Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 67

Thread: Bent Chet 120

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    25
    Thanks for checking! They look REALLY snug though...are they touching the sidewalls of the ski? I think it is by design not really possible to bend them?

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,225
    Where do yall tour that requires crampons on powder skis?
    I started a dating advice app because I always need advice
    ó
    Charmed Chat lets you tinder for your friends

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by margotron View Post
    Where do yall tour that requires crampons on powder skis?
    my thought exactly...
    Life is all about ass...either you are covering it,
    kicking it, hauling it, kissing it, or trying to get it.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    25
    sorry...I'm from Switzerland. I always carry crampons. Sometimes in the Alps you have to cross very steep hard snow sections to get to the good stuff. Of course you could always bootpack. But now I'm wondering if I'd be better off with the Bent Chet 100...

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by tomh79 View Post
    Thanks for checking! They look REALLY snug though...are they touching the sidewalls of the ski? I think it is by design not really possible to bend them?
    They are touching...squeezing the sidewalls. Easy to push them down by hand, so I suspect that my full body weight would suffice.
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by margotron View Post
    Where do yall tour that requires crampons on powder skis?
    I toured on Chet’s for 3 seasons. Still have and use them on the very best days. Super fun ski. Crampons are super helpful on any crusty or scoured sidehills, which you will often have to cross or surmount to get to the north facing goods. They don’t sidehill that great in those conditions.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    228
    ya i get it its just that i have never experienced it myself. I am sure the day i do i will be wishing i had crampons in my pack as well
    Life is all about ass...either you are covering it,
    kicking it, hauling it, kissing it, or trying to get it.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    22
    Mounted mine 2 weeks ago with Shifts at the recommended line (-2.9) in 184, I'm 5'10" 165#. I finally took them out for a day this weekend in resort at Meadows. Sunny, spring January day. Firm in some places, slush in others. I was really worried about how sharp the edges were going in and I gummied the hell out of them. Never felt like they were too sharp or hooky but I didn't do it enough where slashing was how I like the edges to let go. Definitely worth detuning. Before the next time I use them I'll definitely dull the edges a bit more.

    I had a ton of fun on anything corn or slush, in anything soft they were awesome. Landing some fair sized airs felt really good they were solid underfoot and if I was a little backseat the tails supported me into a comfortable landing. If the surface was smooth, they were pretty good on harder snow. However if the surface was bumpy and harder/refrozen chop I didn't like them much on the ground and spent most of my time just trying to jump bumps. At one point I ended up going really fast over some not yet fully softened chop and they were much less fun than my kartels, they just don't have the dampness that a heavier constructed ski like the kartel does.

    Re-reading this they are pretty much exactly what you expect/how they are marketed: Fun in air, on landing, in soft (doesn't have to be deep), on smooth. Not so fun going really fast or on harder bumpy terrain. I definitely think most people, especially TGR folk, are going to want to mount these behind the line. -3 feels quite forward on this ski and I could see people moving it back and having a great time especially if you're never skiing switch. I have a few trips in the next month or so in Montana & Revy so if Mt Hood doesn't get the precip she deserves hopefully I'll find some good conditions to play with these in + will update how they do it in deeper snow/some soft chop.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by whitenab View Post
    Mounted mine 2 weeks ago with Shifts at the recommended line (-2.9) in 184, I'm 5'10" 165#. I finally took them out for a day this weekend in resort at Meadows. Sunny, spring January day. Firm in some places, slush in others. I was really worried about how sharp the edges were going in and I gummied the hell out of them. Never felt like they were too sharp or hooky but I didn't do it enough where slashing was how I like the edges to let go. Definitely worth detuning. Before the next time I use them I'll definitely dull the edges a bit more.

    I had a ton of fun on anything corn or slush, in anything soft they were awesome. Landing some fair sized airs felt really good they were solid underfoot and if I was a little backseat the tails supported me into a comfortable landing. If the surface was smooth, they were pretty good on harder snow. However if the surface was bumpy and harder/refrozen chop I didn't like them much on the ground and spent most of my time just trying to jump bumps. At one point I ended up going really fast over some not yet fully softened chop and they were much less fun than my kartels, they just don't have the dampness that a heavier constructed ski like the kartel does.

    Re-reading this they are pretty much exactly what you expect/how they are marketed: Fun in air, on landing, in soft (doesn't have to be deep), on smooth. Not so fun going really fast or on harder bumpy terrain. I definitely think most people, especially TGR folk, are going to want to mount these behind the line. -3 feels quite forward on this ski and I could see people moving it back and having a great time especially if you're never skiing switch. I have a few trips in the next month or so in Montana & Revy so if Mt Hood doesn't get the precip she deserves hopefully I'll find some good conditions to play with these in + will update how they do it in deeper snow/some soft chop.
    how far back? i was thinking -5 from center. ski switch on groomers and the park, dont land big airs switch
    I started a dating advice app because I always need advice
    ó
    Charmed Chat lets you tinder for your friends

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by margotron View Post
    how far back? i was thinking -5 from center. ski switch on groomers and the park, dont land big airs switch
    I really dislike anything farther back than -4 for riding switch, especially in the park. It's definitely a very centered ski at recommended, and I'm not sure I'd give that up for the extra chargieness at -5. I'm extremely happy at recommended for use as a playful, do-it-all ski that rides switch just as well as forward.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    22
    My suggestion is go -4 and enjoy a fun playful ski that still has a lot of tip infront of you at 192 and maximize what it's good at - neutral stance playful skiing.

    Also, not sure if you should just look at other skis? I was just reading blister reviews and it seems like the Folsom Trophy Carbon fits you pretty well. It's 200 grams heavier but is more directional. I'm sure you can get away with riding switch on any of the light-freestyle-ish skis. But the question is are you trying to make a ski really good at one thing, marginally good at other stuff too and lose it's central essence?

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by whitenab View Post
    Also, not sure if you should just look at other skis? I was just reading blister reviews and it seems like the Folsom Trophy Carbon fits you pretty well. It's 200 grams heavier but is more directional. I'm sure you can get away with riding switch on any of the light-freestyle-ish skis. But the question is are you trying to make a ski really good at one thing, marginally good at other stuff too and lose it's central essence?
    Probably. But the BC fell into my lap and a folsom trophy carbon has not yet heh
    I started a dating advice app because I always need advice
    ó
    Charmed Chat lets you tinder for your friends

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    22

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,519

    Bent Chet 120

    So...after the first day. I really like these skis. Super impressed with their stability at their weight. Skied some pow, some legit chop and some firm. Very easy and intuitive to ski. Float, slash, not demanding. I could be into a 192, but I doubt theyíd see use with my billy goats holding that spot.

    But gotta say Iím super impressed.

    Will use this as a placeholder for some footage. Survived a couple of silly lines on them today.

    Mounted - 1.5 of recommended (-4.5 from center) w/ Tecton.

    Toe shimmed 4 mm. Really think that helps with the Tecton/vipec. At least it helps me.

    Edit: check out my Instagram (public account) @suprechicken- there is some footage of the BC, the bibby tour and 1 video of the two of them on the same terrain.
    Last edited by SupreChicken; 02-02-2019 at 10:49 PM.
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    25
    Thanks!! Will also check your insta.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    25
    Anybody mounted a lighter than < 500g binding on the BC120 (ATK...)?

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by tomh79 View Post
    Anybody mounted a lighter than < 500g binding on the BC120 (ATK...)?
    Their weight would certainly say you can, but I've had trouble in the past driving skis that wide with a standard tech toe.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    on the banks of Fish Creek
    Posts
    1,238


    Are these the skis what just got stolen? They should be pretty easy to spot in line.....

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by SupreChicken View Post
    So...after the first day. I really like these skis. Super impressed with their stability at their weight. Skied some pow, some legit chop and some firm. Very easy and intuitive to ski. Float, slash, not demanding. I could be into a 192, but I doubt theyíd see use with my billy goats holding that spot.

    But gotta say Iím super impressed.
    How do they compare to the Bibby Tour, especially inbounds? I'm thinking for a 3-ski quiver of touring, resort charger, and then resort/backcountry deep snow ski.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by thejongiest View Post
    How do they compare to the Bibby Tour, especially inbounds? I'm thinking for a 3-ski quiver of touring, resort charger, and then resort/backcountry deep snow ski.
    They are nearly identical aside from their recommended mount points (Bent Chetler -2.5 and Bibby/Wildcat Tour -6.) I demoed the 190 Bibby Tour last season at what I assume was recommended, and it felt like a very directional ski. It's not a ski I would spend much time on backwards. The BC at -2.5 is extremely balanced and playful, but I can see someone not used to that forward of a mount having trouble with all that tail. My two cents: if you want a directional ski that's fine with the occasional switch landing, go with Moment. If you want the more playful, less directional option go with the BCs.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by thejongiest View Post
    How do they compare to the Bibby Tour, especially inbounds? I'm thinking for a 3-ski quiver of touring, resort charger, and then resort/backcountry deep snow ski.
    Not quite apples to apples. My BT is 190, my BC is 184. -5.5 on the bibby, -4.5 on the bent.

    Itís really close. They are so similar all across the board. Iím sure the bibby will win for durability. Handbuilt and all.

    Inbounds, Iíd say itís tied for me. Neither ski sucks, which is impressive given the light weight. Moment knows how to make a damp light ski and the layer of metal in the bent chetler dampens it nicely.

    The bibby is a little stiffer and I think it works a little better in chop at speed. It is also the best 116mm ski on firm snow Iíve ever skied. Carve a damn trench. Better than the billy goat by far, better than the GPO, better than the praxis Lhasa pow.

    The bent chetler is more nimble. Easier to toss around, easier to manage in tight spaces. Better bump performance. More switch friendly.

    Both are great in pow. No tip dive on either one.

    Sidecountry/fresh snow, give me the bent chetler. Easier to ski slow, more nimble, less locked in. No decrease in speed limit for me.

    The BC IS more switch friendly, but the bibby is still a fairly progressive mount. Doesnít feel abnormal riding switch on the bibby, but I donít exactly spend much time riding switch, so grain of salt.

    Not sure what to do.

    Iíve got a line on the 192 chetler. Gonna ski that back to back with the bibby tour then sell one of them.
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    Interesting. Looking forward to the apples to apples comparison. But the 192 BC mounted at recommended seems pretty terrifying to kick turn.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    Interesting. Looking forward to the apples to apples comparison. But the 192 BC mounted at recommended seems pretty terrifying to kick turn.
    Oh yeah, that sounds like hell. Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about center mounts. Have only skied one ski like that...and I didn't like it, but that ski is a soft noodle. I'm going to try and demo the Bentchetler. I'm sure they're not tooooo hard to find.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by thejongiest View Post
    Oh yeah, that sounds like hell. Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about center mounts. Have only skied one ski like that...and I didn't like it, but that ski is a soft noodle. I'm going to try and demo the Bentchetler. I'm sure they're not tooooo hard to find.
    Center-ish mounts definitely take some getting used to. Until I went with the BC 120s this season, my main ski for the past few years was a pair of Surface New Lifes. 122mm underfoot, symmetric shape, mounted dead center. A little frustrating at first, but once I figured out how to ski them they were a blast.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,048
    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.

Posting Permissions

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