Bent Chet 120

[DGamms]

One more data point:

Finally got some days on these in deep pow. Touring days in Big and Little Cottonwood last week, and some Canyons sidecountry. Set up with Tectons and Hawx 130 XTDs, mounted at - 1 cm from rec. Of note, my pair is noticeably heavier than Blister’s stated weights. My 184s weigh 1850gm per ski.

Short version: these are the surfiest skis I’ve ever tried! Not sure if that’s due to their low weight, soft flexing tip and tail, or the HRZN hulled tip/tail shape. But they are pow ninja sticks. Plane up so quickly, easy to maneuver, relatively damp for their weight. I’d say they are more surfy/playful in soft snow than any other fat ski I’ve owned (OG Renegade, EHP, Volkl Two, CT 4.0, Black Ops 118).

Overall, I’m impressed by them so far. Skied terrible breakable crust on the south facing return from one of the touring days and they handled that snow as well as anything else I’ve tried too. Fat, soft, and significant tail rocker all seem to help when skiing bad backcountry snow like that IMO.

[mattrwills]

Ok, looking for more more discussion between 184 vs 192...

These will be setup as a dedicated touring ski with Tectons. My other skis are BGs in 184, Protests in 187, and Praxis BC in 180. The BGs length feel perfect. Protests a bit on the long side when conditions become tight, and the BCs short when I want to open them up. Yes, I know, all to be expected.

I have the 184s now still in the wrapper. When I stand on them at -2 to -3cm there isn't a lot of ski up front.

So, anyone out there ski similar and have skied both the 184 and 192? Supre?

[mtskibum16]

I know most of you are using these primarily as a touring ski, but what about for a lower angle inbounds pow ski? I mainly ski Billy Goats, but I often find myself with a more mellow mountain and crew on powder days and do have to fight a bit of the BG push in slower speed low angle stuff. The idea of a ski that planes and is lively at slower speeds could really be appealing in this situation. Swap out to BGs at lunch. Thoughts?

[SupreChicken]

Ok, looking for more more discussion between 184 vs 192...

These will be setup as a dedicated touring ski with Tectons. My other skis are BGs in 184, Protests in 187, and Praxis BC in 180. The BGs length feel perfect. Protests a bit on the long side when conditions become tight, and the BCs short when I want to open them up. Yes, I know, all to be expected.

I have the 184s now still in the wrapper. When I stand on them at -2 to -3cm there isn't a lot of ski up front.

So, anyone out there ski similar and have skied both the 184 and 192? Supre?

Yup. Agreed. Not much ski up front. So it goes with progressively mounted skis. If you’re coming from a -9.5 mount (billy goats), it’s going to look weird.

They ski just fine though. You can pressure the tips and ski forward if you must. They respond to that. They behave a little better with a centered stance, but they tolerate both. If you feel like your stance is at all adaptable, I’d encourage you to give them a try. Great ski.

I never went over the bars on the 184. Skied them pretty hard for a few days. Sold them, but not because I wanted the same ski just bigger. I did, but that was secondary.

Quick point: I think of touring setups by binding first. So I wanted a different ski for my tecton setup. I knew this was likely to be used for longer BC only missions, not just lift assisted sidecountry.

Tecton crampons are what made the decision for me. They don’t quite fit on the bents. They fit on the wildcat tour, though.

So I sold the bents for some bibby tours. Couldn’t find that ski in a 184, so I ended up with a 190 and love it.

But I really missed the more progressive mount, the hulled tips and the agility of the bents. So I found a 192 and that is now the shift setup in the quiver. I ski that inbounds occasionally and I love bringing it out on leftovers days. Short hikes are fun and they can be thrown around so easily in tight terrain.

I also continue to harbor ambition and fantasy that I will at last land switch in the pow at some point.

[SupreChicken]

I know most of you are using these primarily as a touring ski, but what about for a lower angle inbounds pow ski? I mainly ski Billy Goats, but I often find myself with a more mellow mountain and crew on powder days and do have to fight a bit of the BG push in slower speed low angle stuff. The idea of a ski that planes and is lively at slower speeds could really be appealing in this situation. Swap out to BGs at lunch. Thoughts?

A couple things about this.

1) I doubt you’ll bother swapping out. At least at my weight (165) I don’t. These are not as good in chop (the BG has no equal in chop), but generally less demanding in anything else. Don’t swap out. Work on your switch game and your balance. Around here, the goods are usually super thrashed by noon anyway.

2. Re: the BG push.
I’m guessing you’re on an older 191? The 189 solves the push problem, IMO. I just don’t see it as a problem. Which is why I kept my 191 and sold my 189. Not certain we are talking about the same thing, but 2funky has described this as the reason he’s a Lhasa guy and sold his 191 BG.

3. Definitely save a solo shred powder day or two for yourself.

4. The bents require more finesse than the BG. I’m calling it skiing with a “lighter touch”. When I try to Mach through chop on them, My torso gets bucked back and forth a bit. It’s not awful, but it’s not a thing that would happen on billy goats. When I try to bounce through or over the chop on them, they are more in their element. This is the kind of skiing that makes me see this ski as the most “fun” in my quiver. It also makes me respect McNutt and Durstchi that much more watching what they can do on this ski. Those bigger dudes “finessing” their way through the stuff they can do is impressive.

Today will be a half day out for me that will hopefully start with a small hike to an untracked line and then ski variable conditions with some park laps. I’m taking the bents.

[mtskibum16]

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.

[SupreChicken]

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.

[ASP]

Pics! Or start a thread

[DGamms]

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

[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!

[topher23]

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.

[anotherVTskibum]

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.

[cydwhit]

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.

[SupreChicken]

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?

[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!

[HukuTa_KydecHuk]

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

[cydwhit]

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.

[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.

[DGamms]

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!

[kc_7777]

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

[SupreChicken]

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.

[phatty]

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.

[Jason4]

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.

[burrito]

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

[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?