Printable View
Is there a thread? If so I missed it.
184 vs 192?
Recommended mount is like -3. But like, I dont land cliffs switch?? #nerd
Weight on 184 is supposedly 1750g (nutzo no?)
I dont own the ski but am thinking about the 192 and mounting shifts at -5 or -6, kinda like the Bibby
Have you read this thing: https://blisterreview.com/gear-revie...nt-chetler-120 ?
They do sound like mighty fine soft snow killers for sure :)
Bentchetlers aren’t TGR approved powder skis so you better ask about them on Newschoolers or Pugski.
they are one of the softest skis I ever tried
In a bad way ?Quote:
Originally Posted by HukuTa_KydecHuk
The Blister review of the BC 120 has me hot and bothered too. I hand fondled some in the shop, seemed soft at the tips and tails but not ridiculously so. And fukking light.
Loving mine so far. 184s, mounted at recommended (-2.5), 5’10”, 165lbs. Definitely not the softest skis I’ve ridden in the category of lightweight fatties, but they’re soft for sure. Nollie, ollie, and butterable while remaining reasonably stable, though I haven’t really had them in anything too nasty yet. There’s not a ton of camber there, just a few mm, but you definitely notice it and the accompanying ability to hold an edge on hardpack. I’m coming off years of riding rocker-flat-rocker as a daily driver, and the Bent Chetlers ride much more like a traditional ski. Obviously killer in anything resembling soft snow.
Regarding length, I entertained the idea of getting the 192s, but any time I’ve ridden something 190+ I feel like I’m giving up a ton of playfulness for a little bit of extra charge. Obviously you might feel different if you’re bigger and/or taller.
is anybody skiing the 120 with a Fritschi Tecton?
Skiing? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomh79
But they’re on my bench and that’s the planned mount. Being a dad to a 9 month old is making it tough to get to it, but I’ll be able to review this combo before the season ends for sure.
I've had the 2016 2.0 chetler and now have this lightweight version of the 2.0. They are soft for sure, but if your not using these for soft snow, your doing it wrong. Mounted at -2cm of rec and I would not go forward of that (this coming from a guy who loves switch skiing). Really excellent powder touring ski, extremely easy and fun. I highly doubt would like riding them on the hill compared to my hill set ups (rossi sickles 186 or rossi black ops 186) I don't think they would have the power/stiffness/dampness to make choppy stuff enjoyable. I'm 5'9 135lbs
Idea would be soft snow touring or super soft snow at the resort or messing around. I have BGs for destroying crud and/or my legs and ankles (:
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Have you tried the JJ zero yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by HukuTa_KydecHuk
Exactly how I felt about the BGs. I'm too pussy to fuckin' ski them but they do charge through anything and everything. I needed the day off after my pow day at Jackson on 'em.Quote:
Originally Posted by margotron
HA. I know what you mean. if I ski them more than 2 days in a row, I feel it. Three and forget about it. I don't know how folk DD them. Still my fav ski but there's a taxQuote:
Originally Posted by thejongiest
Nope, I only skied JJ 2.0 in couple of years ago. Haven't flexed them face to face, but I felt like new chetler is even softer.Quote:
Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey
I had it down to the Bent Chetler or the JJ Zero before the season. Went with the Bent Chetler because it was the base model, not a light version of another model. With the amount of weight dropped between the standard JJ and the JJ Zero I had a gut feeling that the Zero would be sloppy.
Am also considering the 192 and mounting further back....but also quite interested in the Spur with shifts. Its heavier, but a directional ski and Im too old to ski assforward so if anyone has skied both these and has input much appreciated.Quote:
Originally Posted by margotron
Well, I mean, you can't get sloppier than regular JJ anyway :) Regular JJ is actually really heavy for it's size. 175 is around 2100g and that's with half of sidewall, thin edges and all the other shit. I guess they just updated the core to a more trendy and lightweight mix and marketed it as zero.Quote:
Originally Posted by burrito
I think I'm going w the 192. Curious what they actually weigh in at. Will report back
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Mounted. Sunny after the rain this weekend, so I’ll be in the park. Will drop a review once I get them into some out of bounds snow.
Attachment 266084
Attachment 266085
Yessss!Quote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
Mounted at recommended line?
What brake size on the Tectons?
Mounted -2 from recommended,Quote:
Originally Posted by DGamms
Which is -4.5 from center I believe. Shorter ski than usual, so I didn’t want to deviate any more than that.
Wide AF - I think they are the 120s/XL. PLENTY of room on either side.
Nice! Like the yellow choice on the bindings. Do you think the 110 brake would fit? I already have 115 crampons for the Vipec but I doubt they would fit...but I think these are the widest Vipec/Tecton crampons made...
Wish I had thought of that sooner, but I’ll check. Have the wide crampons in the shop.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomh79
Ugh they look so fun
Technically they will work. They are snug to the sidewalls, but in a pinch, they will work.Quote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
Attachment 266171
Attachment 266172