Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    JH
    Posts
    443

    Moment Bibby Tour Review

    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...rld-Ski-Review

    The link above is to my lengthy review of the 184 Moment Exit World. As previously posted, several months ago as I masturbated, I was perusing TGR and came upon news of a re-incarnation of the Exit World for 16/17 known as the Bibby Tour. To keep information straight, I am putting the following dim information here so that I do not have to constantly look it up clicking through 5 different websites.

    13/14 First Generation Exit Worlds, Alien Topsheet
    184 length, 142-115-132, Sidecut 24m, Effective edge 1500 mm

    14/15 Second Generation Exit Worlds, Boobies! Topsheet
    184 length, 140-115-130, Sidecut 25m
    190 length, 142-117-132, Sidecut 27m

    16/17 First Generation Bibby Tour, Black As Night Topsheet
    184 length, 141-116-131, Sidecut 25m, Effective edge 1500 mm

    My review of the Bibby Tour:
    Name:  kate-upton3.jpg
Views: 3058
Size:  91.7 KB
    In a word: big. In two words: big titties.

    These kill it, everywhere, everything. But the easiest way to compare is to previous generations, all of which only apply to the 184s, the 190 will be dealt with later. The Bibby Tour is not as quick edge to edge as the Exit Worlds. There is a touch more sidecut, and it feels that the Bibby Tour is slightly stiffer. In my review of the Exit World, my only lament was that they may be a touch too quick edge to edge, and had a mach looney speed limit. This was fixed with the Bibby Tours, they will haul like a truck and always stay confident underneath. I surprised myself, however, that I now actually liked the quickness of the EWs in some situations, especially inbounds for bumps, etc. In my last review I brought up how someone described the Bibby as a playful ski that can charge. The different iterations of the Exit World and Bibby Tour play along that edge, with the Exit World leaning more toward play, and the Bibby Tour more toward charge. That solidity transfers over into powder, where touring on the Bibby Tour, even in 184, you will never be short of float, even in the deepest over-the-head Nippon fukai yuki that makes you weep for joy as you turn to look back upon the mountain, thanking little baby Jesus for that which he hath wrought, or the God of Tom Cruise, or even whatever those Mormons worship-I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure it has something to do with a whale's vagina.

    As for the 190, that ski is a totally different beast. I have seen several posters complain of a "dead" feeling, or an inability to experience the orgasmic bliss that I describe in my many odes to autoerotic asphyxiation. The answer is that the 190 is a different ski. If you look at the dimensions, pushing 120 underfoot, 27m sidecut, this is no longer a playful ski that can charge, it just charges. It is a weapon of mass powder destruction. It is a big line AK stick. You need speed, and then it comes alive, gloriously alive. But trying to take it down a bump run at Keystone is like trying to maneuver your Porsche 911 GT2 through the parking lot at King Soopers on a holiday weekend. It is mentally exhausting and leaves you with an overwhelming desire to strangle the first person you encounter. And not to strangle them in an erotic manner, perhaps slapping them lightly across the face and asking them "who's your daddy." But rather to purposefully kill them, dead, in aisle three. And then, you know, you have to look around, see if anyone noticed, skulk around and try to find any cameras that may have been trained on the area, now do you have to go and kill other people?, I mean, talk about a hassle, it never ends. It just doesn't make that much sense.
    Last edited by telelebowski; 03-02-2017 at 11:12 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    7B Selkirks USA
    Posts
    720
    Strong work. Working in autoerotic asphyxiation and thrill killing as metaphor is always a great way to relate to a ski.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Winthrop, WA. Methow valley
    Posts
    862
    Tele,

    Your height and weight? You evva rode the non-tour bibby? Comparison?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    JH
    Posts
    443
    Most of this review is the follow-up to my Exit World review, but to save the exhaustion of clicking a link:
    I am 6 feet tall. I weigh 175 lbs. I am an extreme ski mountaineer. I find frozen strawberry margaritas delicious.

    On the Exit Worlds the 184/190 break would be for weight, and they ski remarkably different. A heavy person on the 184 Exit Worlds would definitely be able to overpower the ski and feel like they were on skates. On the Bibby Tours, I think they would have to be fatter, like orca fat, to overpower the 184s. Much more stable. The non-tour Bibby I skiied was maybe 5 years ago? I think that iteration was like 120 underfoot? Alpine bindings, much more weight, killed it in Sierra/PNW snow, never got deflected. Almost not fun, in that with 3 or 4 inches you did not get into the powder but rather destroyed it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,611
    Excellent review!

    How are the 184 Bibby Tours in variable and shit snow? If I found myself in a 45-degree couloir where the wind had scraped away all the soft snow leaving firm windboard, would they be okay? (I'd be worried about a soft, rockered tail.)

    I'm hoping to pick up either the 184 Bibby Tours or the 185 ZeroG 108's on sale this spring, recognizing that they are fairly different skis.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,611
    By the way, you need JimS's custom Praxis topsheets (left):
    Name:  15977095_1525052957522010_4789437634145445692_n.jpg
Views: 2679
Size:  68.4 KB

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    18
    Sick review. 184 Tours sound like a no brainer upgrade to my 11/12 bibbys.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,072
    Review of this review 5 out of 5 stars!!!!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    JH
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by AKbruin View Post
    Excellent review!

    How are the 184 Bibby Tours in variable and shit snow? If I found myself in a 45-degree couloir where the wind had scraped away all the soft snow leaving firm windboard, would they be okay? (I'd be worried about a soft, rockered tail.)

    I'm hoping to pick up either the 184 Bibby Tours or the 185 ZeroG 108's on sale this spring, recognizing that they are fairly different skis.
    I had the Lepowski, but you're right, I should have gotten those topsheets on one of my Freerides. After all, all the Dude ever wanted was his rug back.

    In variable and shit snow they are solid, and perform better than the EWs, which skiied a touch short, whereas the Bibby Tours can plow through, although I haven't hit a lot of Euro Deathsnow this year. The key things to me on this ski are the sidecut radius. Having a mid20+ radius helps create that traditional ski feel which I like, especially in couloirs. Would I be totally happy with the EWs on top of that couloir? Probably not, I haven't taken them there. Would I be okay with the Bibby Tours on top of that couloir? Yes, with the sidecut, the slight increase in stiffness, they will do that. But I think your question is a good one. These skis lend themselves more for sidecountry and small powder tours, they have some heft to them. I always have had the steep ski/long tour spot in my quiver filled before I got these. Right now, it is on Coombas--which also are not super light but that I prefer for their dampness and long sidecut--and if I am touring for hours or getting on something technical, like a casual afternoon on the Hossack-MacGowan, those are the ones I pull out. I have not skiied those ZeroGs, but they would honestly probably be more versatile depending on which way your skiing is leaning due to the weight, etc.

    But the Bibby Tours can handle steeps
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0839.jpg 
Views:	239 
Size:	679.2 KB 
ID:	201508

    Along with the deepest powder I have ever encountered
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0424.jpg 
Views:	218 
Size:	503.6 KB 
ID:	201509

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,177
    Well this all sounds pretty sick, if you don't work for Moment, haha. I have been interested in this ski for a while and this sounds like what I'm looking for in a semi versatile, mostly pow touring ski. I don't have all my bases covered and I've been waiting a while for something about like this, it all sounds very enticing. I am very close to your size and am considering the 184 to save weight and for general easier getting around/egress etc., sounds like that size will float well enough for me. My only thought is, I will never be taking them down anything close to a bump run, and what you describe about the 190 excites me, but again I don't really want something unwieldly for skiing the occasional bushwacks and luge tracks....So I guess I don't really need the 190 being an inch or so taller.

    I have 186 bodacious for an alpine ski and I like that kind of traditional gs race ski feel, but love that you can still pivot and slarve around on it pretty easily in most conditions without it doing anything unpredictable. I think the gradual sidecut and rocker profile without anything being too exaggerated contributes to that ski being so well behaved. I would be fine with something a bit lighter, wouldn't need the two sheets of metal cause I wouldn't need to mach through any chunder, wouldn't need to be quite as wide or as stiff... This ski sounds perfect honestly, 25 meter turn radius is not too short like so many touring skis out there. I am finding I prefer at least a medium if not a bigger turn radius in almost any snow condition or turn size outside of carving slalom turns on groomers. And as long as it doesn't have a ton of camber I am super stoked.
    Last edited by tone capone; 03-04-2017 at 12:26 AM.
    "The skis just popped me up out of the snow and I went screaming down the hill on a high better than any heroin junkie." She Ra

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Los Angeles/Mammoth
    Posts
    801
    Thanks for in depth review Dude! Impressed to hear that the 184 performs so well at your height and weight (I've got the same build), figured the 190 would have been the proper ski to get. Any intel on the actual measured length and weight of the 184?

    Glad your out there takin' it easy for all us sinners, I take comfort it that.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    21
    I can't speak to the Bibby tours but I ride on a pair of 188 pb&js and to the guy wondering about the tails I would say they shouldn't be too soft. The Bibby's are basically a wider version of the PB&j and they do no come of as too soft. I find them very stable for how much rocker they have. I'm also about 6 feet 170. If you're looking for something a little more stable look at the belefonte..

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,611
    Thanks, telelebowski.

    I think a pair of 185s is under 8 lbs., which for me is sufficient for longer tours. Unfortunately, it's probably a moot point because it seems like there few online retailers that have many 185s in stock heading into the spring sale season.

    I'll probably just buy whatever is cheapest from the ZeroG 108, Bibby Tour, Supercharger, Synapse 109, etc. options come April. Too bad DPS and Volkl are so expensive.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Los Angeles/Mammoth
    Posts
    801
    Can anyone confirm the measured weight of the 184 Bibby Tours? The pair blister got were 1900-1950 grams each, and someone else there posted a pair came in at stated weight of 1800 grams

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    147
    Mine are 1820g. Same camber profile as bibby.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by pembyguy View Post
    Mine are 1820g. Same camber profile as bibby.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Mine are about the same weight as well. I think they were just over 1800g when I had the shop weigh them before buying.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    853
    Damn 1800g is pretty solid for a ski that big. I'm imagining a quiver with the tours serving dual purpose, but 1800g might be too light for a ski that big.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,687
    Maybe...but if it skis like telebow says it skis...and it's lighter than a v werks katana...
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,687
    I'd love to see a comparison review: v werks katana vs bibby tour vs solly mtn lab vs Praxis touring choice in the 112-116mm underfoot range and whatever layup gets you into the 7.8 - 8.6 lbs/pair range.
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    JH
    Posts
    443
    My 184s weighed 1900 grams +/- whatever a common scale imparts. It has actually caused a fairly large problem with my quiver, since my 188 Coomback 104s are the same weight, which is fairly pointless. I'm going to keep the Bibby Tours for 90% of touring and have now scaled down to some Kastle TXs for longer stuff where weight can be a consideration. This also let me buy some more skis. Which I enjoy a great deal. I like it because it gives me that funny feeling between my legs like when we climbed the rope in gym class.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Los Angeles/Mammoth
    Posts
    801
    Quote Originally Posted by SupreChicken View Post
    I'd love to see a comparison review: v werks katana vs bibby tour vs solly mtn lab vs Praxis touring choice in the 112-116mm underfoot range and whatever layup gets you into the 7.8 - 8.6 lbs/pair range.
    Seconded! This is a topic I've been pondering a lot lately as well. Specifically weights of powder touring skis, and the trade-off of going lighter at around 1800 grams for easier uphill climbing vs going heavier at around 2000 grams for better downhill performance. Can certain 1800 gram skis that have a strong flex still perform well? Or is there no way to get a lighter ski to perform like a heavier 2000 gram ski?

    Further related conversation, for folks on the larger end of the size spectrum (I'm 6ft 185lbs, and from what I gather is seems average is closer to around 5' 9" 160lbs), is a 2000 gram ski really "too heavy" for uphill touring assuming one has proper touring bindings and boots. And conversely, is that 1800 gram ski going to potentially be overpowered on the way down. In reality, the powder touring ski is bigger dimensions, and should theoretically be heavier.

    There has been some chatter in the Praxis threads regarding getting the GPO for touring in a heavier (but still relatively light) MAP cor instead of a UL build (super light), accepting the increase in weight because the downhill performance is that much better. For instance, Keith made me a set of GPO 187cm UL veneer 3+ flex at 1820-1850 grams per ski. They seem like an amazing build and havent skied them yet, but i posed the above MAP vs UL question to him and he is convince that the UL performs great. Right now considering other options in the same dimensions, like the Bibby Tour, that might be a little heavier 1900-2000 grams, but still lightweight enough as a dedicated powder touring ski.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by jdadour View Post
    is a 2000 gram ski really "too heavy" for uphill touring assuming one has proper touring bindings and boots.
    I think a lot of people place too much emphasis on ski weight when pondering their touring ski options. One person's "too heavy" is another person's "just right" depending on what they are hoping to get out of the ski/what sort of mission they are on. Variables like tail shape, rocker profile, width, length and shape play a MUCH larger role in how a ski will perform on any given day than a couple hundred grams of weight. I'd recommend defining what style of ski you are looking for first, and then finding skis/dialing in build options to get the weight where you want it to be for that type of ski and how you intend to use it. I tend to err on the side of lugging a little extra weight on the way up for more performance/stability on the way down. This approach is based on me being a stronger climber than skier in the grand scheme of things. I'm fit enough to fake it on the way up but need all the help I can get/demand that my efforts are rewarded with great turns on the way down. You might be the opposite, but that's up to you to decide. FWIW I'm your size and have landed somewhere around 2000 grams as the target weight for my all around deal with whatever I'm faced with touring ski. If I was going to do a huge traverse I'd find something lighter for sure. If I was spending a winter in Japan I might end up on something heavier in order to get the float that I want. For everything between these extremes my 2000-ish gram skis seem to work pretty well.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Reno
    Posts
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by Reformed View Post
    I think a lot of people place too much emphasis on ski weight when pondering their touring ski options. One person's "too heavy" is another person's "just right" depending on what they are hoping to get out of the ski/what sort of mission they are on. Variables like tail shape, rocker profile, width, length and shape play a MUCH larger role in how a ski will perform on any given day than a couple hundred grams of weight. I'd recommend defining what style of ski you are looking for first, and then finding skis/dialing in build options to get the weight where you want it to be for that type of ski and how you intend to use it. I tend to err on the side of lugging a little extra weight on the way up for more performance/stability on the way down. This approach is based on me being a stronger climber than skier in the grand scheme of things. I'm fit enough to fake it on the way up but need all the help I can get/demand that my efforts are rewarded with great turns on the way down. You might be the opposite, but that's up to you to decide. FWIW I'm your size and have landed somewhere around 2000 grams as the target weight for my all around deal with whatever I'm faced with touring ski. If I was going to do a huge traverse I'd find something lighter for sure. If I was spending a winter in Japan I might end up on something heavier in order to get the float that I want. For everything between these extremes my 2000-ish gram skis seem to work pretty well.
    Some good points in here. Additionally, it also matters what the weight in the ski is made up of. Could we make the Bibby Tour lighter? Of course. Could we make it heavier? We do, its the Bibby.

    What we look to achieve across the entire tour collection at Moment is to make the ski go up hill a little easier and not compromise too much on the downhill. We laminate our own cores using Paulownia with Ash in the Bibby Tour. The Ash adds some of the most weight in the ski but it really helps dampen the ski out with the overall light core and more carbon build. We liked the way this felt over the bComp cores(http://www.bcomp.ch/en/products/bcores) you will see in a lots of Faction, Amplid, Line and other touring skis. Also, the bComp build was only .15lbs lighter and a pain in the ass to manufacture.

    We get a custom hybrid blend of our Triax fiberglass woven with carbon fiber in the longitudinal axis. Too much carbon gives you too much feedback and makes the ski feel pingy in our opinion so we spent a lot of time on this Hybrid blend.

    There are a lot of rad skis out there and most use a lot of the same materials. Just like the basic ingredients for baking a cookie are pretty much the same, its all about the right ratios of ingredients, mixing and cook time which can make a good cookie or a great cookie.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,687
    Quote Originally Posted by jdadour View Post

    There has been some chatter in the Praxis threads regarding getting the GPO for touring in a heavier (but still relatively light) MAP cor instead of a UL build (super light), accepting the increase in weight because the downhill performance is that much better. For instance, Keith made me a set of GPO 187cm UL veneer 3+ flex at 1820-1850 grams per ski. They seem like an amazing build and havent skied them yet, but i posed the above MAP vs UL question to him and he is convince that the UL performs great. Right now considering other options in the same dimensions, like the Bibby Tour, that might be a little heavier 1900-2000 grams, but still lightweight enough as a dedicated powder touring ski.
    First of all, let's hear that review once you get those into some snow. You might love them.

    Secondly, that chatter about disliking the UL build was largely from me. I live in the PNW with wet heavy snow. I took my UL Veneer 187 4 GPOs into both variable heavy snow and super consistent snow. They were great in pow and on groomers. Really impressive, actually. But it was deflection city the second I tried to ski anything variable - Bumps, crud, chop...all of it kind of sucked on the UL. Dialing it back and skiing slower made things safer, but it didn't really improve the ride quality much. Skinning was great.

    I sold them to Riff.

    I know I'm somewhat spoiled by my 191 Billy Goats in variable snow, especially at 165-170 lbs. So maybe the comparison just isn't fair.

    But I have none of these issues with the enduro (formerly MAP core) plus carbon layup. And it doesn't add that much weight. And they handle variable snow really well - better than the UL GPO. So when I ordered the Quixote and Vipecs, I got a (slightly) heavier ski deliberately. I think my 187 GPO was 8.3 lbs for the pair and the 188 Quixotes were 9.1 lbs. Heavier layup, plus a little more ski, both width and height. I think it makes a great pow touring rig, but I haven't done that many laps on it (mostly inbounds last year) and I still tour in heavy Lupo TIs, so maybe I'm not the best skier to speak to it as a touring rig.

    I also disliked the steeple 112 - same reason, same feel.

    I'm intrigued by all the skis I listed above: v werks katana, bibby tour, mtn lab.

    I would love to find one that descends predictably in variable snow as well as the Quixote at a lighter weight. It's not a huge mission, but I'm thinking about it.

    Luke's insight is always helpful.

    I also think that the non PNW skiers might have a much better experience with the UL layup than I did.
    Last edited by SupreChicken; 10-05-2017 at 03:06 PM. Reason: grammar
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Los Angeles/Mammoth
    Posts
    801
    Quote Originally Posted by SupreChicken View Post
    First of all, let's hear that review once you get those into some snow. You might love them.

    Secondly, that chatter about disliking the UL build was largely from me. I live in the PNW with wet heavy snow. I took my UL Veneer 187 4 GPOs into both variable heavy snow and super consistent snow. They were great in pow and on groomers. Really impressive, actually. But it was deflection city the second I tried to ski anything variable - Bumps, crud, chop...all of it kind of sucked on the UL. Dialing it back and skiing slower made things safer, but it didn't really improve the ride quality much. Skinning was great.

    I sold them to Riff.

    I know I'm somewhat spoiled by my 191 Billy Goats in variable snow, especially at 165-170 lbs. So maybe the comparison just isn't fair.

    But I have none of these issues with the enduro (formerly MAP core) plus carbon layup. And it doesn't add that much weight. And they handle variable snow really well - better than the UL GPO. So when I ordered the Quixote and Vipecs, I got a (slightly) heavier ski deliberately. I think my 187 GPO was 8.3 lbs for the pair and the 188 Quixotes were 9.1 lbs. Heavier layup, plus a little more ski, both width and height. I think it makes a great pow touring rig, but I haven't done that many laps on it (mostly inbounds last year) and I still tour in heavy Lupo TIs, so maybe I'm not the best skier to speak to it as a touring rig.

    I also disliked the steeple 112 - same reason, same feel.

    I'm intrigued by all the skis I listed above: v werks katana, bibby tour, mtn lab.

    I would love to find one that descends predictably in variable snow as well as the Quixote at a lighter weight. It's not a huge mission, but I'm thinking about it.

    Luke's insight is always helpful.

    I also think that the non PNW skiers might have a much better experience with the UL layup than I did.
    Great feedback guys. And big thanks to Luke for contributing. It sounds like weight, though important, is less of a factor than I thought in effecting the overall performance of a touring ski. And more importantly, it seems that this is subjective from skier to skier. I dont have any experience on a real powder touring ski as baseline to compare (only have toured on the Moment Underworlds, which KICK ASS), so need to get my GPOs out there to see how they work out. I realize its short sighted of me to try draw conclusions before testing, but still wanted to broach the subject because it seems like meaningful analysis.

    From all accounts it sounds like the Bibby Tour is very capable at its weight, and knowing how Luke designed the core/layup it will perform well on the downhill.

Posting Permissions

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