Bent Chetler 120 Tip Dive

**SnowMachine** · 05-23-2022, 11:05 PM

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).

**Cocximus** · 06-01-2022, 12:42 PM

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

**Full Trucker** · 11-28-2024, 10:00 AM

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.

**Bandit Man** · 11-28-2024, 03:54 PM

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

**XXX-er** · 11-28-2024, 04:17 PM

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

**Sargentdrufus** · 11-28-2024, 09:28 PM

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

**XXX-er** · 11-28-2024, 09:42 PM

yeah but these are dentists

**SnowMachine** · 11-29-2024, 09:04 AM

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.

**jackstraw** · 11-29-2024, 11:32 AM

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.

**JRainey** · 11-30-2024, 01:55 AM

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.

**jackstraw** · 11-30-2024, 03:50 PM

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.

**halliday** · 12-01-2024, 04:03 PM

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.