Bent 100 or 110 vs Jeff 108 or Woods 108.

[EWG]

I'm Bentcurios. Never been on them. My DD has become the Woods 108. I also have a pair of Jeff 108s that I quite like. My next size down is a Supernatural 96.

Getting pretty interested in the benchetlers. Can anybody compare the 100s or 110s to the Jeff or Woods 108s? I don't think I need the 120s...

[FloridaSnow]

Skip the 100. They are too soft and generally get pushed around the mountain. Wasn’t improved in the new model either.

110 is getting better. A little stiffer but feels generally better over the whole mountain.

120 is the best of the lineup. Depending on where you ski you can daily them as they work pretty well everywhere on the mountain.

that being said I just sold my 120’s. Just too soft for my liking.

I’ve skied the 100 and 110 as well.

[MoeSnow]

I think Bents are going to feel softer than your ON3Ps. I have read that the 100s are pretty sub-standard in terms of stability and stiffness.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I think Bents are going to feel softer than your ON3Ps. I have read that the 100s are pretty sub-standard in terms of stability and stiffness.

They’re a great woman’s or smaller man’s ski.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[DoubleBogey]

Bent 110’s are soft in the tip and tail IME. I was on the 188 last year and I didn’t like them in skied out chop. You may like that, you may not.

[FloridaSnow]

Bent 110’s are soft in the tip and tail IME. I was on the 188 last year and I didn’t like them in skied out chop. You may like that, you may not.

the whole bent line up hates skied out chop.

[MoeSnow]

the whole bent line up hates skied out chop.

Pro riders make the Bent lineup look fun in smooth untouched backcountry settings. I have seen a few folks on them in chopped up resorts conditions and they definitely look out of place there.

[EWG]

Ok, this is helpful. I think the spot in my quiver they would fill is not a DD, or a power ski, but rather a play all over the mountain hitting stuff, bouncing around, air etc. More fun, less ripped turns. The Woods are great for power. These are are more for playground kinda stuff.

And I think I'm interested in a lighter pair of skis to change things up.

A lot of skiers I know and respect really like these skis. Maybe I just need to get on a pair. Plus, Chris is skiing pretty well on them...

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Sweetbippy loves her 172 Bent 100s. She says they are really stable and quiet. She’s only 130 pounds though. Skiing faster than ever in all conditions.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[goolick]

I have a pair of kartel 108 191s, kartel 116 191s, and BC120 192s. I'm 6'5 200 lbs. The BC 120s are the closest thing to a versatile daily driver in terms of being able to handle anything. On the ON3Ps, the minimal camber and lack of edge hold is really noticeable if there isn't enough soft snow, and they're just a lot of ski to move around. So in terms of groomers and low snow condition, BCs are going to be better (even if you're on the 110 or 120). And they are a blast when there is lots of snow for what you describe ("play all over the mountain..."). But then again all of these skis are fun for that. The ON3Ps handle heavy/chopped-up snow better and will have a higher speed limit, but the BCs do just fine.

I haven't ridden the BC 100 or 110. For me, I expect the 100 wouldn't be enough ski. But I am bent-curious about the 110, and have considered replacing the K108s with them. I think it will fill in gaps (mostly versatility in lower-snow conditions) that the K108 doesn't work well in. If you're interested in a lighter ski the BCs seem like a good choice.

[SnowMachine]

Such a different ski from ON3P. Not damp. Not heavy.

I've owned the 100 and 120. Moved both along. The 120 is a really fun pow ski in untracked conditions. Really quick and fun. No Bueno in chop. I mounted my 100 on the line, then moved them +4. It's a pretty versatile ski at my weight (160lbs). I liked them as a park ski at +4. Not enough mass to daily drive, for me.

Contrary to some conversations. I found the 120 reasonably stiff. Lots of rebound.

I skied the 180cm 100 and the 184cm 120.

[EWG]

Goolick and Snowmachine you guys are bringing it. Thanks.

I wanted the 100s cause I thought I had the wider side of things pretty covered. Now I’m thinking that sounds like not so great a plan. I put some pretty good force into a ski and sounds like 100s might not have enough backbone.

I need a demo day.

Thanks for the help mags.

[SnowMachine]

Goolick and Snowmachine you guys are bringing it. Thanks.

I wanted the 100s cause I thought I had the wider side of things pretty covered. Now I’m thinking that sounds like not so great a plan. I put some pretty good force into a ski and sounds like 100s might not have enough backbone.

I need a demo day.

Thanks for the help mags.

Are you looking for a traditional or progressive mount? That's where the Bent line is a bit odd. The wide skis are progressive, but the skinny ski is more traditional. It is a bit of a chameleon as it does work on the line or +4. Going +4 gave up a lot of float for the 180, but might work for the longer ski.

I'm kinda looking for a ski in that realm still. I have a 4FRNT Switch that I park ski, but it's a pretty fun all-mountain ski if the snow isn't at the ends of the spectrum (rock hard or deep). The skis on my radar are the K2 Mindbender 99Ti, the J Masterblaster and the Line Blade Optic 96. All have a bit more ass than the BC100.

Edit: I think the 110 could be a lot of fun in the right conditions. Would probably make a great BC ski, too (I liked my 120 to tour on).

[XavierD]

Honestly neither the 100 or 110 have enough backbone if you’re a bigger skier or used to skiing on the front on the ski. They are fun and easy to ski if you keep the weight centered but honestly pretty underwhelming for how hyped they are. I found them too light without enough grip in the forebody or tail for anything that wasn’t soft. 110 would be a great playful touring ski imo. 120 has always been awesome in its various iterations. 100 is a phenomenal tweener ski parents can get their young teenagers which is both affordable, cool story line/graphics, and good for good but growing kids..

There were other skis in that sphere I have had more fun on. Rustler 9, M-Free 99, Armada Declivity 102, Moment Wildcat 101. So many options that ski better with less hype. Graphics are cool though.

[PeachesNCream]

Ok, this is helpful. I think the spot in my quiver they would fill is not a DD, or a power ski, but rather a play all over the mountain hitting stuff, bouncing around, air etc. More fun, less ripped turns. The Woods are great for power. These are are more for playground kinda stuff.

And I think I'm interested in a lighter pair of skis to change things up.

A lot of skiers I know and respect really like these skis. Maybe I just need to get on a pair. Plus, Chris is skiing pretty well on them...

Consider the reckoner. Similar to a Jeffery but lighter, and a softer flex, does better in chop than it should but still very playful. Take a look at the thread, lots of good things have been said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EWG]

Good feedback. This ski would be fairly center mounted for me. The woods and other skis I have are more trad- I’m thinking this more progressive like the Jeff. This ones for surfing. I can still crank carved turns on the Jeff but I have to be right in the pocket. Maybe I could live without that for something playful.

I’ve heard good things about the Reckoner.

[oltrepiave]

i've had the b100 for a while as an all-around touring ski (Alps) and i loved them.

They don't float amazingly and they don't slay chop that's for sure. They do have some backbone though, i had many nice outings with them skiing steeper lines and enjjoying surfier turn shapes. Loads of pop as well for the specs/characteristics of the ski itfself.

I do feel like mount point has a big impact on how people end up perceiving/liking them, flex on tips and tails is not symmetrical so the more traditional you mount them the more you are going to suffer having such a soft tip on a lightish ski. I always mounted them way forward and had no issues skiing funky snow. When i ran out of mounts and had to move back on rec. MP i finally understood why some people didn't like them and gave them away. It's not a ski that can be driven traditionally, tibia-to-the-metal race style. The whole concept (the build, the geometry etc.) doesn't really support that kind of skiing.

Another letdown imo is the length. Given how moderate the rocker is i've always felt like the 180 (the ones i had) were a bit too short for me and the 188 was quite a bump up in length. I wish they had a 185ish like they always did with the 120.