Moment Extra Crunchy PB&J

by

Ski: 2019-2020 Moment “Extra Crunchy” PB&J, 188 cm

Available Lengths: 162, 172, 182, 188 cm

Measured Weight per Ski: 2145 & 2156 grams

Stated Dimensions: 129-101-121 mm

Stated Sidecut Radius (188 cm): 23.0 meters

Core: Maple + Carbon Stringers + Fiberglass Laminate

Base: Sintered 4001 Durasurf

Blister Member, Mark, shares his creation with Moment Skis — the Extra Crunch PB&J — on BLISTER.
Moment Extra Crunchy PB&J
Review Navigation:  Specs //  Background //  Rocker Pics

Intro

It might be summer in the northern hemisphere, but a lot of us are still skiing here (God Bless This Long Ski Season), or getting ready to start skiing in the southern hemisphere, or already thinking of next season.

If you are reading this, I know you can relate.

Given that, and given that we also have an extremely passionate audience of ski fanatics and tinkerers around here, we wanted to share with you one pretty fun and interesting project that one of our Blister members had been discussing with me for quite a while now.

And after a good bit of back and forth with me, plus a lot of research and sleuthing around on his own, Mark’s personal creation has come to be. In what has to be one of the best names for a ski that I’ve heard in quite a while, ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to introduce you to the Extra Crunchy PB&J.

Here in his own words is some of the backstory on the “ECPB&J” right from the creator himself.

(And if you have been tinkering around with your own custom creation, feel free to let us know, and we’ll see about posting yours, too.)

Take it away, Mark:

A Little Background on Me & This Project

I’ve been skiing recreationally for most of my life, but didn’t own any skis until 2010. My first (much contemplated) ski purchase was a Kastle MX 88 in the 178 length which I loved for its combination of damp, powerful turns on hard snow, and low swing weight off piste. However, over the years I came to realize that I wanted a ski that enabled a more whimsical approach switching between straight lines, smears, and carves with equal aplomb.

When skiing, I’ve always gravitated toward exploring the mountain and finding challenging terrain.

I live on the east coast and do about half my season in Vermont, where ‘looking for a challenge’ usually means I’m in the trees and bumps with hard snow. The other half of my season is spent out west on bigger terrain where I benefit a bit more from a wider turn radius because I like going straight and fast.

I tried the Nordica Enforcer 100 for a few runs at a demo day in 2017, and it got me very interested in similarly heavy directional skis with tail rocker. I decided to take a gamble on the J Skis Masterblaster in the 181 cm length based on Blister’s review that fall, and I really liked it because it made skiing trees and bumps much less work than the Kastle MX did, without giving up too much stability in open terrain. I attributed this to the shape and mass of the Masterblaster, particularly the looseness created by its rocker-camber-rocker profile.

Then this past year, I started to wonder whether anyone made a stronger version of the Masterblaster, primarily because I am a pretty big dude (6’0”, 220 lbs).

My thinking was that my ideal personal ski would be a lot stiffer to offer more stability at speed. And while I considered getting the longer version of the Masterblaster, I was worried that going longer would reduce the quickness of the ski (which I really like) to a very significant extent.

The Idea

My idea for how to get a ski that would offer the high-speed stability I was looking for in open terrain — while preserving the quickness I need for a lot of my skiing — was to go with a more radical rocker profile that was paired with a stiffer core. The hope was that a lot of rocker would make a very stiff ski still feel loose enough to break into a slide in the middle of the trees. Basically, I wanted something Blister has been calling an easy shape with what I’m calling a badass core. This turned out to be a tricky set of attributes to find.

Skis I Considered

Some candidates that I considered but ultimately moved away from (for one or more reasons) were the Nordica Enforcer 93 and 100 which I found to be too soft; the K2 Mindbender 99Ti in a 184 length because I agree with Blister’s recent review that they are a lot of work in bumps; and the Head Monster 98, which was described by Jonathan as “definitely not loose.”

I spoke with a number of custom ski manufacturers about what I had in mind, and honestly, I found all of them to be really helpful, nice, and willing to help me organize my ideas. However, one concept I came across on the TGR ski forum (thanks Beetlejuice), was putting a heavier maple core into the Moment PB&J. I originally discounted this option because I didn’t have personal experience with Moment’s products.

After spending a season pondering and using a new pair of Moment Wildcat 108 Tour skis, the idea of an “Extra Crunchy” version of Moment’s narrowest freestyle ski, the PB&J, seemed compelling to me. The Extra Crunchy edition of the PB&J (or ECPB&J for short) was going to be heavier and stiffer than the stock model, which meant incorporating a different core material. Moment has a little-publicized semi-custom program, and after some begging, Moment decided they were willing to build the skis this past spring.

Moment described the finished result as “stiffer than the Commander 98, but the comparison here can be a little skewed due to the differing rocker profiles and the fact that the Commander has two sheets of metal in it” and they further qualified that comment by noting they hadn’t done any specific A/B-ing of the flex pattern of those two skis. I do not necessarily trust my hand-flexing-of-skis chops, but I can tell you that the Extra Crunchy PB&Js are definitely stiffer than my 181 cm Masterblasters, and are pretty in line with a pair of Kastle FX104 in 184 cm that I happen to have floating around my house.

I also weighed the skis on arrival — they came in at 2145 & 2156 grams per ski for the 188 cm length, which is about 300 grams/ski heavier than the stated weights of a stock 188 cm PB&J or 188 cm Commander 98 (the two stock skis have the same listed weight on Moment’s website). The 2150-gram-per-ski average weight puts the ECPB&J in the same general class as the Nordica Enforcer 93 & 100, 181 cm Masterblaster, and 184 cm Kastle FX104, which I am very excited about.

Also, I think the skis look great with next year’s Wildcat graphic and I am now counting down the days till winter.

So … what do you think?

Share this post:

Rocker Pics:

Full Profile
Tip Profile
Tail Profile
Top Sheet
Base
Previous slide
Next slide

47 comments on “Moment Extra Crunchy PB&J”

    • Why do you ask? That is more or less the exact set up I’m planning to use with the option to swap to alpine boots when I’m not planning to tour on a trip so bring the alpine boots. Few comments.

      1. Pivots + Alpine boots only is clearly better in my view.

      2. Practically I travel to ski, like touring when I travel and find being forced to drag extra boots with me at all times impractical. I am not physically able to carry much more through airports to say nothing of baggage fees.

      3. AT boots with gripwalk or WTR soles would let me use Pivot 14 bindings, but I have weird enough feet I have not had any luck convincing fitters to put me into something like the Hawx XTD boots despite significant efforts. That said, I’m holding off mounting pending a last ditch effort in that direction.

      4. I am not convinced there is a big loss in functionality from the bindings in isolation. The boots are the bigger ticket item. When I don’t plan to tour easy to swap boots and adjust bindings.

      • Yeah I’m mostly curious if you felt like this was a ski you could use with AT boots. I ski everything w the AT boots now, but I definitely notice a difference when I’m trying to Mach on the big powder skis.

        • Already use ON3P Billy Goats (albeit with lighter glass) with Scarpa Maestrale RS + warden on trips. The boot is definitely more limiting than the binding. Honestly though there is a difference I’m not putting the brakes on because of it at all often.

          Suspect that would hold true here – the boot will be the weak link before the binding elasticity difference becomes meaningful and I am unwilling to always travel with 2 boots.

  5. Just gonna reply to both your comments here:

    1. I initially did want some Ti. Abstractly, I still do want Ti so I can’t tell you why it’s a bad idea but I can tell you why I didn’t get iT. The reason I didn’t get Ti was that Moment was comfortable building me a maple core PB&J because they have athletes who use stiffer PB&J layups. They were not comfortable, I think for good reasons, making a single batch untested core with a metal layer or simply adding mass to a Commander because it would be too stiff.

    2. Unmounted as of now. Same mount point as normal PB&J. I like the 108s on the line so was probably going to do that here. Might go -1 or -2.

    3. Yes it does sound like a Woodsman. I have considered buying one for a personal comparison review and I have also considered buying Wren 96 Ti skis for a more fall line biased complement. I really like ON3P skis too so it was a close call. I may still buy a pair of either or both funds permitting at some point in the future or something similar from a custom shop. On paper the biggest difference is a hardwood vs. bamboo core which I have difficulty handicapping. It is also possible that because I got these custom stiff they will be stiffer than a stock Woodsman, though I know ON3P offers customs as well.

    • Just a point of clarification – I really appreciate Moment’s candor in telling me they thought the metal was a bad call.

  6. I’m curious if there were any other skis you considered outside of the ones you listed. I split my time between east/west as well, so my terrain selection is nearly identical. I’m also a bigger dude at 225lb but a little taller at 6’4″. Two of the skis I’m strongly considering are the Faction Dictator 3.0 (despite what the consensus is by the reviewers here) and the Fischer Ranger 102FR.

    • Some skis I left out of the article because I haven’t tried them. This is mostly screened off Blister reviews/first looks & spec sheets:

      1. Nordica Enforcer 104
      2. Fischer Ranger FR
      3. ON3P Woodsman

      If you read the reviews Blister has of those three I think they sound less similar to what I was looking for but I could be wrong. Happy to answer specific questions.

  7. Dynastar has been building this ski for like 10 years. 187 Dynastar Menace 98 (slicer) Nearly the same weight, a few mm narrower and exactly the same radius. It excels at making meh conditions fun, rails groomers and slays bumps. But it doesn’t have square tips.

      • Fair point, I haven’t skied a Dynastar Menace. Blister’s actual review and deep dive do not make the Menace sound like what I wanted from this ski but (1) I haven’t skied my ski and (2) I haven’t skied a Dynastar Menace. I will be a bit sad if it skis like Blister’s review makes me think the Menace skis. I have no actual knowledge of either side of your question though.

        • Yeah, the 181 Menace is a noodle, whereas the 187 is a real ski.

          The PB&J is a generally well-loved shape. I can’t imagine a solid maple core making it worse in any way.

          • It’s interesting you mention ability to demo the Menace below. I cannot recall seeing Dynastar skis in any demo tent recently and I generally find the “big boi” models hard to locate anyway, but that of course doesn’t say anything about whether the Menace would be similar to the ECPB&J.

            Would be fun to try them back to back sometime if I can.

    • Our two cents:

      We only skied the Menace 98 in a 181, but we wouldn’t be at all tempted to say that “Dynastar has been building this ski for like 10 years.”

      The 181 Menace 98 is a soft, forgiving ski, and it doesn’t sound like what Mark was going for here — if you want soft and forgiving, you usually don’t use a maple core.

      It’s possible that the 187 Menace 98 is a whole lot burlier than the 181 Menace 98, but we think that’s unlikely.

      • You are correct about the 181, which is a different ski IME. I’m about the same physique as Mark, with a few more pounds. I like big supportive directional skis like the Legend Pro Rider, +1.5 SuperGoat (never go full-Aever,) 196 OG Bodacious, various Wrenegades, BMX HP’s, etc.

        I skied the 187 Menace back to back with the 184 K2 Mindbender 99ti and felt the Menace was both burlier and more versatile (direct comparison to Mark’s description above.) I swapped with a friend on the K2 and the Menace dumped him almost immediately. He was stoked on the 99’s. From what I was told by the Dyna-rep the 187 Menace is “athlete spec” with a solid wood core. It’s a serious build in a playful shape, not a full gun, but not a “soft, forgiving ski.” I’d like to hear your thoughts, I believe it delivers a similar feel to the classic Dynastar construction, such as the 186 OG LP, in a more playful package. Is it a full gun? No, but if that’s what Mark wanted, there are plenty of RC112’s out there waiting for a driver.

        I’m happy to see that skiers are going out and demanding great skis with their $$$ and I support that. I’ll keep an eye out for Moment at the demos next year, but somehow I doubt the extra crunchy will be in their fleet. The 187 Menace? Very likely.

  10. Sometimes 100mm+ underfoot felt a little silly in VT, any thoughts to the width? Emphasis on sometimes, when there is a few inches of fresh.. awesome. Even without, not bad. More just making it through those long spells with no precip.

    The PBJ is a great East Coast ski, got a pair in 2012. Super rad! The underfoot stiffness kicked that cold, cold ice in the face! I’m quite a bit smaller so it worked for me but I could see stiffer being just fine. All that rocker, never hooked up in dense trees/ moguls/ grass patches. I think it’s an underrated ski

    • 102 was upper end of width range I wanted, would of been happy down to 90 underfoot.

      Part of why I was ok wider was that there’s no metal so I think more width helps stability a bit. I have zero evidence for this idea other than that I have never liked a metal-less ski sub 95 underfoot and it sort of makes sense that longitudinal stiffness is proportional to material width.

      Conceptually, though this is highly speculative, I think a similar design in a 90 width could be better for me. This ski was a best guess on my part coupled with good advice from Moment. I could see liking the wider platform for my occasional very lame attempts at air so hard to judge.

  11. Ski looks fun! Kudos for choosing a cool shape and making it yours! Be sure to update and review for us.

    If the ski isn’t immediately easy and intuitive, first work on the tune. It’s surprising just how dull some park skis can be run happily (East). Give yourself lots of time to get used to the forward mount point freestyle ski behavior before thinking about a remount. It really should deliver a bunch of the ‘whimsical’ you seek, but coming from directional skis you might expect some level of learning curve.

  12. Can you possibly post a quick run down of the various types of wood used for cores and how they typically relate to ski characteristics?

    • I am not qualified to do that. The way I thought about it for my project was to make a list of skis I liked or hoped my new ski would approximate along one or more dimensions. I then looked for information about the core materials, weights and shapes of the skis (blister has this information for skis they review). The exercise made it clear pretty quickly that dedicated front side skis are much denser than typical free ride skis (lower surface area and total mass that is the same or higher). I suspect this is largely down to choice of wood because the rest of the core materials don’t vary that much.

      I can also tell you that, for whatever combination of reasons, a lot of piste skis I personally like use silver fir as a component and a lot of free ride skis (Brahma, Enforcer, etc.) use poplar. Beyond that it’s tough to generalize and I think manufacturers have their own approaches.

      The idea to use maple in the ski I actually purchased came from Moment. I told them I wanted a heavier, stiffer (and less user friendly for normal size people) PB&J and they mentioned they thought maple was a good way to get there. I think the core influences the ski pretty profoundly, so whatever I ended up using needed to be something that the professional ski designers and manufacturers at Moment felt was a good idea. I think you could get yourself into real trouble trying to get someone to build you a ski with a core material that they don’t use.

      • Fantastic read. Did you look at parlor cardinal pro by any chance? I’m also considering the woodsman but not 100% about lack of metal. Been advised wren tails do not quite come around like the woodsman..

        • Thought about but never tried the Cardinal Pro. A big part of this purchase decision for me was similarity to something I know I like. I don’t know if I like the Cardinal because I’ve never tried it. I didn’t have a blister review on the cardinal pro to help guide me.

          The Wren vs. Woodsman vs. ECPB&J issue is an interesting one for me. I think this ski is probably somewhat similar to a stiffer Woodsman. I am awfully tempted to buy either a Wren or Woodsman from ON3P to see how it goes.

  13. I’m curious how it goes for you on East Coast, I got a pair of Moment Meridian Tours for a similar reason to you but for use out West (assuming I’d only ever use them if conditions are soft) — like you, I wanted something rockered for a different feel vs. my mostly cambered/rocker-camber-rocker skis, and wanted something lighter than my other fat or mid-fat skis (all 2300g+) that I could swing more easily and also tour with, but I still wanted them to have a backbone. I didn’t feel I needed too much weight at 6’0″, ~190lbs and not wanting these to be my “nuke everything” skis so I was OK with a lighter layup. Got them too late in the season to get fitted for touring boots (the stock situation was dire) and am itching for next season to start. I have a good feeling that I’m really going to like travelling with 2 pairs, these and a meatier ski like the Metal or Bibby.

    • I use the Wildcat 108 Tour as my one ski quiver for touring. My travel quiver is, assuming there is snow in the forecast, Wildcat 108 Tour + Goat. No snow is going to be the ECPB&J + Wildcat 108. No touring is the ECPB&J + Goat.

      The 108 Tour is fine in bad snow but not as good as something heavier.

  14. I also live on the East Coast, and also enjoy bumps, tree and going fast :-) Here’s to skiing hard, terrible snow! I’m very curious to hear how you make out with this ski. My primary ski is a Volkl Kendo, but it sounds like your ski might have the same edge hold but be more maneuverable which would be pretty cool.

  15. Im on the same boat as you pretty much as to what I’m looking for. Weight 235. Height 5’11”.

    Here is the comparison I got from ON3P about arv, wren rustler and ranger fr – with a suggestion to look at the woodsman;

    “The Wren Ti will be more aggressive, have a longer radius, and have more stiffness/damping than both the Rustler and Ranger, which are similarly styled (directional) but slightly softer to accommodate a shorter radius.

    Comparing to the ARV, It will be more directional and also have more stiffness/damping + longer radius, as the ARV is more of a short radius, freestyle-oriented ski.

    Another option to consider would be the Woodsman, which would be a great everyday option with stability to charge, but still playful and fun edge to edge on piste as well. Mount will be at ~-6 (scales with size range), so it will have a more directional feel to it as well.

    So primary changes between the Woodsman and Wrenegade:
    Wrenegade = noticeable larger and more drive radius. It is not only larger, but has a more intense bi-radius, so the tail doesn’t come around as evenly as the Woodsman. Great for big turns and such – and it will push you down the fall line more.
    Mount = -6ish vs -10ish, so pretty big difference in balance.
    Woodsman has more tail rocker and can pivot with a bit more ease. Not like a Jeffrey (true-twin all-mountain freestyle ski, similar niche to the ARV), but noticeable”

    Blister have a review on cardinal 100 but not cardinal pro. It comes with maple and metal and 102 waist. Fat tail. I was intrigued..

    • It is an interesting idea – my instinct on this was to go in basically the opposite direction from Parlor to accomplish a similar end from what I can tell. I got a ski with a lot of tail rocker but which is otherwise demanding. What the regular cardinal looks like from the Blister review is a flat, fat tail with a less demanding profile in other places.

      I would guess from that the Cardinal is going to offer more energy back from a carved turn due to the tail shape. I would also guess it will be more work in the trees. I could be wrong about both.

  16. Really like this idea having skied my pb&j’s and a few other pairs of moment skis all over the east they are going to be a fantastic ski for you. I definitely get why moment didn’t go the metal route but I think metal layering would be more beneficial for someone like myself at 6’0″ and 165lbs since sometimes it feels like the pb&j could use a little more vibration damping on chattery surfaces at high speed rather than all around increased stiffness and rebound. Of the the skis I have experience on I would say the enforcer 104fr probably come the closest to being a similar shape and stiffness to the pb&j but with slightly better vibration damping which I think is what really helps out us lighter folks that like fun charging skis for the east. Enjoy the new moments!

  18. Thanks for this Mark, really interesting to see the thought process you went through. Great that Moment were so helpful. Really hope that the Blister guys will be happy to edit your work again as we’ve got to know how the damn things actually ski in the end! Best of luck and thanks for taking the time to answer all the interesting questions

  20. Was just browsing and re-read this. Pity Mark never gave his on snow impressions, would still be interested! Also would be good to hear from others who have gone the custom/semi-custom route, what were they trying to achieve, how did they think through it with the builder etc. Given there are quite a few custom builders out there I can imagine there would be some good stories

Leave a Comment