Old style Obsethed has tip/tail rocker, similar waist, a little camber underfoot. Can anyone compare them? I am wondering if I should trade in my Obsethed for one of the newer skis or keep it and save cash.

[Bird Blaster]

Another update from over here

Moment is so tempting! They had some more sales...now I have the 188 Tahoe and 192 Belafonte (10/11) to add to the quiver.

Should be an exciting year next year

[Irishexit]

Looking to revive this thread.

I currently have a pair of 2yo 181 4frnt MSP's and a pair of 1st gen 176 ON3P Vicik's. While they each ski differently, I am a fan of both. The Vicik's def are more charger with no set speed limit.

I am looking to add a 3rd pair to the mix and have that be my AT setup for shorter tours. I have been thinking about picking up the PB&J's for this purpose and putting a pair of dukes, not the lightest setup but I will want to be able to use them both in/out of resort...so weight is less of a factor.

Given my EC'ness, I want something that works well in fresh but can handle all of the other "variety" that goes along with the EC and would still make sense to bring on trips.

So...
1) Is having the Vicik's and PB&J's overlap...even with the PBJ being tip/tail rocker?
2) Should I just put the Dukes on my Vicik's instead and call it a day?
3) If I did go PBJ, 182 or 188? (5'10 170)....Given the stiffness, my MSP's are a lot more playful than my Vicik's even tho they are slightly longer.


Sorry for the blog...

[phatline]

Just got the 188 PB&J mounted at 0 with Marker Tour F12 and have a few days on them (two resort, one backcountry). This is my first time on these skis AND these bindings, so take that into consideration. I got this setup to use for 80% resort 20% backcountry; my other skis are skinny K2 Shuksan 174's and fat Voile Asylum 175's, both with dynafit bindings, and I wanted something more suited for resort use.

I'm 6'0", 175 lbs, intermediate-advanced, moderately aggressive skier. Prefer off-piste to groomer whenever possible. I wanted a ski that was burly enough to deal with resort crud, fun to ski off-piste in the trees, stable at speed on the groomers, and wide enough/shaped to be fun in pow when I can find it.

Day 1 (resort): may have been the fresh wax job or the factory tune, but the skis felt squirrely in a straight-line. I felt like I couldn't hold a track. On edge they were fine, once I got used to staying centered--too much forward lean and the tails would slide out and chatter on the icy hardpack. Remarkable how the turning radius changes when I get them up on edge vs. smearing. It's like having two different skis to choose from.

Day 2 (resort): getting a lot more comfortable on the groomers. Got to lay into the turns aggressively while staying centered, and these will fly and stay stable. The skis want to go fast. Never got any tip or tail flapping. Off-piste conditions were terrible, hard packed and icy with bits of crust. Handled this pretty well, and leagues better than my backcountry skis would have.

Day 3 (backcountry): this ski+binding+boot setup is at least 5 lbs heavier than my other rigs and this is the first time I've toured on my alpine boots. I was pleasantly surprised (and confused!) to find that it was not at all more difficult to climb with this setup. I made the 2200' climb in 2 hrs at a moderate exertion level, which is a typical time for me. Really at a loss to explain this, especially considering the issue of a "toe pivot point" that is more forward compared to my Dynafits. People say this is les ergonomic and uses more energy, but I felt that it was either no different or slightly more natural than my dynafits. I think the forward pivot point helped me drag the ski weight more than lift it. With my other skis I often find it hard not to lift the ski with each step. I think the moral here is to try both kinds of bindings, because YMMV. The accepted wisdom that Dynafit is more efficient because it's lighter and has a more rearward pivot point doesn't seem to hold for me. The only time these skis felt heavier than my dynafit rigs was when carrying them around over my shoulder!

Descent was on crummy breakable-crust conditions, but the ski performed well. I would have been in trouble on my K2's and glad I was on these skis.

General comments: I was hesitant to step up from ~175cm all the way to 188, but so glad I got the 188's. The skis feel very short and turny when I need it, and the extra length really helps me feel more stable in rough snow conditions or at speed. I didn't experience any tip dive (which is my nemesis on the shorter skis). I did get "thrown into the back seat" a couple of times and the feeling is vastly different than my traditionally cambered skis: rather than being bounced back forward, I had to work to regain control and get back to center. A bit scary and something to watch out for, especially since this ski favors a centered stance. For this reason I probably wouldn't mount further back, because that would mean even less tail support in this situation.

Only complaint about the bindings is a squeaking sound from the toe unit. No visible flexing, it just squeaks (both tour and downhill modes so I don't think it's the pivot point). Seems to start once the bindings get wet. Anyone else experience this?

Tuning: who's riding the factory tune? Did you have any issues with it and/or do you have recommendations for a custom tune? I generally like the ski now that I'm used to it, but it still feels too imprecise when my bases are flat.

[Irishexit]

Nice man - I very much appreciate the input. I pulled the trigger on a pair of 188's off of BC, psyched to mount them up and get log some turns.

[Banh Mi]

Just got a pair of 188's off the clymb on sale for cheap. Was debating which size to get, for a Jackson Hole all mountain ski, and figured the 182 would be to short at my size.. From the info I learned reading BlisterGear, I think I made the right decision.

Im 6'3 180, I Plan on using the 188s for fast tree lines/chutes and slow techy lines, more so than park and moguls. Is the 188 quick enough in the trees for a guy my size?

Have the 192 Belafonte for charging wide open, the 188 PB&J for tighter lines and jibbing, and the 196 Bibby Special for deep days.

[biff chalupa]

They'll be plenty quick. They'll feel like snowblades compared to the other skis in your quiver. I wish mine were a little longer. Fun ski.

[Magnoe]

I have the 182's and they are unbelievably quick in the trees. They remind me of skiing on my Praxis Powderboards in tight places. They just want to pivot on a dime. At 5'11 and 170 lbs I chose the 182 length for trees, moguls, skiing with my kids (including one still in harness straps) because I have longer powder skis for deeper days. I absolutely love them but could easily be on the 188's. I wish I had mounted mine back a cm or two as there appears to be only about 18 inches beyond the toe before the rocker starts on the 182 length. But, the only time it really seems an issue is straight lining on groomers, out runs, cat tracks, etc, where they are incredibly twitchy when flat. But once they are on edge they are a ball of fun.

Again, they are waaaay quicker than my Mantras or Bros in the trees. Enjoy the 188's. Ideally they would have been made in 184's and mounted back slightly for my needs.

[hick]

So, any recomendations on mount point? I ordered a pair of 188s off the Clymb with the intention to put Dynafits on them and they will be a spring all mountain ski. Even considering cutting off a bit of the twin if I really like them to make them a little more bc friendly (wanted tail rocker, just not a big fucking twin tip). Leaning towards going with the recomended line (I think 5cm behind center from reading this thread). Any other opinions out there now that these have been out and about for a coulple of seasons now?

[kc_7777]

My 2012/13 182cms PB&Js are mounted at +0.5cm from recommended (approx -4.5cm back from true center?) as I always go a bit in front of recommended (small bsl).....very playful and nimble.....but in hindsight I think recommended, or back 0.5cm from recommended would have been perfect (as they ski short).

K