Am I cool enough to handle the 192 Bent Chetler?

**Jaybrtn** · 10-12-2018, 07:56 PM

So it’s been decided, I’m buying the new Bent chetlers this season but I’m hung up on sizing. I’m leaning towards the 192s, but thought I’d ask around to see if anyone has any insight.

I’m 5’9”, 165, ski hard, and drop cliffs when I find them. Got a pair of 186 backhand 117s which I love. So I figure the 192s with all the rocker, and especially the lack of weight due to the new version, should be fine. Can’t find any good first hand experiences between that and the 185s though.

Pls halp

**Jaybrtn** · 10-12-2018, 07:57 PM

Also, making a japanuary trip this season, which these seem perfect for.

**Banh Mi** · 10-12-2018, 09:35 PM

I personally hated the heavy 192 BC (wasnt that jibby, wasnt a charger at -2mount), I like the 185s better for the intended purpose (surf and jib everywhere)...but I think with the new lighter weight layup the 192 may be much better (more jibby, as intended)

The lack of weight throws a caution flag up in my brain, but at least it will be better for sizing up on a jib ski.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

**XXX-er** · 10-12-2018, 10:02 PM

if you have to ask ... go shorter

**Banh Mi** · 10-12-2018, 10:24 PM

Get a pair of last years 185s. Pricey for old stock skis, but worth it in my opinion. They are pretty damn fast all mtn if you have good balance over the centered mount, and the weight makes them fairly damp for such a jibby ski. They are fkn stompy, more so than you’d expect.

I think they are extremely versatile for 120mm super rockered out skis. I could easily ski them everyday, like a Bibby Pro, if I had to. Very, veryyy different style and feel from Bibby Pro, but similarly versatile. They dont have all that much taper, which I prefer in anything under 120mm..seemingly, I havent measured the taper out.

The 2015-2018 192s were shitplanks for me, dont fall for the trap thinking they are jibby. Might be a good ski if you like a -2 charger, but otherwise I’d stay away. 2019 192s seem better for jibbing.

The 2019 JJs got beefed up. Thicker beefier core and edges. I give them huge props for doing this, when (most of) the industry is currently going full on featherweight. If you like taper in your wide all mtn skis, they could also be an answer. The taper has gotten reduced over the years, and might feel better now, but i’m always worried about certain taper styles personally. Armada does extreme taper right though..

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

**XavierD** · 10-12-2018, 10:53 PM

I’d point you to the 185 based on height and weight alone, not to mention you loved a ski within 1cm if it’s length. All that aside...

What he said:

Originally Posted by XXX-er

if you have to ask ... go shorter

**Banh Mi** · 10-12-2018, 11:23 PM

Attachment 250750

My goal is to get fit enough in the next month or two, to charge these 185s as hard as I can this year. They jib-charge when I’m in shape to handle that sort of dynamism.

Funny, in that picture I can totally see a lot of taper lol. When compared to the M108s. They dont ski like other heavily tapered skis I have tried though..

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

**Coño Frío** · 10-12-2018, 11:46 PM

So basically, what everyone is try’n ta say, in a nicer-than-ime-used-2 TGR sorta way is...
No, you are not cool enough to rock the 192

Sorry

**XXX-er** · 10-13-2018, 11:04 AM

I am OP sized and I have lotus 120 & Stokes in 190+ that I use regularly but they were used skis i got a smoking deal on and I knew the ski/ knew they are really soft cuz I already had the same lotus 120 in 184, i knew the stokes were soft

so I can bend them ^^ enough to make them work but there are still times i wish they were shorter like when they need to be bossed around in tight quarters I don't really have the reach or strength so I KNOW that in general 185 is my sweet spot and i don't need to augment my penis size by going 190

**Self Jupiter** · 10-13-2018, 11:15 AM

Lol @ that song

**pfluffenmeister** · 10-13-2018, 11:22 AM

I'm light (150#), but still think long skis truck.
OP should be fine if he can bend a ski.

I thought the conventional wisdom around here was longerer is betterer?

**XXX-er** · 10-13-2018, 11:26 AM

it means you got a small dick

**burrito** · 10-13-2018, 11:55 AM

I'm pretty much the same size (5'10" / 160lbs), have been riding fat, playful skis in the 185-ish range for a while, and am opting for the 184 Bent Chetlers this season. Mid-180s skis always seem a tad short (especially with a mount as far forward as the Bent Chetlers) until I demo anything at 190+. I immediately feel the increase in speed and power but at the expense of a ton of playfulness. If I wanted a ski dedicated to high speed charging (i.e. not riding switch, not trying to do stupid little airs off of everything in sight) something the size of the 192s would make sense, but I would also probably look for something a little more stable anyway.

It definitely depends on how you like to ride, but my two cents is the increase in power at 192 isn't worth the trade-off in playfulness.

**Tailwind** · 10-13-2018, 11:58 AM

The Bent Chetler will measure short... The 184 will come out at around a 182 cm length ski and the 192 like a 189... It will depend on where you are skiing both terrain and type of snowpack. The simple answer is that for open terrain and trying to use them at higher speeds in more variable snow you would want the 192, but as others have said does this shape and construction really make sense for that usage? Really what the biggest question would be, how do you want it to perform differently than your Backlands?

**Banh Mi** · 10-13-2018, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by pfluffenmeister

I'm light (150#), but still think long skis truck.
OP should be fine if he can bend a ski.

I thought the conventional wisdom around here was longerer is betterer?

See my picture above. It’s good to have variety.

It really depends on what OP is trying to do with the BentChetler. I think the 192 would be the way to go for me now that it’s lighter. I bought last years 185 because I’m afraid of too much weight loss, even though I dont think the new one will be a bad ski. Just different from what I’m used to. Scary

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

**Jaybrtn** · 10-15-2018, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by XavierD

I’d point you to the 185 based on height and weight alone, not to mention you loved a ski within 1cm if it’s length. All that aside...

What he said:

True, although the backlands are mounted way further back than the Bent’s would be for me. I’d essentially just be adding some extra tail length with the 192s.

**Banh Mi** · 10-15-2018, 11:31 AM

If thats what you want..

No interest in the 192 Backland?

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

**Jaybrtn** · 10-15-2018, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Tailwind

The Bent Chetler will measure short... The 184 will come out at around a 182 cm length ski and the 192 like a 189... It will depend on where you are skiing both terrain and type of snowpack. The simple answer is that for open terrain and trying to use them at higher speeds in more variable snow you would want the 192, but as others have said does this shape and construction really make sense for that usage? Really what the biggest question would be, how do you want it to perform differently than your Backlands?

I like having the length in the tip with the backlands, they eat up anything in my path and can handle the really deep snow, big drops, and speed. But I want a ski that is a little more playful and center mounted without losing the capability to charge it, which if I went with the 184s, I’d lose quite a bit of length up front.

I demoed the 2018 185s on a day with not much pow and they did feel and ski super short.

Thread: Am I cool enough to handle the 192 Bent Chetler?

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread