Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 76 to 87 of 87

Thread: Bent Chet 120

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    412
    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.
    Last edited by DGamms; 01-28-2020 at 09:15 AM. Reason: Typo

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    111
    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?

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    395
    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?

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,719

    Bent Chet 120

    Quote Originally Posted by mattrwills View Post
    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 youíre coming from a -9.5 mount (billy goats), itís 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, Iíd 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 donít quite fit on the bents. They fit on the wildcat tour, though.

    So I sold the bents for some bibby tours. Couldnít 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.
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,719
    Quote Originally Posted by mtskibum16 View Post
    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 youíll bother swapping out. At least at my weight (165) I donít. These are not as good in chop (the BG has no equal in chop), but generally less demanding in anything else. Donít 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.
    Iím guessing youíre on an older 191? The 189 solves the push problem, IMO. I just donít 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 heís 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. Iím calling it skiing with a ďlighter touchĒ. When I try to Mach through chop on them, My torso gets bucked back and forth a bit. Itís not awful, but itís 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 ďfunĒ 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 ďfinessingĒ 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. Iím taking the bents.
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    395
    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.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,719

    Bent Chet 120

    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 itís -7. Iím 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.
    Last edited by SupreChicken; 03-16-2020 at 11:53 PM.
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    68
    Pics! Or start a thread

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    412
    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

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    1

    What size?!

    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!

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Benjinho View Post
    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.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Bethel, Maine
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by Benjinho View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

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