Bent Chetler 120 Tip Dive

Picked up a pair of these near universally lauded sticks for a lighter/fatter BC setup and was surprised at the consistent and often violent bails from the tips diving. I like driving skis through my shins with a forward and nimble style, so hoping I just didn’t pick the wrong ski...previously on Anima Freebirds and never experienced the tips diving despite them folding in half when skied hard.

Looking back, mounting at the recommended point (-3 from center) was a mistake. Just wondering if anyone else has experienced this and if remounting at say -7 would solve this problem. Not sure if there is a little extra material/layer under the recommended mount area and moving so far back will land the screws outside of it?

Any maggot collective insights appreciated!

I’d go -5, but I tried that ski, and I don’t ski centered enough for it. It doesn’t like being driven at all. I’d of been more inclined to grab a backland.

-1.5 cm from recommended (-4.5 cm from center) is really nice. 6’ 168#, main inbounds squeeze is a 191 billy goat. -2 also plays. Not sure what -4 is like

What length are they?

184. I’m 5’11 165. Try to keep my BC skis under 190cm. I think they may just be the wrong ski for my style. Stopped resort skiing and only tour/sled now..they seem to really struggle in any deep snow without a very centered stance. Great for nimble tight trees but the line between light mid foot skiing and getting sent over the handle bars is pretty thin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roberto

184. I’m 5’11 165. Try to keep my BC skis under 190cm. I think they may just be the wrong ski for my style. Stopped resort skiing and only tour/sled now..they seem to really struggle in any deep snow without a very centered stance. Great for nimble tight trees but the line between light mid foot skiing and getting sent over the handle bars is pretty thin.

---

Fwiw for directional skiing I went back about -5 cm from the recommended line and it worked really well for me.

What is your height and weight? I have a pair on order 184s..... did you try them on the line first?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoVT Joey

I’d go -5, but I tried that ski, and I don’t ski centered enough for it. It doesn’t like being driven at all. I’d of been more inclined to grab a backland.

---

IMO, this sounds like truth.

I come from a racing background and had to learn to be a lot more neutral on the BC120, at least at the recommended mount (I haven't tried moving it back). I thoroughly enjoy them in appropriate snow, but they don't charge the way my previous all-mountain skis (Anima, not the freebird though) could. They also don't hold a candle to the Lhasa for charging mixed conditions, but that's no surprise.

I added a pair of 188 BC100s to the quiver for firmer off-groom days and chop, and I am much happier to charge on those than on the 120.

In fairness, the 120 is a 184. I'm 5'9" and about 180 lbs. I like being able to play on the 120s without the energy and commitment level that made the Anima and, even more so, Lhasa happy, but if I were a couple of decades younger and skiing faster, I'd probably want a different ski in that quiver spot unless I was making use of the playfulness for spinny and jibby type stuff.

Sent from my SM-G892A using TGR Forums mobile app

In a 184, you could mount them at -6 from center [-3 from rec]. There it will have a similar mount to the Bibby. I ski the 190 and mounted at -1.5, for my backcountry skiing, I like how nimble it is. Rarely find myself absolutely rallying in the backcountry.

Out of curiosity, what kind of snow were you in and how fast were you skiing?

Ramp angle also has an effect.
Had two pair of original LP years ago. The one with the touring binding dove like a naval submarine. Same boot center.

I tour on the bc120 184 length at -2 from recommend. I'm definitely used to surfy skis and progressive mount points though. Seems to work good from there for me. But you might want a pow stick that is mounted further back

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roberto

I like driving skis through my shins with a forward and nimble style, so hoping I just didn’t pick the wrong ski...

---

There's no point in driving through your shins if you can't feel the base. Center your stance and go faster.

For a no brainer pow ski a pintail design with 600mm of early rise like the lotus 120 is idiot proof, leaning forward like a ski jumper I can't sink the tips on porpoise

IME a skis (wailer jj) with only 450 mm of early rise will still sink but i can bring it back easily enough

mounting back becuz you heard it on TGR, can't ski pow, think its going to help just makes for a sluggish ski that bogs like a ski boat that won't get up on plane, get get yer speed up and stay centered , you can ski pow on any ski but some designs are easier IME

What binding is on the bent Chetler ? what bindings do you like in powder normally?

I find for powder I actually like my toes higher than on packed snow. Flat is good(IE P18 with both toes lifts used) but even 1 or 2mm higher in the toes than flat seems to be best and easiest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushwacka

What binding is on the bent Chetler ? what bindings do you like in powder normally?

I find for powder I actually like my toes higher than on packed snow. Flat is good(IE P18 with both toes lifts used) but even 1 or 2mm higher in the toes than flat seems to be best and easiest.

---

Salomon MTN. Find them the best low weight/most dependable off the tech bindings I’ve used.

Got on the line vision 118 albeit a hardback day and think they would be an excellent BC ski that can be driven...mounted -1 I was surprised how much I need to drive them with a forward stance to stay nimble and not on the tails. Yet to get a pow day on them but think they could tick the boxes the Bent Chetlers don’t...at a bit of a weight penalty.

Kind of reminded me of a lighter Obsethed with the huge tips and damp feel

I've found that among my friend group, some adapt to more center-mounted skis and others don't at all. One had the Bent Chetler 120 and didn't like it - mounted back 3 cm and it was better, but still not right for him.

I haven't been able to get used to them. I tried the QST 118 mounted a little back from the line (8cm behind core center) and the tail still felt really long and awkward to me. I'm super happy on my old Automatic 117 which are 12cm behind core center. I know there is a lot more to skis than mount point, but after having tried quite a few pairs, I haven't loved any of the more center-mount ones and have noticed that a few other friends have had similar experiences. I've been through is all with binding delta, boot fit, etc. etc. and I actually run zero delta with a very upright boot out of preference, but that in itself hasn't made forward/center mounted skis feel good.

If you love that forward mount then more power to you - most of the coolest new skis seem to be that way!

/rant

Has anyone skied both the BC120 and the new Backland 117? There is so little info out on the new Backland 117 but on paper it looks like the BC120 with less tail rocker and a slightly sturdier build that would be less prone to tip dive.

Tip dive is unacceptable

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Unrelated question but I figured it would be a good thread to ask.
I will be putting pivots on a pair of BC120s and wondering if anyone has them on theirs and what brake size did you use.
I have a pair of BG 118’s and the Pivot 115’s need a little bending to clear.

I threw 115's on and they worked fine with some bending

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabazz

I threw 115's on and they worked fine with some bending

---

Also went with 115’s on my pivots and have been fine with the bending.
Also Mounted my BC’s at -4 from
recommended and no tip dive or such, they are a blast in the appropriate conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grrrmountainman

Also went with 115’s on my pivots and have been fine with the bending.
Also Mounted my BC’s at -4 from
recommended and no tip dive or such, they are a blast in the appropriate conditions.

---

Interesting on the -4. After talking to a few people and some of the comments on this thread I am starting to waffle on binding choice and am thinking maybe a pair of Marker demo bindings may be the way to go. I would be able to play around with mount point. I read on another site that taller stack height is a negative for wider skis. Personally I don't think a few mm would make a difference but I would be interested to hear other opinions.

I mounted (shifts) -1.5 after comparing side by side with ON3P kartel 116s

There is no definitive answer to this question, as it depends on a number of factors including your height, weight, and skiing ability. However, we can offer some general guidance based on the average skier. For most skiers, we recommend choosing a ski that is somewhere between 170-190cm long. If you are an advanced skier, you may want to choose a longer ski from for more stability and speed, while beginner and intermediate skiers may prefer a shorter ski for easier maneuverability. Ultimately, it is important to choose a ski that feels comfortable and stable under your feet, so be sure to try out different lengths before making a purchase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m97a2d

There is no definitive answer to this question, as it depends on a number of factors including your height, weight, and skiing ability. However, we can offer some general guidance based on the average skier. For most skiers, we recommend choosing a ski that is somewhere between 170-190cm long. If you are an advanced skier, you may want to choose a longer ski from for more stability and speed, while beginner and intermediate skiers may prefer a shorter ski for easier maneuverability. Ultimately, it is important to choose a ski that feels comfortable and stable under your feet, so be sure to try out different lengths before making a purchase.

---

suck a dick. This is TGR. We only ski the longest lengths. Take a lap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goolick

I mounted (shifts) -1.5 after comparing side by side with ON3P kartel 116s

---

My Shifts are -1 from rec. 6' 160lbs on 184's. Zero tip dive, but I'm an old snowboarder and tend to ride the back of the ski unless I'm really pushing it.

I also ride the 100's in 180. I hated them on rec and love them at +3. Effectively the same mount point that I'm at on the 120's (not that the skis are remotely similar, IMO).

Dunno if it applies to BC120s but wide rockered skis can give the feeling of going over if they fold in deep pow. JJs and old Wailers did that.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

I’ve got a buddy who has a pair of BC120s, and as far as we know they were mounted on the recommended line. I’m gonna double check that next time I see him.

Anyways, we were skiing yesterday and he was saying he wishes he’d gotten a longer size, as he just doesn’t feel like he “can get over the tips” like he wants to. I suggested that since the BC is probably a ski with fairly progressive mount point, that just moving back a bit could be an option. We stood his skis up next to his Fischer Rangers of a similar length which he lives, and which are mounted quite a bit further back. Definitely a different ski, but another reference point.

He’s about 5’6” 170# skiing the 178 length in a 25.x Lange. I was thinking he could go 1-2cm back (maybe -1.5?) but wondering what the TGR thinks.

At 170-lbs, I would have recommended the 184-cm length.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandit Man

At 170-lbs, I would have recommended the 184-cm length.

---

same ^^ here, at 162- 170 I'm always on a 184

but on a really soft ski I have gone 190 but only cuz they came up used & very cheap

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Full Trucker

I’ve got a buddy who has a pair of BC120s, and as far as we know they were mounted on the recommended line. I’m gonna double check that next time I see him.

Anyways, we were skiing yesterday and he was saying he wishes he’d gotten a longer size, as he just doesn’t feel like he “can get over the tips” like he wants to. I suggested that since the BC is probably a ski with fairly progressive mount point, that just moving back a bit could be an option. We stood his skis up next to his Fischer Rangers of a similar length which he lives, and which are mounted quite a bit further back. Definitely a different ski, but another reference point.

He’s about 5’6” 170# skiing the 178 length in a 25.x Lange. I was thinking he could go 1-2cm back (maybe -1.5?) but wondering what the TGR thinks.

---

I would also say the BC120 is a ski you don't need to get over the front of and is best skied more neutrally

yeah but these are dentists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Full Trucker

I’ve got a buddy who has a pair of BC120s, and as far as we know they were mounted on the recommended line. I’m gonna double check that next time I see him.

Anyways, we were skiing yesterday and he was saying he wishes he’d gotten a longer size, as he just doesn’t feel like he “can get over the tips” like he wants to. I suggested that since the BC is probably a ski with fairly progressive mount point, that just moving back a bit could be an option. We stood his skis up next to his Fischer Rangers of a similar length which he lives, and which are mounted quite a bit further back. Definitely a different ski, but another reference point.

He’s about 5’6” 170# skiing the 178 length in a 25.x Lange. I was thinking he could go 1-2cm back (maybe -1.5?) but wondering what the TGR thinks.

---

Seems like maybe the wrong shape for him. He could try the 184, but if you want to drive the front of the ski the BC is probably the wrong choice. It's a really fun surfy shape from a neutral stance.

I ended up ditching mine. Not quite stout enough for an inbounds ski and a bit wide for my touring needs.

The BC skis short imo. And you never want to be "over the front" of any ski. You may think you want to be, but that's just wanting to be balanced on your ski. If you have that feeling or need, you're backseat. Or ya, maybe mounted too far back.

This is all detailed in the BC 120 Thread, but if you like the 184, but want to size up, don't get 192 BC. It will tip dive is even worse.

The camber section get's longer and the ski gets much stiffer. Even if you go back with the mount point you'll have a ski that doesn't flex with soft snow, even dense snow.

190lbs for me during that test. I know jackstraw and I have differing opinions on the matter.

Personally, the 192 BC 120 was the worst powder ski I've tried. 184 is 3rd Fav behind Ren and BO118. Not an issue of my mass, power, skill, agro-ness or snow conditions. 191 Reckoners 122 are a better version of a similar mold/shape.

If a ski can't flex in soft snow, then it should be reverse camber. Otherwise, it's just some factory team AK model (which is what the ski is). Even then it should be heavier.

But if you're asking about going from 176 to 184, then go 184. My dad tried my 184s and liked them enough (in the alps), then demo some after returning to Durango, and decided on the 176, but he's over 60 and likes to noodle. Too much tail on the 184 was his report, but I disagree.

I don't know if we disagree as I've never skied that K2 and if it's softer it probably is better in pow.

I don't have a large quiver these days, so I need a versatile ski...plus I've been snowboarding more than skiing the past 5 or so years. I do have a 108 ON3P for in bounds firmer conditions, 110 Praxis lighter with pins for touring, and the BC for powder plus everything else as it gets skied off.

At the end of the day...run whatcha brung.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Full Trucker

I’ve got a buddy who has a pair of BC120s, and as far as we know they were mounted on the recommended line. I’m gonna double check that next time I see him.

Anyways, we were skiing yesterday and he was saying he wishes he’d gotten a longer size, as he just doesn’t feel like he “can get over the tips” like he wants to. I suggested that since the BC is probably a ski with fairly progressive mount point, that just moving back a bit could be an option. We stood his skis up next to his Fischer Rangers of a similar length which he lives, and which are mounted quite a bit further back. Definitely a different ski, but another reference point.

He’s about 5’6” 170# skiing the 178 length in a 25.x Lange. I was thinking he could go 1-2cm back (maybe -1.5?) but wondering what the TGR thinks.

---

You don't want to get "over the tips" on a ski like the BC120. Stay neutral and follow the ski. It will tell you where you need to be for whatever condition snow you are skiing. It's like going from a Corvus 183 to a Nomad 186. They ski differently, ski them differently. And tell your friend to get the 184. Or some old skool Noctas. Way better ski than the BC.

Thanks all, appreciate the thoughts. I'll keep in mind that free advice is worth exactly what you pay for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXX-er

yeah but these are dentists

---

Easy bud. He's a physician and I'm a tech bro, just to be clear here.

Yeah i'm completely serious about the dentist crack

The tips won't sink on a pintail with lots of early rise