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
Thanks for checking! They look REALLY snug though...are they touching the sidewalls of the ski? I think it is by design not really possible to bend them?
Where do yall tour that requires crampons on powder skis?
my thought exactly...Quote:
Originally Posted by margotron
sorry...I'm from Switzerland. I always carry crampons. Sometimes in the Alps you have to cross very steep hard snow sections to get to the good stuff. Of course you could always bootpack. But now I'm wondering if I'd be better off with the Bent Chet 100...
They are touching...squeezing the sidewalls. Easy to push them down by hand, so I suspect that my full body weight would suffice.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomh79
I toured on Chet’s for 3 seasons. Still have and use them on the very best days. Super fun ski. Crampons are super helpful on any crusty or scoured sidehills, which you will often have to cross or surmount to get to the north facing goods. They don’t sidehill that great in those conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by margotron
ya i get it its just that i have never experienced it myself. I am sure the day i do i will be wishing i had crampons in my pack as well :)
Mounted mine 2 weeks ago with Shifts at the recommended line (-2.9) in 184, I'm 5'10" 165#. I finally took them out for a day this weekend in resort at Meadows. Sunny, spring January day. Firm in some places, slush in others. I was really worried about how sharp the edges were going in and I gummied the hell out of them. Never felt like they were too sharp or hooky but I didn't do it enough where slashing was how I like the edges to let go. Definitely worth detuning. Before the next time I use them I'll definitely dull the edges a bit more.
I had a ton of fun on anything corn or slush, in anything soft they were awesome. Landing some fair sized airs felt really good they were solid underfoot and if I was a little backseat the tails supported me into a comfortable landing. If the surface was smooth, they were pretty good on harder snow. However if the surface was bumpy and harder/refrozen chop I didn't like them much on the ground and spent most of my time just trying to jump bumps. At one point I ended up going really fast over some not yet fully softened chop and they were much less fun than my kartels, they just don't have the dampness that a heavier constructed ski like the kartel does.
Re-reading this they are pretty much exactly what you expect/how they are marketed: Fun in air, on landing, in soft (doesn't have to be deep), on smooth. Not so fun going really fast or on harder bumpy terrain. I definitely think most people, especially TGR folk, are going to want to mount these behind the line. -3 feels quite forward on this ski and I could see people moving it back and having a great time especially if you're never skiing switch. I have a few trips in the next month or so in Montana & Revy so if Mt Hood doesn't get the precip she deserves hopefully I'll find some good conditions to play with these in + will update how they do it in deeper snow/some soft chop.
how far back? i was thinking -5 from center. ski switch on groomers and the park, dont land big airs switchQuote:
Originally Posted by whitenab
I really dislike anything farther back than -4 for riding switch, especially in the park. It's definitely a very centered ski at recommended, and I'm not sure I'd give that up for the extra chargieness at -5. I'm extremely happy at recommended for use as a playful, do-it-all ski that rides switch just as well as forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by margotron
My suggestion is go -4 and enjoy a fun playful ski that still has a lot of tip infront of you at 192 and maximize what it's good at - neutral stance playful skiing.
Also, not sure if you should just look at other skis? I was just reading blister reviews and it seems like the Folsom Trophy Carbon fits you pretty well. It's 200 grams heavier but is more directional. I'm sure you can get away with riding switch on any of the light-freestyle-ish skis. But the question is are you trying to make a ski really good at one thing, marginally good at other stuff too and lose it's central essence?
Probably. But the BC fell into my lap and a folsom trophy carbon has not yet hehQuote:
Originally Posted by whitenab
So...after the first day. I really like these skis. Super impressed with their stability at their weight. Skied some pow, some legit chop and some firm. Very easy and intuitive to ski. Float, slash, not demanding. I could be into a 192, but I doubt they’d see use with my billy goats holding that spot.
But gotta say I’m super impressed.
Will use this as a placeholder for some footage. Survived a couple of silly lines on them today.
Mounted - 1.5 of recommended (-4.5 from center) w/ Tecton.
Toe shimmed 4 mm. Really think that helps with the Tecton/vipec. At least it helps me.
Edit: check out my Instagram (public account) @suprechicken- there is some footage of the BC, the bibby tour and 1 video of the two of them on the same terrain.
Thanks!! Will also check your insta.