Bent Chet 120

1) Good stuff, I'm about your weight.
2) I'm probably making it sound like it's worse than it is. I refer to the fact that as a fairly stiff ski, at lower speeds (low angle deeper pow) it can tend to not plane real well and instead pushes through the snow. Not a problem in light snow. Mostly shows up near the end of runs in untracked as it shallows out and not a big deal to just tail gun to the lift.
3) For sure. Though the lodging hookup for the night before is nice. I'm probably also exaggerating this, but your point is valid. But for somewhere like White Pass a ski that is more playful in lower angle terrain could be real fun.
4) I tend to ski more light on my feet than is often needed with BGs, so I don't think this would be the biggest problem.

Sounds like these could be a sweet ski for this specific spot in my quiver. That said I skied WP yesterday with 12"new and the BG's were fukin awesome all day. I wouldn't have wanted anything else on my feet. Just enough density in the lower layer of new snow to keep the BG on top and skiing fast in the lower angle stuff and the snow was funky enough at times RES was the thing to have.

Just received a pair of SGN skis urrakkar. 191 cm. Horrendous timing, but good deal. They are a bamboo/poplar, heavier, slightly more traditionally recommended Mount point bent chetler 120.

140-124-133. Hulled tip and tail. Tip rocker is about the same length, but slightly taller than the chet. Camber is slightly shorter. Tail rocker is slightly shorter in length and height.

Over 2400g/ski. Putting p18s on. Will post the photos post mount. Stout build. Thick walls and bases. Stunningly pretty textured topsheet. Fit and finish seems on par with moment/on3p. Recommended Mount point looks like it’s -7. I’m probably going to go -6? Maybe -5.5? My Chets are mounted at -4.5.

Got a handwritten note along with the shipment saying they are always psyched to sell a pair in North America.

Edit: tip and underfoot have a medium round flex, really nice. Tail seems a little soft.

Goal: land switch in pow and chill out.

Review to follow...probably here? Calling a thread mgmt consult.

Pics! Or start a thread

Took the BC 120s out touring today on my second COVID closure lap at PCMR. Not their intended conditions as the fat touring ski in my quiver. But damn, they were still really fun, even on blown out suncupped post-closure groomers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vulev0qVU0Q

Another 184 vs 192 post I'm afraid...

I'm 6 ft 2 but light, 160 lbish. Wanting to use as 50/50 pow/touring ski... Feel like the 184 might feel slightly short on bigger cliffs etc but the 192 might lose some of the playfulness and ease for touring. Any thoughts? Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benjinho

Another 184 vs 192 post I'm afraid...

I'm 6 ft 2 but light, 160 lbish. Wanting to use as 50/50 pow/touring ski... Feel like the 184 might feel slightly short on bigger cliffs etc but the 192 might lose some of the playfulness and ease for touring. Any thoughts? Thanks!

---

I went 184. 6'1" 200lbs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benjinho

Another 184 vs 192 post I'm afraid...

I'm 6 ft 2 but light, 160 lbish. Wanting to use as 50/50 pow/touring ski... Feel like the 184 might feel slightly short on bigger cliffs etc but the 192 might lose some of the playfulness and ease for touring. Any thoughts? Thanks!

---

At 185 lbs and 5'9", I'm happy on the 184. I don't do cliffs, bigger or otherwise, though, so take that into account. If I want to go out and rip big turns through chop, I'd probably take out my Lhasas, which are a lot more ski (and a lot more work) in a 186. I do also have the BC's mounted at the factory line, which may be questionable given how rarely I intentionally go backwards, but I've been very happy with them as an East Coast touring and soft-snow ski.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benjinho

Another 184 vs 192 post I'm afraid...

I'm 6 ft 2 but light, 160 lbish. Wanting to use as 50/50 pow/touring ski... Feel like the 184 might feel slightly short on bigger cliffs etc but the 192 might lose some of the playfulness and ease for touring. Any thoughts? Thanks!

---

Late reply but I'm thinking about grabbing another pair, so I'll chime in.

I'm 6' 180 lbs and loved the 184, but felt like I would have been totally fine on the 192 as well. it's so easy to ski. And then my 5'5" 130 lb lady friend stole my 184's and loved them and DD'd them inbounds for a year. So if you're at all tempted to size up, I'd recommend it, but you won't be sad on the small ones either.

I'm trying to figure out if I want 192 BC 120's or 186 White Walkers. Very torn.

The white walkers look incredible. Very tempting, that ski.

Another year, maybe. This seems to be the year of me being cheap AF.

Any reason we wouldn’t trust the bent chets to handle a second mount?

Whitewalkers and BC, from design, are eerily similar. Highly tapered tip and tail, boat hull tip and tail, light. The WW doesn’t seem like a true “pintail” as advertised but meh.

Cy let us know how the WW skis here before you get it up on blister!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by margotron

Whitewalkers and BC, from design, are eerily similar. Highly tapered tip and tail, boat hull tip and tail, light. The WW doesn’t seem like a true “pintail” as advertised but meh.

Cy let us know how the WW skis here before you get it up on blister!

---

IIRC, JJ and BC were (and still) made in the same mold? The only difference was stiffness and width. Not a secret, that Whitewalker is a stiffened-up JJ UL. After hand-flexing them in the shop, I even think that Whitewalker is pretty much 4mm narrower current Bentchetler

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by margotron

Whitewalkers and BC, from design, are eerily similar. Highly tapered tip and tail, boat hull tip and tail, light. The WW doesn’t seem like a true “pintail” as advertised but meh.

Cy let us know how the WW skis here before you get it up on blister!

---

Yeah! These wouldn't be from Blister, just a personal ski I may buy, but I'll check in if I end up on a pair.

I went into the shop and hand flexed them back to back with the JJ UL in the same length, then came home and played with the BC 120 again. They're really, really similar, like I think it would be hard to tell the three apart on your feet if they all had the same topsheet (and the WW didn't have the pointy tip). WW were just a touch stiffer, and the pair I was looking at had more camber (not necessary a longer cambered portion, just deeper camber).

I really need to get on a pair, along with a pair of the longer JJ's/BC 120's. Pure speculation at this point, but I've spent a bunch of days on the BC 120 and my guess is on the spectrum from "less ski" (softer, lighter, less aggressive) to "more ski" it would go 185 JJ UL, 184 BC 120, 185 WW, with the Wildcat Tour falling somewhere alongside the WW. But I really don't know, the distinctions are so tight with these skis...it's like it's the same people making them in the same factory haha! Hand flexing them at the shop left me with more questions than answers. And for skis I'm going to spend my own money on, I want to be sure.

Torn between the 192 WW, JJ Ul, and BC 120 at this point.

Just a reminder - this ski rules. Variable opening day conditions. Damp, light, fun, nimble, fast. SE grin all day. Wish I was a better skier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupreChicken

Just a reminder - this ski rules. Variable opening day conditions. Damp, light, fun, nimble, fast. SE grin all day. Wish I was a better skier.

---

Just want to second this.

I’ve owned a lot of skis.

Not sure I’ve had a fat ski that’s more fun than this one ever!

Just bought a pair of 184cm Chetlers.....this years model. With Shifts. Excited.Attachment 351596

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc_7777

Just bought a pair of 184cm Chetlers.....this years model. With Shifts. Excited.

---

Well done.

I have shifts on mine.

I’d be hard pressed to opt for something else if I had to keep the quiver to a single setup.


And I get (at least partially) why durstchi, mcnutt and others stay on this ski year after year

Edit: I’m sure money is part of the decision as well, and I obviously know nothing about those details. Just pointing out that the pros that are on it tend to stay on it.

I have the old 125mm wide sunshine version and it's still the most fun ski I've ever had. Definitely a speed limit in heavier PNW snow but it makes me feel like jumping off everything. I mainly use BGs for my powder ski, but may need to get a new pair of the 120 to try them out.

I’m a snowboarder/splitboarder who also mounted up BC 120s with Shifts for this season. My other skis are UFO 115s with G3 Ions. I haven’t had a chance to ski the BCs in the conditions they are meant for yet but they’ve been fun for the few days I have skied them.

This will be my third season on a 184 with Shifts as my one-ski quiver. I absolutely love them.

Mounting:

Is there metal in there as a mounting plate? I notice the drill bit size is 4.1, so I got curious. I've seen that on other woodcore skis though and I've always used 3.5?

Do I need 4.1 and a tap to mount these?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JRainey

Mounting:

Is there metal in there as a mounting plate? I notice the drill bit size is 4.1, so I got curious. I've seen that on other woodcore skis though and I've always used 3.5?

Do I need 4.1 and a tap to mount these?

---

Cydwhit mounted mine with kingpins and mentioned something about one of the screw not fitting in the reinforced mounting area so perhaps he can chime in.

Love my 184's so much that I haven't touched my Wailer/Dynafit touring combo since I got them mounted. Surfy, fun, easy ski that's capable for its size/weight. Just as you'd expect from a BC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JRainey

Mounting:

Is there metal in there as a mounting plate? I notice the drill bit size is 4.1, so I got curious. I've seen that on other woodcore skis though and I've always used 3.5?

Do I need 4.1 and a tap to mount these?

---

There is definitely a metal mounting plate. I used a 4.1mm bit to mount Shifts at 307mm BSL (with the heel track scooted forward 5-10mm for a little extra tail flex.) All holes hit metal. I did not use a tap, and they've been completely fine for two seasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burrito

There is definitely a metal mounting plate. I used a 4.1mm bit to mount Shifts at 307mm BSL (with the heel track scooted forward 5-10mm for a little extra tail flex.) All holes hit metal. I did not use a tap, and they've been completely fine for two seasons.

---

Great. Thanks, I think I'll just order a 4.1 ski bit and a tap, then I'll have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JRainey

Great. Thanks, I think I'll just order a 4.1 ski bit and a tap, then I'll have them.

---

Attachment 356873

Has anyone skied the 120 chetler with dynafits? I'm not the biggest fan of the shift for touring but it skies down great. Was thinking about slapping some of the new rotation dynafits on them.

Not Dynafits, but I’ve skied mine with Xenics and Tectons. No issues (other than the stiff toe lever on the old Xenics, but that’s unrelated to the ski).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thurmondmb

Has anyone skied the 120 chetler with dynafits? I'm not the biggest fan of the shift for touring but it skies down great. Was thinking about slapping some of the new rotation dynafits on them.

---

It probably depends how you want to ride the skis. If you're just looking at them for float and basic skiability, a tech binding is probably fine. If you're really looking to be more aggressive and playful - jumping, buttering, pressing, etc. like the Bent Chets were made for - I don't think you'll be particularly happy or safe in a tech binding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGamms

Not Dynafits, but I’ve skied mine with Xenics and Tectons. No issues (other than the stiff toe lever on the old Xenics, but that’s unrelated to the ski).

---

Tectons rule on this ski. Only issue I had with this setup was the crampons don’t fit over the bent chet

two questions for the mags:

1) i'm 5'8".. is the 184 length going to be ok? longest in my quiver is the 178 dps wailer 112..
2) how do we feel about putting the Look Pivots on this ski? Use for powder days and cat/heli skiing. Don't need no 14 DIN, but what the hell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grrrmountainman

two questions for the mags:

1) i'm 5'8".. is the 184 length going to be ok? longest in my quiver is the 178 dps wailer 112..
2) how do we feel about putting the Look Pivots on this ski? Use for powder days and cat/heli skiing. Don't need no 14 DIN, but what the hell

---

Because of the forward mount they ski a little shorter than their true length. I think you'll be happy with a 184. I'm 5'9"-5'10", and I feel like the 184s are just a tad too short for me, but I definitely prefer them to the 192. Pivots will rock on this ski.

I'm just under 5'8" and the 184s are perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grrrmountainman

two questions for the mags:

1) i'm 5'8".. is the 184 length going to be ok? longest in my quiver is the 178 dps wailer 112..
2) how do we feel about putting the Look Pivots on this ski? Use for powder days and cat/heli skiing. Don't need no 14 DIN, but what the hell

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grrrmountainman

two questions for the mags:

1) i'm 5'8".. is the 184 length going to be ok? longest in my quiver is the 178 dps wailer 112..
2) how do we feel about putting the Look Pivots on this ski? Use for powder days and cat/heli skiing. Don't need no 14 DIN, but what the hell

---

I'm about the same height, 180ish pounds, and I find the 184 to be very playful, to the point where I wonder if I'd have been happier in mixed conditions going longer. I haven't skied the 192, but I'm fairly confident it would be too much work most of the time to be more fun. If I was ripping through crud at speed regularly, I'd probably feel differently...but I have other skis that are better suited for that anyhow.

Pivots seem like a good match if you don't intend to skin on them; I'd expect that the minimal impact on flex pattern would be a nice bonus, but I'm guessing.

Sent from my SM-G892A using TGR Forums mobile app

5’7”, 165lbs

I’m on this year’s 184cm, mounted at -2cm from rec (-4.9cm) with Shifts.

Feels like a 180cm.

All good.

Thanks for the advice mags. Took it and ran with it; freshly mounted pair of 184's. Went with the Pivot 12 binding and after some time on them on the shop floor, decided i'd be happiest with a -4 mount from recommended line so that puts it what, -6.9 from TC? they look like they still have lots of tail and I'm stoked to get them out to see how they do for me.

Attachment 358170
Attachment 358171

Nice! Those look sick.

Bent Chets and Shiftshttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...dcfb831c9d.jpg

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Any of y'all mounting back from recommend, like -2, does that effect the way it skis? Or you still have an upright stance. Just took the shifts off, I'm at -0.5 , putting on tectons. Looking into the minus 2 area. I don't spin, land switch, etc, just like touring. Might jump off the occasional cliff, nothing big.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thurmondmb

Any of y'all mounting back from recommend, like -2, does that effect the way it skis? Or you still have an upright stance. Just took the shifts off, I'm at -.5 , putting on tectons. Looking into the minus 2 area. I don't spin, land switch, etc, just like touring. Might jump off the occasional cliff, nothing big.

---

I think you'll be pretty happy at -2cm, maybe even further if you're never riding switch. I'm on the line with Shifts, but if I had them as a touring-only rig with your riding style I'd definitely mount them back of the line.

Lots of us have them 1-3 cm back and love. They still ski switch there too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by margotron

Lots of us have them 1-3 cm back and love. They still ski switch there too

---

Can confirm.