Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 36 of 36
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    13,370
    Quote Originally Posted by D(C) View Post
    The 186 Bibby's tails made it difficult to lock into a carve (I think this is the same as XavierD's small sweet spot remark). Similarly the nearly symmetrical 4FRNT CRJ's tips made it hard to pressure the ski properly. I find the best carving performance is achieved with relatively balanced dimensions, with a tail roughly 10ish mm narrower than the tip. Of course there are exceptions (the pintailed RC 112 with its stiff, square tails compensating for lack of width, was absolutely glorious, balanced carver), but generally a balanced sidecut feels best to me in a carve.
    Thanks for that. A while back I came to the conclusion that I prefer some pintail, directional mounting points, and have no use for twinned tails (not talking rocker here). 186 Lhasa Pow would be a another good example - same dims as the RC112. But lately there seems to be a number of pintailed + tail-rockered skis (like the Bibby 186) that have me wondering how much is too much? And not just for washing out on harder snow, but for sinking too much in soft stuff as well. I'd love to demo the 186 and 190 back to back.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by pisteoff View Post
    But lately there seems to be a number of pintailed + tail-rockered skis (like the Bibby 186) that have me wondering how much is too much? And not just for washing out on harder snow, but for sinking too much in soft stuff as well. I'd love to demo the 186 and 190 back to back.
    Just for clarity, the Bibby 86 (this year's) has a flat tail.

    As someone that has no use for a rockered or even a twin tail, I'm a big fan of the exaggerated pintail design, but perhaps I'm in that small group of skiers that XavierD alludes to. This is likely evident from D(C) and others not particular fond of how the tail performs on firm snow, whereas I think that's one of the ski's stronger points.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    13,370
    ^^^ oh, didn't realize that. The dims make more sense now.

    FWIW I just had a look at the website, and although the info is there on how the 186 and 196 differ from the 184 and 190, it isn't super obvious. A little text would be useful for people like me who are familiar with one but not the other.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Whistler
    Posts
    1,038
    I too am looking for a replacement of the 195 Super 7. I compared the 186 Bibby Special to my super 7s today and they look good. I was a bit concerned on the length but if you chop off the useless part of the tail from the 7s they are pretty much the same. The more subtle tip rocker of the bibby looks good, I imagine they will slice through chop and pow more so than ploughing. I will demo them on Saturday to find out how they perform.

    What is the recommendation on mounting point? I tend to like a slightly forward mount so the tails are easier to break free and to keep the swing weight more balanced.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    3,757
    Quote Originally Posted by JimLad View Post
    I too am looking for a replacement of the 195 Super 7. I compared the 186 Bibby Special to my super 7s today and they look good. I was a bit concerned on the length but if you chop off the useless part of the tail from the 7s they are pretty much the same. The more subtle tip rocker of the bibby looks good, I imagine they will slice through chop and pow more so than ploughing. I will demo them on Saturday to find out how they perform.

    What is the recommendation on mounting point? I tend to like a slightly forward mount so the tails are easier to break free and to keep the swing weight more balanced.
    You should play with mount point when you try them. I started on the recommended and moved 1.5 cm forward and preferred the forward mount.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by JimLad View Post
    What is the recommendation on mounting point? I tend to like a slightly forward mount so the tails are easier to break free and to keep the swing weight more balanced.
    I have mine mounted at +0.75 from recommended but as D(C) points out, +1.5cm seems to be closer to the sweet spot of the ski.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    27
    I just posted some pics in the other thread but since we are talking Bibby Pro ... here is the link for some Bibby Pro 190 porn

    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...51#post3578251

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Whistler
    Posts
    1,038
    Well I demoed them today. Not enough ski for me. Really nice flex and I was able to straightline through crud and bumps with ease, way nicer than the super 7s. However the 186 was too short and/or there was too much sidecut. The ski felt twitchy. The 196 would be a much better length for me but there are none left in stock here. Still might be too much sidecut though

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Vancouver/frostbitten mountain tops
    Posts
    260
    Thought I'd give some initial impressions after my first day today on the 190 Bibby Pros mounted with dukes. Pow day at whistler with knee deep, relatively light snow (by whistler standards at least), so I was skiing some untracked but mostly cut up pow, with some bumpy groomers and cat tracks back to the lift.

    I'm coming off of 194 XXLs and a brief stint with 190 gots (not quite chargy enough and forward mounted so definitely not floaty enough), so this is my first rockered ski, and I'm used to doing big fast turns while really working the ski and tail slipping to do tighter turns.

    In pow these things were awesome, super fun. Great float, nice neutral balance, equally comfortable making short bouncy pow turns as they were opening it up to big fast turns on the run outs. Felt much turnier than I expected but was pleasantly surprised with how stable they were in bigger faster turns and at speed in the cut up/ played out snow. They didnt let me down like the gots felt like they were going to, and expect that they'd do fine when the snow gets heavier.

    It was a soft day and not really cruddy at all so don't know how they'd handle shitty, hard, uneven snow.

    On groomerish stuff (as close as we got today at least) I was again surprised by how locked in they got with the tighter turn radius, and was expecting the tail rocker to give them a looser feeling. They also felt hookier than I was expecting (especially on the flatter stuff where they got a touch squirrelly when not on edge, but who really cares about that..). I detuned the tips and tails for the last few runs (maybe a little too much) and the hooky, tight radius locked in feeling seemed to go away a fair bit. After detuning they definitely didn't rail like the dynastars, but werent scary either.

    More experimentation definitely required in firmer conditions before I can draw any conclusions.

    Loved them in trees and small soft bumps, where I thought they turned quick and easily. Most fun I've had in the pow and trees in a long time. Pretty stoked on this as I was looking for a more "fun" ski. hoping they keep the fun rolling when it firms up.

    Would be interested to compare the tail rocker on these to a pintail design, the 186 special in particular, but didn't find them to be washy. Kinda the opposite actually. Again, won't know more until I ski some more variable conditions.

    Overall I'm super stoked on these skis and can't wait to take them out again. Still a bit of an unknown in sub-optimal conditions, but wicked fun in the soft.

    /fin

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    5,162
    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    I don't want to turn this into another one of those "I know you're asking about ski X, but I really love ski Y"....but have you looked at the ON3P 191 Billy Goat? It seems like it might be THAT ski for the PNW. I don't have a pair, and I'm in no way related to ON3P, but I am taking a hard look at the 191 BG right now, even though I really don't need any more skis.
    It's a long story how it happened, but Scott found a way to get me on the 12-13 191 Billy Goat at Stevens last Saturday. I need to put some time into crafting a detailed review, but DAMN...what an amazing PNW soft-snow ski. NOTHING like the original. Rolls over just about anything, yet has this playful "mode". They hit a home run with this one.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    5,868
    Quote Originally Posted by PappaG View Post
    This is likely evident from D(C) and others not particular fond of how the tail performs on firm snow, whereas I think that's one of the ski's stronger points.
    I have an older BG with the exaggerated pintail. I find the tail can be hit and miss on firm snow. If you're dealing with tight spaces, or require quick turns to come around, in more billy-goat terrain, where you're not moving fast, then it's really nice. When you're moving fast, you do have to get quite a bit more forward than on more traditional skis in order for the tail to stay locked in. I've gotten used to it. If you stand more on your tail, it'll slide out from under you.

    My least favorite quality of these types of skis, is that in steep firm situations when you're moving quickly and need to shut it down, or make a quick turn. If you don't try to shut it down with precise balance, the tail can wash out, while the shovel holds strong, turning your back towards the downhill side. This is a very precarious situation to be in. Over the past year, I've become really familiar with this quality and gotten a lot better at remembering to keep the perfect balance.

    So yeah.. the exaggerated pintail is sometimes good, and sometimes bad. I'm generally not on this ski when I'm in steep firm situations, so it works for me. Oh, and nothing, and I mean nothing, makes it easier to land drops in heavily tree'd terrain. I can be flying along, send a decent sized cliff, and shut it down WHILE stomping. The pivot ability is unreal. If there were ever a ski I'd take to go cat-skiing in the BC interior (deep snow, trees, pillows), it would be an exaggerated pintail ski (or maybe R/R). Hands down. Same goes for tree stashes at a resort (i.e. PNW).

    Alaska? Or BC alpine? I'd reach for something else. In CO, we don't really get to ski deep snow in the alpine, so a traditional tip-rockered 100-underfoot ski is more of my ideal. Light for touring, and floats well enough for 8" or so. A rockered/pintail on that sort of ski might be kind of nice for tight couloirs, but I prefer to take those with big fast turns, as opposed to working my way down (like most people do out here), so the pintail doesn't appeal to me much, in that terrain.

Posting Permissions

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