2017-2018 MOMENT Deathwish, 190cm

Will Brown reviews the Moment Deathwish for Blister Gear Review

Moment Deathwish

Ski: 2017-2018 MOMENT Deathwish, 190cm

Dimensions (mm): 138-112-129

Actual Tip-to-Tail Length (Straight Tape Pull): 188.27cm

Sidecut Radius: 27 meters

Boots / Bindings: Fischer RC4 130 Vacuum / Marker Jester (DIN at 10)

Mount Location: Factory line

Test Location: Taos Ski Valley; Summit County, Telluride, and Crested Butte, Colorado

Days Skied: 13

[Editor’s Note: Our review was conducted on the 12/13 Deathwish, which was not changed for 13/14, 14/15, 15/16, 16/17 or 17/18, except for the graphics.]

A Quick (Or Not So Quick) Preface

Three BLISTER reviewers have weighed in on the Deathwish already: Jonathan Ellsworth in his first review of the ski, Jason Hutchins in a 2nd Look, and Noah Bodman in a “VS.” review of the Deathwish and Praxis Concept. Those reviews were conducted on the 184cm Deathwish.

I jumped on the 190cm version and had planned on writing up a 184cm vs. 190cm review. The hope was to tease out how the 184cm and 190cm lengths of the Deathwish differ, as those of the Moment Bibby Pro do, for example. (I ski both the 184cm and 190cm Bibby Pro. The two lengths handle a bit differently, but neither is necessarily better or more appropriate than the other, it depends entirely on what you’re looking to get out of the ski.)

Unlike the 184 & 190 Bibby Pro, however, after two days of initial testing on the 184 Deathwish—and especially after trying out the 190cm version—I felt that the 184 was just too short for me. Compared to the 190 model, the 184 Deathwish didn’t handle like a proportionately shorter, more playful, more maneuverable size, it just felt like I was on the wrong size.

I found myself often inadvertently over-pressuring the 184’s shovels, causing them to fold and hook, and the tails to wash out abruptly. The ski provided very poor stability at high speed, especially on bumped-up, variable snow. On groomers, I was always afraid the edges would wash out if I carved the ski too aggressively. The 184 length just never felt appropriate or adequate for me, at 6’2”. (It’s admittedly a little surprising because Jason didn’t want more ski than the 184 Deathwish, Noah never mentions a problem with the length, and Jonathan only noted that he wished for more ski in pow….)

Now, of course those types of traits aren’t unheard of with a ski like the Deathwish, which has a reduced effective edge as a result of generous tip and tail rocker. And it’s not as if the 190cm version didn’t hint at some of those tendencies from time to time. However, if and when it did, they were rarely problematic or nearly as inhibiting as they were with the 184.

Given how much better I’ve found the 190cm Deathwish to perform, I’m inclined to think that the issues I experienced with the 184 are linked more to genuinely incorrect sizing of the ski (for me, at least) and not definitive traits of the shorter length. As a result, I think you’ll probably have to consider this less of a trustworthy “VS. review” of the 184 and 190 Deathwish, and more of a review of the 190 model.

I’ll still try to explain where and how the 190cm version seemed better to me than the 184 whenever relevant, but for the reasons explained above, you might have to take those with a grain of salt. I’m just not confident that the irritations I found with the 184 should be held as criticisms of the ski, given that I don’t feel nearly the same way about the 190cm Deathwish.

Finally, the 190 Deathwish and the 190 Salomon Rocker2 108 (which is 111mm underfoot) are the two most similar skis I’ve been on this season, so I’ll be making a few comparisons below.

The Review

At the end of the day, my experience on the 190cm Deathwish is mostly consistent with Jonathan’s, Jason’s, and Noah’s on the 184. I don’t totally disagree with anything that those three have said about the ski, so you should read over those reviews before spending time with this one—they offer a very detailed picture of what the Deathwish has to offer. But while I hopefully avoid any real redundancy with their reviews, I still have some of my own observations to throw in that may fill in the picture of the ski even more.

The Deathwish is pressed with a very unusual camber / rocker profile that has three sections of positive camber—one underfoot and two in front and behind the boot (you can read more about it in any of our other reviews of the ski). In summing up his review, Jonathan mentions that the Deathwish’s “bizarro shape…demonstrates no bizarre behavior.” While I wouldn’t call it bizarre, I think the Deathwish does have a very distinct, unusual feel on snow, particularly while on edge on hardpack. As far as I can tell, this does seem to be a direct result of its odd shape.

 

13 Comments

  1. Tom April 8, 2013 Reply

    Will,
    Great review. What would be the biggest differences between the 190 deathwish and the rocker2 115 in 1) Groomed hardpack performance and 2) Soft Snow performance

    • Will Brown April 9, 2013 Reply

      Hey Tom,

      Neither ski is super quick on groomers, but the 115 has a tighter turn radius for its size (21m in the 188cm vs the 190cm Deathwish’s 27m), and it does seem to react a little more quickly when you get it on edge. The 115 can also be driven from a more race-like, traditional forward stance, where the DW pretty much requires that you try and stay more upright and centered during a carve (due to a more forward mount and more tail rocker). The Deathwish is also more fun in bumps than the 115, but it’s still not the greatest there.

      While still able to smear and pivot nicely in its own right, in soft snow, the 115 feels more like the directional, big mountain inspired powder ski that it is. The Deathwish probably isn’t quite as supportive through the tail in general, so it wouldn’t be as suitable for big, powerful turns, and wont be as supportive on landings. The Deathwish would favor a lighter, more playful style in fresh snow. In terms of float in general, I think the two are pretty equal. Still, I think I would consider the Deathwish a wider soft snow oriented all-mountain ski, where the 115 is a versatile powder ski. Let me know if there are any other specifics you’re interested in and I’ll try and address them as well as I can.

      Will

  2. DM April 9, 2013 Reply

    Will, did you try playing around with mounting point at all? Other reviews suggest that the skis feel better at -1 from recommended. Could this be the reason you didn’t find the 184s worked for you? Did you find that the recommended line felt good on the 190s?

    • Will Brown April 25, 2013 Reply

      Hey DM,

      I didn’t feel inclined to mess with the mount point on the 184s, as it really felt like the physical material length, especially with the shortened effective edge, made the ski geniunely too short. Interestingly enough, I don’t feel this way about the 184 Bibby Pro, but the added stability and predictablility I feel with that ski may be due to the wider width, heavier swing weight, and sturdier flex (and even then, I wouldn’t want to go any shorter on the Bibby). The recommended mount point on the 190s felt good for the ski. I could have moved it back, but the general symmetrical shape/camber profile of the ski didn’t make me feel inclined to do so. As best as I can tell, the curious feel the Deathwish has on edge does seem to be due to its curious shape.

      WB

  3. Rob April 12, 2013 Reply

    Will thanks for the review of the Praxis Concept. If I were able to write a review for the Concept your review of the Deathwish would have been it. I had all of the same feelings about the underfoot grip vs full ski grip. The first few days on it were in soft snow and it felt great. I got mine for the 2011-2012 season and in Tahoe we had some periods of no snow (just like this year) and it was those firm day that had me wondering if I had made a mistake buying the ski. By the start of this season I had decided to sell the ski. I like grippy skis, skis that carve like race skis but I was looking for more width to be a “day or two after the storm ski”, where you are forced to ski some groomers to get back to the lift. I have the Praxis Powder Boards and their Protest so I have powder days covered. The Concept is a great soft snow ski (for me) and I had some great spring days on it this season as well as some great soft snow days. I did not mean to hijack your review but yours hit home for me for how I felt about the Praxis Concept which the Blister Deathwish vs Concept review did not express (speak to me) the way your review of the Deathwish did. I guess being that both are similar in design and shape there bound to be similarities in the way they ski. The Concept is one of many skis in my quiver, Previously I was not using it in the best conditions for the ski to perform but have figured it out at least for me.

    • Will Brown April 25, 2013 Reply

      Hey Rob,

      Noah Bodman wrote that Concept review, and I actually haven’t skied it, but given my findings on the Deathwish and what you have to say, it’s definitely something I’m curious to try out. Thanks for reading!

      Will

  4. Allen June 11, 2013 Reply

    6’3″ 185lbs and looking for a good all mtn pow ski for mostly WP/Mary Jane. Lots of pillow lines and smaller drops all in tight trees. Also something that won’t punish me too bad when I have to take a Mary Jane bump run to get somewhere. Looking at the 190 deathwish and the 185 amperage… Thoughts?

    • Will Brown July 21, 2013 Reply

      Hey Allen,

      Those are both good options for what you’re looking for. Neither ski is going to excel in bumps, but you can certainly make your way through any roomier line on them. I haven’t skied the Amperage, but from what I know about Jonathan and Andrew’s time on it, it might be slightly easier to handle in moguls. With the Deathwish, 190cm is simply a lot of material to work through steep, tight troughs, and the forward mount means that the tail can get caught up behind you. The 185cm Amperage is obviously a little shorter, and has a more rearward mount and more tapered tape that should make throwing the tail out a little easier. Bump performance aside – the two are rather distinct skis. The Amperage is going to favor a more directional skier and likely handle chop a bit better, where the Deathwish is better suited for someone looking to surf and smear in powder and want the option to spin and ride switch more easily.

      Hope this helps. Jonathan has put time on both the 185 Amperage and 184 Deathwish, so you might post a question over on either of his reviews if you’re still looking for more specific comparisons.

      WB

  5. Taylor December 24, 2014 Reply

    I have been skiing moment skis for about 5years now and love them. Although i have one complaint about the Deathwish and was wondering if you all noticed the same thing. I have the 2013/2014 190 Deathwish and have found them to be terribly slow on the flats. I use storage wax for the offseason and then start with a fresh tune whenever i start to get deeper into my quiver of skis. I ski Vail near 100 days a year and unfortunately that means that Im spending alot of time on cat walks to get to the goods. I GET BURNED on the the cat walks! I can point in through the bumps and try to hold my speed for a long traverse then i just stop and have to skate. This is a problem….Any tips or heard of the same thing?

    • Author
      Will Brown January 8, 2015 Reply

      Hey Taylor,

      I haven’t heard a similar complaint from any of our readers. But what I can say is that I’ve always thought Moment’s new dirty mustache camber, with the little sections of camber along the ski, makes the skis feel a little “rough” on edge, as if they’re heavily burred or something like that; they don’t seem to knife as cleanly through the snow as a ski with regular traditional camber underfoot. So with that in mind, do you feel like you’re slowing down when running bases flat? Or does it seem to happen when you’re on edge on a cat walk?

      Best,

      Will

  6. Sebi January 26, 2015 Reply

    Could you compare the Pow Performance of the Deathwish to the DOWN CD2 ? I own a CD2 and I am looking for a ski, that has a bit more floaty, playfull feel without loosing all hardpack abilities. Is there a difference because of the little difference in width ?

    • Hey, Sebi – unfortunately, I’ve only skied the 184 Deathwish in pow, and as I wrote in my review, I found the ski to be a bit prone to tip dive in heavier pow. I never found that to be true of the CD2. Will has skied the 190 Deathwish, but not the CD2. But I can’t say, for any reason, that the 190 Deathwish will be ‘more floaty’ than the CD2. The Deathwish will be a better jib ski than the CD2, but nothing about it points to it being the better pow ski.

  7. Harry April 2, 2016 Reply

    Hi! Love the website, nowhere else online can you get such dependable, honest and accurate information. Thats vital when you are from New Zealand and don’t get a chance to demo ski’s by companies like moment. Im 6’1”, 150 pounds. Expert skier and quite agressive. Im trying to justify purchasing the deathwish as my everyday ski here in NZ. I currently ride the first edition exit worlds in a 190. They are fat skis for the conditions here, but I love the stability and charginess and find they handle the surprise transition from rock hard windslab to heavy chop as well as anything. I tend to get them out inbounds at Treble Cone and the Canterbury clubbies fairly often as well as for side-country touring. Looking for something a little less cumbersome and a bit more playful, while still being reasonably stable in the variable stuff. How would you compare these to the exit worlds? Is there too much overlap? Id also like to go shorter than 190, but I’ve demoed the rocker2 108 in the 182cm and found it far too little ski for me so I worry about the 184 Deathwish. Interested in your thoughts.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*