Moment Skis Discussion

[MegaStoke]

Echoing the Banana stoke. They rip.

[optics]

If anyone jumps on some protos over the holidays with Melee, let me know at max@momentskis.com so I can get some feedback from ya for future iterations.

You guys rock.

[deem.]

The Wildcat 108 hype has convinced me to grab a pair for this season, but I’m undecided on getting the 184 or 190. I’m 6’2” 185-190lbs and an advanced skier. I ski out West (mostly UT). I already have 190cm powder skis, so it could be helpful to have the 184 WC108 for versatility. Just worried they’ll be too short. I appreciate any advice you guys have

[ffmedic84]

6’2 165lbs. I went 190 and have 0 issues. It pivots easily and I can shut it down pretty quick. 184 would have been a little easier in tight trees but I think it would feel short everywhere else.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Fritz]

x4 or whatever on the 190s. 5’10” 175 and been on 190 bibby pros since I got em in ‘12/‘13. No problems whatsoever as long as I don’t ski them like a pussy.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[TahoeJ]

The Wildcat 108 hype has convinced me to grab a pair for this season, but I’m undecided on getting the 184 or 190. I’m 6’2” 185-190lbs and an advanced skier. I ski out West (mostly UT). I already have 190cm powder skis, so it could be helpful to have the 184 WC108 for versatility. Just worried they’ll be too short. I appreciate any advice you guys have

Definitely the 190 at your size. They don't ski long.

[Tailwind]

I'm 6'2" and 160 and the 184cm's ski way to short for me... the 190cm is a great tree ski.

Unless you're really working toward throwing big tricks and don't care about stability, go 190cm.

6’2 165lbs. I went 190 and have 0 issues. It pivots easily and I can shut it down pretty quick. 184 would have been a little easier in tight trees but I think it would feel short everywhere else.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[deem.]

Thanks, everyone. I’m definitely not pulling any big jumps or hitting the park, so I went with the 190s. Stoked to get these mounted and on the hill. They’re sold out on quite a few sites, so I’m glad I was able to find a pair.

[eskido]

Have you skied a Renegade?

I have not, always wanted to and almost picked up two different pair here but never worked out for whatever reason. The Naner design was much more of what I was personally looking for in a fully rockered ski, enough so that I didn’t waste any time getting in on the action.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Bobcat Sig]

WC 108 mini review

190 cm, mounted on the line with P18's (that will likely get cast-ified soon). My normal hill is Whitefish, which tends to get more of the high density, heavy PNW snow than light blower.

I have a week or so on the ski at this point and I'm pretty psyched on it. I'm 5'9" 160-ish, and for reference, I've owned / liked the 184 Bibby, 184 Bibby Tour, and 184 Deathwish. I also have some 187 Belafonte's that I like in the right conditions, but they're a little more locked into turns than I like - they're not as easy to throw sideways and scrub speed, which means they're not as great for the tree skiing that I do a lot of. Ultimately, the WC108's are replacing my old 185 Cochises that died at the hands of Big Sky rocks, and both the Cochise and now the WC108 are my daily driver for non-pow conditions, until conditions get so bad that I bring out the carvers and stick to the groomers. Last year I was on some 191 Whitedot Directors that I liked a lot, but they don't have any camber underfoot. I think this makes it a little harder to generate pop, and it also means they feel a little harsher and less damp. But they're a fun ski that does well at speed but is still pretty easy to work through tight trees.

So yeah, really liking the 190 WC108's. I was worried the 190 was going to feel like too much ski for tight spots, but they're really easy to swing around. They're relatively light, which helps, and the tip and tail splay runs pretty deep, so they're really easy to smear and slarve around. They also have a lot of pop, so it's easy to give a little hop to help release the ski and get it swung around in tight spots. It's also worth noting that on a ski like the Cochise, I'd keep the edges relatively dull to make it easier to smear around in tight places. I haven't found that to be necessary at all on the WC108, which is nice because it means that ski does a lot better in firm spots where sharp edges matter.

At speed, the ski is stable, although the short running length is noticeable. It'll carve a moderate trench in a groomer, and you can load it up underfoot, but it doesn't have the locked in stability of a ski with tip to tail camber, and it doesn't roll into a turn or finish it nearly as precisely as a "good" groomer ski. All that said, it's not un-fun on groomers, although this isn't the ski I'd buy if I really cared about groomer performance.

It's still early season here, and I haven't gotten it into proper moguls yet, but it seems like it'll be fine for all the reasons stated above. It's easy to smear around when needed. It'll engage an edge if you want it to. And it has a ton of pop that seems like it'll make bouncing through moguls pretty fun. In the half-formed bumps I've skied, it just begs to double things up and find little transitions, and the length + reasonably stiff flex means that it's not a total disaster when you end up straightlining a runout that isn't quite as smooth as it initially looked.

All that said, the choppier things get, the more you notice the light-ish weight. This isn't a particularly damp ski, and I wouldn't really call it a charger (although it's not way outside of that category). The longer length helps the stability in chop a bit, but the ski gets bounced around in heavy chop, and that poppiness that makes it fun in half-formed moguls becomes a bit of a liability. If an old school Legend Pro succeeded at going mach-ridiculous through chop by sticking to the ground and motoring through everything with a damp crushiness, the WC108 succeeds by airing as much of the chop as possible in the hopes of making it to something smoother / softer before things get out of hand.

Where this ski actually surprised me a bit is in pow - it's really good. I'm actually kind of surprised at how well it does in deeper snow considering it's not that wide. At speed, I knew it'd be fine. But what really surprised me was how well it did at slow speed turns in deeper snow - usually that's a situation where anything that's not fat and rockered can feel a little awkward, but the WC108 does well. When it comes to fresh snow, it's better than any sub-110 width ski that I've ever been on.

So yeah, it's a sweet ski. I'd say anyone who's on the fence about sizing up would likely be happy with the longer length - it's not a difficult ski, and I think the longer length probably helps out a bit with the ski's shortcomings (going fast through choppy stuff). Although I'm not really flipping or spinning, so maybe the benefits of a shorter length are a bit lost on me.

Caveat: I was on the original 184 Deathwish, and now have the 190 WC108. The Deathwish is still my rock ski, but I don't ski it that often.

Deathwish is a bit smearier, and the softer the conditions, the more I prefer it (although the WC108 does impressively well in pow). WC108 is better on groomers; its more inclined to properly set an edge, and it's easier to load up the ski (although the Deathwish is no slouch on groomers, and it actually feels like it has a slightly longer running length). The more dry / scraped off the conditions, the more I prefer the WC108.

If I had a one ski quiver, there's a pretty good chance it'd be a Deathwish. But for a 2 ski quiver, I think the WC108 + pow ski is better, at least for me at my local resort. If I lived somewhere that just had butt-tons of pow all the time, I might rethink that.

Came for some Wildcat 108 beta and this thread delivered. Much appreciated.

You might be able to shed some light on this; I've long been looking for a replacement for the Salomon Rocker2 108 in the 190cm length. In that iteration, it was an 111mm-waisted ski. And despite it being much maligned, soft, and a ski on paper I shouldn't like - I loved it. For storm skiing, days with 3-4" of fresh, soft snow, and for playing in the trees - it was excellent. Yes, it was soft and yes the based were made of butter.

The WC108 seems like it might be similar in many ways, if not beefier in all the right ways. Is that a safe assumption?

The Wildcat 108 hype has convinced me to grab a pair for this season, but I’m undecided on getting the 184 or 190. I’m 6’2” 185-190lbs and an advanced skier. I ski out West (mostly UT). I already have 190cm powder skis, so it could be helpful to have the 184 WC108 for versatility. Just worried they’ll be too short. I appreciate any advice you guys have

I haven't skied the WC108 and I'm built and ski like you. Get the 190. It's what I would (or will?) do.

[toast2266]

Came for some Wildcat 108 beta and this thread delivered. Much appreciated.

You might be able to shed some light on this; I've long been looking for a replacement for the Salomon Rocker2 108 in the 190cm length. In that iteration, it was an 111mm-waisted ski. And despite it being much maligned, soft, and a ski on paper I shouldn't like - I loved it. For storm skiing, days with 3-4" of fresh, soft snow, and for playing in the trees - it was excellent. Yes, it was soft and yes the based were made of butter.

The WC108 seems like it might be similar in many ways, if not beefier in all the right ways. Is that a safe assumption?

Yeah, seems like a pretty safe assumption. I haven't been on the rocker 2, but based on some friends that skied it, it seems similar-ish to the wc108. At a guess, the wc108 is a bit stiffer, and a bit happier in crud, but maybe not quite as easy in tight spots (although it's still pretty damn easy).

Given that the rocker profile is similar and the wc108 isn't one of those skis that has some fatally weird characteristic, I'd be pretty surprised if you didn't like it.

[Bobcat Sig]

Yeah, seems like a pretty safe assumption. I haven't been on the rocker 2, but based on some friends that skied it, it seems similar-ish to the wc108. At a guess, the wc108 is a bit stiffer, and a bit happier in crud, but maybe not quite as easy in tight spots (although it's still pretty damn easy).

Given that the rocker profile is similar and the wc108 isn't one of those skis that has some fatally weird characteristic, I'd be pretty surprised if you didn't like it.

Excellent. You're speaking my language then. Much appreciated for the feedback.

I had the Bibby 190 for years and adored that ski. I always wondered why Moment didn't make a smaller version. And now we have it. I sort of regret selling the Bibbys, though the Billy Goats that replaced them are sublime.

You're speaking my language then. Much appreciated.

[Bobcat Sig]

ETA: Just checked Moment's site - out of 190cm WC108. BALLS!! Pre-orders shipping at the end of January.

[waxloaf]

Looks like powder7 has one left

[TahoeJ]

Skied my Wildcat 108 Tours inbounds at Squaw today and they did surprisingly well considering how light they are. The only time I struggled and got bucked around a bit was on some steep firmish bumps off KT, although I’m sure the tech bindings didn’t help all that much.

[Bobcat Sig]

Looks like powder7 has one left

Negative. Just checked their site; only Tours left.

[waxloaf]

Odd, I’m seeing one pair: https://www.powder7.com/Moment-Wildc...CABEgLMRPD_BwE

[deem.]

Odd, I’m seeing one pair: https://www.powder7.com/Moment-Wildc...CABEgLMRPD_BwE

^ That’s where I bought my pair this morning. They already shipped them this afternoon.

[PeachesNCream]

Going back and forth between the WC 108 and the WC tour 108 for a 50/50 resort/tour ski. I normally would reach for the tour version but the regular WC 108 is already pretty light and I read the old underworld was too light for the resort. I'm 6'3 205lbs and would mount with shits

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[HukuTa_KydecHuk]

Going back and forth between the WC 108 and the WC tour 108 for a 50/50 resort/tour ski. I normally would reach for the tour version but the regular WC 108 is already pretty light and I read the old underworld was too light for the resort. I'm 6'3 205lbs and would mount with shits

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I owned underworld and now own wc 108 tour. With your height/weight deifinitely go with regular. 200%. Better install inserts into regular and drop the weight by switching between alpine and light touring binding.

[PeachesNCream]

I owned underworld and now own wc 108 tour. With your height/weight deifinitely go with regular. 200%. Better install inserts into regular and drop the weight by switching between alpine and light touring binding.

Good to know. Downhill performance is pretty important (hence the shifts) so I'm hesitant to go full tech touring. But maybe a tecton or kingpin would do the trick

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[eskido]

One quiver ski?? If so I’d go with HukuTa’s rec with inserts, if you have another dedicated alpine rig I’d say Shifts are fine. I like my kingpins for what your talking about but those Tectons really have have a lot going for them, would highly consider trying if I was buying a new setup.... CAST has a lot going for it as well, depending on what kind of touring you’re planning to do

[cydwhit]

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but with every Moment I've skied I'd always vote for anyone looking for a 50/50 ski to CAST or Shift the inbounds version of the ski. For the Deathwish, Wildcat 108, regular Wildcat, and Meridian, none of the regular versions are that heavy, especially compared to like an ON3P or something. So you might as well have an awesome inbounds ski that walks fine.

I'm one beer away from putting Shift on my inbounds Deathwish, just so I can go huck my meat on them occasionally in the sidecountry, and then skiing the Deathwish Tour only on longer days. Somebody talk me down from this cliff!

[PeachesNCream]

One quiver ski?? If so I’d go with HukuTa’s rec with inserts, if you have another dedicated alpine rig I’d say Shifts are fine. I like my kingpins for what your talking about but those Tectons really have have a lot going for them, would highly consider trying if I was buying a new setup.... CAST has a lot going for it as well, depending on what kind of touring you’re planning to do

Not quite, I have a pair of noctas with kingpins. They're also serving as 50/50 ski. The weird thing is this setup is lighter than my narrower setup (rocker2 108 w/shifts). I guess I should clarify and say that I am looking for downhill performance on the touring setup too so don't want a tech heel. I looked at cast but it's pretty heavy and it technically doesn't work on a iso 9523 sole

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[WesternWard]

I put shifts on my inbounds deathwishes, in large part because of your constant deathwish shilling! So you talked me up to this cliff and you had better join me here! I'm honestly a bit annoyed at how finicky the shift AFD is to switch around so switching it between an alpine boot and a touring boot is more of a chore than I expected. I think I'll just count the exact amount of screw turns between each boot setting and/or the screw limits and write it down somewhere for easier switching. Haven't toured on the setup yet though. My touring is usually more bootpacking anyways though, so cutting weight in my boots makes a bigger difference than on my skis.