EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Moment Bibby Pro (2016) vs Atomic Automatic 1117 vs Line SFB
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Moment Bibby Pro (2016) vs Atomic Automatic 1117 vs Line SFB - Page 2

post #31 of 38

Correction: My 186 Autos are also 117 wide.  

post #32 of 38

Thanks man, I haven't been home in a spell to check them out but I'll post when I have a chance to figure them out.

post #33 of 38
Thread Starter 

Has anyone skied the ON3P Jeffery? Blister compares them to the Gunsmoke and Bibby.

I also spent a few days on the 190 Bacon vs my usual 184's and they were definitely more stable. I also realized that my ski style was based on hard forward pressure and driving the tips. The Bacons don't respond well to forward pressure, especially in variable / crusty snow where they get skittish and unpredictable, but as I shifted toward a more neutral, centered stance they felt more reliable and easier to control when they start to deflect.

When the snow is soft and consistent the Bacons are really the BACON! I love em.

post #34 of 38

i owned the 190 Bibby for about a season and currently have a 184 that I have had for the last 3 as my wide ski.

 

I am 5'10 and 165lbs.  I would consider myself a high level expert but don't huck.  I primarily ski whistler BC and Cypress BC (although the Bibby's rarely see the latter unless it is morning of a big dump).

 

Quite frankly, I didn't notice a whole heck of a lot of difference between the 190 and 184.  I only unloaded my 190's because the offer was too good to pass up.  By the way, both were the classic models, not the remake they did a couple seasons ago.  They are same as new Blister Pro.

 

They are a stiff ski but the big amounts of tip and tail rocker sort of mute that fact. What I love about them is they really can just blast through PNW tracked powder with very little effort.  I can just stand on them and point them down.  I have never skied any ski ~100mm underfoot that I can do the same with and do not believe one exists.

 

I have skied the first gen Automatics and the older first gen K2 Sideseths (I think that's what they were called?):about 115 underfoot.  The Automatics I cannot recall what they were underfoot, I just remember being amazed at how easy they were to ski but they were just too light and flexy to power, know what I mean?  those sideseths were pretty cool, but really long tip rocker that started just in front of binding toe.  I am not a fan of all of those flat tailed K2's with the pronounced and early tip rocker, even the hardsides have too much too soon.  If I am going to carve and not be able to drive the tip on a 115+ wide ski I'll take tip and tail rocker like on the Bibby.

 

the Bibby is more center mounted since it has a big tail.  It's only 5cm back from true center of mounted on rec line.  I don't like the amount of tail and have no use for the twin, but it does make for a ski with a very balanced swing weight.

 

any ski in any class will have tradeoffs with another, but the Bibby has been great.  I can say I love the ski.  I don't need metal in my 116 wide ski (but i do in everything else). 

 

Bibbys are not daily drivers (to me and to those that they are either have perpetually soft conditions or they are completely missing out on a ton of fun that a narrower ski would provide).  They are resort pow skis.  They are dead easy to ski.  The 184 is still a ton of ski if you are not a heavy weight.  I'd highly recommend them and they always seem to be in demand so not like you'd lose a bunch if you had to flip them,

 

I've not skied the SFB but hand flexing says no way I'd like it for my intents and purposes: it's just too soft.

post #35 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajcolorado View Post
 

Has anyone skied the ON3P Jeffery? Blister compares them to the Gunsmoke and Bibby.
 

I own the older 186? Jeffrey 110, and have demoed this year's (15/16) Jeffrey 114 back to back with this year's Billy Goat 116.   Really liked both skis, but I preferred the Billy Goat over the 114, for my quiver.  

 

The 114 is very different than the Jeffrey 110.  The Jeffrey 110 is like a Bacon (super playful flex but great edgehold) with more crud busting ability.   I enjoy making huge "hot wheels" turns straight down the fall line on them.   The newer Jeffrey 114, lighter and quicker, is very fast turning but stable in chop/crud w/o being squirrelly.  It reminded me of my V Werks 112 Katanas, only I am biased towards the Katanas (maybe not quite as fast, dunno, but even more stable in crud) - even though the Katanas have no camber.  But similar feel.   

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Sizzler View Post
 

i owned the 190 Bibby for about a season and currently have a 184 that I have had for the last 3 as my wide ski.

 

I am 5'10 and 165lbs.  I would consider myself a high level expert but don't huck.  I primarily ski whistler BC and Cypress BC (although the Bibby's rarely see the latter unless it is morning of a big dump).

 

Quite frankly, I didn't notice a whole heck of a lot of difference between the 190 and 184.  I only unloaded my 190's because the offer was too good to pass up.  By the way, both were the classic models, not the remake they did a couple seasons ago.  They are same as new Blister Pro.

 

They are a stiff ski but the big amounts of tip and tail rocker sort of mute that fact. What I love about them is they really can just blast through PNW tracked powder with very little effort.  I can just stand on them and point them down.  I have never skied any ski ~100mm underfoot that I can do the same with and do not believe one exists.

 

I have skied the first gen Automatics and the older first gen K2 Sideseths (I think that's what they were called?):about 115 underfoot.  The Automatics I cannot recall what they were underfoot, I just remember being amazed at how easy they were to ski but they were just too light and flexy to power, know what I mean?  those sideseths were pretty cool, but really long tip rocker that started just in front of binding toe.  I am not a fan of all of those flat tailed K2's with the pronounced and early tip rocker, even the hardsides have too much too soon.  If I am going to carve and not be able to drive the tip on a 115+ wide ski I'll take tip and tail rocker like on the Bibby.

 

the Bibby is more center mounted since it has a big tail.  It's only 5cm back from true center of mounted on rec line.  I don't like the amount of tail and have no use for the twin, but it does make for a ski with a very balanced swing weight.

 

any ski in any class will have tradeoffs with another, but the Bibby has been great.  I can say I love the ski.  I don't need metal in my 116 wide ski (but i do in everything else). 

 

Bibbys are not daily drivers (to me and to those that they are either have perpetually soft conditions or they are completely missing out on a ton of fun that a narrower ski would provide).  They are resort pow skis.  They are dead easy to ski.  The 184 is still a ton of ski if you are not a heavy weight.  I'd highly recommend them and they always seem to be in demand so not like you'd lose a bunch if you had to flip them,

 

I've not skied the SFB but hand flexing says no way I'd like it for my intents and purposes: it's just too soft.

Thanks.  This sure re-affirms the Bibby 184s at the top of my list.  I may just get a pair to give them a try, though I hope to demo anything before I buy.

 

The paragraph above in red sounds to me like the 189 K2 Pettitor 120 also, but I'm in Colorado, not the Pacific NW with its much heavier snow.  The Pettitor too is very stiff, but with a soft, big amount of tip and tail rocker that makes them easy to ski.  To me and many others they are like a tank in crud, you don't even feel it, just plow through.   But again, not sure in the PNW. 

 

@Johnny Sizzler, have you tried the recent 189 Pettitor? (The 179 version and older versions are like a different ski, to me - it stiffened from the 14/15 version on, I gather.)

post #36 of 38

i have not skied the Pettitor, no.  First gens had a lot of tip and tail rocker with a super short, super stiff cambered section under foot.  My mind says they'd be good but they seemed more one dimensional than something like the Bibby.  So no real world beta from me.

 

I have never sunk a tip on the Bibbys, BTW. I'd imagine most rockered 115+ underfoot with 140+ tips would be similar in that regard.

post #37 of 38
Thread Starter 

Just reading through this thread again and there is a lot of great info, thanks! I haven't picked my fat ski for next season, but I did pick up some Moment PB&J s , 101 underfoot. They seem to compare favorably to the Bibby but in a narrower ski. I'm psyched to try them out as they will be my daily driver/hard snow ski.

 

However, I'm still looking for that 14+ width ski for deeper days that can still handle variable and skied out conditions.

 

I wanted to add the Line Supernatural 115 to this list and there isn't much info out there about it (relative to the SN108). Would also love to hear more about the Blizzard Gunsmoke.

post #38 of 38

Hi AJC..

Just saw your post. To recap my 15/16 year I ended up getting 7 of 32 days on my 190 Bibby/blister pros. Most of the 7 were between 8-12 in fresh with 2 of the best days snowbird and vail. Did have a Sunday 2 footer at A basin that rocked. Had a really nice day at Alta on my enforcers in about 6-8 in fresh, really playful and fun but the bibbys are just a resort pow machine after everything gets skied up. Look forward to your results on the PB&J. Bring on the snow!!!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Moment Bibby Pro (2016) vs Atomic Automatic 1117 vs Line SFB