Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Powdery with a chance of tittyballs
    Posts
    1,492

    Moment Belafonte length inquiry

    Lots of guys in the 5'10" to 6 foot range and 180lbs saying the 182cm is plenty of ski. I'm 140 lbs... do I dare consider the 174? It would be replacing my 176 Gotamas (last gen before rocker) as an east coast, non-touring, non-pow daily driver. Considering the tip rocker I find it difficult to imagine the 174 wouldn't feel snowbladey. Anyone ridden that length (and willing to admit it on this site)?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Taking names later
    Posts
    3,637
    What's the running length difference on the 174 vs 182?
    fighting gravity on a daily basis

    WhiteRoom Skis
    Handcrafted in Northern Vermont
    www.whiteroomcustomskis.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Nhampshire
    Posts
    5,587
    What do you normally ski? Do you ski fast or slow?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    where the beer flows like wine
    Posts
    2,383
    I am 5'11" 165 lbs. I own the belafonte 182cm as my everyday ski, and it is a lot of ski...lots of camber and a stiff flex.

    I have not skied the 174.

    I know a guy my size who has the 192 and he gets owned by them. Just too much ski for a guy his size.

    If its not a pow ski and you like the 176 goat, I would got with the 174. That size is just that much quicker and better in trees and bumps.

    The belafonte is the real deal. Length doesn't matter. If you can handle the belafonte, you can ski.
    Big skis from small companies at Backcountry Freeskier

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Powdery with a chance of tittyballs
    Posts
    1,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinman View Post
    What's the running length difference on the 174 vs 182?
    182 Belafonte = 163cm effective edge. Still looking for that info on 176 Gotama and 174 Belafonte

    EDIT: 163 seems impossible. I found a SKI Magazine online blip on the ski. It mentions the 182 Bela effective edge = 144cm so I'll go with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by schuss View Post
    What do you normally ski? Do you ski fast or slow?
    176 Gotamas were my daily driver for the last 5 years. [In anything more than 5" of fresh, I bring out the ARGs (which is also my touring ski)]. I ski a fair amount of EC trees but also some open terrain and bumps in the spring. I ski slow in the woods and like to open it up everywhere else. I feel that 105 underfoot is the holy grail for me when it comes to a daily driver. I love the stability. Hence my interest in the Belafonte.

    I have a pair of 175cm 4FRNT TNKs (111-86-108) which I absolutely hate. I mounted them at -2.5 and remounted at -4 (of the recommended line) and they still feel like snowblades. Too short, too skinny, and too centermounted-ish to charge on. I used to ski 183 Gots along with my 176s, and found the 183s to be great in everything (including soft bumps) except tight trees. However the 176 was my true love.


    Quote Originally Posted by mtskier View Post
    I am 5'11" 165 lbs. I own the belafonte 182cm as my everyday ski, and it is a lot of ski...lots of camber and a stiff flex.

    I have not skied the 174.

    I know a guy my size who has the 192 and he gets owned by them. Just too much ski for a guy his size.

    If its not a pow ski and you like the 176 goat, I would got with the 174. That size is just that much quicker and better in trees and bumps.

    The belafonte is the real deal. Length doesn't matter. If you can handle the belafonte, you can ski.
    Could be a bit more ski than I need. Thanks for the input. I will keep reading up on them... there are good deals on them right now. Any 105-ish waisted ski that can charge and carve a turn is something I'm interested in.
    Last edited by arewolfe; 07-25-2013 at 12:58 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    6,985
    Quote Originally Posted by arewolfe View Post
    Any 105-ish waisted ski that can charge and carve a turn is something I'm interested in.
    Just throwing this out there. ON3P Vicik. 176 134/104/124

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Other Side
    Posts
    715
    5,10 155. 2 full seasons of everyday EC on the 182 Garbones (more like 180 tip to tail). I know they are not the same ski but their similar I think. For me part of the fun was how much that ski pushed my comfort zone of what I considered fast, the 174 will for sure be more manageable, but If you're feeling strong, and know how to ski i think their might be more potential for you in the 182. FWIW I never felt the 182 was too much ski because of the length, just some days I didn't have the legs/mindset to ski them the way they want to be skied.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Powdery with a chance of tittyballs
    Posts
    1,492
    ^ Thanks.

    Also looking at 180 Tahoes since they're on sale. ON3P Viciks look great on paper. I'll read up.
    Last edited by arewolfe; 07-24-2013 at 06:20 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Powdery with a chance of tittyballs
    Posts
    1,492
    180 Tahoe or 182 Belafonte. Gotta take advantage of this deal soon. Tough call.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    3,361
    Quote Originally Posted by arewolfe View Post
    180 Tahoe or 182 Belafonte. Gotta take advantage of this deal soon. Tough call.
    I haven't tried the Belafontes but I understand they're solid. I'm on Bibbys and Garbones, so I know Moment can make a solid ski and believe the reviews.

    I did own some new gen Tahoes. In contrast to my Bibbys and Garbones, they respond to a softer touch. They are a bit of a strange ski, long radius but won't really grip well or lock into an arc. They'll make lots of skidded turn shapes but never feel like you're on rails.

    So if you're looking for a solid ski that will lock in, I'd go Belafonte. If you want to noodle down bumps and ski with a softer touch, go Tahoes.
    Last edited by D(C); 07-25-2013 at 07:21 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Anaconda
    Posts
    441
    I owned the Tahoes as well. Get the Belafontes.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    one of those gaper mountain towns
    Posts
    2,965
    X2 Had the 180 Tahoe. Did nothing for my quiver. If it was firm, I wanted something skinnier/quicker edge to edge. If it was soft, I wanted something with more float.

    IMO Tahoe=Jack of all trades; master of none.

    Me: 5'-6" 165lbs. I might have liked the 170cm Tahoe better, but really have no business being on a ski that short. If you want manouverability, the 174cm Belafonte will probably give you that, without sacrificing too much float. Not sure how good they'll feel at speed, but based on my experience with the Tahoes, probably not too bad.
    Last edited by bendtheski; 07-25-2013 at 07:29 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by ilovetoskiatalta View Post
    Dude its losers like you that give ski bums a bad rap.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Powdery with a chance of tittyballs
    Posts
    1,492
    These opinions on the Tahoes are really helpful. I was planning to narrow my quiver down to 2 pairs (ARGs + resort ripper ski that can handle trees), and then keep my Gotamas as beaters. Looks like that is not gonna happen. Seems the ideal would be to find something that can carve and charge, and a 2nd ski that's playful and can easily make smaller turn shapes in between periods of new snow. I like that idea... but my bank account does not.

    I assumed the Tahoe would be a good carver (the way my Gotamas were when they were new and still had camber and edges... I felt I could rail at high speeds on everything but ice). If Tahoes can't arc a turn on hardpack there's no reason for me to even look at them.

    Belafonte + PB & J?

    I love the idea of the PB & J because of it's tip and tail rocker on such a reasonable width underfoot. Even though it's considered stiff I imagine it would be a super fun resort ski for anything involving smaller turns, like trees and bumped out steeps. I have 180 CRJs (115mm underfoot -- although I may just part with them since the ARGs get ridden every storm more than 4-6"), so the 101mm of the PB&J looks like it could be fun without quiver overlap even if I kept the CRJ. At the same time, with those rockered tails, I know the PBJ simply won't hold an edge on hardpack the way my Gots did.

    In reality I will have to pick one ski. If I go with the PB&J I will be an East coast skier with a quiver of boards that can't carve a solid turn. That seems a bit ridiculous. I'll have a quiver full of fun skis, none of which can really rail at speed on hardpack. The ARG and CRJ simply aren't made for that, my Gotamas are thrased, and PBJ has rockered tails. If I pick up the Belafonte I will probably have a blast raging open terrain at speed, and hate my life in the woods and bumps.
    Last edited by arewolfe; 07-25-2013 at 07:48 AM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Anaconda
    Posts
    441
    I picked up some PB&Js at the end of this season. Very fun ski. But no it wouldn't be my first pick for railing bullet proof snow.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Powdery with a chance of tittyballs
    Posts
    1,492
    ^^^ What length, and what type of terrain? Height and weight stats? Thanks.





    I got a PM from someone with the following comments... Thought it might be helpful for future readers of this thread so I'll post it here:

    "Just a suggestion; the ski I replaced those 180cm Tahoes with is the Salomon Rocker2 92 179cm. (the remix for 2014). 91mm waist, easier, shorter radius turning than the Tahoes probably due to the tip and tail rocker, but surprisingly stable and grippy on fast hardpack, and fun in the bumps.

    I had demoed them as the Twenty-Twelve two years ago and really liked them, but bought the Tahoes blind because of all the good press Moment gets around here, and wanting to support the little guy. Also, although I've owned several salomons that I've been very happy with, durability and stability at speed has never been their strong-suit. I can't speak to durability (haven't had them long enough), but the sandwich/sidewall construction on the Rocker2 92/Remix/Twenty-Twelve is probably what gives them a more burly feel, and hopefully will keep them solid feeling for longer than some of their other cap construction models. We'll see.

    FWIW, I spent most of my life skiing the northeast, and fully appreciate the need for something that does well on hardpack, but will also work well on softer snow and in trees. For me the Rocker2 92 is just that ski. When I demoed, it was on early season hardpack groomers, which they did surprisingly well on. They get really good edge hold when you roll them over even a little bit. What I didn't expect was how much I would like them in soft snow. The 91mm waist and rockered tail settle into soft snow more than my next fatter skis; a pair of 174cm 112mm waisted Fat-ypus d-senders, which allows the tips to float really nicely, without getting deflected or chattering around. Fat skis are great for really deep snow, and blower pow, but for less deep, or slightly denser snow, or hardpack/bumps, the Rockers have been great.

    Oh yeah; no problem throwing the 179cm around in tight spots/trees either.

    I just think they're kinda overlooked, or Solly just isn't very well thought of around here. I did demo a bunch in this category though, but it's a deep category, so obviously a bunch I haven't tried too. Have also seen some pretty mixed reactions from reviewers, but I think a lot of that is due to Solly's recommended center mounting (which would be a mistake IMO), and based on that, mistaking it for a park/jib ski, which it really isn't. I'd bill it as more of a evolution of the pocket rocket on steroids with rockered tip/tail if that makes any sense."

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    P-tex, CA
    Posts
    8,199
    Skis are subjective. I personally ditched the Belafonte's two seasons ago since the Jaguar Sharks skied similarly and were a tad wider. The 12/13 Jag Shark is pretty badass compared to my 11/12's...just rock solid big mountain charger.

    I actually like the Tahoe for groomers and super firm off-piste. I actually think they rail a carve well, and the newer models are WAY stiffer than the older version (goes for most Moments since they started adding carbon fiber stringers). Tahoe are also perfect for those end of the season Summer couloir/chute hiking. Also, the Tahoe gets triple camber for 13/14 which should make it a tad more versatile.

    Even though its the softest ski I own, I rocked the Deathwish almost as a dailey driver last year...just super fun for everything.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Powdery with a chance of tittyballs
    Posts
    1,492
    Nice. Any opinion on how the Tahoes compare to a pre-rocker Gotama?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    .
    Posts
    576
    As long as you take care of your skis and are a technically sound skier, railing PB&Js, Tahoes, etc is not a problem. I have PB&Js, and I can lay over railroad tracks on them but that's because they have a race grind and I tune/wax them frequently. I think people who don't have racing backgrounds test different skis and judge the carving ability based almost purely on the tune. If your edges are dull it's no fucking wonder you just skidded down the mountain. So if you don't tune your own skis, I'd say get some files, file guides, gummis, diamonds, etc and then get the fun quiver.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    3,361
    Quote Originally Posted by ego7man View Post
    As long as you take care of your skis and are a technically sound skier, railing PB&Js, Tahoes, etc is not a problem. I have PB&Js, and I can lay over railroad tracks on them but that's because they have a race grind and I tune/wax them frequently. I think people who don't have racing backgrounds test different skis and judge the carving ability based almost purely on the tune. If your edges are dull it's no fucking wonder you just skidded down the mountain. So if you don't tune your own skis, I'd say get some files, file guides, gummis, diamonds, etc and then get the fun quiver.
    Interesting. I grew up racing and coached as well and have developed a pretty good ability to feel things on a pair of skis. While my Bibbys and Garbones are intuitive carvers, the Tahoes just didn't come around. They sort of felt dead when tipped on edge, lacking much grip or snap. I could carve them but they didn't inspire much confidence and weren't all that stable. This was surprising for a 188 with a 26 m radius and flat tails. I suspect my experience would have been better had I mounted behind the recommended line. I felt like I was overpowering the tips at times. I felt this to a lesser degree on the PB&Js and after talking to others, mounting back may have helped. The Bibbys are at -6 vs. PB&J's -5 mount, so that could explain it. In comparing flat-tailed skis, my Garbones are at -8.5 whereas the Tahoes were at -6 (I think), so that makes sense as well.

    I'd love to have the chance to test mounting points on the Tahoes and PB&Js to verify.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    pastry aisle
    Posts
    593
    I'm on the EC with 188 pb&js mounted about 1 cm back from recommended (tried to match it to my 190 Bibby mount), and had no problem trusting them on edge on the firmest of firm. Just keep them tuned. Great everyday option. No complaints. FWIW, I have pre-rockered gotamas as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by TomCrac View Post
    Suppositories convinced me it was a good idea to wear a helmet.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    P-tex, CA
    Posts
    8,199
    My current 188cm Tahoes are mounted on the line with 920s and feel fine. The 192cm Jag Shark however rails just as well long radius carves or better at the same mounting point. As far as tuning, my skis are trashed

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Powdery with a chance of tittyballs
    Posts
    1,492
    Holy crap, these Deathwish things look fun. It sucks that in the end, it's all speculation and I actually have no idea what something will ski like until I ride it. Lots of good info here, thanks yallz.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    .
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by D(C) View Post
    Interesting. I grew up racing and coached as well and have developed a pretty good ability to feel things on a pair of skis. While my Bibbys and Garbones are intuitive carvers, the Tahoes just didn't come around. They sort of felt dead when tipped on edge, lacking much grip or snap. I could carve them but they didn't inspire much confidence and weren't all that stable. This was surprising for a 188 with a 26 m radius and flat tails. I suspect my experience would have been better had I mounted behind the recommended line. I felt like I was overpowering the tips at times. I felt this to a lesser degree on the PB&Js and after talking to others, mounting back may have helped. The Bibbys are at -6 vs. PB&J's -5 mount, so that could explain it. In comparing flat-tailed skis, my Garbones are at -8.5 whereas the Tahoes were at -6 (I think), so that makes sense as well.

    I'd love to have the chance to test mounting points on the Tahoes and PB&Js to verify.
    Moments in general are so damp that they definitely feel kind of dead. Certainly not even close to the pop and careveability of a GS ski. My pb&js are around +2/3 from recommended. They don't carve even close to a race ski, but its fully possible to muscle them around and lay over a carve. I think your comment about the lack of snap is dead on. They don't really want to grip, but it's still possible to do it. I also have bibbys mounted +1 and they carve well for a big, rockered ski. But, they still don't like to do it. I think in general, Moment skis are not good carvers because, at least in my experience, they have almost no pop.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Other Side
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by arewolfe View Post
    Holy crap, these Deathwish things look fun. It sucks that in the end, it's all speculation and I actually have no idea what something will ski like until I ride it. Lots of good info here, thanks yallz.
    Are you set on Moment skis? I kid you not the Praxis Concept is my EC one ski quiver; billy goat out onto solid ice waterfalls? check. Knee deep Jay tree pow? so fast so easy so brainless, best tree ski ever. Mach schnell Mont Tremblant boiler plate groomers, oh yes I'm that guy who just blew by you on your race stock GS skis.

    Kidding aside though, I may get ticketed by the EC waist width police, but I really couldn't give a shit if I ever "rail" another turn again, east or west coast. I'm having the most fun I've ever had on skis. Blister has an nice Deathwish/Concept compare and contrast, if you're interested.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    P-tex, CA
    Posts
    8,199
    As for pop, I've solely used Moments for years now and I have no complaints. I came from a Volkl addict, to Iggies, to Kingswood, then to Moment. Deathwish was my go to ski all last season...just way too much fun. Super quick to swing around, nice float, can RAIL SuperG turns....just damn fun. The triple camber is pretty rad. A bit soft in the tip but stiff underfoot makes it rip.

Posting Permissions

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