The Indie Ski Thread

[Jim McDonald]

 

[ski otter 2]

So here's follow through feedback on an Indie ski I wanted to try, and did. I ended up getting used a pair of 184 Moment Bibby Pros. And I've had most of a season to use them.

Result: they are fantastic, not too chargy for a lighter and older finesse skier like me. They definitely like the fall line, something like the Monster 88 in that way. But they are playful and versatile too, as long as you are not traversing a lot. Probably an advanced to expert ski. I notice my tracks dropping off the Loveland Ridge in powder are often not as full "C" shaped as most of the tracks (tho I can make those too), so maybe the Bibby fits what I like to do well.

And they chop/crud bust, as well as do powder. And do trees. Five stars.

184 Moment Bibby Pro 116 (also comes in 190/118, which is also on my list and a different-performing ski, I'm told).



Moment Bibby Pro

 

[Andy Mink]

So here's follow through feedback on an Indie ski I wanted to try, and did. I ended up getting used a pair of 184 Moment Bibby Pros. And I've had most of a season to use them.

Result: they are fantastic, not too chargy for a lighter and older finesse skier like me. They definitely like the fall line, something like the Monster 88 in that way. But they are playful and versatile too, as long as you are not traversing a lot. Probably an advanced to expert ski. I notice my tracks dropping off the Loveland Ridge in powder are often not as full "C" shaped as most of the tracks (tho I can make those too), so maybe the Bibby fits what I like to do well.

And they chop/crud bust, as well as do powder. And do trees. Five stars.

184 Moment Bibby Pro 116 (also comes in 190/118, which is also on my list and a different-performing ski, I'm told).



Moment Bibby Pro

Have you skied many groomers with them? How do they work firm snow?

 

[Jim McDonald]

They hold an edge quite well (based on a very hard snow day at Canyons a few seasons ago).
Obviously wouldn't be the first choice for a groomer day, but no problem negotiating hardpack to get back to the lift.

 

[ski otter 2]

I've only used them on resort powder/chop/crud days. That said, there have been soft groomer sections; steep, hard catwalks; windblown and crusty sections, and packed powder slopes in there too. They carve. They rebound through the carved turn. Both well, in those conditions. Kinda like a soft snow Monster 88, in that way when wanted. Good edgehold and flex, under such conditions.

This spring I may get on them on a groomer/spring slush day just to see how they do there. I suspect they will do pretty well, as long as not a lot of crust, or need to traverse a lot.

Under such softer and mixed conditions, no tail washout when carving, or when crust/windblown. They will break free into good, playful, powder 3D movements or a slarve easily too, so not a disguised, fat race ski (like many fatter Kastles, for example).

The one con, I can notice: they seem made of a similar kind of non-metal stuff as, say, the Rossi Super 7, similar noise and similar feel: except here Moment has gotten all the elements - stiffness, flex, shape, rocker, sidecut, etc. way more dialed in than with the 7s, for a more well-rounded resort soft snow ski. This is a ski an adanced/expert might want the 7s to be, IMHO.

And, man, they have a great way of both floating and crud-busting, about equal to the V Werks Katana 184 in that way (a ski with a bit rounder/more varied turn shape, seems like, but slightly less fall-line pop). I tend to alternate the two skis, powder day to day.

 

[nay]

@ski otter 2, how are the Bibbys when skied from a more centered stance if wanting to ski a little flatter and surfier? Blister of course sez yes, and that's the magic if it exists, but the ski can't want to run on you in that stance.

I think of it as the ski being happy to wait on your input, and the practical implication is something that @Monique mentioned in her "doesn't show as much base" comment, which is skiing flatter and "lower C" as you said.

If the ski is built this way, that underfoot sitfness is really more "suspension", and then when we talk about "a lot of ski" there is a very different discussion around the nature of the suspension vs. the ski being in charge.

I personally think this is the least understood aspect of ski design - ski as suspension spring - and I think it shows up very heavily in ski preference. My heavy preference is for the primary suspension to be more directly under foot, and then what the ski can still do in quick lateral swing and out at its tips becomes the differentiator - what we think of as "hinge points", "rocker", and "splay", but to me what is happening is where the suspension lies and how it is interacting with the rest of the ski when in a flatter position.

That's all in the name of a "playful charger", which is my dating type, but then what is it that creates "a lot of ski?"

 

[Ken_R]

@ski otter 2, how are the Bibbys when skied from a more centered stance if wanting to ski a little flatter and surfier? Blister of course sez yes, and that's the magic if it exists, but the ski can't want to run on you in that stance.

I think of it as the ski being happy to wait on your input, and the practical implication is something that @Monique mentioned in her "doesn't show as much base" comment, which is skiing flatter and "lower C" as you said.

If the ski is built this way, that underfoot sitfness is really more "suspension", and then when we talk about "a lot of ski" there is a very different discussion around the nature of the suspension vs. the ski being in charge.

I personally think this is the least understood aspect of ski design - ski as suspension spring - and I think it shows up very heavily in ski preference. My heavy preference is for the primary suspension to be more directly under foot, and then what the ski can still do in quick lateral swing and out at its tips becomes the differentiator - what we think of as "hinge points", "rocker", and "splay", but to me what is happening is where the suspension lies and how it is interacting with the rest of the ski when in a flatter position.

That's all in the name of a "playful charger", which is my dating type, but then what is it that creates "a lot of ski?"

Great points nay.

I can comment on the Moment Deathwish 190cm I have. They seem to be extremely versatile in the way they can be skied. More so than any ski I have tried. If you want to charge crud they can do it, if you want to bend the ski while on edge into shorter radius turns on firmer snow they do that too, float on pow, no problem, foot steer them in tight trees ,while staying pretty flat, no problem, hit a steep icy face, no prob, edge grip is there. The ski feels big when you need it and smaller when you want it. It has some of the positive traits of the Soul 7 but its is WORLDS more stable, no chatter, better float and maneuverability in Powder. To me its the perfect resort powder ski. It prefers to be skied a bit centered but like I mention you can drive the tips too. For advanced to expert skiers only, get in the backseat and it WILL take you for a ride. I heard the Bibby Pro is a tad better for deeper snow but honestly I though the DW were superb in pow. Did not left me wanting. They do have some of that "suspension" feeling you describe but I suspect its too much ski for anyone under 170 lb. I am 185.

 

[Monique]

I think of it as the ski being happy to wait on your input, and the practical implication is something that @Monique mentioned in her "doesn't show as much base" comment, which is skiing flatter and "lower C" as you said.

If the ski is built this way, that underfoot sitfness is really more "suspension", and then when we talk about "a lot of ski" there is a very different discussion around the nature of the suspension vs. the ski being in charge.

I personally think this is the least understood aspect of ski design - ski as suspension spring - and I think it shows up very heavily in ski preference. My heavy preference is for the primary suspension to be more directly under foot, and then what the ski can still do in quick lateral swing and out at its tips becomes the differentiator - what we think of as "hinge points", "rocker", and "splay", but to me what is happening is where the suspension lies and how it is interacting with the rest of the ski when in a flatter position.

That's all in the name of a "playful charger", which is my dating type, but then what is it that creates "a lot of ski?"

Dang it. Here you go mentioning me in a comment, and I can't follow what you're describing in said comment =/

First question: What's "lower C"?

Second question: I think I like a playful charger, but is that possible if I ski without showing so much base? (What can I say, I'm a modest girl - showing so much base is unseemly! ;-) )

 

[ski otter 2]

Hi, guys. I'd love to try the Deathwish. Bet I'd like it too. So, very curious.

I focused on the Bibbys because of Blistergear descriptions: they seemed to favor the crud busting ability of the Bibbys, calling it better at that, maybe. But the Deathwishes have various advances in design that may have made them just as stable, so I really don't know but like the potential ease of the 112(?) of the Deathwish over the 116 waist of the Bibbys. (I sure like the 112 of my 184 V Werks Katanas).

On Nay's question:
"Flatter and surfier": I think so. (Not sure I could understand all the question.) I do this sort of style while, for me, still using some "on edge," railing feel as a reference point, rather than pure base pivoting, usually. Bibbys do that well. They are not limited to edge and drive forward like some fat race ski, not at all.

"A more centered stance" they will do also, at least for many styles: very large sweet spot that way, seems like.

But that said, they seem to like best a "facing down the fall line" playful or directional style (with quiet upper body, maybe, having the edge.)

So I usually adjust my style to fit the ski, then see if I like that, relative to other skis. The Bibbys do a strong rebound "playful charging" in a number of styles, to me. I don't notice limitations on being more forward, centered or more upright, within my range of styles. Just leaning works also. Probably other things too.


I notice some guys find the longer 190 skis to be too much just chargers - not enough nimble feel to them at slower speeds(?), I'd guess. But I think they are fine at slower speeds, nimble - if sized and mount pt. adjusted right. Just not with so much traversing or tenativeness. Good in the trees, as I said.


Related to the length of @Ken_R 's 190 Meridians: With the Bibbys, the recommended mount point (for the 184) worked so well I haven't changed it. But if I ever get the 190s, I'd guess I'd be from +1 to +2 forward, since I'm only 150/5'10".

 

[nay]

Dang it. Here you go mentioning me in a comment, and I can't follow what you're describing in said comment =/

First question: What's "lower C"?

Second question: I think I like a playful charger, but is that possible if I ski without showing so much base? (What can I say, I'm a modest girl - showing so much base is unseemly! ;-) )

Sorry - your quote was actually a year ago and I wasn't paying attention to dates.

One thing I've noticed is a very different ski style between most of the folks I've met through PugSki, and the people I ski with regularly at Breck. I watch Phil ski, he shows a lot of base. I watch Jenn or Matt ski, there's not a lot of base. I think there's a feedback loop going on that leads to some people preferring fat skis vs. skinnier skis. Given that Jenn is an examiner and whatnot, it's not an issue of skill - it's got to be preference. Or maybe it's even cultural, and Breck has a different mini-culture than other mountains.

So where you say "it's got to be preference" is the heart of things and something I've been noodling with for some time.

I'm coining "low C" off "high C", the latter as in a complete rounded turn.

Here are some low C tracks of mine:

And hanging out the tails in corn...

As compared to some higher C tracks in the lines on the right, that are not mine, with a track in the middle that offers some comparison...

So when we think about "showing base", high angulation "complete" turns are different than skiing that is more of a lateral swing where you are more focused on full release of both edges than skiing in an arc. The tracks will both show upper and lower body separation, but the turn shape and "showing base" differences are readily apparent.

This is where debates about waist width are incomplete - if the snow is soft, low C on a wider ski can be extremely efficient, and if you "aren't a very turny skier" (I borrow this from a Blister ski review), then you may have a very strong preference for a ski that releases as you want, or holds to a satisfactory degree when showing some base.

A playful charger that can attack in the fall line, low C, but also kick out any time you want to shed speed or just surf is the ultimate ski for a lot of skiers. That's not an "indie" question per se, but it is no coincidence that indie brands focus in this area. Others, like Salomon, are moving away from it - or trying to redefine it with directional skis (see: QST 106).

To that note, I just bought the Fat-ypus M5 in a 188 106 width). 15m radius on that ski...

 

[nay]

Here's a slo mo if one of my sons. This is the Rocker2 108, mounted on the line @ -3cm from center.


Not a lot of base show here - in classic standard there's a lot happening from the tails and plenty of people would point to the backseat. But a ski that has its suspension entirely underfoot doesn't really have a back seat - it's designed to be skied along the boot length.

But this is low C straight down the fall line, and watch the quick swivel at the end to scrub speed - at full speed you hardly see it and it has nothing to do with angulation. That's the playful part of charger - not sure that should be attempted with a "strong" tail where speed management would be more based on turn shape and control (high C).

So when somebody implores you to "make nice round turns" and you "aren't a very turny skier", then the playful charger could be your dating type. This would also inform what kind of lessons I was interested in taking, etc.

Here's the 108 showing base - and hinge point -when hooked up.

It's easy to see how different the skiing styles are, and which style so many skis are being designed to optimize.

 

[Monique]

if the snow is soft, low C on a wider ski can be extremely efficient, and if you "aren't a very turny skier" (I borrow this from a Blister ski review), then you may have a very strong preference for a ski that releases as you want, or holds to a satisfactory degree when showing some base.

Okay, I continue to be confused. Please bear with me, because I think this is relevant to my interests.

Does "aren't a very turny skier" mean a) you tend to go more straight down the fall line or b) you don't care about high edge angle so much? Or something else I didn't understand?

Because I was confused when I read this (only one margarita so far, so I really should be thinking straight!) - I was picturing a "not very turny skier" meaning someone who might ski with low edge angle, but then "holds to a satisfactory degree when showing some base" seems contradictory to that idea. This may be because when I picture the people I know who ski a bowl with just a couple of turns, they're not flashing their bases (indecent!).

I would assume everyone wants a ski to "release when you want," but maybe if you're not at a high edge angle, you don't actually need to release from an edge hold?

 

[nay]

"Not a very turny skier", which is a nugget I've chewed on for some time, was described by the author as a strong preference to let the skis run when possible. I agree with this.

I personally detest making endless short turns. I admire the beauty of a zipper imprinted on a sweet line, but it's not me physiologically or emotionally. I'd argue it's somewhat more a question of speed preference. I'd rather reduce pitch and let them run than make 32 million turns on high pitch terrain - that's why I love good snow on moderate pitches in wider open spaces.

Not caring about high edge angles is more a matter of when than what - skiing flatter and using base friction on a wider ski means managing speed and arc differently than with high angles. The reason every single thread about waist width goes off the rails is because of the utterly flawed presumption that we all need to "show base" on any kind of ski despite the basic design premise of these skis to not need it. There is nothing more knee friendly than only flashing a little bit of base and eliminating stance separation (see vid above). It's also extremely difficult to cross your tips.

The "holds to a satisfactory degree" comment just meant that when you want to railroad track that kind of ski, it will oblige even if in a relatively uninspired way. And I would agree that if you aren't at high angle hold and have limited camber (unfriendly ruler that it is) and well designed 5-point taper, then release can be more of a lateral swing than a prescribed arc.

I see modern skis, "fat" ones, as dealing very specifically with taper and where taper occurs - the so called five points. A classic straight ski has no taper. A typically fully cambered frontside ski usually has a lot. A modern 5 point is blending both - viewed from the perspective of taper, these are actually often very "straight" skis, and the "fatter" they get often the straighter they get. And you usually don't ski straight skis with a ton of indecency or high C.

That's why they are playful chargers, and I think why you are noticing some major technique differences with some of your talented friends.

 

[ski otter 2]

Took out the Bibbys with the questions from here in mind. Loveland had gotten ~3" fresh, but it's snowed for a week and a half straight here, and lots of variable from strong winds out of the north, with some freeze underneath, in places. Some wind scouring too.

The Bibbys do well on crispy early morning groomers (that have been made slightly variable from wind drifting). They rebound and pop on edge or flat base with edge for reference, in a really great way on groomers too, just like in crud and powder. I was just fall line turning fast, easily. Edgehold was great, when wanted - most of the time at least a bit riding that edge.

I then skied both upright and then way back on the tails upright, like some surfer freestyle dudes do. To my slight surprise, the Bibbys did that well too - no rail edge run away like a race ski might do from getting way back, just surf/carve on edge from way back there on the tails. Stable. Kinda fun. (I'm on Lange RS 130 race boots mostly, so I tend to be forward driving the tips a bit, usually, or more upright, but not back like that.)

 

[Eric Edelstein]

I sorta feel Black Crows are on the verge of becoming major players at least in European freeride - I'm starting to see them around as much as Faction and Movement. I think they've had some funding.

I got a few runs on a bunch of different Black Crows this season and while they are not super-duper earthshaking skis, they have a distinct personality and handling trait collection that feels like they are built by an individual with a specific feel in mind...and it's definitely effective, especially when the snowpack is variable (like in Chamonix...Verbier, Le Grave..etc.). Solid skis with a great brand identity...rumored to be built by Elan's facilities...but I can't confirm it yet. Their cult following indicates a bunch of different kinds of skiers love these designs...so they are definitely worth seeking out to try them...they might be just the feel you're looking for. Their marketing and social media presence is evidence of good financial backing and corporate media expertise at the helm of the once-small company. Their volume growth is impressive, as is their increased appearance at trade shows and on-snow events....check 'em out.

 

[nay]

I then skied both upright and then way back on the tails upright, like some surfer freestyle dudes do. To my slight surprise, the Bibbys did that well too - no rail edge run away like a race ski might do from getting way back, just surf/carve on edge from way back there on the tails. Stable. Kinda fun. (I'm on Lange RS 130 race boots mostly, so I tend to be forward driving the tips a bit, usually, or more upright, but not back like that.)

Great mini-review. I quoted the "tail" part of the review for where I've been focusing my comments and particularly this idea of how does the suspension respond to big toe edge, neutral mid-foot stance, and off the heel.

Being stable off the heel is what I mean by "no backseat", in the classic sense anyway. It's what I think is required for really meet the playful side of the standard.

It's also why I think less advanced skier versions of this basic design are what people should learn to ski on, because it provides fun and learning from a position beginners often find themselves suffering from, which is getting back on their heels, eliminating the horrid process of learning to ski in a wedge to control edge. If the ski is happy to let you regain composure, and even effectively respond from the heels in a surfy fun way, then a developing skier can get a ton of feedback on where to keep his or her weight and pressure and have a lot of fun and success in the process.