Anybody mounted a lighter than < 500g binding on the BC120 (ATK...)?
Printable View
Anybody mounted a lighter than < 500g binding on the BC120 (ATK...)?
Their weight would certainly say you can, but I've had trouble in the past driving skis that wide with a standard tech toe.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomh79
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitenab
Are these the skis what just got stolen? They should be pretty easy to spot in line.....
How do they compare to the Bibby Tour, especially inbounds? I'm thinking for a 3-ski quiver of touring, resort charger, and then resort/backcountry deep snow ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
They are nearly identical aside from their recommended mount points (Bent Chetler -2.5 and Bibby/Wildcat Tour -6.) I demoed the 190 Bibby Tour last season at what I assume was recommended, and it felt like a very directional ski. It's not a ski I would spend much time on backwards. The BC at -2.5 is extremely balanced and playful, but I can see someone not used to that forward of a mount having trouble with all that tail. My two cents: if you want a directional ski that's fine with the occasional switch landing, go with Moment. If you want the more playful, less directional option go with the BCs.Quote:
Originally Posted by thejongiest
Not quite apples to apples. My BT is 190, my BC is 184. -5.5 on the bibby, -4.5 on the bent.Quote:
Originally Posted by thejongiest
It’s really close. They are so similar all across the board. I’m sure the bibby will win for durability. Handbuilt and all.
Inbounds, I’d say it’s tied for me. Neither ski sucks, which is impressive given the light weight. Moment knows how to make a damp light ski and the layer of metal in the bent chetler dampens it nicely.
The bibby is a little stiffer and I think it works a little better in chop at speed. It is also the best 116mm ski on firm snow I’ve ever skied. Carve a damn trench. Better than the billy goat by far, better than the GPO, better than the praxis Lhasa pow.
The bent chetler is more nimble. Easier to toss around, easier to manage in tight spaces. Better bump performance. More switch friendly.
Both are great in pow. No tip dive on either one.
Sidecountry/fresh snow, give me the bent chetler. Easier to ski slow, more nimble, less locked in. No decrease in speed limit for me.
The BC IS more switch friendly, but the bibby is still a fairly progressive mount. Doesn’t feel abnormal riding switch on the bibby, but I don’t exactly spend much time riding switch, so grain of salt.
Not sure what to do.
I’ve got a line on the 192 chetler. Gonna ski that back to back with the bibby tour then sell one of them.
Interesting. Looking forward to the apples to apples comparison. But the 192 BC mounted at recommended seems pretty terrifying to kick turn.
Oh yeah, that sounds like hell. Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about center mounts. Have only skied one ski like that...and I didn't like it, but that ski is a soft noodle. I'm going to try and demo the Bentchetler. I'm sure they're not tooooo hard to find.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
Center-ish mounts definitely take some getting used to. Until I went with the BC 120s this season, my main ski for the past few years was a pair of Surface New Lifes. 122mm underfoot, symmetric shape, mounted dead center. A little frustrating at first, but once I figured out how to ski them they were a blast.Quote:
Originally Posted by thejongiest
How does the BC handle our heavy PNW snow? I have an older pair ('12-'13) BCs that are probably my favorite ski ever, but can't handle it here when it gets chopped up.
I've gotten more time on mine, spent both days this weekend at Meadows on them from untouched pow/varied chop/scrapped out chutes and I'd say they did well. I skied some really good, thicker/creamy PNW pow in Clark and they skied great. In chop they definitely took a little more effort/compensation with the legs because they lack the suspension that other skis have (bibby/billy goat/kartel) but they are really fun anyway and most of the time I was able to ski through chop no problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by phatty
I'm just one data point and don't expect too much crud busting performance from 1750g skis.
I have had mine for a few days now so thought i'd chime in. I'm 5'9" / 145lbs / do not ski switch. Got the 192 and mounted them with Shifts at -3 from recommended. Boot: Lupo FCR 26.5 fwiw.
So far conditions encountered have been light pow about boot top deep, heavier wind deposited pow, wind crust, sun crust, perfect corduroy as well as very firm, but smooth hardpack and some heavier wettish sun melt at the bottom. All of this at Andermatt.
I havent had the chance to hand flex the 184, but the 192 is, with the exception of very tip and tail, NOT a noodle. It carved on hardpack much better than i expected. To echo what others have said this ski is a blast in anything soft. It isnt bad when the snow is chopped up either. Definitely no Bodacious, but the fun factor is much higher with this ski.
At -3 from recommended I felt like I wouldnt go any further forward, but at the same time wouldnt go much farther back. Wouldnt mind trying -3.5 or even -4. The ball of my foot is right around the narrowest part of the ski. I lined these up next to QST 106's / 188cm. The QSTs are mounted at the recommended line the binding on the BC120 is still ahead of that of the QST....by about a cm.
Attachment 269503
Yeah I have Zeds on mine. Ski fine. very light.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomh79
How have you found the Zed's power transfer on a ski this wide. Minus the brake issues they seem to have, I'm super interested in the Zeds for a dedicated touring setup.Quote:
Originally Posted by skisurfmirth
They have been fine for me. I can't really tell much of a difference between the zed and the ion lt in ski performance. I've gone real fast on them inbounds coming back from the slack country and no issues there.
Eyyy Supre. I think the line is at -2.9cm so you’re actually mounted at -4.9cm from center (if you’re at -2 from ManRec)Quote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
I haven’t measured properly to confirm, but I believe you are correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by margotron
Went -1.5 on the 192. It’s like skiing on butter knives. Way surpassed my expectations. Absurdly fun ski
Stop! You're going to cost me too much money.Quote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
Sound sick. Would you be able to get the weight of the 192s? I saw the 184s were ~1725g according to blister. I haven’t seen a weight on the 192s thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Sound sick. Would you be able to get the weight of the 192s? I saw the 184s were ~1725g according to blister. I haven’t seen a weight on the 192s thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Any thoughts on a 5'5" 110 lbs female skier on the 176cm? Current powder setup has been Wailer 112's in a 168. With how different the mount points are I've wondered if it could work.
Buy em. Easy AF to throw around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tailwind
Yeap. Soft, heavily rockered, light. All ingredients for throw around comboQuote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
I LOVE the wide Bents I’m on. Will I like the 100 for low/no snow resort days?
Yeah. Way more directional than the fatty, but super stable and fun on firm snow.
Nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
Anyone: What other similar playful skis are similar to the BC 100?
Anyone looking to sell a pair of 184cm BC 120s from last year, or know of anyone else selling? Lemme know if so.
Would trade for a 188 cm Faction CT 4.0 also...
What is making you switch to bents? I got a sweet deal on ct 4.0s but was originally thinking about the BC 120s. I’m still debating on keeping the 4.0s to try them out for a season.Quote:
Originally Posted by DGamms
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They are actually really different. Skied both last year, chets are fun jibby ski that work really good on slow-medium speed, while 4.0 are a lot more serious: they are much stiffer and excel when you charge on them. You can compare Chris vs Candide styles of skiing and it actually tells a lot about differences in these skisQuote:
Originally Posted by pnwnelli
LOL. Gawd damn. Same here. We should start a support group.Quote:
Originally Posted by margotron
I wasn’t recovered fully from my ACL repair last season, and I only got a handful of days on the CT 4.0s, so my opinion may be way off. But in general I agree with HukuTa: the CT 4.0 is a pretty “game-on” ski. It skis stiffer than it hand flexes and it requires some speed to come alive. I bought it to fill the wide touring ski and sidecountry ski in my quiver, mounted with shifts. And for me at 5’9” and 150lbs (and probably because my knee wasn’t 100%), it was more ski than I wanted for that slot in the quiver.Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwnelli
I’m hoping the BC 120 will feel lighter on the way up (about 250 gms on paper) and easier to flick around at low speeds, and I’m willing to give up some high speed stability for that.
Also, I’m an unfaithful gear whore who is always looking for the next best thing ;)
I've got a pair of Bent Chet 120s for this year and am debating mounting position. The recommended line (-2.9) sounds a bit too parkish for a guy with a racing background and no real intention of skiing switch (although I do say every year that I want to learn how to do that, not being able to see where I'm going just freaks me out every time I try. Also, get off my lawn, you damn kids).
I have a race background, I coach, and for the foreseeable future I'll be in New England, possibly with some travel to bigger mountains. If I do travel, the Bent Chets are likely to be coming along. I have other skis for firm snow, although these will probably see some mixed conditions. I don't do big air, let alone land it switch.
Based on the feedback above in this thread, I'm thinking about asking the shop to go -2 from recommended (for a total of -4.9). Anyone got constructive feedback on that thought process?
thanks.
What’s the verdict on the 184 vs 192? Going to pick a pair up and throw some Tectons on them. Probably won’t see much inbound use. Like the stability of the 192 but feel the 184 would be better on the skin track. Thoughts?Quote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
update on my set up. remounted with MTN bindings at -3cm from Rec and they tour much better than at -2cm from rec with the Zeds. Much more balanced position so less tip flairing up. Still ski super easy and fun.
One more data point:
Finally got some days on these in deep pow. Touring days in Big and Little Cottonwood last week, and some Canyons sidecountry. Set up with Tectons and Hawx 130 XTDs, mounted at - 1 cm from rec. Of note, my pair is noticeably heavier than Blister’s stated weights. My 184s weigh 1850gm per ski.
Short version: these are the surfiest skis I’ve ever tried! Not sure if that’s due to their low weight, soft flexing tip and tail, or the HRZN hulled tip/tail shape. But they are pow ninja sticks. Plane up so quickly, easy to maneuver, relatively damp for their weight. I’d say they are more surfy/playful in soft snow than any other fat ski I’ve owned (OG Renegade, EHP, Volkl Two, CT 4.0, Black Ops 118).
Overall, I’m impressed by them so far. Skied terrible breakable crust on the south facing return from one of the touring days and they handled that snow as well as anything else I’ve tried too. Fat, soft, and significant tail rocker all seem to help when skiing bad backcountry snow like that IMO.
Ok, looking for more more discussion between 184 vs 192...
These will be setup as a dedicated touring ski with Tectons. My other skis are BGs in 184, Protests in 187, and Praxis BC in 180. The BGs length feel perfect. Protests a bit on the long side when conditions become tight, and the BCs short when I want to open them up. Yes, I know, all to be expected.
I have the 184s now still in the wrapper. When I stand on them at -2 to -3cm there isn't a lot of ski up front.
So, anyone out there ski similar and have skied both the 184 and 192? Supre?
I know most of you are using these primarily as a touring ski, but what about for a lower angle inbounds pow ski? I mainly ski Billy Goats, but I often find myself with a more mellow mountain and crew on powder days and do have to fight a bit of the BG push in slower speed low angle stuff. The idea of a ski that planes and is lively at slower speeds could really be appealing in this situation. Swap out to BGs at lunch. Thoughts?
Yup. Agreed. Not much ski up front. So it goes with progressively mounted skis. If you’re coming from a -9.5 mount (billy goats), it’s going to look weird.Quote:
Originally Posted by mattrwills
They ski just fine though. You can pressure the tips and ski forward if you must. They respond to that. They behave a little better with a centered stance, but they tolerate both. If you feel like your stance is at all adaptable, I’d encourage you to give them a try. Great ski.
I never went over the bars on the 184. Skied them pretty hard for a few days. Sold them, but not because I wanted the same ski just bigger. I did, but that was secondary.
Quick point: I think of touring setups by binding first. So I wanted a different ski for my tecton setup. I knew this was likely to be used for longer BC only missions, not just lift assisted sidecountry.
Tecton crampons are what made the decision for me. They don’t quite fit on the bents. They fit on the wildcat tour, though.
So I sold the bents for some bibby tours. Couldn’t find that ski in a 184, so I ended up with a 190 and love it.
But I really missed the more progressive mount, the hulled tips and the agility of the bents. So I found a 192 and that is now the shift setup in the quiver. I ski that inbounds occasionally and I love bringing it out on leftovers days. Short hikes are fun and they can be thrown around so easily in tight terrain.
I also continue to harbor ambition and fantasy that I will at last land switch in the pow at some point.
A couple things about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtskibum16
1) I doubt you’ll bother swapping out. At least at my weight (165) I don’t. These are not as good in chop (the BG has no equal in chop), but generally less demanding in anything else. Don’t swap out. Work on your switch game and your balance. Around here, the goods are usually super thrashed by noon anyway.
2. Re: the BG push.
I’m guessing you’re on an older 191? The 189 solves the push problem, IMO. I just don’t see it as a problem. Which is why I kept my 191 and sold my 189. Not certain we are talking about the same thing, but 2funky has described this as the reason he’s a Lhasa guy and sold his 191 BG.
3. Definitely save a solo shred powder day or two for yourself.
4. The bents require more finesse than the BG. I’m calling it skiing with a “lighter touch”. When I try to Mach through chop on them, My torso gets bucked back and forth a bit. It’s not awful, but it’s not a thing that would happen on billy goats. When I try to bounce through or over the chop on them, they are more in their element. This is the kind of skiing that makes me see this ski as the most “fun” in my quiver. It also makes me respect McNutt and Durstchi that much more watching what they can do on this ski. Those bigger dudes “finessing” their way through the stuff they can do is impressive.
Today will be a half day out for me that will hopefully start with a small hike to an untracked line and then ski variable conditions with some park laps. I’m taking the bents.