2012-2013 Moment Bibby Pro, 184 cm

Review of the 12/13 Moment Bibby Pro, Blister Gear Review
12/13 Moment Bibby Pro

Ski: 2012-2013 Moment Bibby Pro, 184 cm

Blister’s Measured Tip-to-Tail Length: 182.0 cm

Blister’s Measured Weight per Ski: 2158 grams & 2222 grams

Stated Dimensions: 143-118-134 mm

Sidecut Radius: 24.5 meters

Boots / Bindings: Full Tilt Konflicts / Marker Jesters (DIN at 9)

Mount Location: Factory recommended line

Days Skied: 25+

[Editor’s Note: Our tests were conducted on the 10/11 Bibby Pro, which is unchanged for 11/12, and 12/13 except for the graphics.]


If you know Josh Bibby, you’re familiar with his friendly Canadian attitude and big mountain shredding. More likely to be dropping lines in the backcountry than throwing double flips in the park, Josh’s pro model ski caters to his favorite style of riding. At a substantial 118mm underfoot with a full aspen/pine wood core, the Bibby is set up to charge. Two days at Vail and Arapahoe Basin gave me the chance to put them to the test.

Shallow Powder

The word in the parking lot on February 5th at A-Basin was 5″ of light and dry snow since 5am that morning. As I headed up the Pallavicini lift, looking off to my right into the rock garden around West Turbo, it was clear that some generous wind-loading had deposited snow in the 10″ range on the leeward side of gullies. The conditions were fairly inconsistent from aspect to aspect. Things were fat in the trees, but a bit chopped and scoured in the bowls.

Looking down at the Bibbys, Moment’s trademark square-tipped design struck me as mean looking and confidence inspiring, with a stance similar to that of Rossignol’s Phantom Pro RC112. In terms of pure aesthetics, these boards scream “Send It!”

For the first couple runs, I decided to open things up with some big, fast turns under the Pali lift, down The Spine. Despite the new snow, the bumped out hardpack was still somewhat noticeable underneath, making for a nice testing ground for a ski’s dampening qualities. Riding the 184cms – a much shorter length than I’m used to with a ski of this girth – I wasn’t sure how the Bibbys would handle at higher speeds in a longer radius turn. The ride was impressively smooth and stable as 250mm of tip rocker helped blast over and through the chop. The Bibbys stiffness and dampening qualities showed in hitting drifts of harder, older snow, keeping the tips on track and the skis quiet under my feet. These skis love the fall line. Give them a chance to run, and with 5mm of camber underfoot, you’ll be nuking before you know it, yet still be able to shut down speed in a second. At no point did I feel like I needed a longer ski (the 184cms are the opposite of squirrely) and I was surprised at how eager the Bibbys felt. They’re very poppy for a big ski, I had a blast boosting off every little knuckle I could find.

Playing around in pockets of deeper snow on my way back to the lift, the Bibbys performance in untracked snow was in no way surprising. With a width of 142mm at the tip to ensure plenty of float and tapered profile to prevent any hooking, the Bibbys performance in pure fluff is stellar.

Waiting in the lift line after another four or five runs, one thing was certain: these things are solid and can charge. They will gladly push your speed limit and bomb over anything in sight. But how would the Bibbys handle in the trees? Could they make a quick move if I needed them to?

Looking for an answer, I traversed skier’s left off the Pali Lift and headed into the trees to the left of The Spine. At lower speeds the tip and tail rocker became more noticeable. The Bibbys felt livelier in tight, smeared turns than my K2 Kung Fujas (even though the K2s are considerably narrower, lighter, and worlds softer). For a ski of their size and stability at high speeds, the Bibbys are remarkably maneuverable, and ready for a quick change in direction. I could easily throw the whole ski sideways to scrub off speed in tight spots or bust a fun slash turn over a wind lip. I really came to appreciate their nimble characteristics in playing around on some pillows around 3rd Alley. Making short hop-turns to get into a line or committing to quick, critical moves was not a problem.

Deeper Powder

With 18″ of new snow the day prior, a morning at Vail gave me the opportunity to show the Bibbys some bigger drops and assess their swing weight in the air. The consensus: they’re pretty much stomp machines. The ski’s dampening quality takes the worry of sketchy take-offs out of the picture, while a solid platform underfoot adds some serious confidence for those flatter transitions. Carbon fiber stringers reinforce the core and contribute to the ski’s lightness. A backflip off the cornice in Rasputin’s Revenge discounted any doubts I might have had about the Bibbys performance in the air.

A key component to the Bibbys is their tail construction. I was happy to find that the tail rocker did not feel too prominent, and the skis were not prone to washing out. Bucked in the backseat on a landing or two, the added stiffness in the tail helped me get forward again with little trouble. Due to their “Mustache” profile with camber underfoot and rocker in the tip and tail, a neutral stance was by far the most comfortable on the Bibbys. With the small amount of true carving I have had the chance to do on them, I found that a more forward and aggressive drive of the ski didn’t seem to change much. For a person of my weight, overpowering these skis would be a feat. I found it easier just to stay strong and let the Bibbys run.

For now, in my book, the Bibby Pro receives top marks in all areas freeriding. For a person looking to take their big mountain skiing to another level, the Bibby can provide the confidence to do so, and they’re ready to handle anything you can throw down. Tell this ski what you want to do, and they will deliver

To be continued….


103 comments on “2012-2013 Moment Bibby Pro, 184 cm”

  1. Yo Will, nice review. This is Alex from Vail that monday. I was wondering if you made an edit with that footage. if not, shoot me an email next time you blow off class for pow. Peace

  2. This site rocks! First day on your site and I’m hooked: all the reviews are great and I’m finding even more value from the comments and replies :) I’m currently in the market for powder skis and the local shop recommended Rossi S7s. I’m aggressive, love to hike and ski side-country, trees, bowls, shoots and smaller cliffs in and around resorts. I liked that the local shop suggested the S7 can pivot easily to get you through the trees and tight spaces as compared to the Volkl Gotama. But after reading your reviews of the S7 I’m skeptical, and after reading the comments/reviews on the Bibby Pro I am confident that I’ll love the Bibby Pros so much more than the S7s. Here’s why: 1) I don’t always get out on powder day and often have to live with skiing the leftovers the following weekend -> crud, tracked out, etc. 2) I ski fast and aggressive (former racer) and need something stable underfoot. 3) I ski around Tahoe and both Corn Snow and Sierra Cement are as much a fact of life as 4′ of fresh. Question is…@ 6′, 175lbs and an expert skier what size do I get…184cm? 190cm? 194cm? I’m at a loss having never skied a reverse cambered + rockered (mustache profile) ski before.

    • Hi Jeff, long and short: if you’re an expert skier and a former racer, Will Brown and I would both recommend the 190 Bibbys – unless you’re skiing a lot of bumps. But then again, why are you skiing a lot of bumps on a 116mm waisted ski, right? Will and I both own the 184 Bibbys…and both he and I have been spending more time on the 190s. Or just flip a coin. The 190 Bibbys are a couple inches longer than the 184cm Bibbys, no big deal. Same flex pattern, the 190s are 2 millimeters wider.

  3. I’ve only read incredible reviews of this ski, but I’m a little skeptical of the pine wood core. Pine is a soft wood and has a much lower density than most other woods used to build skis. Has anyone had any problems with binding retention in these boards? Or, is the part of the ski underfoot composed mostly of aspen and carbon?


    • Hey Alex, nobody I know has had a binding rip out of a Bibby Pro, and I know a lot of people who ski these. Furthermore, the fact that our reviewer Joe Augusten skis these – and has never pulled a binding out – is all the reassurance I would ever need. Joe skis stupid hard (emphasis on stupid). I realize that anecdotes like these aren’t proof, but I will say: I wouldn’t worry at all about a soft core on the Bibbys.

      • My heel piece ripped out this last weekend at Baker… on a grommer. 35-40 days on them. Spoke with Moment, they have no intention of helping me out since pull-outs aren’t under warranty.

  4. Hi Guys

    First, like everyone else, please allow me to thank you for your website. It is a revelation.

    Has anyone ridden the the Line Mr Pollard Opus? If so are you able to provide a comparison with the Moment Bibby Pro?

    I find the sudden change in direction of Pollards skis somewhat confusing and seems to contradict his general design direction over the previous few years. Has he seen the light and nailed it (with his first 5Dish attempt)? Or has Pollard had to compromise?

    Any comment would be much appreciated.


  5. Hey Guys,

    Awesome reviews! Some of the best that I’ve found.

    I live in Alaska and I’ve been skiing the Line prophet 100s in the backcountry and on piste for the last 4 years. I skied a fat rockered pow ski in 40+ inches on monday and I’m hooked. No one really demos out here so im reliant on reviews and ordering online site unseen. I’m torn between the Armada Ak JJs and the Bibby pro. I like to ski on the faster side, but still go in the trees on steep with good pow. At alyeska always have to ski the groomers to get back to the lifts. I’m 6’1″ 200lbs.


    • Hey Paul,

      Thanks for reading. Both the AK JJ and theBibby Pro are good options, but do have their differences. I’ve found that the Bibby handles chop and variable snow better than the JJ, as the Bibby has a rounder flex profile with stiffer tips and tails. The AK JJ, while it’s built with a slightly stiffer flex underfoot compared to the regular JJ, still has pretty soft shovels with a healthy amount of splay. As a result the JJ can get bucked around in older powder and chop more than the Bibby does. I think Moment has dialed the camber profile on the Bibby to give it a really nice, functional balance between stability and playfulness. Compared to the 190 Bibby, the AKJJ may have a slightly lighter swing-weight if that’s something you’re considering, but I’ve never had a problem throwing flips on the Bibby. For the most part, the two skis are pretty comparable when it comes to performance on groomers, though with its softer & lighter shovels the JJ may chatter more on hard snow.

      Those are the most relevant differences I can think of. Let me know if you have any other questions.



  6. Thanks for the quick and insightful response. I’ve decided to go with the Bibby and just ordered it online. I can’t wait for it to arrive so I can get it out on the mountain. Hopefully the snow keeps coming we’ve had ~180 inches since Feb 1st!
    Thanks again for your help,

  7. Size Question: Looking into these but not sure what size, 190 or 196? I’m 206lb, 6’1, advance expert skier. Tried Rossi Super 7’s this weekend in 196 and they felt great. Did notice a little bit of tip dive in heavy pow, w/ windblown crust. Was surprised a bit that had to lean back a little in those situations. But the size felt fine for ripping through trees. Don’t ski much AK lines but do want something stable enough to hit big bowls as well as tight tree pow. Not much 196 reviews on line, just 190’s and under. This will be my first fat ski. Any thoughts? Are 190s big enough for me, since I don’t really ski 5000′ vert straightline chutes?

    • Hi Tom,

      The 196cm version of the Bibby (called the Bibby Special or the Governor starting next season – 12/13) is not the same ski as the 184 or 190cm Bibby Pro. Josh Bibby wanted a specialized weapon for dominating huge, big mountain lines, and the 196 Bibby Special is Moment’s answer. While it is a bigger ski than the 190 Biiby Pro (in terms of material length), I’ve actually found the 190 Pro to be more stable and predictable in chop and variable conditions.

      I don’t think the 190 will be too small for you. I’m 6’2″+ and own the 184. I don’t find it to be too short, lacking in stability, or too soft. The 190, as you might imagine, is slightly more stable at higher speeds (particularly in tracked powder) and takes a touch more work to move around in trees, but is quite manageable. As I’ve said to other readers, I think Moment has dialed the camber profile on the Bibby Pro to give it a perfect, functional balance between stability at speed and playfulness in the trees. Generally the S7 might be a bit more lively at slow speeds in the trees (given more of a pin-tail shape than the Bibby Pro), but I don’t think it can match the Bibby’s stability in crud/chop.

      You might take a look at the Special/Governor review and see what you think, though I think you’ll be very happy with the 190 Bibby Pro as a first pow board.

      Hope this helps,

      Will B

  8. I love Blister’s reviews and hold it’s opinion in high regard, so I would like it’s council. I own a pair of Icelantic shamans and a pair of volkl walls. The shaman would be my groomer and all mountain ski that would be good for some powder and mixed conditions, and the walls would be my park ski. I am moving to Utah next season and think I need one or two more skis. I was thinking I would go with bibby pros with dukes for back/side country and bowls (when not good powder). Then I would get a more jibby pow ski that was really fat i.e. hellbent or similar skis.
    My first question is, would the bibby overlap my shaman too much. I think because they are close enough underfoot (110 vs 118) and the tip is so huge in the shaman (160) that they would, but the shaman does not have rocker which would change a lot. And, if you think there is something better than the bibby for a hard charging, stable, stiff back county touring ski with good edge for wind blown and refrozen snow please let me know of it.
    My second question is what would be my best bet for a fat pow ski. I would probably put schizos on these to adjust to my desired skiing style that day. I would want it for pillows, tight trees, deep days, bowls, skiing switch, 3s, 5s, flips, etc… I think I would like a surfy feel and something that pivots well.
    I was looking at the Hellbent 189, armada bubba 188, dps lotus 198, moment donnar party, or any other 130mm+ waist ski.
    And if this helps I am 6foot 2 210lbs and a level 8 or 9 skier.

  9. Now that you guys have also reviewed the Line Opus, how would you compare the two skis? Which one is more agile and playful? Which has superior float in powder? Hardpack performance? Performance in chop? Stability? Thanks. Always appreciate your insight.

  10. Hey, thanks for such a comprehensive review – this is a great site.

    Q: I’m a 5’7″ 150# expert skier: do you think the 174 would be a suitable length, or should I go for the 184? After reading Will’s review I think the 174’s, based on the fact that Will has a few (7) inches on me and seemed very happy with the 184’s. Please advise, and thanks in advance.

    • Hi Alex,

      I think you’re right
      I don’t find the 184 to be too short or lacking in stability, though for me it is on the shorter end for a ski of that type (with some significant tail rocker) As you might imagine, I find the 190 slightly more stable at higher speeds (particularly in tracked powder) and takes a touch more work to move around in trees, but is still quite manageable. If I’m looking to charge a little more, I’ll take the 190, but I’m happy skiing both lengths. I’m 6’2″, which equates to just under 188 cm. You’re 5’7″, which is ~ 170cm. While you could probably handle the 184 just fine, I’m inclined to suggest going with the 174. I think you’ll still be happy with the stability, and might enjoy the ski a little more in the trees, compared to the 184.



      • Hey Will,

        Just spent 5 day on the Bibbys in Big Cottonwood Canyon. Perfect in the variable post-storm conditions, and absolutely everything I wanted in a ski: super light & floaty in the deep, maneuverable in trees, surprisingly willing to carve up the groomers, and stiff enough to be stable at high speeds. The 174’s turned out to be a the ideal length, so thanks again for the words of wisdom.

        Have a great winter amigo,

        • Hi Alex,

          Great to hear the 174s worked out for you, and thanks for coming back and letting us know! (Always nice to know when our recommendations are on track).

          Here’s to a deep (and safe) rest of the season!


  11. Will, Awesome site! Great reviews!
    I have a 2 ski quiver of 10/11 Billy Goat and11/12 Vicik both in 186. Thinking about replacing the BG with the 12/13 BG redesign staying with the 186 or the Bibby Pro, but not sure of length 184 or 190 . I see above ur 6’2 & don’t find the 184 too short or lacking in stability, but when wanna charge a little more you choose the 190. I am 6′ 200 lbs. I want to be able to turn the ski on steep, tight technical terrain when needed but be able to open up the ski ski and charge on wide open terrain. I ski agressively, moderately fast, but can get lazy at times. I do most of my skiing at Alta/Snowbird and Aspen Highlands. If I don’t feel like pushing it and the 190 is not too much work and won’t punish me too badly, I am leaning that way because of the extra stability in powder and crud. Yet if the 184 is plenty stable when charging yet easier to maneuver when needed, or not as punishing when being lazy, maybe it’s the choice. I realize its only a few centimeters but your feedback is appreciated. Thanks, Carlisle

    • Hey Carlisle,

      In general, I don’t think the Bibby Pro is a ski that will punish you too badly for getting lazy (slipping in the backseat at the end of a pow day, etc), unlike the Belafonte, for example. If you want to take it a little easy on the Bibby, the ski will allow you to do so as long as you continue to give it some authoritative input. In my opinion, the 190 (while more stable than the 184 for people around our height), is still remarkably manageable at slow speeds for a ski that’s 118mm underfoot (definitely more so than the comparable 191 Billy Goat). You’re a little bigger than me, and thus are probably able to drive a ski more easily than I am. While you are also 2″ shorter, I think our difference in weight is probably more significant when thinking about the two lengths. I’m inclined to recommend the 190. I’m sure you’ll get the stability you’re looking for tin chop and crud, and yet I’ll be very surprised if you’re have trouble throwing the ski sideways when things get steep and tight. The Bibby Pro is just so well balanced in that way.

      That’s my thinking. Let me know if you have any more specific questions. I hope this helps.


      • Will,
        Thanks for the help, 190 it is. Now I just need to decide between the Bibby Pro and the 12/13 Billy Goat. Thanks again, Carlisle

  12. Hey Will, great site! This is the standard gear review site against all the other ‘blower pow’ ‘gnar’ ‘face shot’ ‘snorkel day’ sites that use the jargon to sell skis… so for that, I thank you.
    I’m looking for new skis, last year I bought the 185 JJ (I live and ski in VT) and was surprised on how well they held an edge, especially at high speeds, but promised a lot more stability from the ‘blower pow’ sites. Stellar ski and SOOO much fun in trees and powder. This year I want a more stable ski for fast big line charging, the ability to stop without chattering for 15ft, and the playfulness of the JJs. Is the Bibby 190 the answer or is it too similar to the JJ where I will not see a difference to warrant the change in cost? Atomic automatic? Armada Norwalk? Moment Govenor? I’m a 6’2″ 200lb strong aggressive skier that likes going fast. THANKS!!

    • Hey Matt,

      Sorry I’m late on the reply. I’m with you on the JJ. In my book, if you’re looking for a light, super playful, and fun ski in FRESH snow, it’s about as good as it gets. But, given that it’s so light, and the splay in the tips is so abrupt (their also pretty soft), things aren’t as great in deep chop, and are worse in crud. From what you’ve said above, the biggest thing in my mind is that you want to keep as much playfulness of the JJ’s in the trees as possible, but get better chop/charging performance. If you just wanted a ski to charge hard and go fast that has some real stopping power, I’d be recommending something like the 191 Volkl Katana. But we’ll keep things relative/comparable to the JJ for the sake of playfulness….

      The 190 Bibby Pro is really hard not to recommend. I love those skis in trees. They take a little more effort to swing around than the 184, but are not a handful by any means. I have never felt like I wanted something lighter or softer. You’ll definitely be able to do more stable charging on the Bibby – for what you gain instability over the JJ, I think the loss in playfulness is negligible. They’re also surprisingly good in hardpack, but not as good as the JJ. Your’e a strong skier, and are a little heavier than me, so I doubt you’d feel differently about much of this. The Bibby does sound like the ski you’re looking for, though I do worry that it might be too similar to the JJs you already have -heck, you might just be making your JJs obsolete.

      With that in mind, the next option I can think of is the 191 ON3P Caylor. I see it as a heavier, damper Bibby that’s definitely less responsive on hard snow, but can charge harder through chop. At the same time, there’s a lot of rocker in that ski, so you can work it around it trees and right spots if you stay on your game. I’ve written up a review of that ski too, which you might take a look at.

      As for those other skis you’ve mentioned, I’ve only skied the 192cm Jag Shark and a prototype version of the Governor in a 196. The Jag Shark is a much different animal than the JJ – a lot less tip rocker, no tail rocker, and a much stiffer flex throughout. It’ll definitely slay chop, but you’re not going to find it as playful in the trees. Ill need to reserve any comparison to the Governor. We just got the new 186cm version in, and upon an initial inspection it looks a lot like the Rossi Squad 7 (maybe give Jason’s Sqad 7 review a read?) Jonathan found the Atomic Automatic to be easier and more forgiving than the Bibby, so I’d be hesitant to recommend it on those grounds, plus I have yet to ski myself.

      The Bibby still sounds like a great option for you – hard to go wrong with that ski. You might find yourself skiing it most pow days and post-storm days, bringing out the JJs for those ultra playful, fresh days? If you’re looking for a more specified pow quiver of two, then the Caylor or Sqaud 7 might be worth a look. Hope this doesn’t cloud the picture for you, let me know if you have more questions.

  13. Great website. Thanks for all the answers, in addition to great reviews.

    I live in Seattle and am looking for a new sidecountry & touring ski…an 80% one quiver setup. I’ll also pack the quiver with a smaller mountaineering ski for peak bagging. We get a lot of variable snow here – sometimes light pow, lots of times heavy crud (albeit deep) with everything in between. Any opinions between Bibby Pro, Atomic Automatic and BD Carbon Megawatts for touring in the PNW?

    • Hi Drew,

      Of the three skis you’ve mentioned, I’m inclined to say that the Bibby is the more versatile one and will suit your needs best. While it does do rather well on hardpack for a ski that’s 125mm underfoot, the Megawatt would probably feel less secure in form variable conditions than the narrower Bibby or the Automatic (I would rather have the Bibby to ski 80% of the time than the Megawatt, though the latter is a killer pow ski). I have not skied the Automatic, but Jonathan Ellsworth has. You might check out his review and some of the reader comments below – there’s some discussion of the differences between the two skis. Generally it seems like the Automatic is a friendlier Bibby. I think choosing between those two will depend largely on your ability level and specs (height, weight). Hope this helps!


  14. Hey guys, unreal site and such good reviews! I just keep going through ski after ski haha!

    I’ve really been considering the bibby’s lately and wouldn’t mind some input. Im a bigger guy, 6feet and 230 pounds. That being said, Im up for all types of skiing but want something that can go through the crud without getting bucked around much and the trees without too much effort. I checked out your guys’ automatic review and that caught my eye as well, and may possibly be considering those. At the moment Im looking at the bibbys, automatic, and s7 *and its variants* mainly.. But also was looking at the jj’s and bentchetler.. Right now i’ve got some rossi s6 jibs, the one without rocker. Not only to do with what ski but Ive always had troubles deciding on what size of ski I should go for. Oh also, ski lots in the rockies, and hoping to get quite a lot of skiing in interior bc as well this year.

    Cheers guys!

    • Hi Rob,

      I think the 190cm Bibby Pro could be the ski if you’re looking to balance stability in crud and playfulness in fresh snow and trees. I still don’t know of a ski that meets that compromise better. If crud busting is really a priority I think I’d hesitate to recommend the JJ and Bentchetler (which are fantastic in even, smooth, and fresh conditions). With more camber underfoot, lower splay, and a bit of a firmer flex, the Bibby will handle chop better than either of them, and still has a real playful side. I think the same could be said of the S7, which has a good amount of rocker and taper in the tail. It’s also insanely easy to ski in trees and fresh snow, but the design characteristics that dictate that don’t translate to great variable/chop performance. The Automatic is a fair alternative, though unfortunately I haven’t skied it yet. My general understanding is that it’s a slightly more forgiving ski than the Bibby. You might consider asking Jonathan Ellsworth about that direct comparison over on his initial review of the Automatic.

      Hope this helps!


      • Hey Will thanks a lot for the reply!

        The bibby is really catching my eye. I was wondering if you’ve skied the ON3P Caylors. I’ve seen the bibby and the caylor compared a couple times and I’m just wondering on your thoughts.
        I’m hoping to develop a much better charging and flowy riding style with hopefully the bibbys or caylors. Are they good skis to do that?

        Crud performance isn’t my #1 priority, but you can’t avoid the crud that appears most of the time on the mountain. (Not much bottomless pow here).


        • Hi Rob,

          Both the Bibby and Caylor will suit a smoother, flowy, but aggressive style – they’ both can rage pretty hard, but aren’t flat tailed chargers like a Moment Belafonte (a ski that demands more of a traditional, race-inspired big mountain riding). I have a review up of the 11/12 191 Caylor, which you might give a read if you haven’t already. (The only change to the 12/13 Caylor is the addition of some taper in the tip and tail shape to reduce any hookiness in soft snow; something I never found to be a problem with the 11/12 version.)

          Really both are good crud skis in their own right – maybe not the best for really hard sun-baked “coral” crud (then you’d be looking for something heavy and still like the Volkl Katana, which definitely isn’t “flowy”), but if we’re talking chopped and thickening snow the days after a storm, you could be happy charging around on either ski. They both are awesome in soft snow. But, if there is any notable difference if crud, I think the Caylor might have the slight upper hand, and the Bobby may have a slightly lighter, more poppy feel than the Caylor on groomers. This makes some sense, considering the Bibby has 4mm more camber underfoot and is built with a pine/aspen wood core reinforced with carbon stringers. The Caylor on the other hand is built with a bamboo/triax fiberglass core layup, which I found was a little damper and heavier/stable feeling through chop, but isn’t quite as lively as the Bibby on harder snow. All and all that’s a slight difference, but it’s what comes to mind when comparing the two.

          Are you planning on keeping your S6s around for firmer days, or are you looking to use the Bibby/Caylor everyday? If the latter is the case I think I’d suggest going with the Bibby, otherwise you might look toward the Caylor. Let me know if you have any other questions!



          • Hey Will

            Thanks for another reply! I’ll probably keep the s6’s around for early and late season skiing (when conditions are best) but probably wouldn’t use it everyday (if I got the bibbys especially). At first I had the idea of just getting a fat playful ski for the days that its fresh out and just keep the s6 for any other day. But after i’ve read a bunch of your reviews it seems like the bibby can do all that in one including tree skiing without much effort which is a nice addition. I know i’m a bigger guy, which casuses me to overpower some skis that others might find extremely good float on (so i do keep that in mind). Whenever I feel like I get close to a decision, I find a new ski I get stoked on (like the Radicts, Chetlers). I want a ski that can tree ski with ease, pow, and then at the end of the day will be stable when the snows chopped up. Stability and control is what I want basically. But thanks a lot for your guys’ help! I feel like when I think it over the bibby relates back to all of those features. I’ll just have to do a bit more research and deciding on what I want from the ski and make my decision from there. I think i’ll most likely get end up choosing the Bibbys in the near future based off of the unreal things I’ve heard from em.

            Thanks again guys!

          • Oops meant Patrons not Radicts. But thanks guys for all the help, i’ll probably keep on reading your reviews trying to make a decision! Can’t really think of any other questions to ask – you’ve helped a lot. I just want someone to tell me what ski to get now to make everything easier lol


  15. Hey Blister Crew,

    Thanks so much for putting together such amazing reviews with all the info the ski industry seems to be clueless about including in the descriptions of their skis.

    Case and point: I just bought a pair of Head Inferno 104’s on discount from last year because I liked the length (181cm), rocker profile (rocker-camber-rocker), the width (130-104-120), and the turn radius (26 m). I thought this would be a great Pacific Northwest ski for all mountain endeavors and mixed snow conditions. I’m 6′, 175 lbs, 31 years old, and am an advanced/aggressive skier.

    My concern is that when the ski arrived it seemed very short so I did a straight tape measure and it turned out to be just over 178 cm. I’ve noticed that some of the skis you guys are really happy with are, at times, shorter than you. With current rocker profiles and widths, is this ski going to be too short?

    I was also wondering if you guys have done a straight tape measure of the Bibby Pro as I have not been able to find it yet in the reviews listed. I think that I may end up sending the Head back and going with the Bibby Pro but would like to know what it’s true length is before moving forward.

    Also, any other good recommendations for all mountain/deep snow, heavy/manky snow in the PNW?

    Thanks again,


  16. Hi Bryan,

    The straight tape pull for the 184 Bibby is 182cm. I’m 6’2 and own the 184 Bibby. It’s definitely on the shorter end of what I’d consider for a powder ski but I don’t find it too short. The 190cm is better suited for wide open terrain, high speeds and chop, but can still be worked around in the trees without too much trouble. A 104mm underfoot, 181cm, rockered ski does strike me as a little short for a 6′ tall advanced skier. The 184 Bibby will ski a little longer, feel a little heavier, and will be more stable in powder and chopped up conditions. On the other hand your Head will handle better on groomers and hardpack. I don’t think the 184 Bibby will be too short for you as primarily a powder/soft conditions ski (unless you’re really looking to prefer open bowls over trees – then go for the 190), but the 181cm Head might be given it’s a lighter all-mountain ski. You’re looking for more of a direct comparison to the Head but in a slightly longer length, consider taking a look at the Atomic Ritual, or the Moment PB&J. If you think you’l want something with a little more edge hold through the tail, maybe check out the Blizzard Cochise, Moment Belafonte, or Epic Planks Ripper (to list a few possibilities). Hope this helps!


  17. Hi Will,
    first i want to thank you guys for this amazing website and the oportunity to get feedback from somebody who actually has put some time on all those different skis out there.

    I currently own a pair of Atomic Bent Chetler (192) and Völkl Katana.
    The Chetlers i bought for those epic storm days, when there just can´t be enough float and the Katanas serve as the tool for the days when there hasn´t been snow for quite a while and conditions get pretty firm.
    Now I´m looking for a ski to replace my worn out Atomic Blogs (daily driver). I dont mind the extra 6mm in width of the Bibby over the Blog for the intended purpose.
    What I´m really looking to improve over the Blogs is a tail that actually lets you finish a turn (the Blogs tail is stupidly soft) and a ski that is able to be driven with confidence through chopped up powder (as things get tracked pretty quick here in Austria), while not being overly demanding, as i tend to get lazy sometimes.
    Also theres a lot of tree skiing required around here, because you end up in the trees after most every run.
    Basically I can´t decide between the 184 and 190 Bibby.
    Which size would you recommend for my intended purpose? I´m 180cm and about 70kg in weight.
    For reference, the 183 Blog just feels to small.

    Thanks again,


    • Hi Sascha,

      Thanks for reading! Just so I’m clear – it sounds like you’re looking for something also good in crud/chop that isn’t so demanding as your Katana but has a better edge hold through the tail than your Blogs? If I’m correct, here are some thoughts: The Bibby will handle chop well, though I really can’t be sure if it will certainly feel more secure though the tail than your Blogs, (I haven’t skied the Blog). What I’m thinking about is that Bibby, like the Blog, still has a notable amount of tail rocker. It does finish a turn quite well on hard snow, FOR what is primarily a powder ski.

      If energy from the ski’s tail is something you’re primarily concerned with, you might take a look at a ski like the Blizzard Cochise. It’s a remarkably forgiving ski that can still be driven through chop, but has a solid edge hold on groomers and firm snow. It’s more of an all-mountain ski with a much flatter tail – that’s going to earn you more edge contact and energy through the end of a turn. I don’t want to scare you away from the Bibby, but just know that it strikes me as potentially similar to the Blog as far as the hold through the tail is concerned. (If you still want to go the Bibby route, I think the 184cm would suit you well.) Those are just my thoughts given what you’ve said. Maybe tell me more of what you don’t like about the Blog and I’ll see if I can’t be more helpful.



      • Thanks for the reply Will!
        Yeah, you understood mostly correct, but it´s not about the edge hold in the tails of the blog. It´s about the tails washing out in soft snow. As soon as i get a little in the backseat (not much, just by getting caught off guard by some pile of denser snow or something similar) the tails start folding under me and it´s hard to get back to my regular riding position.
        Also theres seems to be not enough ski in front of me.
        I don´t think it´s a problem with the rocker, it´s just that the Blogs tail is ridiculously soft.
        The tail on my Bent Chetler has much more rocker, but is significantly stiffer and there the problem doesn´t occur.
        I was also looking at teh Rossignol Squad 7. What do you think about the Squad as an alternative?

        • Hi Sascha,

          I’m with you now, sorry about the mixup. While, again, I haven’t skied the blog, I will say that the Bibby has a supportive, snappy, firm flex through the tail. It doesn’t feel terribly stiff, but I’ve never felt like it “folds” if I get kicked in the backseat, so I’m confident you’ll be happier with it than your Blogs as far as flex goes. Comparing the Bibby to the Squad (which I’ve only spend a few runs on in soft chop in the steeps), I don’t remember the flex through each of their tails seeming too different. I can say, though, that the Squad’s big shovel felt like it was dictating the hold and stability of the tail more than with the Bibby. The width in the Squad’s tip is almost 2cm wider than the widest point of its tail (which is itself narrower than the Bibby’s). The Bibby’s tip is only 9mm wider than it’s tail, so in this respect it feels – to me – like a generally more balanced ski. That may sound more or less appealing to you. The feel of a ski with more of a pintail shape is great for some, not for others. If you’re looking for the best possible performance in chop, the more balanced the ski is through the tail the better – therefore I’m thinking the Bibby is still the way to go for you. Hope this helps!


          • That makes it much easier for me´, because it´s hard to find a shop that carries Moment skis around here.
            Now with the comparison to the Squads its much easier for me to decide, because in the meantime i got to handflex them in a shop.and now have a general impression of how the Bibbys tail will feel.
            Thank you so much for your advice!

  18. Will,
    Thanks to you and the Blister Team for all of the reviews. In the never ending quest to find the perfect ski, I have come to a slight fork. I’m 6′ 205lbs, advanced skier that currently only gets 12 or so days out west so the conditions are hit or miss on whether I’ll get powder or tracked out snow on my trips. I also spend a few days skiing with the wife and kids on groomers. I’m not great in the trees but really enjoy it and want to get better at it.
    With that being said, I recently bought the Sir Francis Bacon 184 and tested them out at Alta and Snowbird this passed weekend. I was completely stoked on them but still wanted to try something a little bigger due to the 14″ dump they got Friday night. The guy at the shop let me take out the Atomic Automatic in the 179ish which is a little smaller then I would prefer. For those conditions, the automatic was sick! I went back to the Bacons after lunch to see how they handle the tracked up snow. I had to work them a little harder and got tossed around a little more but still very manageable. The bigger skis were just so much more fun.
    After ready your review and several others, I’m wondering if the Bibby 184 might be a little better “one ski quiver”. I know I’ll loose alittle on the groomers and the powder isn’t alway there when I am but would it be a better ski to have for any condition I run into. Sorry for the lengthy post and thanks for your help!


    • Hi Cole,

      So, just so I’m clear, you’re not thinking of keeping your SFBs, if you were to get the Bibbys, but want to have just one ski (for making trips easier as far as packing is concerned), right?. As you know, “one-ski-quivers” are all about deciding how you want to allocate performance biases. It sounds like you’re ok with sacrificing some hardpack/bump performance for the preparedness to tackle new snow and pow when it comes in. If someone asked me to ski a real powder ski every day for a season, I would have to pick the Bibby, so I think you’re right on there. Know that I haven’t spent much time at all on the Automatic, and as I’ve said to others Jonathan Ellsworth is currently in a better position to way in on a comparison between the two than I. (I’ll be getting on the 193 Automatic very soon). Hope this helps you out.


  19. Great reviews. I’ve skied the Volkl Mantra as my daily driver 184 as my daily driver for years and experimented with the S7 and Super7 for powder/inbounds cut up pow. I’m 6’1″ 175lb and found the S7 to be way too soft for my taste. I could not stop smiling after reviewing yr article. You totally get it!! I ski whistler hard and obviously like a bit of burl given the preference for volkl. Review on Automatic is intriguing but do you think I might find them a little soft in 193cm? Should I look at Squad 7, Bibby pro 190, rocker2 115 or what? These would be for inbounds pow and touring – looking for a forgiving ski but need some stability – the S7 was just way to easy and soft for me – am concerned that the Squads might be just a little too much ski but love the review. I’m kind of torn between the Squad an Automatic, but also intrigue about the Bibby, but concerned it too is a little stiff for my application as second ski.

    Thoughts / other options I need to consider?


    • Hey Andrew,

      If you’re looking for a stable but more forgiving powder ski, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend the 115, but you’re right to think about the Automatic too. We’re going to be putting some time on the 193 Automatic in the next few days, so I’ll be able to weigh in there shortly. Stay tuned!

      • Hello again Andrew,

        I just spent some time on the 193 Automatic and 190cm Bibby Pro in the same day. Initial impressions are that the Automatic does feel softer than the Bibby on the whole, and not quite as heavy. The Automatic also has more of a pintail shape (like the Squad), so it felt a little less balanced in steep, firmed up chop. In real skied out, old chop it felt more like the tails were more likely to wash out behind me than on the Bibby, which has a wider, more supportive tail. Now, that means that the Automatic will probably feel a touch more surfy and pivoty in fresh conditions, were the Bibby feels like it wants to track more down the fall line (but it will get sideways across it if you give it some strong imput). The Bibby has a definite playful side, but is still a pretty substantial ski that is real stable if you want to open things up. It’s certainly a playful charger. If you’re a strong skier, I think you’ll appreciate the need to be deliberate about moving the ski around – in short, it will make quick moves, but not without being told to do so. The Rocker2 115 seems to me like an interesting alternative to me. It’s more balanced than the Automatic for good performance in variable conditions, but generally feels like it has a little softer, more forgiving flex than the Bibby, will pivot and smear short radius turns more easily, and also does superbly on hardpack. I hope this helps narrow some options down for you. Let me know if you have more specific questions.


  20. Great site, great reviews!

    I’m struggling a little with my current quiver setup… I’m 6′ 170lbs, and an advanced skier who skis a wide variety of Interior British Columbia conditions. I spend a lot of time in tight trees, but also like to open it up in chopped up open areas. Currently I’m running 183 Bent Chetlers for days with any new snow at all, and 180 Bonefides for times of drought.

    What I’m struggling with is during the 2-5 days after a storm. When ripping tracked out sections I am bounced around on my Chets, but at the same time there are still some deep stashes left for the taking, which leave me regretting my decision to run my Bonefides on those days.

    I’m thinking there might be a couple solutions for this… One is to scrap the Bent Chetlers and pick up some Bibby Pros (probably 184 to maintain quickness in the trees) or to scrap the Bonefides for some Cochises (likely 185).

    Any thoughts or insight would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

  21. Okay, I’m 5’7″ and 155 lbs … Ski mostly backcountry in Alaska with dynafits on the lotus 120 and have a ski mountaineering setup as well … I’m looking for an Alyeska pow ski (wet n heavy) that will double as a side country ski for travel (heading to Japan, Mt Baker) and heavy touring setup for sled access skiing … I’m torn between the 184 Bibby and the volkl Shiro … Would love your thoughts on how the two compare!

    • Hey Kellie,

      Both could be good for what you’re looking to do. I haven’t skied the Shiro, but from what I know from our other reviewers I think the Bibby will feel a little more stable on hard, variable snow and in chop (and on groomers if you’re ripping around in resort). Subsequently the Shiro ought to have an initially looser, more surfy feel in fresh conditions. The Bibby will surf and smear too, but you have to be more deliberate in telling it to do so. Personally I like that feel of initial stability with a willingness to surf and slarve when you want. That’s the most important distinction I can think of – hope this helps!


  22. Hi! Awesome ski reviews, it has really helped med in the choosing process!

    I’ve just bought a pair of Bibby Pro:s 190 and now i’m thinking of the mounting point. Do you have any thoughts about it? I’d say i’m much more of a charger skier than a jibber.

    Thanks again!

    • Hey Marcus,

      I usually prefer a more directional feel and taking a more traditional, forward stance too. I played around with the mount point on my Bibbys and always came back to the factory recommended line – I think it works perfectly to yield a balance of real stability and willingness to pivot.



  23. Sorry guys, in regards to Marcus’ ask, I know you know your stuff but the 190 Bibby factory rec (“0” line) is -6cm off of cord center. In my opinion for forwards only all around goodness (with a bias to what this ski was intended for: deeper/soft days) that mark makes a nicely balanced set up. It is a big ski and I think going any further back (there are -1 and -2 markings from the 0 line) will create a ski that is slightly more unwieldy with a negligible benefit in tip float.

    Will, maybe you meant -6?

    • Hi Jason,

      You are correct. When responding to Marcus’ comment, I confused the Bibby’s factory mount point with another ski. Moment’s factory mount point is -6 from true center (I’ve removed my reference to -3 above to avoid any confusion). My advice to Marcus to go with “factory recommended” still stands. I agree with you that mounting on that mark gives the Bibby a very good balance of stability and agility.


  24. I was looking at the rocker page and thought I was crazy until I went to Moments web site and saw the different dimentions… Just curious why do the Bibbys have higher tail rocker?

  25. Eric, the tip and tail heights are identical. The tail rocker is 2cms over a shorter distance than the 1.5cm rocker in the tip. To me all this equates to is a more abrupt shovel in the tail relative to the longer more gradual rocker in the tip.

    • So what is the purpose of that? I get the gradual rocker in the tips and I really like the newer skis that are designing their early rise/rocker that way, im just more curious how that tail effects the skis in pow, crud, harder snow? And then why would they design it like that? I just dont get it I guess…

  26. Hey Blister dudes!

    First off, you guys have forever changed ski reviews. Always right to the point with no sponsored-silliness.

    So I am 6 feet and 160 pounds with my gear on and 22 years old. I also consider myself a very aggressive skier and although I love to go fast and charge and hit any drop in my sight, I really enjoy skiing technical trees as well. I live on the East Coast and 85% of my skiing is touring. I own the G3 Infadel for the hardpack ice days and the 185 JJ for everything else. Both mounted with Dynafits. I am looking for a ski to replace the JJ. I feel as though I am overpowering the ski. The ski feels very washy and just can’t plow through the crud and tracked out pow. I get bounced around because the ski just feels as though its getting over worked and slapped around when even trying the least bit to “charge.” So through my readings on hear and a couple other things friends have said I have been thinking about the 190 Bibby and the 186 Governor. I know the skis are only almost a half pound in weight difference so that isn’t going to make or break my decision for touring. What does attract me from a touring perspective is the flat tail on the Governor, especially the extra surface on the skin track is quite nice. The flat tail is also appealing to me because I feel like it’s just going to make the ski that much more stable. But, I have heard similar things about the Bibby, especially the 190. Which I really like the sound of. Through your review I learned that the Bibby is able to charge yet you can still shut your speed down. Are you able to shut the tails down and shut the ski down with the Gov as well? Being on the East Coast I ski a lot of trees and tricky situations so being able to pivot and shut down at times a pretty good thing. So are you able to pivot the Gov the same as the Bibby? I know I might be asking a lot of information and I hope your not getting confused ha! ha!

    Thanks Blister!!


    • Hi Chris,

      You’re looking at the right skis, no doubt. As I’ve said to others above, I think Moment has dialed the camber profile on the Bibby to give it a really nice, functional balance between stability and playfulness. It feels initially stable, but is willing to smear out and scrub speed when you tell it to. If you opted for the 190 Bibby, I’d be very surprised if you spend much time at all on your JJs after that (or would have any use for them). With either the Bibby or Gov, you’re going to get much better chop/crud performance than with the JJ, thanks to rounder flex profiles with and stiffer tips and tails in both skis. The Gov is a more directional version of the Bibby, but it doesn’t feel like a flat tailed beast by any means. You can throw the tail out and scrub speed, it’s just not going to smear quite as readily as the Bibby, but might charge a little harder. And yes, that increased surface area on the tail of the Gov would be nice to have on the skin track. Unless you really want the ability to butter and ski switch in pow, the Gov seems like just the right ski.



  27. Hi Will. Great review! I posed a similar question for Jonathan in the Automatic review, but since then have narrowed down my search.

    I’m 27, 5’10″, and ~165lbs expert skier. I’m am getting ready to buy new skis for the first time in ~9 years. I grew up skiing MT but recently moved to the Seattle area and I’ll be skiing Crystal mainly. I like steep techy stuff, big open bowls, and trees and I like to ski fast, although sometimes like to slow down and play more. I’ll cruise groomers on occasion if there isn’t fresh snow to be found, and ski bumps if they get in the way of where I want to go. ;) Unfortunately, I don’t have a ton of experience in the PNW yet so I don’t have the normal conditions dialled, but I’ve heard lots of new snow but generally the heavy type. Based on the amount of people that ski the mountain I assume it gets tracked up and choppy pretty quickly. I’ll also ski Bridger Bowl/Big Sky a few times a year.

    Right now I’m looking for a 1 ski quiver with a soft/new snow bias that can do a bit of everything. Do you think skiing PNW would be better suited to something like the Bibby or the Cochise? I do hope to demo, but right now I’m thinking Cochise, Bibby Pro, Rocker2 108/115, or Sickle. Which of these would give the best blend of performance for the conditions I described? I realize that these have some different charateristics, but for now I need one ski to handle everything I mentioned. I will likely add to the quiver in the future to round out areas neglected by my first choice (ie: I’ll add a ~88mm ski for harder days and if I got a cochise I would like to add a true powder ski like the Automatic eventually, but I may be skiing only the Cochise next couple seasons). On the other hand, I’m wondering if the Bibby would have the versatility to act as my daily driver and a powder ski and keep me to a two ski quiver in the long run. I have seen both the Bibby and Cochise described as versatile, fun, chargers. What would you say would be the advatages/disadvantages of each as a daily driver or 1 ski quiver?

    The last thing, if I were to go Bibby would the 184 or 190 be a better choice for me?

    Thanks so much for any insight. Sorting through all the skis these days is quite overwhelming!

    • Hey Matt,

      Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. Here’s my thinking…

      If you plan on adding a fatter, more dedicated pow ski in the future, then for now the thing to do would get a soft snow capable one-ski-quiver – something that will let you have fun on pow days, but that is still enjoyable on hardpack/groomers and in bumps (probably not a narrower 95-98mm underfoot ski, which is more aggressively geared toward hardpack/bump/park riding). The Cochise and Rocker 2 108 could both be good options for this, but they’re pretty different skis in my mind, suited for different styles of skiing. The Cochise has a stronger edge hold and a more dependable flex than the 108. It’s really a comp ski for the masses – something for the strong, directional skier, but that doesn’t require you to rage all-out all the time if you don’t feel like it. It has a long turn radius so you can make big, fast scrubbed turns with a lot of stability through chrud and chop, but isn’t so stiff that you can have fun at slower speeds, make some slashes in softer snow, and take it through some bumps.

      However, you’re not going to be skiing switch on the Cochise, or doing many spins or butters around the mountain. The 190cm 108 can do those surprisingly well for its width and size. Switch carves, tail presses and fun, poppy airs off anything and everything are all a blast. Not surprisingly then, it requires a more upright, balanced, light stance and doesn’t charge as well as the Cochise – though you certainly can ski the 108 pretty hard in softer chop.

      You could ski the Bibby everyday, and people do. (It’s really really good on hardpack, FOR its width as a pow ski.) But if I wanted the option to really enjoy harpack bumps and carving groomers, I would like to be on something narrower, for sure.

      IF the 185cm Cochise sounds like it suits your skiing style (which it sounds like it might over the Rocker 2 108), then I think it would make sense to go with that for now, and then grab the 190cm Bibby or 191 ON3P Caylor down the road for a sweet pow ski. On soft days after a storm, you could probably ski either, but the Cochise will have a different feel in a little soft snow than either of those other skis – that might be a cool option to have. You’d have a directional, charging capable all-mountain ski, and then a more playful (but still stable) board for pow days.

      OR, if you wanted to go with a slightly wider all-mountain ski that is more playful than charge-oriented, you could grab the 190cm Rocker 108, and then (because the 190cm is 111mm underfoot – fairly close to the Bibby, etc) you could get something even wider like the Black Diamond Megawatt or Praxis Protest for a serious pow ski….

      I hope this helps sort out what you have to consider and didn’t add to the confusion. You’re right, there are so many good skis out there for different types of skiers!


      • Will, just wanted to update you and try to bum a bit more advice off you. I ended up on the 185 Cochise as my everyday ski and I really like it. It handles just about everything I can throw at it and has surpassed my expectations (first rocker ski). That said, I’ve had a few days with it in deep powder and it obviously leaves something to be desired and I’m ready to add a fat ski to the quiver.

        We talked about the Bibby before, but funny enough you mentioned a few others on my radar: Caylor, Megawatt, Protest, and maybe the Volkl One. The Bibby is still high on my list (if I can find one) as I still want a very versitle soft snow ski that can charge and be playfull and handle tighter trees. Of these, what do you think would be the best bet? I’m sure I can’t go wrong with Bibby, but I wonder if I might like a little bit more pow specific ski with the Cochise as my other ski.

        As for the Bibby, I’m still a bit undecided on size. I see people bigger than me (hair under 5’10” and 160-170 lbs) happy on the 184 and I’m sure there are people smaller than me happy with the 190. How much float and stability will I lose with the 184 and with that how much maneuverability will I gain? The 190 is less than 4cm longer than my Cochise (actual measuremens) and more center mounted so I’m inclined to think it would be fine, but on the other hand I picture the 184 being super fun and turny in the trees. If I had to put a number on it, I’d say on a pow day I ski trees 30% and the rest 70% but on certain mountains those numbers might be flipped.

        Again, thanks so much for the previous recommendation! You guys rock!

        • Hey Matt,

          I think a quiver of the Cochise and Bibby (12/13 or earlier) would be sweet. And it does seem like you’re between sizes a bit. I’ve put a good amount of time on both the 184 and 190, and can ski either. At 6’2″, the 190 definitely feels a little more capable at speed than the 184, which is definitely on the short end for me. I can still open things up in chop on the 184, but it does feel a little skittish sometimes. Not surprisingly the 190 just takes a little more effort to pivot back and forth in the trees, but it’s not super difficult by any means. Because you say you usually spend most of your time in open terrain, I’d say take that in consideration and go for the 190 (as you were thinking). If you do happen to get the ski in trees on powder days, you should still be able to pivot and smear well on the 190. As for those other skis, they’re all good options that bring slightly different performance biases to the table, but the Bibby is simply my favorite. (I’m very curious to get on the Volkl One, but haven’t had the chance yet.)



          • Thanks Will! I actually nabbed a set of 12/13 184 Bibby Pros the other day mainly because that’s all I could find and I’d rather spend time skiing the 184s than looking for 190s! One more question though. I don’t have them in my hands yet, but these have been mounted once already and I’m anticipating a conflict with my FKS for the toe mount. If I have to go off the factory line would I be best off going back since I went with the 184 and not the 190 (-1 instead of +1 from factory line)? If I could make it work by going +1 or -2 should I still go back or best off just being 1 off and going forward? Any thoughts on this?


  28. Hi Will,

    Great site and great review, thanks! I will buy the Moment Bibby Pro blind now, I trust your review. Maybe you can give me a short advice – basically you talked about it in previous answers but a short addition might be helpful.

    I am currently skiing a lot Armada ANT 191cm and sometimes Dynastar Legend Big Dump, both excellent skis but I guess you will agree that both are a lot of ski. So, when the snow gets heavy or I get tired these skis overpower me sometimes.

    The Moment Bibby Pro sounds exactly like the addition to my quiver I am looking for, more playful, easier to pivot but you can still charge high-speed when needed (what I like about the ANT for example). Now, I am just hesitating about the length. I am 6′, 175 pounds (w/o clothes), ski expert, like to drop small cliffs, and I ski in Europe in the Alps, so a lot of varied terrain, lots of tree skiing, variable snow etc.

    Would you go with Moment Bibby Pro 184 cm or with 190 cm? Would the latter be too close to my ANT? And will I miss float in pow with the former length (184cm)?

    Or maybe you think of another ski anyway?

    Thanks a lot!


    • Hi Edward,

      I’m a scrawny 6’2″, so if you’re a 175lbs, 6′, and are an expert skier, I don’t think the 190cm will be too much ski, in fact it ought to be perfect. I can ride the 184, and it is nice to have the slightly shorter length for tight trees and spinning/buttering, but the 190 Bibby doesn’t feel like much more of a handful – slightly more stable and requires a little more input to smear, but will still do so easily. Hope this helps!


      • Hi Will,

        First of all, apologies for the late reply, I was busy working and skiing ;).

        Thanks for your great advice! I bought a Bibby Pro 184 cm, and this is the most awesome ski I ever skied!!! This really does everything! Playfun but stable at high speed, takes jumps like nothing, rides on groomers like a GS ski, nice for switch riding…very impressive! Indeed, I am sure as you say that the Bibby Pro in 190 cm would be easy as well, but I am very happy with the 184 cm exactly for the tight tree runs and the mogul runs through the forest at the end of long days. It just makes life easier.

        So thanks again, for next season I will think about which other ski to buy for complenting the collection :).

        Best, Eduuard.

        • Hi Eduard,

          Awesome! Glad you’re stoked, and it’d good to know about the 184 v 190 with your experience. Most skis is pretty clear which size people ought to be on but that’s not always the case with the Bibby.



  29. Hi
    I do most of my skiing in Niseko so we get constant (often deep) light snow this time of year. On powder days i spend most of my time in Mizuno no sawa. I’m currently riding the Sir Francis bacons 2011-12 in 184. I like the fact it’s easy to ski but am looking for something that’s wider with great float and stable in crud (find the tip on the bacons easily deflected). I also find the bacons a bit unstable on groomers with quite a bit of tip chatter.

    I’m 6’0 180lbs and an advanced skier. I’ve have had an acl reconstruction a few years back (find that after a few days of hard skiing the muscles and ligaments around the knee tend to tighten up) so would be looking for something that’s fairly easy to initiate turn while offering more float and stability in powder and crud.

    I’m thinking of the Moment Bibby Pro in 184 – would that be a good choice for Niseko? Or should I size up to the 190 Bibby. Any other suggestions?

    • Hey Nick,

      Yep, I think the 184 Bibby is the way to go. I’ve also had an ACL reconstruction, and do notice my knee gets a little irritated if I’m working around bigger skis. The 190 is going to provide you with a little more stability in crud, but not a huge amount more. I’m a little taller than you and find I can still charge pretty damn hard on the 184. If you wanted something more playful and softer, the 184 Opus could be an option, but the Bibby is going to do better in chop due to a stouter, stiffer flex. Hope this helps!


  30. Anyone ski these forward of the recommended line (which I believe is -6 cm fro true center)?

    I picked up some used 184 Bibbys at a good price. Due to hole conflicts I’m going to have to mount about 1 cm forward of the line. I’m 5’10”, 175 lbs. Any concerns in your mind with tip dive in fresh being forward of the line?

    • Hi Michael,

      You should be alright mounting 1cm forward of the factory line. It might make the ski a tiny bit looser feeling on groomers, but I can’t imagine it would be a problem at all. I don’t think you’ll have any problems with tip dive either – a buddy of mine has his Bibbys mounted at -4 and they seem to do fine in fresh for him.



  31. Thanks for the quick reply Will. It definitely helps! I’ve just bought a pair of Bibby 184s but am now thinking about an appropriate binding given my previous acl injury. Would the look pivot 14s be most appropriate? I am 175 lbs 6’0 and normally ski a 8-9 din. Thanks

    • Hi Nick,

      In my mind, (and I think most of the BLISTER crew would agree) the Rossi FKS/Look Pivot is the best, safest binding out there. That’s what I would mount any ski I buy with.

      Enjoy the Bibbys!


  32. Look P12 or P14 would be fine, your with would be well within the range for either. I have a weak left knee and Look Pivot (aka Rossi Axial2) bindings seem to release when needed; I do plenty of stupid things to test their release ability!

    Just picked up some 185 Bibbys and mounted them at -7.5cm from ski center. The recommended line was at -6.5cm on my skis (-0.5cm back from usual?) and I like to drive my skis with forward shin pressure, so -7.5 seemed reasonable and is pretty much at the narrowest part of the ski. I am glad I mounted them them a little back as I found the relatively stiff tips sometimes plow through rather than float over soft snow.

    I’m also very happy with the mounting position on hardpack and ice, as I can drive the skis with lots of forward pressure and they make predictable turns. Tails are plenty stiff and supportive, I felt like they were much more substantial than on 185 Nordica Patrons mounted on the recommended line. No issues with wheelie-ing after drops and jumps.

  33. Hi Will,

    First, thank you to you on your team for the thoughtful and detailed reviews. There are no close seconds out there.

    Second, let me get down to it: I’m looking for a ski that can pivot quickly in very tight and steep trees such as in Silverton and Telluride, but also one that can charge long turns through chop/variable a few days after a storm at Snowbird. I’m a former hockey player, so I have more of a slarvy/skidding style to my skiing than those with a more formal technical backgound (plus I find it fun), therefore a ski that can pivot and scrub speed without sacrificing stability is key to how I ride. to I’m 6’2″ 200, expert skier and have been spending a lot of time skiing all around BC/Snowbird/Silverton.

    For untracked cat/heli days of 6″ or more, I’m on the K2 Pon2oon, which has that perfect combination of stability but is easy to flip sideways and scrub speed on steep lines. This was my AK ski last year and it worked stupidly well, but I haven’t found a ski with less girth that I appreciate as much. I’m looking for my everyday ski and am not really concerned with conditions firmer than resort shredding a few days after some new snow. I’ve looked at the Hoji and the Shiro, but I’m concerned that the lack of any camber section will be squirrely in variable snow as your team’s reviews suggest.

    The Atomic Automatic has rightfully been mentioned many times by you and others in the commentary, but I found that skis mounting point to be far to traditionally located (-10.5cm from true center on the 193 vs. the Bibby’s -6.0). In my humble experience, this translated into a much less balanced feel of the ski, making pivoting in tight spots (esp. with that long shovel) a cumbersome task. Anyone who has skied Silverton will know what that’s like. More tail which translates well to my style, but when I played around with the mounting points on the Autos I couldn’t achieve the quickness I was looking for without sacrificing stability AND float. +3cm forward (i.e. true center -7.5 or so) on the Autos and the amount of chatter skyrocketed and I was hesitant to drive the shovels. It frankly blew me away how much a couple cm in mounting changed the behavior of the ski. At +1.5 the ski seemed to lose a lot of the pivoting ability and playfulness it had at +3 (where Sage mounts his 193s, but he’s 150lb) but floated great and could cruise well over crud.

    So, do you think the Bibby be much more stable mounted at the recommended line than the Autos at +3 (i.e. similar relative location to true center)? What other skis should I be considering? It seems like the solution would be to have a stiffer ski with an earlier contact point in the tip rocker, but it’s hard to judge which ski that is from the photos. My thought is this adjustment to the Autos would allow the skier to have a more stable ride while standing more centered on the ski without sacrificing float. The earlier contact point of the rocker, all else equal, would also make for a relatively shorter camber section (quicker pivoting ski). Two birds, one stone. I looked at the pics of the 2014 Bibby (sick), which seem to have these characteristics (earlier larger splay in the tip). Any insights there? Thank you for taking the time to help.


    • Hey Andrew,

      In short, the answer is yes. I prefer the tail on the Bibby far more than that of the Automatic, primarily because it balances the width in the shovel of the ski better, so even though the ski’s running length is reduced it still hold up in chop and crud quite well. Like you, I’ve found that the Automatic’s tail seems to get scrubbed out and kicked around by the rest of the ski in variable conditions (however that more tapered shape is great to have in fresh snow). It sure seems like the 190cm Bibby is the way to go for you. I can’t speak to the new, slightly changed (oh the horror!) 13/14 Bibby Pro, but I’m sure we’ll be getting on it. Hope this helps, and let us know what you decide to go with and how it works out.



      • Hi Will,

        Thank you for your guidance. It is GREATLY appreciated. I have never been more confident (or stoked) about moving onto a new setup.

        I will be sure to follow-up once I spend some time get on the Bibby, but it may have to wait until I have time to digest your review of the ’13/’14 model. My curiosity is super HIGH. I’m sure many on this thread share that sentiment, perhaps with a warranted dose of apprehension! Whatever the outcome, you have to hand it to Moment for their unwavering dedication to progression over the years. So far so good. Thanks again.


  34. I recently purchased 2012-13 Moment Bibby Pro’s in 184cm after doing a LOT of research. I ski everyday at Fernie Alpine Resort in BC (day 98 today) and my other recent skis are 2012 Blizzard Cochise and 2011-12 Line Influence 115’s. I find the Moment’s to be absolutely stellar, head and shoulders above my other skis. I want to thank Blistergear.com for numerous mention of the Bibby Pro’s skis which led me to investigate them and then buy them. Fantastic skis. I am using Mark Griffon Schizo bindings on them mounted on the factory line. I haven’t tried moving the bindings yet.

  35. Hi Will,
    Great job on the site another great season of reviews.
    I recently obtained the 2013 190 bibby pro, I am using the look pivot 18′ with a 345mm lange rx boot.
    Over spring break I was introduced to the backcountry in Nelson B.C and lets just say I am hooked.
    Safety being the #1 priority I am now trying to sort through equipment options.
    As of today I am excited by the MFD alltime. My question to you would I be able to convert my current setup without compromising the construction of the ski and due to by bigfoot and the alltime design how much will the flex of the ski be affected when skiing more on piste in hard pack conditions?
    Once again thanks for all the great information that led to the purchase of the bibbys its been the best year of skiing I can remember.

    • Hi Greg,

      All great to hear. Glad you’re enjoying the Bibbys. As far as I know, the mounting holes of your pivots shouldn’t interfere with the required screw locations of the Alltime plate/chasis. Have a shop fill the old holes and you should be good to go. As for flex, I would take a look at Joe Augusten’s lengthy review of the MFD system – he tested the plates on a pair of 190 Bibbys next to a regular pair mounted with Rossi FKS (the same binding as your pivots). Joe says: “The overall flex of the ski is slightly stiffer than the standard FKS setup, but it is still a very natural and even flex. As stated before, the natural flex remains given that the pinned connections do not induce any localized stiffness in the ski itself at their connection points (unlike an alpine binding connection). There was a very even edge hold and a fluid transition and pop from one turn to the next.” I haven’t tried the MFD, but from Joes experience it seems like you should be just fine.



  36. Will,

    I am Looking for something to complement my 179 Volkl bridges and am thinking that these or the atomic automatic might be right for me for deeper days. I ski colorado but am looking for something for deeper days there and that will handle the snow on trips up to jackson or down to silverton and wolf creek. I also want something that will be relatively stable for the chopped up snow and crud in the days after the storm but is nimble enough for tight trees. The kicker is i’m only about 5’10” and 140 lbs. Do you think either of those two are the ticket? or would you recommend something different?

    Thanks for any and all help,

    • Hey Matt,

      I think I’d suggest the 184 Bibbys over the Automatic. Plus, the Bibby just sounds great for what you’re looking for. I bought the Bibby for Colorado area skiing, just as you’re thinking of doing. Of all the skis I’ve tested for Blister, I still haven’t been on a pow ski I like more. As I’ve said to some folks above: In real skied out, old chop it felt more like the Automatic’s tails were more likely to wash out behind me than on the Bibby, which has a wider, more supportive tail. Now, that means that the Automatic will probably feel a touch more surfy and pivoty in fresh conditions, were the Bibby feels like it wants to track more down the fall line (but it will get sideways across it if you give it some strong imput). The Bibby has a definite playful side, but is still a pretty substantial ski that is real stable if you want to open things up. It’s certainly a playful charger. Hope this helps!


  37. Whats up Will,
    I’m really torn between the Bibby Pro and the Deathwish. I’m hoping you guys can help me sort some things out. I want something that I can ski everyday without compromising on making those epic days even more epic. I would take a little of a hit on daily packed just to make pow days awesome but I want something that I can also ski switch and although I don’t spend a ton of time there, hit the park on occasion. Given that most of my time will be spent on steeps I’m gravitating to the bibby but want something that will be a fun resort ski too.

    • Hey Kyle,

      The Bibby is remarkably versatile for it’s width underfoot, but it is still primarily a powder ski. The Deathwish will be quicker edge to edge, hold an edge better on groomers, be more manageable in bumps, and better suited for the occasional park lap. And you’re definitely still going to have fun on the Deathwish on those powder days, though you won’t get quite as much float. As an everyday ski, I would have to lean toward the Deathwish. That’s not to say you couldn’t ski the Bibby every day (you’d be much better off than with something like the Bentchetler as a one-ski-quiver), but I like it more in a quiver of two next to a ~98mm underfoot ski for the firm days. That’s my $0.02

      Hope this helps!


  38. Great site,

    Tahoe skier, Kirwood pass holder. Live in flatlands and only drive up for good to great days(at least what I tell myself). I’ve been on S7’s last four seasons(rarely pull out the ancient mantras) and looking for a better balanced everyday driver. S7’s fun at low speeds and consistent snow but scary at speed and variable conditions. Torn between Bibby(184 2013) Exit World or solomon 115. I’m not a big guy(6ft 155lbs) and worry the Bibby might be a bit too punishing. Are my concerns about the Bibby being “too much work” unfounded?


    • Hey John,

      I’m really light for my height (165 at 6’2″), and I don’t find the 184 too punishing at all. Honestly, now that I’ve spent a lot of time on the 12/13 190cm Bibby, the 184 can feel a little short and shaky in variable conditions when I’m carryign some real speed (though not as freaky as the S7, for sure). You’re a little lighter and a little shorter, but I still don’t think you’d find the bibby to be too much ski. Yet it will absolutely feel more stable than an old S7 when things get choppy and firm.

      I haven’t skied the Exit World yet, but the 115 could also be a good option for you. Like the Bibby, it’s a powder ski that can handle farily when in firm conditions as long as you’re not skiing huge, tight bumps. The 115 is going to feel more directional and traditional than the Bibby, mainly because it has less tail rocker. With that touch more of effective edge, the 115 will probably feel a bit more stable on groomers than the Bibby. They’ve both good options, picking between the two would depend on if you wanted a slightly surfier feel (with the Bibby), or something a little more directional.

      Hope this helps!


  39. Hello Will and Jonathan,

    I apologize in advance for the novel, but skiing is the most important thing in my life, and I want THE best ski for my needs, which is why I love Blister in the first place.

    After reading your most helpful reviews and comments multiple times I’ve been agonizing whether I should get the old 190 Bibby Pro while I still can, or the 188 PB&J.

    I’m 6’3” 190ish lbs, 21 years old, maybe advanced skier. I ski mostly in Northern Finland and I make one trip a year to the Alps and sometimes to Sweden.
    In Finland I always hunt for untracked snow, and also find it pretty often, but I would hardly call it powder. It’s usually low-ish angle trees with less than boot-deep, weeks old, heavy snow with some tracked and variable snow mixed in. In the Alps I encounter more hardpack, tracked and variable conditions. Bump performance isn’t something I care about.
    Of course I would like to get to ski some real deep, fresh powder, but I doubt I will get to anytime soon. So float shouldn’t be a problem.

    I am also going to slam Atomic Trackers on them and do some touring in Northern Finland, but the weight isn’t too big of a factor.

    Currently I have 182cm 2010-11 Line Sir Francis Bacons. I’ve liked them, but I haven’t been jibbing enough to justify such a playful ski, and I want something more stable, charge-y and better in variable conditions.
    I do enjoy occasional 180s off of boulders etc. in soft snow and trying 360s sometimes. I would also like to start trying them off of bigger jumps and maybe cliffs to a soft landing. On groomers I enjoy loooong GS turns.

    I am going to keep my Bacons, so I can use them for any jibbing and in the tight trees in Finland if I find it easier. But I can only take one pair of skis with me abroad to my ski trips, so I want the new ski to also handle the occasional spin and especially the switch landings. Can the 190 Bibby Pro do just this, even at the recommended mounting point?
    Or would I be better off mounting at +1 or even +2 without sacrificing much of the stability, which is still my priority? That could also make it better in trees and give me an even more supportive tail. I have no idea if I would prefer to drive the shovels, since I’ve always skied with a more centered stance on my Bacons.
    One of the reasons I thought the PB&J could be the better choice for me is the more centered mounting position which is obviously better for the spins and switch landings etc. But then I thought that since the Bibby is very much like a fatter PB&J, can I just mount the Bibby more forward too, or does it lose too much of its favorable attributes?
    But if the 190 Bibby Pro can handle some spins and switch landings with ease even at the recommended line, I will most likely mount it right there, since I’m loving everything you’ve written about them.

    If I find a solution to mounting the 190 Bibby on a point that suits my needs, I’m very much leaning towards it. Even though I don’t necessarily need the extra width for float, I would probably prefer the more surface area, because of its stability and because it would be a better landing pad in soft, heavy snow with less-than-stomped landings.

    My only concern would then be, if you consider the PB&J a much better tech line and hardpack ski? I realise that a 118mm waist ski is not ideal on hardpack, but if the tech lines are totally doable on the 190 Bibbys, it would leave me little reason to choose the PB&J.

    Thank you for your patience and excellent reviews, which are a huge help to obsessed people like me. :)

    Sincerely yours,

    • Hi Mikael,

      I think you’re thinking about this in the right way. It seems like the 190 Bibby +1 forward from the factory line would do you well, especially given that you’ve said you don’t. The Bibby isn’t going to be as easy to spin as the PB&J, simply because its heavier and wider, but that’s not to say you cant spin/flip the Bibby with a little more air time. What’s more, it’s definitely going to be nice to have the width of the Bibby on your trips when you’re skiing that old, boot-deep snow – and it is, as you’ve said, going to be more stable on landings in powder and through variable chop. (The PB&J does pretty well in chop in its own right, but I don’t think you’d find it all that much different from your Bacons – not enough to justify the purchase, anyway).

      I hope this helps. Please let us know what you choose and how it works out.



  40. First day on my new (old) Bibbys at $towe! A bit of pow, some groomers, drifts. No speed limit crushing through cut-up drifts and ultra easy turns in untracked. RAILS carved turns on hardpack, never would have believed a 116 underfoot ski with wicked rocker could do this if I hadn’t read it here first. Thanks for all the great reviews! Great to talk skis with Dana on the gondie too, cool dude.

  41. Ended up getting last years Bibby 184(supposed last pair with funky level 1 top sheet). I’ll add “real snow” thoughts as soon as Tahoe decides to start winter. I chose the 184’s because I tend to use only one ski regardless of conditions. I Only have a couple of days on man-made groomers in May like temps. I can only add at this point that they have been capable to outright fun in these conditions. Whether you prefer to lay them flat and slide them around at lower speeds, or light your hair on fire and roll them over…..”the dude abides”. “Playful charger” would seem to be an appropriate tag, I would tend to place them on the charger that can be playful side of the ledger. The balance and flex(stiffish) have also been fun to mess around in the jump park. Thanks to the contributors for helping me zero in on the Bibby. Please!!!!!!! Bring on the snow

    John F

  42. These have been talked about plenty, but figured I’d throw in my two cents, because even though they’re off the shelf, they will probably remain a reference ski on this site for awhile.

    I bought these based mostly on the blister reviews and have been psyched so far. I’m 5’10, 165# aggressive skier.

    They’ve been great in the pow and soft chop that we’ve had a lot of lately. No bug surprise there. I would like to underscore Will and Jonathan’s comments about hard snow performance. If it’s anything softer than ice, they still rip. There’s something both odd and fun about ripping 40 MPH GS turns down a groomer on skis this fat. The other thing that I’ve been really impressed with is their quickness. Not what I would call playful, but they will go sideways, pivot, and bounce through tight trees without complaint.

    They definitely qualify as a one ski quiver in a good snow year.

    • Hey Jack,

      Great to hear you’re digging the Bibby and thanks for sharing those impressions. Question: what size/length are you on? (Always good to know, as it makes sizing recommendations easier for us down the line.)



  43. Hey guys know this is really late but I may be buying a pair of these. Im 6’0 and 185-190 and ski hard. Was wondering if the 184 would be too small for me? They would be used for inbound skiing in summit county, CO.

    • Hey Robert,

      I’d probably go with the 190. I’m about 30 lbs lighter than you (and only about an inch taller) and I ski on 190s most of the time. I can ski the 184s, but like to have the added stability of the 190 when skiing fast in choppy snow. That said, if you’re looking at this as primarily a tree ski, or something to ski low, soft bumps on, you could go with the 184, I’d think.



  44. Moment Bibby Pro 184cm with Look Pivot 12 bindings set to +1 of recommended line DIN 8.
    Bio & History, I am 5’-8” 155lbs 50years old. I have been skiing for 4 years. I mainly ski Alta and Crested Butte. I was a snowboarder for the previous 25 years. I started with the Solomon Rocker 2 108 174cm. I loved the ski but outgrew the length as I started to go faster. Next was the Moment Deathwish 174cm. With this I learned how fun it is to go flat and fast on a ski with a longer turn radius. I immediately felt like a better skier. I found this ski to have poor powder performance, probably because of the length. I would have been better served with the 184cm. I moved to the 2015 Line SFB in 184cm. With the old SFB, I basically feel that I have found my dream ski for most conditions. I’ve tried the newer version and it’s not my thing. The only shortcoming for me is the tight turn radius of the SFB didn’t allow me to feel confident charging down flat on bases like I could on the Deathwish. But, the short turn radius, soft but progressive flex is what makes the 2015 SFB such a fun ski in so many other ways. I pretty much accepted that this is the way it would be. I need different ski’s for different things. Not exactly an amazing insight.
    I have been eyeing the Bibby Pro since it was first reviewed by Blister and always wanted to get a pair. I have been hesitant to try it because I was worried that it was too much ski for me. I like a relaxed neutral stance and only like to pressure the front of my skis in steeper terrain or when I want to go really fast. Otherwise, I love noodling around. Also, I am coming from and advanced skier perspective. I am not an expert skier. All the reviewers at Blister are expert skiers and I felt doubtful they remembered what is was like to be an intermediate or advanced skier. The bottom line is I am writing this review as an apology for doubting them, and to provide a review of this ski from a less than expert skier. I skied the Bibby Pro 184cm last weekend at Alta after they received 84” of snow in 7 days. The deep bottomless Pow was mostly skied out by the time I arrived but we had great snow regardless. Catherine’s and Last Chance had everything from soft-ish bumps, soft chop, to untracked powder. The Bibby planed well on top of the snow, was easy to pivot, turn, and ski straight in tracked up snow. The next day things began to firm up some and we skied East Greeley, Greeley Bowl, West Rustler, groomer laps off of Supreme, and finally Devils Castle when it opened up after lunch on Sunday. I’m still learning to ski steep bumps and usually have to do them in sections to keep things under control. I am not maching down any of these areas once they are skied out but I was able to work the Bibby’s down these lines without any difficulty. What I really fell in love with was their ability to straight line groomers, chop, and crud, bases flat. These skis are ridiculously fast, quiet underfoot, and I was suddenly straight lining all sorts of stuff that I never had before. I didn’t think it was possible for a ski to be this surfy, easy to ski, and still be so stable and confidence inspiring at higher speeds. I think these things just kill it on groomers. The tails definitely release at high speed turns on groomers but it’s in a very progressive, predictable manner(remember the snow conditions were near perfect). For anyone who may be wondering if the Blister reviews are accurate for less than “Expert” skiers, I think they are spot on. Every ski I have bought above was based on their review and their reviews are really reliable. When I have gone with a shorter than recommended length it has been a mistake. With the Bibby’s, I love the 184cm length but I wouldn’t hesitate to have a pair of 190’s. Especially if they are only coming out on bigger days.
    I’d love to see a 108 version of this ski that sacrifices some deeper powder performance but leaves all the rest of the qualities.

Leave a Comment