2012-2013 MOMENT Jaguar Shark, 192cm

Review of the Moment Jaguar Shark, Blister Gear Review
12/13 Moment Jaguar Shark

Ski: 2012-2013 MOMENT Jaguar Shark, 192cm

Dimensions (mm): 143-116-129

Turn Radius: 32 meters

Actual Tip-to-Tail Length (straight tape pull): 190.5cm

Weight Per Ski: 2380 grams / 5.24 lbs.

Boots / Bindings: Lange RX 130 / Marker Jesters / DIN (10)

Mount Location: Factory recommended

Test Location: Las Leñas

Days Skied: 3

(Editor’s Note: Our review was conducted on the 11/12 Jaguar Shark, which is unchanged for 12/13, except for the graphics.)

MOMENT is funny. While some companies work hard to design and build a fleet of distinct offerings, MOMENT likes to spin out variations on a theme, and they don’t seem to care whether those new variations overlap a good bit with their existing lineup.

That’s the good news and the bad news: MOMENT has found a sweet spot in ski design, and you’re going to be able to get really specific about the exact flavor you want—Milk chocolate? Dark chocolate? Unsweetened dark chocolate? Or mocha? The closely related flavors from MOMENT are the Garbones, the Belafonte, the Bibby Pro, and now, the Jaguar Shark.

Further out from the center of this cluster would be the MOMENT Night Train, at 123 underfoot. The Night Train is a more spinny, switch, and jib-oriented ski than those above. Tons of fun, but more different than similar to the rest of this group. The much narrower PB&J (101mm underfoot), actually has more in common with this collective than the Night Train, and, can be regarded as an outstanding, narrower Bibby Pro. Furthermore, the Bibby Special is a pretty different beast, too, with a proportionally larger shovel and proportionally smaller tail (150-116-129mm) than all the others.

So let’s further clarify: the Garbones and it’s slightly softer brother, the Belafontewere made for people who want to ski the mountain like they’re mad at it. These skis were built to rage, not to forgive, and they demand your best.

Then there’s the Bibby Pro, which is pretty clear evidence that, at some point, MOMENT made a deal with the devil, and he’s going to return one day to collect their souls. It’s the only explanation I can come up with as to how the Bibby Pro could be so good at everything, with so little compromise.

Enter the Jaguar Shark.

MOMENT calls the Jaguar Shark a softer, fatter Belafonte, and this description makes sense, since it is softer and fatter, has the same tail design, same nose shape, and the same tip rocker profile.

2012-2013 MOMENT Jaguar Shark, 192cm, BLISTER
Jonathan Ellsworth, Sombrero, Las Leñas.

Another way you could put it, however, is that the Jag Shark is a Bibby Pro for people who hate tail rocker. The dimensions of the 192cm Jag Shark are 143-116-129mm. The 190cm Bibby Pro is 143-118-134mm, not so different. And yet, the Jaguar Shark has less tip rocker than the Bibby Pro, so it’s not as if MOMENT just took the Bibby and flattened out its tail; the rocker profile of the Jaguar Shark is pretty subtle. And actually, all of this prompted me to worry that the Jag Shark would mostly be a less fun, less lively Bibby Pro….

Having said all that, and given the Jaguar Shark’s relationships to both the Belafonte and the Bibby Pro, I’ll give you my take on the Jaguar Shark, but also try to provide a sense of the differences across these three skis in particular.

My first day on the Jag Sharks at Las Leñas, we were skiing some pretty hard chop on the lower mountain, mostly around Cenidor. The snow was bumped up and hard, the sort of stuff that you can bomb down, but your teeth are going to be rattling as you work hard to keep it together.

In these conditions, the Jaguar Shark performed well and predictably. I wasn’t getting bucked around, but the whole time I found myself thinking, “The Belafontes would be perfect today.” It wasn’t that I was noticing the additional 10mm of width underfoot, I was just missing the stiffer shovels of the Belafonte to further smooth out the ride. (Keep in mind, though, that the Belafonte isn’t really a pow ski, it’s a slightly mellowed-out comp ski.)

2012-2013 MOMENT Jaguar Shark, 192cm, BLISTER
Jonathan Ellsworth on the Belafontes, Wildcat area, Alta.

The Jaguar Sharks worked much better in these frozen, bumped conditions, however, than the Armada AK JJs had the day before, since the Jaguar Shark doesn’t get as soft as suddenly through the shovel. (That was my biggest gripe about the Armada AK JJ: solid, fairly stiff underfoot, but then it felt like there was an overly abrupt transition to a long, soft shovel and tail. It’s fantastic in untracked pow, less fantastic in variable and hard chop.)

To make one more comparison (I’m more nervous about this one since I didn’t get to ski the Bibby Pro and the Jag Shark back to back—I’ll do that as soon as the snow starts flying in North America): the shovels of the Jaguar Shark felt softer to me than the Bibby Pro; so which is better in terms of nuking around in frozen chop? The Jag Shark, with its softer shovels but conventional, slightly twinned tail? Or the Bibby Pro, with its stiffer shovels and tail rocker—which doesn’t normally help the charger’s cause?

On Cenidor, I would have opted for the Bibby Pro, but I can’t say with confidence that it would have clearly outperformed the Jaguar Shark. However, if I was skiing steep ice, I’d give the nod to the Jaguar Shark just because of its lack of tail rocker, even though its shovels are softer than the Bibby’s….(You still with me? Do I digress? I can’t even tell. Let’s just move on….)

33 comments on “2012-2013 MOMENT Jaguar Shark, 192cm”

  1. Hello,
    I am trying to decide between the Moment Belafonte 174 and the Jaguar Shark 174, I ski hardpack, choppy snow, powder and steep chutes. I prefer a softer ski, although I am fine with something stiffer as well. What would you suggest?

    • Hey Evan, given that the Jaguar Shark is based explicitly on the design of the Belafonte, you’ve got a couple decisions to make. First, you say that you prefer a softer flex. +1 for the Jag Shark. Next decision: Belafonte is 106mm underfoot, the Jag Shark is 115mm. The Belafonte isn’t really designed to be a phenomenal pow ski per say, though it is totally adequate in a foot – maybe two – of fresh. But it isn’t a soft, playful pow ski, it’s specialty is chop and crud, and it will fly on hardpack. The Jag? Wider, softer, definitely better for deeper days, less good than the Belafonte in raging at high speeds through chop. So if most of your days on the mountain are pow days, go Jag. If lots of your days happen before and after the storm – you might try the Belafonte if you’re a pretty strong skier.

  2. Hi Jonathan,

    awesome reviews here. I am thinking of getting either 182 Jaguar sharks or 184 bibbys to add to my current quiver of 2010 Scott Mega Dozers in a 185 (119mm under foot, tip and tail rocker and a lot of camber in between – quite beefy and amazing edge grip for that kind of ski) and 2012 line sir francis bacons in a 184 length (108 under foot, tip and tail rocker, easiest ski I have ever been on). What I miss about both skis is their ability to slarve turns. Both rather want to be on edge and “carved” even in soft snow. Its doable somehow, but the mega dozers have too much camber in between the rocker and the bacons have too much tail in the sense that they almost have the same tail width as in the tip, which makes them awesome for skiing switch, but limits their ability as directional shredsticks.

    Both, the jag sharks and the bibbys are even slightly lighter than my narrower bacons which are just under 4,4 kg in the 184 (you save like 25 g per ski compared to the bacons), so they should make awesome back-/sidecountry skis with AT bindings (dukes or marker tour 12). The bibbys might be a bit surfier with the tail rocker, but the jag sharks have a bit more of a “pintail” with 5 mm less sidecut in the tail, which should contribute to a balanced stance in soft snow. Moreover I would like to have a ski in my quiver where you can load the tail in turns as long as I do not sacrifice too much soft snow performance with regard to looseness (I read from your review that the jag shark’s tail releases quite easily).

    I am 35, ski since I am 5. No race background, but took a lot of courses and instructor classes in my youth. 175cm and about 84 kg. About 40 days per season, not including trips to the local hill if it has good snow. Athletic terrier type with strong legs from swimming and triathlon. I mostly ski Arlberg region and Montafon in the mid winter and Austrian glaciers like Kaunertal, Pitztal or Hintertux in the early season and spring. We are not blessed with the regular snow falls in Europe that you receive in Utah, but the terrain is nevertheless awesome and I do not get tired of skiing these mountains. Apart from ice I am happy with any kind of condition (powder, steeps, moguls as long as a bit soft, crud, spring snow, narrow chutes where you have to ski down with euro style pedal turns, but also like to open it up when conditions allow, quick and fluid, but no “pedal to the metal type”).

    I understand that the two skis are not too different, but rather relatives with some different attributes. Which ski would you find more suitable for European Alps side- and backcountry skiing? There is a shop in Munich and another one in Austria that both carry these skis and will also next season and I am tending a bit more to the jaguar sharks for my purpose. Sorry for all the words, but in German speaking forums I did not find anything and your reviews are among the best I have come across on the web. Thanks in advance for your feedback!

    • Hi, Hannes – thanks for the kind words! Your question is sort of tricky. I believe that you would probably be pretty happy with either ski, and I feel like I could make the case either way. But since you say that the ski’s ability to “slarve” is the most important thing you’re looking for, well, that would mean the Bibby.

      But you’re right, I found the Jag Shark to be easy to slarve, and if you agressively detune the tail a bit, you ought to be able to dial in quite well how “loose” you want that tail to be.

      So I guess I’m with you, and leaning toward the Jaguar Shark, but obviously, it would be great if you could demo before you buy.

      One last thing: given what you’re looking for, it sounds like the 185 Blizzard Cochise could be a pretty good fit for you, too, just something to consider. (Check out our 2 reviews of the Cochise.) And let us know what you decide to do and how it works out.

  3. Jonathan, thank you for the prompt response. In theory, one of the shops has a moment demo fleet, but due to the very good reputation these skis have as regards their durability and manufacturing quality, it is hard to get your hands on a pair. It is the same with the demo days in spring on the glaciers – it is hard to even spot a pair because someone is having fun with it in the side-/backcountry.

    As for the Cochise – you don’t know what you are unleashing with your comment. I thought I am done with this thought process and I will therefore keep it short – or at least as short as possible. The ski is a tad to narrow for what I am looking for and I would like to have more taper in the tail. However, the Cochise made it close to my top 5, which were:

    1. Moment Bibby and Jag Shark: enough said on these.

    2. DPS Wailer RP 112 in a 184 or 190: I will very likely not be able to demo. However, could be a “no brainer”. Maybe less stable than the Bibbys, but a bit lighter and quicker.

    3. 4frnt Hoji in a 187: Lots of reviews on this ski, but I am hesitant. I like the idea of having a ski that is special and different from anything I have in my quiver. I have two camber rocker hybrids with the mega dozer and sfb and have never skied a fully reverse camber ski. I like the idea of having a longer radius ski that is not excessively turny, but smeary and slarvy, if it still delivers on hardpack. And this is my biggest concern. I have read everything from “rails super solid” to “squirelly and unpredictable on groomed”. So, will this ski deliver in hardpacked conditions that you cannot get around in our resorts. Even if there is a lot of fresh off-piste, you have to get back to the lift and to the parking lot and this can mean 1000m vert on icy grommers down to the valley, when the fresh snow only reaches to the mid station of the tram.

    4. Coreupt slasher in a 187: I have actually skied this and like how it skies, but to me it appeared less durable compared to other skies (soft base, lot’s of top sheet chipping despite the sidewall-cap-mix). But maybe this is just subjective and I am wrong.

    5. Atomic Automatic in a 187: also received some attention in the forums already. However, this one will be available for demoing for sure, so we will see, whether I get my feet onto a pair.

    • Couple thoughts: you could just buy the Jag Shark and go ski, I don’t think you would regret it.

      As for the rest of the list: I could see the 112RP in a 184 for you, don’t think you’d need the 190 for what you’re describing.

      Hoji: excellent ski, but neither Jason Hutchins nor I are ready to put the Hoji in the “rails super solid” camp; the jury is still out. Jason and I will both be spending more time on the Hoji starting Friday, so updates will be coming soon.

      Coreupt Slasher: good news – Our reviewer Garrett Altmann will start getting time on the Slasher this weekend. Really interesting ski, the hand flex is stiff – very stiff underfoot.

      Atomic Automatic – no experience with this one, though one of our other reviewers spent a little time on it and thought it was surprisingly soft. But sounds like you’ll be getting on this one yourself, so you’ve got that covered.

      So the best I can suggest right now is that for what you describe, the Jag Shark and the 184 112RP seem like the safest bets, but more info is coming….

  4. Thanks again. As stated I have demoed the Slasher for a whole day in good test conditions, i.e. mixed with a little bit of everything. An yes, the Slasher is stiff underfoot and carves like a prophet 90 or other 90mm allmountain ski. The tip rocker is huge as regards the length of the rocker, yet with a flat gradual rise. I found, it almost floatet the ski like other skis that are 10mm wider in the waist. Swing weight is good, not as good, as with the line sfb, but still low enough for abrupt maneuvers, even in trees. The tail rocker is more like a semi rocker or elongated tail – good for stomping, no wheelies out of landings, but I could also break it loose quite easily. It is also quite light, I would estimate about 4,2 to 4,3 Kg for the pair in the 187 length. Finally, it is also quite cheap. The only concern is the durability. With the demo pair I had huge scratches from minor ice chunks and the top sheet pealed off easily. If it had the quality of 4frnts, dps or moments, I would immediately buy a pair. Yet, it would in this case also probably be more expensive than 450 euros…I’ll be back on my skis end of March and also will do some skiing in April on the glacier. I’ll probably demo the slasher again and i am happy to share some more thoughts on them with you, if I do. Yet, I am tending more towards the moments or rp 112, due to the reputation they have as regards the quality of their skis. In the end it is cheaper to spend 700 euros one a pair of those than buying two pairs of slashers in one season…

  5. PS: you are right. I probably should not “waste” my time and just go skiing. Yet, does this not apply to all of us? We all have our “favourite” ski that keeps us happy in most conditions. However, technology evolves rapidly and we all hope for this next ski that lets us ski more smoothly, more creatively, do this one slash at the windlip a litle more fun than it already is, allows for even more zipperline skiing in tight trees and moguls and is yet stable in open bowls and faces. This is why we are all excited when the frist pictures from ISPO or SIA are available ech season, spend hours discussing in forums, etc.

    • I actually wasn’t being sarcastic Hannes, nor did I mean to suggest that you are wasting your time. Given that BLISTER is dedicated to writing exceptionally thorough reviews, clearly, we think it’s worth the time and effort to get the nuances correct. Plus, all this stuff IS expensive, so it’s definitely good to try to get clear before spending the money.

      Given what you’ve said you’re looking for (and reading your comment about 10 times just to make sure I got it right), I meant what I said, that the Jag Shark is probably the safest choice, that it’s the ski that comes closest to accomplishing the various things you’re looking for. If you decide to buy it, I don’t think you’d regret the decision.

  6. Thanks again. I did not mean to sound offended or something. I appreciate all your comments. It was just meant in a way that we all spend time searching for the nuances, because it makes our sport more exciting and yet we could probably all get on some s7 or bent chetler that have been out for a couple of seasons and have the time of our lives on the hill. I will update you on both, the 2nd look at the slasher and what ski I will actually buy. As for the jaguar shark, I spent too much time talking. The 182 length is sold for this season, so I am not in for the weirdst top sheet award with my quiver…
    Have fun for your Hoji testing this weekend and all the best for the spring ski season.

  7. One follow-up comment that I would like to share in this forum: I have just read that moment will bring a 187 length of the Jaguar Shark (and Belafonte) next season. If it measures short like the current model, “real” length should be 185,5 cm and the weight around 4,45 kg for the pair. As Jonathan says the Jag Shark does not really ski short, so he finds it difficult to give his general recommendation for rockered skis, which is “in case of doubt, go longer”, this is pretty good news for everyone – which includes me – who thought that the ideal length for him/her would fall in between the current options. Although next season’s top sheet is not quite as weird (see link below), there is in the end something good about the current model being out of stock over here in Europe…


  8. Hi Jon, just wanted to get your thoughts on picking a size for the Jaguar. I’m 6’2″, 198lbs, and intend to use the ski primarily for backcountry in the Canadian Rockies, but hope to have it as the centre-piece of my quiver and will use on the resort on mixed snow conditions. Plan to mount with Dynafits and Marker Duke (?) with the aid of Quiver Killers. I typically ski 186cm skis, and my turn style is typically long-radius…however, this season I had ALOT of fun on the Line EP Pro in 186cm, especially enjoyed the tight turn capability in powder trees when skiing AT, which I think was from a combination of rocker tip/tail and soft flex. The EP Pro felt a bit short though at high speed, especially when running out at the bottom of a steep pitch. That might be due to near-centre binding mount or possibly the super-soft tip. Anyways, there’s a great deal at a shop here for some 192 Jags…what do you think?

    • Hey, Dustin – since you’re turn style is long radius, and since you were disappointed with the EP Pros performance at high speed, and at your height and weight, and given that you’ve got a shot at a great deal…I’m thinking the 192 Jag Shark is a pretty solid play – assuming you’ve chosen the right ski in the first place.

      In “mixed snow,” I might prefer a slightly stiffer shovel than the Jag Shark; but since you’ve been having fun on the softer EP Pro, I think the 192 Jag might be the ticket. And since I don’t hear you talking about skiing bumps on this thing, I would be surprised if you were kicking yourself for not holding out for a ski that is a couple of inches shorter.

      Just my two cents, let us know what you decide to do and how it works out!

    • Dustin, if you dont pull the trigger on those 192 Jag’s would you mind giving me the name of the shop that has them at a good price? Thanks, Erik.

      • Thanks for your feedback Jon! After some deliberation I’ll think I’ll be saving my cash for the dynafits and mount them on my current G3 El Hombres. I’ll see what’s out there next year!

        For Erik, they are on for a great price at Skiers Sports Shop in Edmonton, AB, seem to be cheaper than anything online.

  9. Great review, tempting ski. The comparisons in the review were ‘kept in the family’; how does the Jag Shark compare for folks outside of West Virginia? The ’12 Influence 115 comes to mind primarily, but also the Helldorado, Squad 7 and Bodacious in terms of directional, versatile pow skis with some huevos behind the jamon.

    Hope Las Llenas is treating y’all well, keep killin’ it.

    • Thanks, Jonathan – re: the 115, keep in mind that I only skied it in the 186 length. Compared to the 192 Jag Shark, the 115 has a softer tail that is also rockered (unlike the Jag), so I would give the nod to the Jag Shark in crud and on groomers. The Jag Shark is more “substantial,” more directional than the 115, a bit heavier / beefier.

      Re: the Helldorado, I’d say it’s at least as good if not better on groomers, but I like the tail of the Jag Shark a LOT more, and there were no spearing issues with the tip on the Jag Shark. For chopped up / bumped up conditions, I’d take the Jag in a second. For deep snow, it’s pretty much a tie; for railing groomers, the Helldorado is outstanding, tons of pop.

      Re: Squad 7: Shorthand thing to do would be to read “Squad 7” anytime I say “Bibby” in my review. The Squad & Bibby are similar, and I love both. If thing are getting really deep, I’d take the tip and tail rockered Bibby or Squad over the Jag; but if we’re skiing hardpack, I’ll go with the Jag first. No real surprised there….

      Re: Bodacious: I only skied the 198 Bodacious in some tight trees in Niseko – not ideal terrain for that ski, so difficult for me to make any really substantial comparisons, I’m afraid.

      • Wow, thanks for the feedback, proof of concept of you guys getting extended time on your test skis, and even deferring if you haven’t (a la your time on the Bodacious).

        I am probably confusing myself a little, but are your thoughts based on the JS vice the upcoming 2013 115? My interest is in how last year’s outgoing non-rockered twin tail 115 compares, I’ve been tempted by that ski, or at least what a ski like that can do, since you wrote about it (and now the JS). Good point about length though, I didn’t realize that straight tape pull has the ’12 115 giving up 7cm until your reply sent me scurrying to look at your top-o’-the-review specs.

        Thanks again, you painted a really useful picture; even more useful since we are the same height/weight!

        • Wow, sorry – when you wrote ’12 Influence 115, for some reason I assumed 12/13 rather than 11/12, so my comments were about the new 12/13 115. My mistake, and actually, it now seems odd to me that I haven’t thought more about the Jag Shark and the 11/12 115 before your question.

          The 11/12 115 remains the best 115 I’ve ever skied on hardpack, so it bests the Jag Shark there. In pow, I actually think it would pretty much be a tie, but I would probably choose the 192 Jag Shark over the 115 if I was skiing chop – precisely because of the narrower shovels of the Jag Shark. And given that I also really like the tails of both skis, it might just come down to whether you prefer skis with a larger sidecut radius of the Jag Shark (32 meters) vs. that of the 115. I.e., if I was skiing tight spaces or tight trees or tight bumps (lots of turns), I’d probably prefer the 115; if your style is fewere turns / more fall line skiing, Jag Shark.

          • Thanks for the follow-up. I’ll have to decide for myself what I want a fat, reasonably powerful directional ski to do. It’s amazing that we can fine tune our choice this much, what a time to be skiing…

            Speaking of fine tuning, do you see yourself considering the 187 for what the JS does given your height/weight? It didn’t sound in your review like you were pining for a ‘medium’ length like you were with the Belafonte; so the 192 is the length to have for making figure 11s in soft snow, whether pow or variable?

            Oh, and just to give you some (possibly unsolicited) feedback on your site: the ‘by category’ section of your ski index is fantastic! If you were wondering whether folks are making use of it and it’s something to keep developing, by all means keep at it, it helps with the focusing.

            • Thanks for the feedback – we always appreciate it, and I’m glad the ‘By Category” Index has been useful.

              As for the Jag Shark length, at my height and weight, for open terrain (Las Leñas), I would stick with the 192. But if I was going to be breaking them out a bunch at Taos, I would likely prefer the 187 to deal with bumps, trees, etc. The 192 would feel like a lot of ski there. So I guess I’d say, if you’re on the fence, go with your gut feeling and I think you’ll be fine. Let us know!

  10. First off, fantastic reviews on Moment skis! I was first introduced to Moment skis from my buddy who skis up in AK. While I grew up skiing the mountains up in AK too, I’ve since moved to FL and spend all my vacation time traveling out west in the winter. Anyhow, I’m ready to pull the trigger on a new set of skis. I’ve been demoing various skis over the past few seasons and always loved Volkls, particularly the Katanas. But after hearing my buddy rave about his Moment Belafontes during our last trip to Whistler and all the research I’ve done on them, I’m sold on Moment. I’m looking at the soon to be released 187 Jaguar Sharks or the new 190 Deathwish skis. I’m 6’2″, 200lbs. I’ve been skiing my whole life (I’m 36 now) and I ski the whole mountain depending upon conditions (pow, trees, steeps, hikes, bumps, stay out of the parks, etc.) I like the dimensions of both skis but the Sharks are closer to the Katanas which I love but maybe aren’t as stiff. The new profile of the Deathwish is interesting (your review of them also makes them more appealing) and they sound like a lot of fun to ski too. Any thoughts or recommendations for which Moment ski?

    • Hi, David – between the 187 Jag Shark and the 190 Deathwish, the Jag Shark would certainly be a bit closer to the 191 Katana, but neither ski is really a Katana, and your’e right – the Jag Shark isn’t as stiff as the 191 Katana.

      I don’t have a ton to add beyond what I’ve already written in my reviews of these skis, but I think you’ll need to decide whether you want the more playful tip and tail rockered feel of the Deathwish, or the flat tailed, less playful, more directional, and slightly more stable feel of the Jag Shark. Both are good skis, the question is: where do you really want this ski to shine. In bumps and groomers and tight trees? I’d go Deathwish. In deep pow, where I’m not skiing switch or tricking? I’d go Jag Shark. Either ski will get the job done in any of these situations, but there are at least subtle strengths and weaknesses.

      I’ll be interested to what you decide to do. Let us know!

  11. Thanks Jonathan for the feedback. I went ahead with the 190 Deathwish, just placed my order with Moment today. They cut me a deal on them too which was great (great, small ski company IMHO). So onto my next question which hopefully you may have some inputs on, bindings. There are a lot to choose from these days. I’m initially leaning towards the new Marker bindings for this season with their wider footprint. Not really sold on anything else right now. Any thoughts?

    • Nice, David. And I don’t have strong opinions about AT bindings right now. I haven’t skied the new Marker, and I’ve been skiing the new Salomon Guardian / Atomic tracker in Las Leñas. I have zero reservations about the Guardian/Tracker as an alpine binding (other than the fact that they are pretty heavy, like the Duke), but I haven’t skinned enough on them yet to draw more than preliminary conclusions.

  12. JE,
    In my humble opinion you/Blister completely NAILED this review. I’ve been lucky enough to have had the Jags 192cm out in what few ++ snow days we’ve had here so far in Summit Co, CO this season. I’m 5’10, 170 and coming from my everyday-er XXL 187s, I thought they were sweet and easy to toss around in the fresh. They feel light, can lay over a nice carve, and are confident with different turn radii. The soft-ish tips are as you described, and there is some chatter on hardpack – ideal as a quiver ski/soft snow ski, but the tails are solid and handle airs well, no rocking horse. I mounted them at the recommended line, per your review. I didn’t find the tails difficult to smear, and compared to my rockered skis (I prefer a traditional tail) thought they were still pretty easy to break away when needed. Side by side with my XXL 187s (both factory line), I’m seeing the same tip to binding length, and same effective edge to the tail – the extra cm’s on the Jag being the twin, that’s about it. Keep up the great work – you guys are putting out some of the best reviews around. Much thanks and Cheers!

  13. Hi can anyone comment of where to mount these skis? I see you rode them at factory recommended. Its not like i plan on skiing these switch but Im not a fan of having tips for days or massive tip and no tail. I see they have marks two forward and two back. Any ideas?

  14. Thanks for the review…I’m seriously considering this ski. I like the non-rockered tail and the trad camber under foot. The belefonte’s are also interesting but…..I’m 40 at 5’7 150lbs ( short and light) and think that the Bella’s would be too stiff and always make me work, but the jag sharks will be there when i push them with a reasonably stiff tail to land on and good performance at the resort when there isn’t any new. The big question is whether I go for the 174’s or 182’s…I travel to ski so I don’t get the choice of my conditions, I’ll charge when I can, love the trees and glades, not a park,spines or colouir kind of guy. Any advice…Tks.

  15. Awesome review! I am looking for a harder charger ski but will be touring on it quite a bit. I do 80% backcountry and will be mounting with Dynafits. I am 6 feet and 155 pounds geared up. I live on the East Coast and like hunting for the powder which is usually either tracked out or really poor quality. So I am usually just blasting through a bunch of awkward spaces getting after it. Will this ski be to much for me to handle in a 187?

Leave a Comment