Bibby mount point advice.

[auvgeek]

I didn't really love the pair that I skied (mounted on the line), but I did think they played the role of playful charger reasonably well. Similar to my Jeffreys, but I prefer ON3P's bamboo layup. Way less work than my stiff 191 BGs, especially in firmer snow. At least for my 165# frame.

[Reformed]

my old ones are like an old pair of jeans, really hard to give up.

This mirrors my experience with my OG 190s mounted at -6 from centre. I've been on skis that are better in perfect blower powder (Protest), but I've yet to get on anything that works so well in the range of conditions found during a typical resort pow day. Smooth pow, tracked pow, soft crud, soft bumps, chopped groomers and air into all of the above is fun and intuitive. I'm not the best skier on the mountain and the 190 has always been easy and intuitive for me. As others have said, check your mount and tune and go from there.

[Banh Mi]

I didn't really love the pair that I skied (mounted on the line), but I did think they played the role of playful charger reasonably well. Similar to my Jeffreys, but I prefer ON3P's bamboo layup. Way less work than my stiff 191 BGs, especially in firmer snow. At least for my 165# frame.

Have you skied the newer Kartels?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[lemonhead]

Disclaimer I am am the Bibby Pro fan club and have hundreds of days the 190 that I recently sold. This ski sold me on moment and have bought 3 other models after. I had 3 mounts on mine with 3 different bindings. On triangle, about 2 in front and 2 behind. I felt they had a large sweet spot and noticed a huge difference between the mounts as long as there was slight adjustment in stance. I'm thinking this may be too much ski and op may enjoy the 184 or a different ski more.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app

[spotted dogs]

^^^^ being 6 and 200 I feel that I should be able to drive a ski, not the other way round. Previous skis were the 191 BG which I liked but was not suited to the terrain I ski, and a couple before that was the Line Mothership which Crushed everything! So as I have mentioned , gonna tune it and mount at recommended and go from there. It way well not be the ski for me but I want to give it the best chance to shine.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Banh Mi]

^^^^ being 6 and 200 I feel that I should be able to drive a ski, not the other way round. Previous skis were the 191 BG which I liked but was not suited to the terrain I ski, and a couple before that was the Line Mothership which Crushed everything! So as I have mentioned , gonna tune it and mount at recommended and go from there. It way well not be the ski for me but I want to give it the best chance to shine.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Bibby’s are not as heavy as BGs, but I find the Moments to be stiffer and more stable. BG’s are more forgiving for me, in their flex as well as sidecut. Bibby’s seemed to want more speed, and a better pilot. Or just a specific style.

The stiffer flex and attitude of bibby’s is better suited for very talented skiers IMO. To me, the Bibby is a bi-directional powder comp ski. It was designed for Josh Bibby in his prime, so I would’t expect anything less. Honestly, I dont think the 190 bibby is too much less stable than Wrenegades.

I had fun on Bibbys in good conditions, but in difficult snow, I didnt like the mount location. It’s probably just not the ski for you.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[AK47bp]

Bibby's like to go fast, I Mach in the chop and those fuckers are like a hot knife through butter. I admit you have to be a strong skier or they ski you.

[spotted dogs]

^^^ I freely admit the autos I was on made me a “lazy” skier. Good bad or otherwise. I was/ am looking for a stiffer , more powerful ski for varied terrain and snow than the auto offered ...


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[spotted dogs]

^^^^ cause at the end of the day, being on snow has to be fun and better than a day not....


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Banh Mi]

^^^ I freely admit the autos I was on made me a “lazy” skier. Good bad or otherwise. I was/ am looking for a stiffer , more powerful ski for varied terrain and snow than the auto offered ...


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Custom Praxis Rx, especially if you don’t need to ski switch.

My Rx are beefier than Bibbys, but the slightly further back mount point, and pintail, fits with my style much better. They are easier for me in difficult snow.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[auvgeek]

Bibby’s are not as heavy as BGs, but I find the Moments to be stiffer and more stable. BG’s are more forgiving for me, in their flex as well as sidecut. Bibby’s seemed to want more speed, and a better pilot. Or just a specific style.

The stiffer flex and attitude of bibby’s is better suited for very talented skiers IMO. To me, the Bibby is a bi-directional powder comp ski. It was designed for Josh Bibby in his prime, so I would’t expect anything less. Honestly, I dont think the 190 bibby is too much less stable than Wrenegades.

I had fun on Bibbys in good conditions, but in difficult snow, I didnt like the mount location. It’s probably just not the ski for you.

My ON3Ps must be stiffer than I realized. My BGs, and even my Jeffreys, are definitely stiffer than the Bibby Pro, which I found quite easy to ski after spending a few days on the BGs. I imagine your Aever SGs are quite a bit stiffer than the Bibby Pro, too...?

I find the shape/mount of the Bibby and Jeffrey quite a bit better suited to harder snow than my BGs, which rules deep pow/deep tracked pow but I find a chore in bumps, 2D snow, or faster shallow pow. But I'm probably a little small/weak for the stiff 191.

I don't have enough time on the K108 in decent conditions to comment, but I'm encouraged that Scott said they beefed up the tip/tail for next season.

[Banh Mi]

My ON3Ps must be stiffer than I realized. My BGs, and even my Jeffreys, are definitely stiffer than the Bibby Pro, which I found quite easy to ski after spending a few days on the BGs. I imagine your Aever SGs are quite a bit stiffer than the Bibby Pro, too...?

It’s been a little while since I skied 190 Bibbys, but I didnt think they were too much less stable than 191 Wrens. Which are a little less stiff than 2x stiff Supergoats. However the RES in SG’s make them pivot much easier. Bibbys are a little looser than Wrens obviously, with the rocker and mount, but still fast as hell IMO. I find all moment skis to be stiffer (but lighter) than standard On3ps, and that’s why I prefer on3p for playful charger skis. PBJ, Bibby, Belafonte and Governors were all very stable skis, but just average playfulness.

With the Bibby and PBJ (lesser extent with pbj), it’s possible I found them burlier than they really were, simply because I didn’t get along with the mount point. I had an easier time in difficult conditions with 196 Governors, compared to 190 Bibbys, because of the mount point. 190 bibbys were slightly stiffer than 196 governors though, and bibbys have longer turn radius.

Reading around on Newschoolers though, it seems most people find the Moment twin tips burlier than Kartels, and even Jeffreys. Burlier isn’t always better though. I prefer On3p for “pop”. Moments are a little dead feeling.

I have a few days on the 186cm Kartel 116, and it’s soooo much easier to ski than 190 Bibby. The Kartels still have a damn good backbone to them though, just stay light on your feet and they can go really fast. I probably could have went 191, but am happy I didnt because the 186 can take it slower and get more creative. I prefer the Kartels for slashing around and jumping off small 5-10 ft airs, in anything remotely soft. The K116s surf spring slush so well.

I do want to try the 190 Wildcats next year, to see how they perform with me being heavier, a little more skilled, and now that I’ve figured out -5 through -8cm mount points. Ultimately, I may go with Praxis MVP though, for that more hardparck-orientated wide all mtn jib ski. Either that or the 191 Kartel 108 with new hybrid radius sidecut and other changes. The MVP has a lot less rocker though, or so I’ve heard. I need to compare the two once the 2019 On3p specs are on website.

[spotted dogs]

Measured mount with boot in binding . I am definitely ahead of recommended.
Enough to make a big difference ? I don’t know



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[HukuTa_KydecHuk]

Well, I guess you are good to go. I'm really very skeptical everytime I hear that somebody notices any difference when moving 0.25-0.75cm. From my experience, things change a bit when you move bindings more then 1cm, plus it's always ski-dependent

[Reformed]

Measured mount with boot in binding . I am definitely ahead of recommended.
Enough to make a big difference ? I don’t know



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Your photo makes it look like your boot centre mark is (triangle on boot) is pretty much right on the big triangle on the ski, which is the recommended mount point no? If so, double check that the mark on the ski is correct and check your tune. All this discussion about the Bibby being burly and difficult to ski doesn't align with my experience at all, so I think there must be something else going on beyond being + or - a fraction of a cm from recommended (as Huk suggested as well). That said, I've never wanted to be further forward than -6 on mine, but I haven't thought that moving them back would improve anything either. They feel really balanced and intuitive at recommended IMO.

[spotted dogs]

The mark on the boot is a bit deceiving, I sharpied the line so I could see it better ( line is just forward of the mark on boot) . I am going to detune the crap out of the tips and tails and reset base / edge bevels to what I am used to. Hopefully that will do the trick


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[3PinGrin]

The mark on the boot is a bit deceiving, I sharpied the line so I could see it better ( line is just forward of the mark on boot) . I am going to detune the crap out of the tips and tails and reset base / edge bevels to what I am used to. Hopefully that will do the trick


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

That measures out at ~ 5/16" base on the photo or about 0.8cm. Plus the square is ahead of the bc mark, so it looks like only about 0.5cm. I can't imagine that would be much of an issue.

[SUPERIOR]

Had the 2011 vintage OG Bibby in 190 mounted +1cm and hated it. Lifeless ski that needed very steep terrain. Was skiing Japan with them and enjoyed my 183 Katanas much more.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[skizix]

I kind of liked the 190 Bibbys, however I also thought they were a lot of work.. They felt like freestyle powder comp skis, designed for a large person to throw huge tricks off big cliffs at high speeds in perfect powder.

I'm stunned by the jekyl/hyde opinions on the Bibby. I consider myself a strong skier with good technique, but I'm certainly not pro-level, and *definitely* not "throwing huge tricks off big cliffs at high speeds." On the rare occasions these days that I huck anything (10-15' *max* and only then if snow/landing/runout is pretty ideal), the only trick I'm trying to pull off is landing without stacking it up.

I find these anything but dead (not the liveliest ever, but that is a good thing - right in the sweet spot: damp and way stable, but with plenty of pop when you give 'em some input). And anything but hard work to ski - I'm going top to bottom, faster than ever, non-stop, on long-ish tree runs where I previously needed to stop 2 or more times to suck wind (and the ski this replaced: Surface Live Free - pretty similar, was a revelation in how much faster I could ski trees in pow, with less energy - Bibby is yet the next level).

Oh well...at least I like 'em (love this ski!).

[Banh Mi]

The 190 Bibbys were designed for Josh Bibby (pretty sure he’s a big guy) to throw big tricks off big cliffs, at high speeds. They didnt feel as accessible or jibby to me, as other skis in the category. Nor did they feel as chargey as bigger or more directional skis. They felt like they’d be great as a freestyle comp skis.

I could have made the Bibbyz work, but I tend to just go straight when I charge, and therefor preferred governors. Bibby’s seemed like they just wanted a better skier than me, to spin and flip and jib, from a centered stance, at high speeds. I preferred the 193 Gunsmoke/Patron, mainly because the mount point allowed me to drive the tips a bit more, and ski less centered. I dont spin much or flip at all. Bibby’s seemed to have a much better swing weight than 193 Blizzard/Nordica, hence me feeling the Bibbys would be best for chargers that also spin and flip.

I can see why some smaller guys, who like the -6 mount, could use the Bibby as their “big ski” for going mach looney. It wasnt beefy as I’d like for going mach looney at over 200lbs, nor was it playful enough for me really be creative with a different style.

I’d like to spend more time on 190 Bibby’s, but I dont know when I’d pick them over BGs, or Kartel 116s. BG’s are more directional and fit my style more, with a similar speed limit, but also way more surfy and pivoty with RES. I also like the BG better in moguls. Kartel 116s are much more playful, more surfy, lighter and snappier feeling, allowing me to slow it down and get creative.

Bibby’s were better than most wide skis for high speed, long radius turns on hardpack, but why would you have a 118mm ski for that?

Maybe Bibby’s are better as a “one ski quiver”.. I still would suggest, that anyone looking to spin and jib on bibbys, size down. 190 didnt feel like a “jib” ski for me, it felt like a charger with the mount location in the wrong spot. I probably would have liked the 184cm Bibby better for actually jibbing. Honestly though, I think the Deathwish would work a lot better for me as that jibby, wide, all mtn ski. Bibby just seemed out of place for me.

A 190 Bibby, redesigned slightly more directional and optimized for a -8 mount, would probably be an awesome ski..it would be that K2 Obsethed replacement I’ve been looking for years.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[3PinGrin]

Yeah, these divergent views have me a little concerned with the 2012 Bibby Pro I picked up on ebay a while back (mainly because they were already drilled for my tele bindings). I don't mind moderately stiff skis, but am not really looking for a plank that takes a 200lb person to react. That being said they are the 184 version, and I don't mind some speed. And I refuse to noodle around at stupidly slow speeds like some of the patchouli smelling hippy telemarkers, haha.

[Banh Mi]

Yeah, these divergent views have me a little concerned with the 2012 Bibby Pro I picked up on ebay a while back (mainly because they were already drilled for my tele bindings). I don't mind moderately stiff skis, but am not really looking for a plank that takes a 200lb person to react. That being said they are the 184 version, and I don't mind some speed. And I refuse to noodle around at stupidly slow speeds like some of the patchouli smelling hippy telemarkers, haha.

I have heard the 190 is much more ski than the 184 ( have hand fiddled 184s, but never skied). I wouldn’t be too concerned unless your 140lbs. When comparing hand flexes of 184 and 190 Bibby, I remember the 190 being a huge step up (or two!). When I compare the 186 Kartel to 191 Kartel, their isn’t nearly as much of a jump up in burl factor for the bigger ski (besides actual length).


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[PNW_Skier206]

I have both the 190 and the 184.

While the 190 is certainly more ski, I don’t find them overbearing at all. I’m 6’ 180 so I’m not exactly small but not big by any means.

I find the 184s super playful considering that they can charge reasonable well. The 190s are a little less playful but provide an amazing platform for stoping cliffs and I have yet to find a speed limit. 190s favor open spaces more and wide turns while the 184s destroy PNW trees.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Banh Mi]

You guys who like the 190 Bibby for charging open terrain.. why do you prefer it over more directional skis?

This thread makes me want to get more time on the 190, and try to figure out the mount point a little better. I think that was the main reason I didn’t gel with the ski. Last time I tried the Bibby, I tended to either like skis mounted closer to center, like -2 through -4, or skis further from, like -8 and further back. The skis I had tried with mount points in between that, threw me off, and I couldn’t quite figure the sidecut out, or whether to lean into them or ski centered.

Now that I have figured out that semi-relaxed stance, I may like the 190 Bibby more.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[mr_pretzel]

I agree with a lot of what betelgeuse said, but the 190 bibby is not hard to ski. It pivots easily and is quite accesible.
The 190 is not the most jibby ski as it is quite heavy, but the swingweight is not bad. The 184 bibby is very easy to ski and no one should be afraid of it, great jib ski.

I would compare the 190 bibby to the 186 k116.
The main difference between them is the bibby has a higher speed limit in chop but is nowhere near as good in deep snow. I am actually suprised at how bad it is compared to other skis this wide. The k116 is miles more surfy.

A k116 with 22oz fiberglass and extra carbon would be better than the bibby in every way.

I have owned/skied almost all the top “playfull chargers” and the bibby shares the top spot with the on3p jeffrey 114(had the 22oz fiberglass vs 19oz and was a stronger ski). It’s one of the best resort skis out there.