Ski: 2019-2020 Moment Wildcat Tour, 184 cm
Available Lengths (cm): 184, 190 cm
Blister’s Measured Length (straight tape pull): 180.5 cm
Stated Weight per Ski: 1800 g (184 cm)
Blister’s Measured Weight per Ski: 1903 & 1929 grams
Stated Dimensions (mm): 141-116-131
Blister’s Measured Dimensions (mm): 142-116-134
Stated Sidecut Radius: 25 meters
Core: Paulownia / Pine with triaxial fiberglass and carbon fiber stringers
Tip & Tail Splay (ski decambered): 71mm / 62 mm
Traditional Camber Underfoot: ~1 mm
Recommended Mount Point: -6 cm from center; 84.2 cm from tail
Boots: Salomon MTN Explore & La Sportiva Spectre 2.0
Bindings: Marker Kingpin
Test Location: Porters Ski Area backcountry, NZ; Baldy Yurt, WY
Days Skied: 6
[Note: Our review was conducted on the 16/17 Bibby Tour, which was not changed for 17/18 or 19/20, apart from graphics. For 18/19, the Bibby Tour was renamed the “Wildcat Tour” and again received updated graphics, but the construction remains the same as the original Bibby Tour.]
Intro
It’s certainly no secret that we’re big fans of the Moment Bibby / Blister Pro as an inbounds ski, and a few Blister reviewers also use the 184 cm Blister Pro as a touring ski. Still, we were very intrigued when Moment announced the Tour version of the Bibby — how much lighter would it be? And how much of the ride quality of the regular Bibby would it maintain?
We skied the Bibby Tour in New Zealand this summer, and you can hear some of our initial impressions on the podcast we recorded there.
Recently, I’ve been skinning in the Tetons on the Bibby Tour, and I’ve been very impressed so far.
Flex Pattern
Jonathan Ellsworth described the flex pattern like this:
Tips: 7
Underfoot: 10
Tails: 8
In other words, the Bibby Tour has a pretty strong flex pattern; it’s shovel is stiffer than the 189 cm BMX 105 HP, which is 2300+ gram big-mountain ski. Having said that, the Bibby Tour’s flex feels nice and strong, but we wouldn’t call it burly.
Shape / Rocker Profile
The Bibby Tour has the same shape as the Bibby / Blister Pro, though our pair of Bibby Tours does have a bit less traditional camber underfoot than the standard Bibby, and Moment has said that this is true of most of the Bibby Tours they have pressed. (And honestly, for a ski this wide that’s intended to float well in deep snow, we’d rather it have less camber as opposed to more camber.)
Beyond the camber profile, we really like the shape of the Bibby for use in a wide variety of snow conditions. It’s not heavily tapered, but the tip and tail taper that it does have helps produce the Bibby’s good blend of stability and quickness.
Unlike the regular Bibby, the Bibby Tour does include a cutout in the tail for skin clips, and while I’m used to touring on twin tipped skis and don’t usually have trouble with my tail clips slipping, I do appreciate the added security of that cutout.
Firm / Variable Snow
We first skied the Bibby Tour in New Zealand, and got it out in some pretty tricky snow. While I did find some nice, soft turns, a couple of us also skied a fair bit of refrozen crust and firmer chopped-up snow. And in those less-than-perfect conditions, Jonathan Ellsworth and I were both impressed by the Bibby Tour. Those first few runs in New Zealand after a number of weeks spent mostly off skis are always exciting, but the Bibby Tour felt intuitive and consistent in these snow conditions. It didn’t totally smooth out the harsh conditions, but the ski remained predictable and more composed than many touring skis would have, and I never felt surprised or scared on the Bibby Tour. That’s particularly impressive when you consider that the purpose of most 116mm-underfoot touring skis is to shine in the complete opposite of firm snow.
Powder
If there’s one place where a 116mm-wide touring ski had better shine, it is in the fresh stuff. And luckily, I was able to get the Bibby Tour into three days of pretty perfect powder on a yurt trip last weekend. Once again, I came away very impressed.
A Little Background & Context
I have a history of mounting tech bindings on inbounds skis because if I’m skiing good snow, I’m happy to haul a little more weight uphill if it means I get to jib and play harder on the way down. Last year, I had some of my most fun backcountry days on the Revision Subtraction and K2 Shreditor 112 mounted with G3 ION’s. I have a preference for softer, twin-tipped, more center-mounted, jibby skis in pow.
The Bibby Tour, therefore, strikes a pretty ideal balance for me: it’s light enough that I didn’t notice the weight when mounted with Marker Kingpins — even while skinning five miles to the yurt with a sled full of way-too-much-beer the five miles into the yurt (editor’s note: we are currently mad at Cy because we have not seen any pics of this beer sled on the skin track). And yet, the Bibby Tour doesn’t feel light and unstable to me while skiing. I found myself skiing backcountry lines at inbounds speeds, not even thinking to speedcheck for rocks and drops. In fact, I haven’t gotten close to finding the speed limit on the Bibby Tour in soft snow yet.
Length
That’s also interesting given that the 184 cm Bibby Tour has a measured length of 180.5 cm; that certainly seems short. But I never felt like I needed more length, or that the ski felt short or squirrely while skiing. It’s easy to get hauling on the Bibby Tour, but I found that the rocker profile and shape combine in such a way that it doesn’t take much effort to throw the skis into big slashes and shut down speed when you need to. Taller, heavier skiers (especially in places with more wide open terrain) may want to consider the 190 cm version, but I’m quite happy so far on the 184.
High Speeds / Slower Speeds
Most of the skis that I’ve been on that have higher top ends like the Bibby Tour’s have required a lot of input at both high speeds and lower speeds. But the Bibby Tour felt intuitive and relatively easy at lower speeds, too. It didn’t kick my butt when I got a little off my game, but was actually very forgiving.
In tighter conditions, the Bibby Tour is quite maneuverable. I found it easy to pivot with a centered stance, and it’s light enough that slashing through tight trees isn’t a chore.
However, it has been in more open terrain with rocks, pillows, and drops where the Bibby Tour has really stood out. Its stability on landings felt on par or better than a lot of inbounds skis I’ve been on; the ski is just ready to stomp, stomp, stomp, and that’s a rare and invigorating feeling to get from a touring ski. I can’t think of another ski I’d rather take out to ski pillows and cliffs in the backcountry, and I think skiers looking for a light ski to hit backcountry booters with would enjoy the Bibby Tour with the mount point forward up a centimeter or two.
Bibby Tour vs. Bibby
This is, of course, the million dollar question, and I’ll be getting on my custom Blister Pros ASAP to answer it.
My hunch is that the Bibby Tour will have a slightly lower top end, be a little less stable in bad snow, will just generally be a little less charg-y. But I’ll be back with a full report once I ski them back to back.
Who’s It For?
The obvious answer to this question is, “Anyone who loves the Bibby Pro but wants to tour on it.” And again, I’m going to hold off on comparisons to the regular Bibby till I can A/B the skis back-to-back, but what I can say now is that anyone who likes playful but stable skis in the backcountry should be looking very closely at the Bibby Tour.
If you walk uphill because you’re tired of tracked-out landings inbounds, because you want to jib, play, and even charge in the backcountry, I’m hard pressed to think of another touring ski of this weight and width that I’d rather be on.
I love touring skis on the way up, but at the top, I often find myself ripping skins and wishing I’d sucked it up and skinned up on my inbounds skis. The Bibby Tour is the first ski where I haven’t experienced that feeling; instead, I find myself eyeing every drop, or trying to figure out what I can try to gap.
This is a bit premature to say for sure, but I also have a feeling that the Bibby Tour could be a great choice as an inbounds ski for people who like the idea of the regular Bibby, but don’t need that much ski. From my limited time in variable snow, I’ve been impressed so far with the Bibby Tour’s chops, and my hunch is that a number of lighter and / or more finesse-oriented skiers could be happy skiing it on softer inbounds days, and will find its shorter length and lighter weight easier to move around than the regular Bibby. And again, I’ll have more to say on this point once I get to ski the two Bibbys back to back.
Bottom Line (For Now)
AT equipment like the Marker Kingpin binding and the Salomon MTN Lab boot has pushed the limits of what’s possible with lightweight gear in the backcountry, and the Moment Bibby Tour complements this movement perfectly. Especially for those coming from not-super-stiff skis, this is a very stable and predictable ski at a respectably light weight. If you’re looking for something that’s happy to haul ass and jump off of anything you can find in the backcountry, the Bibby Tour absolutely deserves your attention, and we’ll have a full comparison to its inbounds counterpart soon.
Deep Dive Comparisons: Moment Bibby Tour / Wildcat Tour
Become a Blister Member or Deep Dive subscriber and check out our Deep Dive of the Moment Bibby Tour / Wildcat Tour to see how it stacks up against the Head Kore 117, Faction Prime 4.0, Volkl BMT 122, Black Diamond Helio 116, and more…
NEXT: Rocker Profile Pics
@CyWhitling : What is your height & weight? (Unable to find this in reviews or a reviewer bio.)
2nd QQ: How would you describe “feel” of this ski in the continuum btwn “lively” & “damp”? At 6’1″, 155lbs, my main issue w/ Moment skis I’ve been on like the Deathwish is that they’ve tended to be stiff & damp, but the snow feel has been surprisingly “dead” – lacking much of the progressive feel, feedback, & energy I’ve experienced in competitors skis.
Does the lighter build of the Bibby Tour produce less of a 2×4-like feel?
Hi, Matt – you can find bios + height / weight of all of our reviewers in the Contributor Bios secion under the “About Us” tab on the navigation bar. And Cy is 6’0″, ~175 lbs.
Hey Matt,
As JE just mentioned, my info’s in my bio. I’m around the same size as you, just hit the scale and realized I’m 165 lbs now.
That’s an interesting question. I’ve been spending a lot of time on the Deathwish recently. I guess you’re asking if it’s more “poppy”? I’m intrigued by your question since I haven’t found the Deathwish to be particularly “dead.” It is a little stiffer than some competitors skis, but I’ve had no trouble popping and playing on it.
That said, I don’t think I’m heavy / strong enough to make the Bibby Tour feel more progressive. It doesn’t feel dead to me at all, but it’s too hefty of a ski for me to say, flex out the tails and load them into a pop. That said, I’ve been mostly skiing it in pow, with touring boots, so I’ll have more to add after some inbounds laps in my alpine boots.
@JE: Ha, you guys hid Cy right up front & center on the bio page, alpha-sort be damned: guess I just outed myself as color-within-the-lines guy by scrolling straight to “W”.
@Cy, thanks for the feedback. Yes, #1 feature of what I’d call a lively ski is “pop.” So your initial impression is that the Bibby Tour is less poppy than the Deathwish? Funny ’bout your qualification of time on the B.Tour: I’ve also only skied Moment’s skis in fresh snow: both demo days I’ve attended were in 1-2 ft of heavy, sticky Sierra fresh. As a lighter skier testing in these conditions in tight, technical tree lines, a stiff, damp ski tends to ski you the way it wants rather than vice versa, & the energy it does give back will be muted. In these conditions I greatly preferred the (discontinued) Exit World, but that was due to the extra width & tail rocker that added float & pivotability. My hope was that the lighter construction of the new Bibby Tour would ski more like some of the energetic no-metal skis I’ve enjoyed while skinning for pow.
Will be interested to hear what you have to say in a “second look” after you get the Bibby Tour into more variable conditions.
Thanks & keep up the good work Blister!
PS: +1 on comments re. reduced camber of Bibby Tour: I’m looking for a new pow-touring ski b/c my current Voile V8s (purchased blind, based on rave reviews of performance in cold, light, continental snow) have an absurd amount of camber (9mm!) that is at complete counter-purposes to its width & sidecut. Prior to owning the V8s, I hadn’t devoted much thought to camber height, focusing instead mostly on rockerline & sidecut shape. Skiing a “pow” ski w/ more camber than most carvers in our heavier, coastal snowpack results in hookiness & “locked down” tips & tails that require drastic measures like old-school jump turns in tight, heavy, or crusty quarters.
Evidently the Moment guys have come to conclusions touring N.Lake Tahoe similar to the ones I’ve arrived at in S.Lake ;~>
That’s a hard qualification to make…
I haven’t found the Deathwish to lack pop, instead I’ve actually found that I ski it a little differently to get it to pop, there’s a different balance point to loading the tails than say, the old Shreditor 112. But, the interesting thing there, is that if I’d been skiing the Deathwish last year (when I had significantly weaker legs) I don’t think I would have been able to press into the flex enough for it to feel poppy / playful. And even if I was a super strong skier, I think being 30-ish lbs lighter (like you are) would have a similar effect. It’s certainly not a soft ski. So while I think I would still have fun on a Deathwish (or a Bibby Tour) if I was lighter I see how they would feel much less poppy.
All that to say, I think I see where you’re coming from now.
As far as the Bibby Tour specifically though, I just haven’t had it in conditions where I’ve been trying to load the flex and pop out of turns, or load the tails and ollie off of features.
However, I’m planning on taking the Blister Pro, Bibby Tour, and Deathwish all up to the hill at the same time this weekend and swapping between skis in variable conditions, so I should have a more complete answer for you soon.
And that’s really interesting to hear about the V8, I’ve been intrigued by that ski, and even more so by the X7 / X9. Out of curiosity, what other skis in that category have you been looking at?
Hi Cy – any comments from moment where the 2 cm difference in length compared to the regular bibby comes from? My first generation bibby’s and deathwish in a 184 length each measure around 182,5 cm…
PS: I like the camber profile – if there is anything that I could “moan” about when talking about moment is that their skis tend to have a little too much camber for my taste
Hey Hannes,
Just looking at the ski it seems like maybe about a cm could be coming from the different tail shape, that skin cutout takes away material that would be the twinned tip.
Yeah, I’m a big fan of the profile too. Really excited to get on my regular Bibbys and compare. There are some reviews I get really excited about doing, and this is one of them!
Thank you for the prompt response, Cy. Interesting, since the old 2013/2014 Exit World – with a similar tail shape – measured the same as the 190 bibby in the 190 by a few mm. Anyway, it appears one would have the same amount of ski in the front with the bibby tour, so there would be no difference really, unless you ski or land switch in pow.
PS: great art on your custom blister pro!
Any chances of comparison with Faction CT 4.0?
Hey Cy, thanks for the review. Had a couple of questions, if you don’t mind:
You mentioned that a forward mount-point might be fun for the more jib-oriented crowd – did you have yours mounted at the recommended line, or somewhere else? Also, regarding higher-speed performance, would you say that the skis felt comfortable releasing the edges and drifting through turns? I wouldn’t necessarily think so with what looks like relatively little taper, but these skis sound like magic so I figure anything’s possible. Thanks!
df
Hey Daniel,
Yep, mine were at recommended. And I am a reasonably jibby skier, the only reason I would move them forward would be if I was planning on skiing / landing switch a lot. Otherwise, I found they’re easy enough to slash, pivot, and spin at recommended. I have Marker Kingpin Demos on them, so I could move the mount forward, but I really haven’t been tempted to.
At higher speeds (and keep in mind, so far I’ve skied these in great snow) I had no trouble releasing edges and drifting. No, they’re not an exceptionally “aurfy” ski, but I never felt like they were frustratingly locked in, even at higher speeds, and I have a tendency to break loose and drift my turns as much as possible.
Great review, thanks. Looking to buy a pair of these but am struggling with what size to go with. I’m 6.1 at 190. It sounds like the 184 is a good choice. However, I saw another review that said the 190 skied differently and is more suited in big mountain wide open terrain. Any recommendation based on my height / weight? These will be used in a mix of trees and some open terrain and perhaps some bumps in resort on a rare occasion. I’m currently skiing on a pair of older 190 bibbys and 182 PB&J. Thanks for you help.
My pair have what looks like a very similar amount of camber as the regular Bibby, also coming in at a touch over 1800g on reliable scales.
Thanks for the review!
I am considering the Bibby Tour as my one ski touring dedicated quiver and would like to hear your input whether this would be a suitable option. I like playful, quick, surfy powder skis with short radius and currently ski the 185 Bent Chetlers (previously, I skied Magnum Opus) but I am now looking to add a touring dedicated ski to my quiver, which would have more versatility than the Bent Chetlers but still have a playful feel to it. While I would be mainly (trying to) tour powder / soft snow (one, max two feet of powder), the skis should be able to handle also more variable conditions ie. firm, crust, spring snow etc.
Given my preference for skis and the variable conditions that the ski should handle, would the Bibby Tour be a suitable touring ski for me? Alternatively, I have considered the Moment Underworld’s or then 106 or 112 Wailers from DPS (Tour1 or Pure3 construction), or would some completely other ski be a more fitting choice?
Good question!
I’m also a big fan of Bent Chetler type skis, although recently I’ve been gravitating to slightly stiffer, more versatile skis. I think, given that, and the type of conditions you mention, that the Bibby Tour would be a great option. It’s not as playful, or as damp as the Bent Chetler, but it’s still a pretty playful touring ski, probably the most playful I’ve actually gotten to ski.
I haven’t been on any of the other options you mention so, unfortunately, I can’t chime in there. The one other ski that your comment brings to mind is the new Moment Meridian Tour. I think, given its rocker profile, that that ski should be pretty playful and surfy, and should also be more versatile than the Bibby Tour, but we don’t have time on it yet unfortunately.
Thanks! I am now leaning towards maybe going with a bit narrower ski than the Bibby Tour to have a bit more all-around ability with regards to conditions. I am weighing between the Meridian Tour and Deathwish Tour. Can you weigh on these two options and on the sizing (181 vs 187cm)?
Thanks!
-henri
I am more of a directional non-jibby skier but love my Bibbys in 184. I am 5’8, 150 lbs and am looking into getting Bibby tours. I am thinking about getting 174s for a bit more maneuverability in tighter slower situations/trees and more fun on lower angle slopes. Do you think the 174s would be too small and if not, would it be beneficial to mount the bindings a cm or two further back than recommended (-6)? since I am not skiing switch or jibbing off of everything? My knees are seeking a lighter and more maneuverable set up but I still want good float and powder performance. Thanks!
Hola Bradg…..where did you land. Did you end up with the bibby tour? I’m debating between bent chetler 120 and bibby tour and also 18x vs 17x in lenght. Similar wants and size as yourself…… tx.
Thanks for review! I had great few days on these skis in a 190cm this past week. FYI, Moment reported the camber to be more on the Tour than on Bibby Pro. I skied it in deep cascade pow. Float and high speed surf felt amazing. Fairly damp and stiff ski for how light it is. Skinned up 5k ft. Photos here: https://www.instagram.com/p/BbpnQYvAtQO/
From an email with Moment Skis: “The Bibby Pro has slightly less camber, and the Bibby Tour naturally gets a little more camber because of the materials that are in it. However, we do feel the Bibby Tour still skis great with its current camber profile”.
Hi Cy,
Thanks for the review!
I am trying to decide on a one-ski quiver for my touring ski this season. Previously I was on the Moment Underworld Tour in 187 length and I found it to not be enough ski for me at 6’1″, 210 lbs. I found it deflected too easily, not stiff enough, and wasn’t stable at speed. Just a bit squirreley and I wasn’t confident to charge as hard as I’d like on it.
My inbounds daily driver is the Moment Underworld 190 and I love them. Probably the most versatile ski I’ve ever been on. I’m considering just buying a new set of these and mounting tech bindings on them to be my touring ski.
However my inbounds pow ski is the Bibby Pro and I absolutely love them too. I love how stable they are and that you can just charge through anything without them deflecting, yet it pow they are still poppy, playful and fun to jib. Plus I’ve yet to find a ski that stomps airs better. And they are more versatile on firm snow/ice/groomer than you’d think at 118 underfoot
So I am torn between the Underworld 190 and the Bibby Tour as my next one ski quiver touring ski. What do you think? If you had to pick one of those to tour on everyday (I ski 90% in Tahoe) what would it be? It seems like the Underworlds would probably be best since they are a bit more versatile, yet they are actually a bit heavier than the Bibby Tour and likely have a slightly lower speed limit. My main concerns with the Bibby Tour are that they are a “stripped down” version of the Bibby Pro which might affect their performance, and that they might not be as versatile in the variable conditions one finds when touring as the Underworlds. For example, I don’t know how confident I’d feel having to jump-turn into the top of a 45 degree, icy couloir on such a big ski.
I have been agonizing over this decision for weeks! About to just flip a coin to decide, or maybe just buy both? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
What are your thoughts on this ski vs. Atomic Backland 109? Curious on relative performance in pow, steep couloirs, really bad snow, etc.
Thanks!
Hey, I see in the 18/19 buyers guide that you have tested the Wildcat Tour 190. I can’t find a review on the website that talks about the 190, just the 184. Wondering if you can point me in the right direction. I have a pair of the 190’s and I’m looking for some information about mount points.
Thank you!
Wondering how these compare to some of the stiffer directional touring skis. I’ve been on and liked both the Scott scrapper and g3 Sendr, but I’d like something a little more playful without sacrificing much stiffness. Any suggestions on stiff/aggressive touring skis with more playful shapes?
Hey guys.
Just picked up a pair of bibby tours off bibby himself and he was saying he mounts the skis 1 or 2cm back. What’s the concencus from the blister boys on mount point?
Any idea how these would compare to the new Black Crows Ferox FB? The profile of the two skis seems very similar.
Hey guys, thanks for the great review.
I’m on the fence between these and the 4frnt Raven in a 190. I live in Utah and mostly ski the Cottonwood canyons.
Which would you recommend as a do-it-all touring ski?