Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 67 of 67

Thread: Bent Chet 120

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by phatty View Post
    How does the BC handle our heavy PNW snow? I have an older pair ('12-'13) BCs that are probably my favorite ski ever, but can't handle it here when it gets chopped up.
    I've gotten more time on mine, spent both days this weekend at Meadows on them from untouched pow/varied chop/scrapped out chutes and I'd say they did well. I skied some really good, thicker/creamy PNW pow in Clark and they skied great. In chop they definitely took a little more effort/compensation with the legs because they lack the suspension that other skis have (bibby/billy goat/kartel) but they are really fun anyway and most of the time I was able to ski through chop no problem.

    I'm just one data point and don't expect too much crud busting performance from 1750g skis.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    228
    I have had mine for a few days now so thought i'd chime in. I'm 5'9" / 145lbs / do not ski switch. Got the 192 and mounted them with Shifts at -3 from recommended. Boot: Lupo FCR 26.5 fwiw.

    So far conditions encountered have been light pow about boot top deep, heavier wind deposited pow, wind crust, sun crust, perfect corduroy as well as very firm, but smooth hardpack and some heavier wettish sun melt at the bottom. All of this at Andermatt.

    I havent had the chance to hand flex the 184, but the 192 is, with the exception of very tip and tail, NOT a noodle. It carved on hardpack much better than i expected. To echo what others have said this ski is a blast in anything soft. It isnt bad when the snow is chopped up either. Definitely no Bodacious, but the fun factor is much higher with this ski.

    At -3 from recommended I felt like I wouldnt go any further forward, but at the same time wouldnt go much farther back. Wouldnt mind trying -3.5 or even -4. The ball of my foot is right around the narrowest part of the ski. I lined these up next to QST 106's / 188cm. The QSTs are mounted at the recommended line the binding on the BC120 is still ahead of that of the QST....by about a cm.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20190213_175322.jpg 
Views:	97 
Size:	583.2 KB 
ID:	269503
    Life is all about ass...either you are covering it,
    kicking it, hauling it, kissing it, or trying to get it.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Golden B.C.
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by tomh79 View Post
    Anybody mounted a lighter than < 500g binding on the BC120 (ATK...)?
    Yeah I have Zeds on mine. Ski fine. very light.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by skisurfmirth View Post
    Yeah I have Zeds on mine. Ski fine. very light.
    How have you found the Zed's power transfer on a ski this wide. Minus the brake issues they seem to have, I'm super interested in the Zeds for a dedicated touring setup.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Golden B.C.
    Posts
    254
    They have been fine for me. I can't really tell much of a difference between the zed and the ion lt in ski performance. I've gone real fast on them inbounds coming back from the slack country and no issues there.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by SupreChicken View Post
    Mounted -2 from recommended,
    Which is -4.5 from center I believe. Shorter ski than usual, so I didnít want to deviate any more than that.

    Wide AF - I think they are the 120s/XL. PLENTY of room on either side.
    Eyyy Supre. I think the line is at -2.9cm so youíre actually mounted at -4.9cm from center (if youíre at -2 from ManRec)
    Buy used - mount your own skis - build a quiver

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by margotron View Post
    Eyyy Supre. I think the line is at -2.9cm so youíre actually mounted at -4.9cm from center (if youíre at -2 from ManRec)
    I havenít measured properly to confirm, but I believe you are correct.
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,519
    Went -1.5 on the 192. Itís like skiing on butter knives. Way surpassed my expectations. Absurdly fun ski
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,445
    Quote Originally Posted by SupreChicken View Post
    Went -1.5 on the 192. Itís like skiing on butter knives. Way surpassed my expectations. Absurdly fun ski
    Stop! You're going to cost me too much money.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by SupreChicken View Post
    Went -1.5 on the 192. Itís like skiing on butter knives. Way surpassed my expectations. Absurdly fun ski
    Sound sick. Would you be able to get the weight of the 192s? I saw the 184s were ~1725g according to blister. I havenít seen a weight on the 192s though


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by SupreChicken View Post
    Went -1.5 on the 192. Itís like skiing on butter knives. Way surpassed my expectations. Absurdly fun ski
    Sound sick. Would you be able to get the weight of the 192s? I saw the 184s were ~1725g according to blister. I havenít seen a weight on the 192s though


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    167
    Any thoughts on a 5'5" 110 lbs female skier on the 176cm? Current powder setup has been Wailer 112's in a 168. With how different the mount points are I've wondered if it could work.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailwind View Post
    Any thoughts on a 5'5" 110 lbs female skier on the 176cm? Current powder setup has been Wailer 112's in a 168. With how different the mount points are I've wondered if it could work.
    Buy em. Easy AF to throw around.
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by SupreChicken View Post
    Buy em. Easy AF to throw around.
    Yeap. Soft, heavily rockered, light. All ingredients for throw around combo

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the swamp
    Posts
    6,375
    I LOVE the wide Bents Iím on. Will I like the 100 for low/no snow resort days?

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,519
    Yeah. Way more directional than the fatty, but super stable and fun on firm snow.
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the swamp
    Posts
    6,375
    Quote Originally Posted by SupreChicken View Post
    Yeah. Way more directional than the fatty, but super stable and fun on firm snow.
    Nice.

    Anyone: What other similar playful skis are similar to the BC 100?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •