2014-2015 Moment Bibby

Review of the Moment Bibby, Blister Gear Review
14/15 Moment Bibby

Ski: 2014-2015 Moment Bibby, 186cm

Stated Dimensions (mm): 145-120-136

Sidecut Radius: 23.5 meters

Actual Tip-to-Tail Length (straight tape pull): 183.8cm

Blister’s Measured Weight Per Ski: 2300 & 2367 grams

Mount Location: Recommended Line

Boots / Bindings: Salomon X-Pro 120 / Marker Jester (DIN at 10)

Test Locations: Craigieburn; Mount Olympus; Mt Hutt Helicopters, Canterbury backcountry, New Zealand; Wolf Creek, Colorado

Days Skied: 5

[Editor’s Note: We published this review on 9.24.13, and have updated the review after a deep day this past weekend. Our review was conducted on the 13/14 Bibby, which was not changed for 14/15, except for the graphics.]

Moment has changed the Bibby, and you may want to check out our review of the “old” 190cm Bibby Pro before you read this.

But before talking about any particular changes to any particular ski in Moment’s “All Mountain,” “Big Mountain,” or “Powder” categories, it’s important to note that there’s been a reshuffling of the whole line.

The Ghost Chant and Night Train are no more, but they’ve left a love child, the “Ghost Train,” which is now Moment’s most dedicated, loose, surfy pow ski, and 126mm underfoot.

Moment has also added the Exit World, a ski that is made from the same mold as the old Bibby Pro, but with a lighter paulownia / ash core. The intention was to make a more touring-friendly Bibby, and you can check out our review of the Exit World.

And then, there’s the new Bibby.

On Moment’s continuum, the Bibby now sits between the “big-mountain” Exit World and the “powder” specific Ghost Train.

But Moment locates the new Bibby in its “Powder” category, and that’s definitely where the ski belongs.

Here’s what Moment says about the new Bibby, with my comments interspersed:

After extensive testing, we’ve modified the rocker profile, the sidecut, and the dimensions.

Sidecut and dimensions, yes. But rocker profile? We’ll get to that in a sec.

The result is a wider, more powder-oriented and playful Bibby, but one that’s still capable of putting down a quick hardpack turn.

No disagreements here.

Lighter materials and improved construction techniques maintain a low swing weight…

The new Bibby does feel relatively quick, though I think it’s important to also note the new, more heavily tapered tip profile: the widest point of the shovel has been pulled away from the tip.

…flatter Mustache Rocker improves its surfy nature…

While the new Bibby definitely feels surfy, I’m less sure about the “flatter Mustache Rocker” part. The new Bibby still has a good bit of camber underfoot—around 5 millimeters—very similar to the old Bibby. The amount of tip splay of the new Bibby initially looked to me like it had been reduced just a touch, and the rocker line has in fact been lengthened by a few centimeters. The tail also has a slightly deeper rocker line than the old Bibby.

But Moment lists the “tip and tail rise” of the old Bibby as “65mm/50mm,” and the new Bibby as “65mm/65mm.” But I was having trouble seeing a 15mm disparity between the tail splay of the old and new Bibby, so I measured … and got numbers that were identical: tip splay = ~64mm for both the old and the new Bibby, and the tail splay = ~67mm for both skis. (If you aren’t clear on terms like “splay” and “rocker lines,” see our Rocker 101 article.)

…a marginally tighter turn radius keeps the Bibby incredibly nimble and versatile in every length.

The 186cm Bibby is nimble, certainly for a 120mm-underfoot ski.

Flex Pattern

One thing I’m personally very happy to report: the new Bibby is still quite stout. Handflexing the 186 new Bibby vs. the 190 old Bibby, the new Bibby felt at least as stiff as the old Bibby underfoot, and very similar through the tip and tail; if anything, the tips of the new Bibby have a slightly softer flex.

If Moment has made the new Bibby more powder-oriented, they have not made the new Bibby some floppy pow noodle. So for any lighter skiers who felt like the old Bibby was a pretty stout ski, well, it’s still a pretty stout ski.

Some Stats: Blister’s Measured Dimensions, Weight, and Length:

• 11/12 Bibby (190cm):  142-117.5-133mm  /  2269 & 2300 grams  /  Length = 187.9 cm

• 13/14 Bibby (186cm):  144-120-134mm  /  2300 & 2367 grams  /  Length = 183.8 cm

• Night Train (186cm):  140-123-132mm  /  2308 & 2217 grams  /  Length = 184.2 cm

I’ve listed the Night Train here, too, because if the new Ghost Train is a combination of the old Ghost Chant and the Night Train, it wouldn’t be too far off to view the new Bibby as a combination of the old Bibby and the Night Train (more on this in a minute).

So, What’s the Biggest Difference Between the Old Bibby and the New Bibby?

The shape of the tips.

As noted, the new Bibby incorporates a lot of subtle changes. But its more tapered tip profile is the least subtle when it comes to on-snow performance. Take a look. The widest point of the 190 Bibby’s shovel is closer to the tip than the new Bibby:

Moment Bibby Pro, Blister Gear Review
13/14 Bibby (186cm) and 11/12 Bibby (190cm)

The new Bibby has more tip taper, much more like the Night Train:

Moment Bibby and Moment Night Train, Blister Gear Review
13/14 Bibby (186cm) and 11/12 Night Train (186cm)

Pow Ski Comparisons: New 186cm Bibby Pro vs. 186cm Night Train

As I said, it wouldn’t be too far off to view the new Bibby as a combination of the old Bibby and the Night Train. And whether that is good news or bad news probably depends on the place you want the new Bibby to occupy in your quiver.

To be clear, the new Bibby has more tip and tail splay (64mm / 67mm) than the 186 Night Train (60mm / 60mm), and more camber underfoot than the Night Train—the Night Train is basically flat underfoot.

The widest section of the new Bibby’s tail is also a little farther back than the Night Train, and its recommended mount position is one centimeter behind the Night Train’s, translating to a slightly more directional, traditional mount point.

On snow, the “surfiness” of the new Bibby definitely reminded me a bit of the Night Train, and the new Bibby definitely feels a little looser than the old Bibby.

One of the things that is remarkable about the old 190 Bibby is that you can drive the shovels pretty hard in soft snow, and the ski is happy. You can also ski it centered, and the ski is happy. And you can even get in the backseat, and the ski won’t punish you, but will kind of nudge you back forward. It’s a very supportive tail, and an incredibly well-balanced ski. In short, the 190 Bibby has a huge sweet spot, and can tolerate an aggressive, forward style; a neutral, centered style; or a more relaxed, backseat style.

The new Bibby doesn’t encourage that forward style on hardpack or variable conditions, and this is where the new Bibby really reminded me of the Night Train. In fact, two years ago in my review of the Night Train vs. the (old) Bibby, I wrote, “You can drive the shovels of the Bibby; you’re better off staying more centered on the Night Train. The Bibby charges; the Night Train, not nearly as much.”

In this sense, the new 186cm Bibby feels like it’s been Night Trained.

75 comments on “2014-2015 Moment Bibby”

  1. Gutted. I love my 190 Bibbys; literally none of the changes they’ve made seem to be improvements. All I wanted was a slightly stiffer tip and slightly deeper rocker line. No problem bumping up the width, and I could have lived with the extra length (though never felt like I needed it). Nothing else though. If I wanted a better, more specialised pow ski, it sure as shit won’t have such a deep and still-near-full-lenght sidecut, or camber underfoot. Lost the versatility yet still haven’t gained much more pure pow performance..? They should have given it a new name, it just doesn’t designed for the same purpose anymore.

    Guess I’ll have to look at the ON3P Billy when my Bibbys are up for replacement at the end of this season.

  2. When i tested these at the Alta demo day… it came down to these or the Billy Goats and glad i went with an order for Billy Goats last week…

  3. Wow. I’ve been waiting for this review for a while now. It’s hard to read but not surprising given the changes. Will be interesting to hear how much differently the 192’s perform.

    I bought a pair of 184cm Bibby’s last year to go along with my 187cm Belafonte’s and just picked up some 186cm Ghost Trains because, after 2 terrible snow years in NorCal, it HAS to be good this year and I’m hoping for many many MANY deep storm days.

    The things I wonder about:
    – Should I try and find an old 190cm Bibby? The 184 is super manageable and at 5’10” 170-175lbs, I’m not a big guy. Will that extra 6cm really make that much of a difference for me?
    – Should I have gone all out on the Ghost Train with the 196cm given that it’s a fully rockered and going to be uber piovt-y/surfy? That’s a ton of ski to move around in the trees though.

    Perhaps my existing quiver is…just right???
    – 186 Ghost Train when it’s snowing.
    – 184 Bibby when it stops snowing (as long as the little 184 is stable enough for high speed chop).
    – 187 Belafonte when it hasn’t snowed in 2 weeks or when I need to deal with the high speed chop the 184cm Bibby isn’t quite as good at…

    If so, as long as I don’t break any skis, it sounds like I don’t need to go ski shopping!

    • Hey, CRF – it’s unclear to me whether you’ve skied the 184 Bibby yet? In general, if the 184 Bibby feels perfect, then I wouldn’t be quick to encourage you to go up. A lot of people find the 190 Bibby to be a good bit of work. But if you’re not going to be skiing tight trees, then I feel more confident in saying that if you’re dying to try the 190 Bibby, go hunting, or pick up the Exit World.

      As for your quiver, I think it sounds pretty good as is. Can’t say that it seems obvious that you ought to bump up to a 196 Ghost Train (aka, ski-I-haven’t-skied). Of course, if it’s gonna snow out in Cali as much as you say it’s going to……

      • Thanks for getting back Jonathan!

        I own the 184 Bibby but I bought it late in the season when everything went on sale. Considering it stopped snowing in January for us and I didn’t take any trips, I never got the 184 on anything big. I did with the Belafontes in December/January before I got the Bibbys and man can those things charge (I posted a ‘Tale of 2 Belas’ type review last year on your site…what it’s like to be on them feeling good and how awful it is to be on them terrifyingly hung over. Odd that moment seems to have dumped the new version of the Belafontes from their catalog and is sticking with last year’s version instead….

        I loved skiing the 184 Bibbys all spring but never really tested if I could push them enough to need more stability. I think I’ll just sit with what I have for now. If I find I’m overpowering the ski later in the season, I’ll have a look at the 190 Exit Worlds as you recommend.

        As for the 196 Ghost Train…I don’t want to offend the snow gods with unrealistic expectations considering we’re still in the first week of autumn. I’m sure 186cm with 126mm underfoot is PLENTY!

        Again…thanks for the reviews and taking the time to reply. It’s great reading thoughts from all the other amped skiers and gear nuts out there!

        You guys should post your travels somewhere so all of us leeching off your reviews can buy you a beer as thanks.


  4. Its still got that killer tip rocker profile. While it doesn’t sound like the idealised blower ski or quiver of one, for a quiver of two pow ski combined with a skinnier ski, or as a daily driver in high snow climates for playful skiers (think bentchet crowd who want a bit more oomph and a slightly more traditional mount point), I think it will appeal. Looking forward to the exit world review, but can’t say i’d expect a shift from stiffening though core to laminates to fill the all important crud busting gap that the new bibby leaves, that said the RPC is the ultimate version of that and I love it :) Glaciers are open in Ch and good snow in the forecast!

  5. Hi Jonathan,

    How much of the diminished ability to drive the tips would you say is the due to the shorter effective edge and how much is from the tip taper (assuming marginal difference in flex)? Is it 75% 25%… or more like 95% 5%? If it’s closer to the latter… who cares? Also, given the change in the rocker lines to this year’s model (how many cm exactly?) isn’t the 192 New Bibby really like skiing a 184cm Old Bibby, and the 186cm NB really like a sub 180cm OB? In your review of the OB, you mentioned that jumping up from the 184 to the 190cm provided a definite boost in stability, and I’m wondering if the fairest comparison isn’t just the 192 NB vs. the 184 OB. If so, if you love the 184 OB, and wanted enhanced pow performance, but didn’t want the added burliness of the 190 OB, it would seem the new guy is your ticket to paradise. As for the lovers of the 190 OB… well, they probably will now interpret the cover of the Moment catalog as a dude giving them two middle fingers. However, I’m 6’3″ and ski a lot of trees, and want a pow ski that charges hard, but I want a pow ski. Is there anything out there (I promise, last question) that is a better go-to than the 192 NB? I’m talking tip and tail rocker (more tip), stiff, but able to throw quick moves and blast through chop. Thanks for taking the time. Appreciate your guidance.


    • “How much of the diminished ability to drive the tips would you say is the due to the shorter effective edge and how much is from the tip taper (assuming marginal difference in flex)?”

      JE: Tip taper is the issue more than the the loss of effective edge. These are stated effective edge numbers, not measured, but according to Moment:

      186 NB = 1520mm
      192 NB = 1580mm
      184 OB (using the 184 Exit World’s #s) = 1500mm;
      190 OB = 1560

      “Also, given the change in the rocker lines to this year’s model, isn’t the 192 New Bibby really like skiing a 184cm Old Bibby, and the 186cm NB really like a sub 180cm OB?”

      JE: Definitely not. See the #s above. Plus, the weight of the 184 OB vs. the 192 NB will become a factor.

      “In your review of the OB, you mentioned that jumping up from the 184 to the 190cm provided a definite boost in stability, and I’m wondering if the fairest comparison isn’t just the 192 NB vs. the 184 OB.”

      JE: The fairest comparison would be the 190 OB to the 192 NB.

      “If you love the 184 OB, and wanted enhanced pow performance, but didn’t want the added burliness of the 190 OB, it would seem the new guy is your ticket to paradise.”

      JE: If you want enhanced pow performance and love the 184 OB, get the 186 NB. 192 will likely be a heavy ski / feel like a lot of ski for people who feel like the 184 is enough.

      “As for the lovers of the 190 OB… well, they probably will now interpret the cover of the Moment catalog as a dude giving them two middle fingers.”

      JE: Of course, there still is the Exit World…

      “However, I’m 6’3″ and ski a lot of trees, and want a pow ski that charges hard, but I want a pow ski. Is there anything out there (I promise, last question) that is a better go-to than the 192 NB? I’m talking tip and tail rocker (more tip), stiff, but able to throw quick moves and blast through chop. Thanks for taking the time. Appreciate your guidance.”

      JE: Obviously, I haven’t skied the 192, so can’t say. But tapered tips aren’t in general the most effective design to promote crud blasting. The 190 Exit World might be the ticket. Other skis that might be contenders but we still need to ski them are: the ON3P Caylor, or the tweaked Black Diamond Megawatt. But you also might need to decide whether you want a really quick pow ski for trees, or a true chop blaster. Hope that long answer is at least a little bit helpful.

        • “How much of the diminished ability to drive the tips would you say is the due to the shorter effective edge and how much is from the tip taper (assuming marginal difference in flex)?” … I meant to say “shorter cambered section” not “shorter effective edge”, i.e. more rocker. Sorry for the confusion.

  6. Here’s another call for a 2014 Governor review. That ski could be VERY well suited to the NZ Clubbies, I’m guessing.
    Thanks for the good work!

  7. Very interesting. Now we need a showdown review between the latest ON3P BillyGoat and the new Bibby. I’m sure I’m not alone when thinking this would be a great idea.

      • Thank you! Crud performance and raging prowess is more important for me if both skis will excel in pow. I have to ask though, how do the shapes stack up? The New Bibby is stiffer, but has more tip and tail rocker than last year and definitely more tail rocker than the Auto which seems more pintailed, and the bibby’s mounting point is also more centered on the ski than the Auto… So is the Bibby more stable and quick but require a more centered stance? I’m confused on how to reconcile the difference between a more centered mounted rockered but stiffer ski and a softer more traditionally mounted ski…help! I’m looking for a playful charger, one that isn’t excessive work in the trees, but can handle crud well, yet is mainly a pow ski.

        • Hey, Chase – sorry for the late reply, I missed your comment. The Automatic is playful, quick, and light. Now that I’ve had the new Bibby in DEEP, wet chop, I would take it every single time over the Automatic in those conditions. That Automatic is fun and light, but I don’t believe I ever characterized it as a charger, and I also said in my updated 186 Automatic review that its weakness is deep chop. If we’re comparing the 186 Bibby to the 186 Automatic, the Bibby isn’t AS quick, it is more substantial, and it’s definitely better in cut up pow than the Automatic. The Automatic is light, quick, and surfy. Dead Easy. As I note at the top of the review, the Bibby is too substantial (by comparison) to be called Dead Easy.

  8. Wow. Completely and utterly disappointed. Another pseudo powder ski with marginal capabilities in the majority of conditions, just what the industry needed. Those of us reading this have likely either owned the Bibby’s and are anxious to get the next pair or those who have rode the chair with us and witnessed the passion of the Bibby owner and how proud and boastful we are of our crud busting, fatty/skinny, do everything day in and day out ski which we continuously describe as simply the best ski we have ever owned. It is the only pair of skis I have ever owned where people comment all day whether in line, on the lift or during a run. Comments entailing Bibby prowess….”Nice skis!…Hey, give me back my Bibby’s!….Are these the best or what?”. The general sentiment is….conditions are “whatever”, what a perfect day for the Bibby’s. There is no way around it…the Bibby and its followers have become a cult. And a proud and friendly “you’ve gotta try these” type of cult, not a snotty I’m so cool look at my skis kind of cult. A very good thing for skiing on so many different levels. Unfortunately our, “I can’t imagine skiing on anything but these” cult has lost its mascot. It is unfortunate the all purpose utility power tool with an attitude that is gentle enough to carry you during your off-days and stout enough to role your eyelids during your on-days has been reduced to another fantasy, “boy that was great…..10/20/30 days out of the season”, “don’t push too hard on the tip”, “don’t try to hold an edge in a sticky situation”, “don’t go too fast it’s chunky down there”, “don’t turn too quick the front end is kind of slippery”, “don’t exit too hard the back end is kind of slippery”….psuedo powder ski that looks better on the wall than it performs on our feet. For 95% of us that ski in 95% of the conditions 95% of the time (aka. the majority of us that ski in the majority of conditions the majority of the time)….this new Bibby is completely and utterly disappointing.

  9. You know I’m a big fan of the old 190s but there were certainly times when I wished for a looser feel. Seeking that, I sold my 190s in favour of 184s and experienced pretty much what you found with the new 186s, that I couldn’t drive the tips. Initiating forward caused the ski to wash rather than rail. This makes me wonder if your comments are more a function of length than the ski’s design. If you’re used to driving the 190s, the 192s are more likely the ski to be treated with similar expectations.

    I have a pair of new 192s waiting to be mounted. Hopefully they’ll let me drive the tips like my old 190s but break free a touch more easily in trees.

  10. Man, am I confused. I have been riding Jaguar Sharks 192 for the past two seasons and I was beyond excited to get the new Bibby’s. Now I’m unsure. I need a new powder ski for the upcoming season and I have been impressed with Moment as my daily driver is a 188 PB&J.
    Johathan, you opinion will decide which direction I will go. I’m 6’3, 200 and I ski the Cottonwoods here in Utah. Fairly aggressive, open bowls to trees, mostly inbounds, some out. Bibby 192 or Volkl Two 196? Two very different skis, I know. Help.

    Thank you,


    • Hey, Erik – The Volkl TWO is a much softer ski than the new Bibby or Exit World, with a lot more rocker. Could be a totally fun ski, or you might find it to be a noodle; but it will be a very different beast than your PB&J or Jag Shark. The 192 Bibby or 190 Exit World will provide a more familiar feel (have a more familiar flex pattern). So depends if you want that familiarity or want a pretty different feel out of your dedicated pow ski.

      Safer bet: If you’ve got your PB&Js for firmer conditions – and like them for that – then I would say at your size that you should either go with the 192 Bibby or the 190 Exit World (our review will be out in the next few days)

  11. Hmmm… What’s the distance between where the splay starts on the new 186 and the old 184? Is the cambered part just a couple cm shorter or is it bigger, like 10cm? This is a key stat IMHO in the new era of rocketed skis. Thanks a bunch.

    • Hey, SC – it’s definitely not a 10cm difference – I don’t have the skis in front of me right now, and we are talking about skis of different lengths (186cm new Bibby vs. 184 or 190cm old Bibby), but we’re talking about tip and tail rocker line that are maybe 2-3cms deeper on the new Bibby than the old Bibby. Definitely not 10cms on either tip or tail, though the new Bibby is definitely a looser ski.

  12. Hey Jonathan,

    Thank you for talking me off the fence. I really do enjoy my PBJ’s and I will go with the 192 Bibby. Thank you sir!


  13. Thanks for another great review. Think I may hunt around for some 190 Bibbys. Are you going to do a review of the Ghost Trains? I just picked up a used pair of the186 from one of their riders.

  14. Hi Jonathan,
    looking for a soft snow/powder oriented ski, I currently have a set of 185 cochises as well as a set of 184 older Mantras (which I may replace with hell and backs or sick day 95). I am a 6’1” 230 lb intermediate/advanced and was interested in a soft snow/powder ski that would be good for someone of my still advancing level given my size. I ski in the Kirkwood Lake Tahoe area and ski groomers, trees (venturing more and more off piste) and want to ski more off piste and powder this season. I was thinking new Super 7, or the Bibby, but sounds like the new Bibby is not what the old one was. Given my size would the Squad 7 be an option? Any suggestions for a good powder ski for a larger pwder novice? Always like your insight

  15. Here is a question for anyone to answer: I’m still convinced that I can pick up a pair of the old Bibby Pro models, but at 5’7″ and 140lbs, I cannot decide between the 174 and 184. I am 25, very athletic, and spend every day of the year either skiing exclusively off-piste, regardless of conditions, in Europe and PNW, mountain biking (AM & DH), or weight training etc for those sports. Currently on 171 Moment Reno Rockers, which I have skied relentlessly in European resorts, and whilst unbelievably fun, I find them to be bendier than overcooked ramen… and kinda short given the full rocker profile. They were something of an impulse buy prior to my second season as a ski bum, and I am waaay overdue for a stiffer, meaner upgrade. Moment don’t seem to exist in Europe, so haven’t been able to demo anything else of theirs, but every word of the original Bibby Pro review screamed ‘buy me’. But then I read the review of the Blizzard Cochise… Long story short I want bigger, fatter, stiffer planks that have got to handle being punished in ALL conditions. The crux is that I am now addicted to massive sideways slides and popping off lips. Many thanks in advance! Ed.

    • I’m 5 foot 9 and 75kg, however that translates, and live in Austria. 190 Bibbys are my go to ski whenever I don’t know what the snow will be like. Perfect euro quiver of one (though I’m now somehow upto a quiver of 7 pairs…) unless you’re a freak who likes icy groomers. Offpiste it’s only in the meanest of re-frozen, hard, manky crud where I wish for something a little narrower and damper (I lust after the Cochises). They’re a dream in powder, corn and slush; ski moguls and pistes much better than you’d expect; no problems on icy traverses; chucking them around in quick turns on couloirs/trees is easy; and they excel at charging big, drifty turns in the deep. Not the full on chargers they are sometimes marketed as, they’re actually really easy to ski: a ‘capable’ mix of chargey and playful.

      If I could only have one pair of skis for Austria, it’d be the 190 Bibbys.

    • I’ve had both the 185 Cochise’s (mount at factory recommended) and the 184 Bibby’s (mount 2cm back) and prefer the Bibby’s over the Cochise’s in all conditions rain or shine.

  16. Why do some companies seem to be taking the back bone out of their skis? I’m especially looking at you, Nordica. If I weigh 200lbs in street clothes and get knocked into the backseat with a soft, rockered tail, I’m done for. Not to mention the skidded turns and lack of drive across the hill in a gs turn.

    • Just Nordica? That seems to be a phenomina across the board these days, possibly even more so with the tip than the tail. Doesn’t seem like many companies are responsive to those that still enjoy pushing on the front of their boot. Slippy/slarvey unfortunately seems to be the trend we are stuck with for a while.

    • Just to be clear, in the case of Moment, it had more to do with reshuffling their lineup – the decision was to make the Bibby a bit looser, and the Governor is there (with its flat tail) for those who want to keep things moving down the fall line. New Bibby, old Bibby, and last year’s Governor (haven’t been on this year’s) are three skis that have very similar flex patterns – it’s not so much their flex but their shapes / profiles / cores that are leading to their differences.

      As for Nordica, I only have direct experience of ‘the soft tips and tails’ thing with the El Capo, Patron, and Helldorado. The Hell & Back & has a legit tail (as did the old, awesome Girish), and while it might not look all cool freeride-y, the H&B is excellent. Black Diamond went too soft on the AMPerage tail, and they have allegedly addressed it. Blizzard went to soft on the original Gunsmoke tail, and the new tail is stiffer, though the tail could benefit from a less abrupt soft-to-stiff transition.

      I believe that *soft tips and tails* is being done with the intent of making skis more user friendly, but I’m with you, Stuck – I think it often reduces the sweet spot of a ski, and actually makes the ski less forgiving and more of a balancing act.

  17. Any word if you will be trying out the new Governor this year? The ski looks like a worthy replacement for the old bibby but I don’t understand the slarvey tip. Why put a tapered tip on a charger? If they kept the old bibby tip it would be a no brainer but that front end seems like a contradiction of terms. I would be curious to see what your thoughts are. Hopefully you will get a chance to take them for a ride.

  18. Just wanted to share some beta on the 192 now that I’ve had time on it (mounted on the line, FKS 180, 11.5 DIN, mostly ski BC/CO/UT) . In short, it was dialed for me (6’3 195#). I spent last season on the 193 Automatic and there’s NOT one instance I would take it over the Bibby (powder, trees, chop, groomers, and esp. steeps and drops… where the tail of the Auto would tend to scrub out). Generally, I found the Bibby’s to not only be MUCH more stable, but also quicker despite their relative stoutness. The mounting point of the Autos is -10.5cm from true center, which on the 193, provided a LOT of tip. When I adjusted the mounting points to +1.5 from factory, and +2.5, I gained in quickness, but also sacrificed too much stability. On the Bibby, the center of the camber (factory line) is right at -6cm, and with more tail and overall rocker, I found the ski more comfortably allowed for an even release of the tail (especially at speed). The camber/rocker transition on this ski seems so smooth and gradual (esp. in the tip) compared to some other skis where the transition between camber/rocker occurs more abruptly. The flex is also really confidence inspiring, esp. when landing airs, and the sweet spot is big. It’s not a balancing act like other skis I’ve been on (way too many) with soft tips and stiff camber underfoot (last year’s K2 Pettitor might be the worst offender of this). I digress, but lastly I should note that a ski that encourages a more centered stance, seems to be much more in sync with how I ride, which maybe why I didn’t sync with the Autos. Just my two cents… and there’s still a lot more I have to learn about this ski over this season. I’m stoked to read your thoughts on the 192 when you get a chance on it… and would appreciate your thoughts on how it compares to the (damper?) ON3P Caylor. Thanks again for your great reviews. You guys kill it.

  19. Hello!
    I’m considering this ski as my only ski. But as I also going to use it for ski touring then ( I’m not concerned about the weight as I’m in good shape and like excercise) I need to know if you can put skins on the bibbys (wonder about both new and old models) as the tip is so squarish. I have a pair of bd-skins. Have you tried that? Or do I have to go with the narrower exit world in that case?

  20. Hello guys,

    I need some quick guiding help in a pretty short time. I finally got a good deal on some bibby’s in Europe, 2014 in size 186. Reading your reviews for the new ones it looks it loosed some of it chargy feel compares to 190 from last year.. My doubts are based on another good offer, some black crows nocta in 188, which share some features as the bibby, powder skis that can still charge without beeing noodles. Im 6 feet, 180 with gear, good shaped advanced skier. Any thoughts would help.

  21. I would go with 192 but the only pair available is the 186. Also, the 186 I think it would help in tight situations like trees. One last quest Jonathan, I plan to mount Salomon Guardians 16 on them (already have them so can’t switch) where do you recommend me to mount them?

  22. Jonathan, any update on 192 Bibby Pro? Thinking of adding a pair of 192’s for the powder end of my Mammoth Mountain quiver. I’ve got some Katana’s that I like for their charging ability. Also have a pair of 190 DPS rp112’s pures that are fun, but sometimes lack the charger ability once the mountain gets cut up.

    I was also thinking about a pair of this years Moment Ghost Trains, but think they might be too pure powder orientated to use in resort all day on a powder day? Could I get you to weigh in with some advice? Me; 6′, 180, aggressive skier almost 40 yrs. Expert skier looking for a pair of powder sticks that can charge like the Katana’s, but maybe a bit more float and playfulness without giving up too much in cut powder for the remainder of the day.

    Thanks, Eric

  23. Post your thoughts here, Howie! I’d love to hear them and bet others would as well. FWIW, I have a pair of 184 bibby’s a few yrs old and ran out to buy 190s in the old version when i heard initial reviews (got them cheap which was nice). i also have a pair of the 186 ghost trains but barely got to use them becasue we got no snow in CA. the one time i took them out i found them fun in pow but downright scary skiing back to the lift. as for the bibby’s…have no complaints on either and ride one of them every single day in all conditions from glaciers in Switzerland to sierra cement and ice at squaw.

    • Eric – we haven’t skied the 192, just the 186 (Jason Hutchins is currently putting time on the 186 and will have a 2nd Look review out in the next couple of weeks.) I’ve skied the Shiro, but while we were supposed to get on the 193, we ended up with the 183 which felt to me like an ice skate given the drastic amount of tip and tail rocker. I still think the 193 might be a fun ski, but I’m not sure I’d call it a surfier Katana. I also don’t think the Rocker 122 is going to be that ski. Of the skis you’ve named, the 192 might be the ticket, and for my money, the old 190 IS the ticket. You might also take a look at the 191 ON3P Caylor.

  24. Just a quick review of the 2014 Bibby 186. I just bought these a couple of weeks ago, and have 4 days on them now. In short, I love these skis! I am 5’8″ x 165 lbs. I have been skiing these in the rain and sun soaked crud. Some of this snow is up to about 2 feet deep, the proverbial Cascade Concrete. These skis make skiing this stuff very fun, very easy to turn, no tip dive, even when I really make an effort to drive the tips. On the firmer snow the skis will hold an edge during any size turn. They do feel more balanced and solid when I stay centered, and pressure the full length of the ski, especially during the finish of a turn. I have even been skiing some bumps with reasonable grace. I was planning to buy some Megawatts, but am so glad I found these instead. The 186 size is better for me instead of the 188 Mega’s, and these are made right here in the good old USA!!

  25. So for 6′ 4″ 235 pounds the Bent Chetler, Pollard Opus, Sick Day 125, or Bibby Pro all in a 192 for Powder. My everyday ski is the Scott Punisher in 189 but I need more ski when it is deep.
    Thank you, Jake

  26. Just rode new 13/14 Bibby Pros in the 186 cm length at Whistler for the past two days. Love them right from the first turn. Turn initiation is wonderfully easy, decent edge control on groomers (conditions weren’t ideal for trying to find a top end speed), float and control in knee deep powder in the upper bowls was exceptional. I bought these skis be cause I had a pair of 12/13 192 cm Bibby Pros that I really really liked, but after trying to ride them for 2 years they were just to big for me. I’m 5’9″, 175 lbs. Thanks to all who designed the new version of the Bibby at Moment, great great ski. Lots of comments about width in lift lines (guess they haven’t seen the Comi that I ride on big days). Graphics are very nice as well. Also, thanks to the folks at Blister Review, as I had considered many of the other skis reviewed, but ultimately went with the Bibby Pros as my all-round go to ski for Baker/Whistler as I live equal distance from both hills.

Leave a Comment