the arv 116 is def stiffer than the jj it replaced... ive skied everything imaginable on them

they kill it on everything other than ice and hard bumps

obviously being 192 makes them a bit long for jibbing but they still spin on and off rails surprisingly well

FYI: Im 6'1" and 195#

I think the Bent Chetler is the perfect flex in-between those two. I've personally ridden the JJ and Bents and have flexed and seen the Bibby in person. I'd rank the flex from stiffest-sofest as seen below. Another ski that I think closely resembles my recommendation is the Kartel 116.

Bibby

Bent Chetler

JJ

EatbootyI think the Bent Chetler is the perfect flex in-between those two. I've personally ridden the JJ and Bents and have flexed and seen the Bibby in person. I'd rank the flex from stiffest-sofest as seen below. Another ski that I think closely resembles my recommendation is the Kartel 116.

Bibby

Bent Chetler

JJ

Thanks for the response! Have you been on the Bent Chetler? I was just a bit turned off by the 120 under foot, seemed a bit big for the amount of snow we get at Vail.

tahoearmada20the arv 116 is def stiffer than the jj it replaced... ive skied everything imaginable on them

they kill it on everything other than ice and hard bumps

obviously being 192 makes them a bit long for jibbing but they still spin on and off rails surprisingly well

FYI: Im 6'1" and 195#

Yeah I felt the same way about the JJ. Killed it in almost any condition. I absolutely love Armada (I also have a pair of ARV 96's) i'm just a big dude that likes to go fast. I want to make sure im going to be confident in variable conditions

The Bibby often gets compared to the older JJ.

From our experience the Bibby holds up a little better in chop and will be more stable at high speed due to the full sidewall construction and longer camber profile underfoot.

The Bentchetler is going to be another comparable ski but I feel like its heavier and not as playful as the Bibby especially since it got wider a few years back.

I sold my jj 2.0s mid season last year because they sucked when I wanted to go fast, they did not like 3d snow and big radius turns. They just folded up under me. Got some bibby pros and haven't looked back. They crush variable snow and love speed, I think they are more fun than the jj as well. They have more pop when you load up the tails and still are very spinable. I will say they aren't a buttery ski but I will gladly sacrifice butters for speed and stability.

Saho3914I sold my jj 2.0s mid season last year because they sucked when I wanted to go fast, they did not like 3d snow and big radius turns. They just folded up under me. Got some bibby pros and haven't looked back. They crush variable snow and love speed, I think they are more fun than the jj as well. They have more pop when you load up the tails and still are very spinable. I will say they aren't a buttery ski but I will gladly sacrifice butters for speed and stability.

The JJ 2.0 is super rockered which I feel definitely hurt its stability. Thats why I was hopeful when I saw the profile of the ARV- seems like they toned it back and will be much more chargeable.

I'm definitely leaning towards the bibby. Seems like such a great ski. How tall/heavy are you if you dont mind me asking?

link80The Bibby often gets compared to the older JJ.

From our experience the Bibby holds up a little better in chop and will be more stable at high speed due to the full sidewall construction and longer camber profile underfoot.

The Bentchetler is going to be another comparable ski but I feel like its heavier and not as playful as the Bibby especially since it got wider a few years back.

Thanks for your two cents! I was on the JJ 1.0 (I believe the 2013 model) and it is a bomb ski. So so fun just not great at speed. If youre saying the Bibby is a more stable version of that ski then I might be sold!

nobullshitThe JJ 2.0 is super rockered which I feel definitely hurt its stability. Thats why I was hopeful when I saw the profile of the ARV- seems like they toned it back and will be much more chargeable.

I'm definitely leaning towards the bibby. Seems like such a great ski. How tall/heavy are you if you dont mind me asking?

5'10" 185lbs and decently strong. I ride the 184s.

I'd go Candide 4.0 all day. If your set on one the jj or Bobby though I'd go Bibby

steezerampageI'd go Candide 4.0 all day. If your set on one the jj or Bobby though I'd go Bibby

Have you been on the Candide?

I have a pair of 2013 Benchetlers that I love. It's been a great ski, even rode it out east in spring slush and it was a blast. I'd recommend taking a look at Liberty tho. I'm the same height/weight and have a similar riding style. Few years back I started riding wider boards as my daily driver. The Origin 116 has been amazing. Peep the Origin 116 and the Schuster Pro.

link80The Bibby often gets compared to the older JJ.

From our experience the Bibby holds up a little better in chop and will be more stable at high speed due to the full sidewall construction and longer camber profile underfoot.

The Bentchetler is going to be another comparable ski but I feel like its heavier and not as playful as the Bibby especially since it got wider a few years back.

I mean.. waist width doesn't really justify if something is playful or not.

Also, the Bent Chet went from 123mm underfoot to 120mm.. so they actually got narrower.

and weight is on par.. Bent Chet being lighter..

185 Bent Chet stated at 2100g

184 Moment Bibby stated at 2140g

.lenconI mean.. waist width doesn't really justify if something is playful or not.

Also, the Bent Chet went from 123mm underfoot to 120mm.. so they actually got narrower.

and weight is on par.. Bent Chet being lighter..

185 Bent Chet stated at 2100g

184 Moment Bibby stated at 2140g

I agree that width is not an end all determination of playfulness.

Just trying to be transparent and honest on how myself and friends feel about the comparison of the skis.

To me, the Bent does feel a bit bulkier, being wider it is slower edge to edge. Yes, the weights are close but the type of wood and composite build makes it feel not as lively. Or it could be camber difference. There are tons of factors. Not saying one is better than the other, it all depends on your riding style.

.lenconI mean.. waist width doesn't really justify if something is playful or not.

Also, the Bent Chet went from 123mm underfoot to 120mm.. so they actually got narrower.

and weight is on par.. Bent Chet being lighter..

185 Bent Chet stated at 2100g

184 Moment Bibby stated at 2140g

I was going to point this out as well.

link80I agree that width is not an end all determination of playfulness.

Just trying to be transparent and honest on how myself and friends feel about the comparison of the skis.

To me, the Bent does feel a bit bulkier, being wider it is slower edge to edge. Yes, the weights are close but the type of wood and composite build makes it feel not as lively. Or it could be camber difference. There are tons of factors. Not saying one is better than the other, it all depends on your riding style.

I would say in personal experience the bibby is more capable. The bent is going to be softer and more playful, and more capable in powder.

Bibby is a super classic charger with playful aspects.

Bentchetler is a super classic playful powderboard...that is also capable to hold it's own when need be.

.lenconI mean.. waist width doesn't really justify if something is playful or not.

Also, the Bent Chet went from 123mm underfoot to 120mm.. so they actually got narrower.

and weight is on par.. Bent Chet being lighter..

185 Bent Chet stated at 2100g

184 Moment Bibby stated at 2140g

Where are you seeing the 185 Bent Chet listed at 2100 g? Evo.com has them listed at 2384 g: https://www.evo.com/guides/alpine-and-backcountry-ski-weights#2018

Picking up the 2017 Bent Chetler I remember it feeling very heavy

Threads

Been interested in the arv 116 since they said they would be making it stiffer so def interested in checking that out sometime. With that being said aid love to demo the Bobby’s at some point as they look pretty capable and a decent ski.

nobullshitWhere are you seeing the 185 Bent Chet listed at 2100 g? Evo.com has them listed at 2384 g: https://www.evo.com/guides/alpine-and-backcountry-ski-weights#2018

Picking up the 2017 Bent Chetler I remember it feeling very heavy

Go to the link of the actual ski on evo, not that garbage list

.lenconGo to the link of the actual ski on evo, not that garbage list

Lol EVO. Any idea of how much the 192's weigh. Can't find them anywhere

nobullshitLol EVO. Any idea of how much the 192's weigh. Can't find them anywhere

Nope. But probably a couple hundred grams more than the 185s.. and probably still lighter than the Bibbys in the comparable size by a few grams..

I hand flexed the new arv 116s recently, they are still noodles. I'd say the Bent is a decent mix of the two skis but the Bibby is still surprisingly playful for its stiffness.

For those of you super concerned about weight, weight is your friend in variable conditions. It helps keep the ski from getting knocked around a ton. Thats why the Bent is good in variable snow.

Saho3914I hand flexed the new arv 116s recently, they are still noodles. I'd say the Bent is a decent mix of the two skis but the Bibby is still surprisingly playful for its stiffness.

For those of you super concerned about weight, weight is your friend in variable conditions. It helps keep the ski from getting knocked around a ton. Thats why the Bent is good in variable snow.

Agreed. The light ski hype is stupid. All these companies are now making super light fat skis for charging, but that usually blows a lot of the capabilities to actually handle variable snow. Light skis get bounced around. If youre going for an inbounds ski only, i would ignore weight 98% of the time. A 50/50 ski, now you can start talking about weight.

Touring only, well that is a completely different story. Light is life in that scenario.

Profahoben_212Agreed. The light ski hype is stupid. All these companies are now making super light fat skis for charging, but that usually blows a lot of the capabilities to actually handle variable snow. Light skis get bounced around. If youre going for an inbounds ski only, i would ignore weight 98% of the time. A 50/50 ski, now you can start talking about weight.

Touring only, well that is a completely different story. Light is life in that scenario.

GIVE ME THOSE BEEFY, CHARGY, PLAYFUL SKIS!1!111!!!!11!!!!!

One thing that I have been digging with skis, and I think it helps A TON with charging and not getting bounced around (for me at least), is rubber in the ski. Ex: VDS in ON3P, VibeVeil in 4FRNT... not sure who else is doing it off the top of my head. I think Kitten Factory?

.lencon

GIVE ME THOSE BEEFY, CHARGY, PLAYFUL SKIS!1!111!!!!11!!!!!

One thing that I have been digging with skis, and I think it helps A TON with charging and not getting bounced around (for me at least), is rubber in the ski. Ex: VDS in ON3P, VibeVeil in 4FRNT... not sure who else is doing it off the top of my head. I think Kitten Factory?

I WANT MY SKIS TO BE ABLE TO DO EVERYTHING BETTER THAN ANY OTHER SKI AND HAVE NO DOWNFALLS.

I think my old devastators may have had the vibeveil. I like the idea of it for sure.

Profahoben_212I WANT MY SKIS TO BE ABLE TO DO EVERYTHING BETTER THAN ANY OTHER SKI AND HAVE NO DOWNFALLS.

I think my old devastators may have had the vibeveil. I like the idea of it for sure.

Speaking of VibeVeil and devastators and reflect tech.. guess what I'm getting

.lenconSpeaking of VibeVeil and devastators and reflect tech.. guess what I'm getting

.........wut.......are they green and or red?......

Profahoben_212.........wut.......are they green and or red?......

you have the option.. and i am goin' green

Profahoben_212Agreed. The light ski hype is stupid. All these companies are now making super light fat skis for charging, but that usually blows a lot of the capabilities to actually handle variable snow. Light skis get bounced around. If youre going for an inbounds ski only, i would ignore weight 98% of the time. A 50/50 ski, now you can start talking about weight.

Touring only, well that is a completely different story. Light is life in that scenario.

I definitely agree with what youre saying but I don't want to completely discount weight. I used to have marker dukes on my JJ's and it took a lot of effort to spin. Obviously that binding is heavy as shit but thats my hesitation with a heavier ski.

As for the Bibby- can you elaborate when you say 'surprisingly playful'. Are you saying the flex is playful for how damp a ski it is? Are you saying its easy to maneuver in tight areas? My biggest concern going to a burlier ski is that it will be much more difficult to butter/spin/slash etc.

**This post was edited on Oct 3rd 2017 at 10:59:34pm

I find it to be 90% as maneuverable in trees as the JJ 2.0, just as easy to spin and slash, but harder to butter on hard pack due to the flex. Basically take everything you like about the JJ and everything you wish it did better and the Bibby does it all and does it all better. IDK I'm kinda running out of ways to put my thoughts into words. From your initial description of what you want you described the Bibby. You just gotta ski them, you'll love them.

**This post was edited on Oct 3rd 2017 at 11:09:09pm

Saho3914I find it to be 90% as maneuverable in trees as the JJ 2.0, just as easy to spin and slash, but harder to butter on hard pack due to the flex. Basically take everything you like about the JJ and everything you wish it did better and the Bibby does it all and does it all better. IDK I'm kinda running out of ways to put my thoughts into words. From your initial description of what you want you described the Bibby. You just gotta ski them, you'll love them.

**This post was edited on Oct 3rd 2017 at 11:09:09pm

I think i'm sold. Appreciate your help

**This post was edited on Oct 3rd 2017 at 11:11:42pm

^ they are going to have a firmer flex for sure, but they are going to keep the looseness, and slashyness that you like, while adding the capability to actually ski any sort of variable snow. Most of the play on the bibby is due to the shape, not necessarily the flex. Look at blisters review. it is insanely thorough, as its most of the guys there favorite ski

nobullshitLol EVO. Any idea of how much the 192's weigh. Can't find them anywhere

Ours weighed in at 2455 and 2509 g, and for reference, the 190 Bibby weighed 2393 & 2372 g

patagonialukeOurs weighed in at 2455 and 2509 g, and for reference, the 190 Bibby weighed 2393 & 2372 g

Much appreciated Luke!

Are you saying the two skis weigh different amounts?

patagonialukeOurs weighed in at 2455 and 2509 g, and for reference, the 190 Bibby weighed 2393 & 2372 g

I love it when I'm scrolling a thread with a lot of random numbers and thinking I need to dig up the weights and Luke beats me to it.

FWIW between the 184/5's of both skis, the Bibby feels way lighter on the foot, but is still, IMO, more capable in variable conditions, while still being plenty playful. I don't have time on the 190ish versions of either ski, so I can't really weigh in there, but I'm a huge fan of the 184 Bibby for what you're describing, over the Chetler, or ARV 116 (which are both super awesome skis to be clear.)

cydwhitI love it when I'm scrolling a thread with a lot of random numbers and thinking I need to dig up the weights and Luke beats me to it.

FWIW between the 184/5's of both skis, the Bibby feels way lighter on the foot, but is still, IMO, more capable in variable conditions, while still being plenty playful. I don't have time on the 190ish versions of either ski, so I can't really weigh in there, but I'm a huge fan of the 184 Bibby for what you're describing, over the Chetler, or ARV 116 (which are both super awesome skis to be clear.)

You have time on the new ARV 116?

and yeah, stated weight is crap most the time, it's really the other characteristics that matter the majority of the time.

i remember having the YLE, and the weight on those were pretty heavy.. but they felt so light, so capable.. man I wish that ski was still around. I'd make a few small tweaks to it here and there and it would be even better.. for me at least.

Profahoben_212^ they are going to have a firmer flex for sure, but they are going to keep the looseness, and slashyness that you like, while adding the capability to actually ski any sort of variable snow. Most of the play on the bibby is due to the shape, not necessarily the flex. Look at blisters review. it is insanely thorough, as its most of the guys there favorite ski

Blister crushes the review game! Thats actually where I originally heard about the bibby's. And its not only Blister giving them great reviews, seems like everyone loves them

nobullshitBlister crushes the review game! Thats actually where I originally heard about the bibby's. And its not only Blister giving them great reviews, seems like everyone loves them

Yeah that's actually the only ski that Blister has given a positive review on;)

.lenconYou have time on the new ARV 116?

and yeah, stated weight is crap most the time, it's really the other characteristics that matter the majority of the time.

i remember having the YLE, and the weight on those were pretty heavy.. but they felt so light, so capable.. man I wish that ski was still around. I'd make a few small tweaks to it here and there and it would be even better.. for me at least.

Yep! A day at SV and like 4 at Bachelor, will get pow time on them ASAP this season. But yeah, the ski is rad, and the graphics in person are some of my favorite, it's just not quite as capable as the Bibby.

.lenconOne thing that I have been digging with skis, and I think it helps A TON with charging and not getting bounced around (for me at least), is rubber in the ski. Ex: VDS in ON3P, VibeVeil in 4FRNT... not sure who else is doing it off the top of my head. I think Kitten Factory?

VDS and VibeVeil are totally different. Absolutely every single ski on the market has VDS in it. What kind, how wide, and location can vary.

...all skis will have it between the edge and composite layer above the edge. If they didn't they would fall apart when flexed.

link80VDS and VibeVeil are totally different. Absolutely every single ski on the market has VDS in it. What kind, how wide, and location can vary.

...all skis will have it between the edge and composite layer above the edge. If they didn't they would fall apart when flexed.

Care to elaborate more? I know VDS and VibeVeil are different, 4FRNT VibeVeil is a membrane in the tips of the skis, but I did not know that VDS was in every ski, and if so, why don't more companies talk about it? They talk about everything else in the ski...

.lenconCare to elaborate more? I know VDS and VibeVeil are different, 4FRNT VibeVeil is a membrane in the tips of the skis, but I did not know that VDS was in every ski, and if so, why don't more companies talk about it? They talk about everything else in the ski...

VDS a thermoplastic rubber like material. When you bend a ski all the layers want to shear against each other but they are held in place due to the epoxy even so the shear forces still exist. Even though every company preps their edge material with either a chemical coating or sandblasting it still doesn't like to bond to the next layer in the ski which is usually a composite like fiberglass, carbon or kevlar. It especially doesn't like to stay bonded to those layers when the ski is flexed and the shearing forces are acting on the materials. So, all companies use VDS, which comes from two main manufacturers, one in Japan and one in Austria. Its typically Black or a Tan color, sometimes it will be perforated on large production skis when the composites are prepreg and the epoxy flow isn't a copious as a traditional wet layup. When manufacturers press a ski they need to get the VDS above 175F to really make the VDS magic happen (this is where the thermo part comes into the thermoplastic name), once the VDS goes above the 175F threshold the VDS melts all over the edge and to the composite material almost like a tar coating with a really amazing bond. In addition, it retains some of its stretch rubber like properties. These properties allow for the smallest amount of shearing to happen between the edge and composite layer which keeps them from falling apart.

In a Moment ski we typically use VDS in 3 to 5 locations depending on the ski and if we have critical bonding surfaces or are trying to achieve damper properties.

Why dont more companies talk about it? I dont know, its a pretty basic element in ski design. Its kind of like when you walk into a sandwich shop and they are telling you about the meat, cheese and style of bread they use....they are not really hyping up the mayonnaise...not that VDS is mayonnaise, because that would be gross and probably wouldn't work as well.

link80VDS a thermoplastic rubber like material. When you bend a ski all the layers want to shear against each other but they are held in place due to the epoxy even so the shear forces still exist. Even though every company preps their edge material with either a chemical coating or sandblasting it still doesn't like to bond to the next layer in the ski which is usually a composite like fiberglass, carbon or kevlar. It especially doesn't like to stay bonded to those layers when the ski is flexed and the shearing forces are acting on the materials. So, all companies use VDS, which comes from two main manufacturers, one in Japan and one in Austria. Its typically Black or a Tan color, sometimes it will be perforated on large production skis when the composites are prepreg and the epoxy flow isn't a copious as a traditional wet layup. When manufacturers press a ski they need to get the VDS above 175F to really make the VDS magic happen (this is where the thermo part comes into the thermoplastic name), once the VDS goes above the 175F threshold the VDS melts all over the edge and to the composite material almost like a tar coating with a really amazing bond. In addition, it retains some of its stretch rubber like properties. These properties allow for the smallest amount of shearing to happen between the edge and composite layer which keeps them from falling apart.

In a Moment ski we typically use VDS in 3 to 5 locations depending on the ski and if we have critical bonding surfaces or are trying to achieve damper properties.

Why dont more companies talk about it? I dont know, its a pretty basic element in ski design. Its kind of like when you walk into a sandwich shop and they are telling you about the meat, cheese and style of bread they use....they are not really hyping up the mayonnaise...not that VDS is mayonnaise, because that would be gross and probably wouldn't work as well.

Thanks for the explanation. Did not know every company had it. I figured every company had something like it, but not exactly VDS. So I guess it's the bamboo/thick materials in skis like ON3P where I find the dampness from? Or just the amount of VDS they use?

and yeah, I get that it's in every ski now, but I guess I'm just surprised more companies don't list that it goes in the ski, since they list everything else. Guess VDS doesn't get the spotlight like carbon stringers and fiberglass lol

.lenconThanks for the explanation. Did not know every company had it. I figured every company had something like it, but not exactly VDS. So I guess it's the bamboo/thick materials in skis like ON3P where I find the dampness from? Or just the amount of VDS they use?

and yeah, I get that it's in every ski now, but I guess I'm just surprised more companies don't list that it goes in the ski, since they list everything else. Guess VDS doesn't get the spotlight like carbon stringers and fiberglass lol

Usually most companies dont talk about it in a ski description but if you look at construction pages with ski cutout images you will usually see if depicted as a black layer above the edge being called rubber.

A lot of the dampness you get in an ON3P is from that bamboo core and their super thick base. They use the same base material as Moment but its a little thicker and because of that a little heavier. That thick base really helps make the ski damp.

link80Usually most companies dont talk about it in a ski description but if you look at construction pages with ski cutout images you will usually see if depicted as a black layer above the edge being called rubber.

A lot of the dampness you get in an ON3P is from that bamboo core and their super thick base. They use the same base material as Moment but its a little thicker and because of that a little heavier. That thick base really helps make the ski damp.

Nice. 4001 durasurf for life

.lenconNice. 4001 durasurf for life

For real. You need to wax it a little more often but its super bomber and made in the USA!

Just picked up this years new ARV 116's. Where would you guys recommend mounting? Factory is at -6cm.

-2.5 is the prime spot to mount those arv 116s