Thread: Moment Ruby 188 vs Moment Garbones 182

I am aware of the technical differences but am curious if anyone has skied both.

I have a love affair with the Ruby and am debating getting a 2nd pair, as my first pair are pretty much rock skis now, but there is a sweet deal on the Garbone but I have never skied them.

Do the skis perform equally well all over the mtn and in variable cascade gnar?

I am 5'9" 150 lbs, "expert".

completely different skis for completely different skiers. the garbones is skinnier and about as stiff as skis get. if you like the ruby that much, you prob won't love the garbones.

I have a minty pair of white wolf 188's mounted with small black dukes at 312mm if you are interested. No marks on the bases, couple topsheet dings...

Compared to the 88 Ruby, the 82 Garbones are significantly stiffer (probably 20-30%) and are more directional (Ruby has big twin tails, Garbones have flat tails). On firmer snow and crud, the Garbones blow the Ruby out of the water - super stable and while you might find a speed limit, I never did. For days with more than 6" new snow, grab the Rubies and leave the Garbones at home.

Sounds like its the Ruby ftw. I was not aware that the garbones were a flat tail and already have a stiff pair of flat tail skis.

Loved the Garbone...not a huge fan of Ruby.

Garbone = fall line, big mountain ski. Either you are on top of ski, or you will be face down in snow.
Ruby = much more versatile ski...sort of like a big, fat Tahoe. Much more forgiving than Garbone, but not nearly as stable when ridden hard.

Originally Posted by schindlerpiste

Loved the Garbone...not a huge fan of Ruby.

Garbone = fall line, big mountain ski. Either you are on top of ski, or you will be face down in snow.
Ruby = much more versatile ski...sort of like a big, fat Tahoe. Much more forgiving than Garbone, but not nearly as stable when ridden hard.

I find the ruby (and the bibby fwiw) to be much more than they first seem - they are both a great choice in a surprisingly wide variety of conditions, despite being labeled as pow sticks.

I picked up 182 fat Garbones at the end of last season and while they'll give back every little bit you put into them, they're not insanely demanding and are quite maneuverable (at least in the 182). They're not what I'd call playful in the smeary, soft tips and tails kind of way, but they have lots of energy and are quite snappy if you're a skier who likes to use a ski's sidecut.

My review: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...90#post3640890

I don't have a pow day on them yet but I'm guessing they won't be all-out floaters at low speed.

Unfortunately I haven't tried the Rubies so I can't compare.

What about the Jaguar Shark? Same shape as the Garbones (though a couple mm's wider all around) but softer and lighter. I also haven't tried them but reviews are good.

^ Hey DC, did those 182s ever feel short? I'm about your size, looking for an everyday ski to mess around on after I got rid of my XXLs.

Originally Posted by bennettc14

^ Hey DC, did those 182s ever feel short? I'm about your size, looking for an everyday ski to mess around on after I got rid of my XXLs.

They feel just right, definitely not too short. I'd say the length feels quite similar to the 190 Bibbys I have but the tails can be locked in more as you might expect. Of course, my comments do not include pow performance, where a longer ski might rise to the surface better, especially being pretty stiff right to the tips and tails. All of my time on them was during spring days.

I had some time on 187 XXLs, but that's already 4 years ago so it's hard to directly compare. From what I recall, the XXLs felt more cumbersome. Both skis have left me with an impression of stability.