Anybody skiing the Bent Chetler 100?

[Mr. Toad]

Bumping to get more data points on mounting. Is +2 the consensus? They’ll be used primarily as a resort ski. I don’t ride park or switch. I have better pow skis and these will be used for kirkwood steeps and making GS turns down mogul fields.

[Lvovsky]

I went +2 on mine based on a talk with the Atomic rep and I am happy with it. I think the rec line is about 5 cm back from the BC 120 in relation to ski center, so moving it up makes them more similar.

They definitely like a more centered stance when you ski them, but have been super fun once I got that figured out.

The first day I had them was a heavy mani kind of day and I felt myself going over the front a lot. As soon as I switched to more center they were great.

I had exactly the same experience with the centered stance except mine are mounted on the line (Tyrolia attack 13). BC100 are so easy to ski at speed, not so easy to bend at slow turns. Could be my technique or lack of strength- I’m 5’11”, 155lb on 180 ski. The front feels a little short and I probably would be fine with 188.

Am I the only one who is thinking of moving bindings back from the line?

But I haven’t taken them to the trees or bumps yet. only had two days on them: one on man made groomers that softened up in the afternoon and another after 2 inches of fresh.

Centered stance and feet closer together is what made these skis work for me.

My other ski is 70 under foot redster x7. Tried Cham 107 last season on a powder day in Taos and got a wide ski bug.

Factory tune needs to be dealt with too. The tips got grabby couple of times. Need help deciding between 3 or 2 degree side angle. Three degree will be more fun on groomers. But will it ruin my fun in the soft, trees, etc?

[Supermoon]

If you’re looking to carve groomers, I wouldn’t really say this is the ski for that. You can definitely rail some GS turns on them, but I’m definitely doing more slarvey type turns mostly.

[Mr. Toad]

Am I the only one who is thinking of moving bindings back from the line?

After reading the comments I had planned on mounting +2 but when I got the skis and eyeballed the recommended mount point, it was already several cm’s forward than my other skis. I mounted mine on the recommended line and like them there but I could definitely see moving back a few.

[Lvovsky]

If you’re looking to carve groomers, I wouldn’t really say this is the ski for that. You can definitely rail some GS turns on them, but I’m definitely doing more slarvey type turns mostly.

Totally agree about slarving. Like they where designed for that!

After reading the comments I had planned on mounting +2 but when I got the skis and eyeballed the recommended mount point, it was already several cm’s forward than my other skis. I mounted mine on the recommended line and like them there but I could definitely see moving back a few.

On one hand, I am curious how they would ski mounted back from the recommended. On the other, I kind of enjoy the centered stance (which will be good for me in powder) and don’t mind the slarving turns at all. Should have bought it with demo binding first world problems

[SoVT Joey]

I had exactly the same experience with the centered stance except mine are mounted on the line (Tyrolia attack 13). BC100 are so easy to ski at speed, not so easy to bend at slow turns. Could be my technique or lack of strength- I’m 5’11”, 155lb on 180 ski. The front feels a little short and I probably would be fine with 188.

Am I the only one who is thinking of moving bindings back from the line?

But I haven’t taken them to the trees or bumps yet. only had two days on them: one on man made groomers that softened up in the afternoon and another after 2 inches of fresh.

Centered stance and feet closer together is what made these skis work for me.

My other ski is 70 under foot redster x7. Tried Cham 107 last season on a powder day in Taos and got a wide ski bug.

Factory tune needs to be dealt with too. The tips got grabby couple of times. Need help deciding between 3 or 2 degree side angle. Three degree will be more fun on groomers. But will it ruin my fun in the soft, trees, etc?

I personally wouldn’t move them back, if anything I’d sell them and buy a 188. At 5’11 on a 180 with any of these progressive mounts and coming off a redster it’s going to be comparing apples to oranges. 188 when you are mounted -4 from center or even -6 leaves so little shovel that the ski can pivot well regardless, especially with the rocker profiles but the longer length will allow you to drive it like a race ski. My Corvus 183 I am mounted on the line and constantly feel like I want more shovel, until I go and put them in the trees and remember how much I like the length of tail. My solution is to use a different ski on those days that I am on the groomers all day or not ski as aggressively. I could buy a 193 and that would solve the problem. I am 5’11 and I won’t pick up a ski less then 183 if it’s a progressive mount. I think a lot of people that are finding the BC skiing like shit is due to the wrong size being skied. I wouldn’t want to ski a redster in anything over a 183 at this point, due to the fact that I’m lazy and that takes work, but I’ll ski something 100+ in anything over 185 any day of the week.... difference in construction and technology. It’s like buying a Tacoma and wondering why it does haul like a super duty. Use the right tool for the right application... I guess that’s why I only take out certain skis on certain days.

[anotherVTskibum]

I had exactly the same experience with the centered stance except mine are mounted on the line (Tyrolia attack 13). BC100 are so easy to ski at speed, not so easy to bend at slow turns. Could be my technique or lack of strength- I’m 5’11”, 155lb on 180 ski. The front feels a little short and I probably would be fine with 188.

Am I the only one who is thinking of moving bindings back from the line?

But I haven’t taken them to the trees or bumps yet. only had two days on them: one on man made groomers that softened up in the afternoon and another after 2 inches of fresh.

Centered stance and feet closer together is what made these skis work for me.

My other ski is 70 under foot redster x7. Tried Cham 107 last season on a powder day in Taos and got a wide ski bug.

Factory tune needs to be dealt with too. The tips got grabby couple of times. Need help deciding between 3 or 2 degree side angle. Three degree will be more fun on groomers. But will it ruin my fun in the soft, trees, etc?

Interesting to compare thoughts; I got mine out for one run (before work) on Saturday morning, and I thought they skied well as a wide charging ski, but they didn't feel as playful as I expected when I tried less-race-oriented turns. I'm 5'9" and about 185, and I went with the 188; it felt like a lot of ski when I was trying to steer it, and I'm wondering if I'd have been happier with the 180 (but 180 with rocker just seems...short).

FWIW, my alpine quiver at this point is all Atomic—I've got FIS SL (165) and GS (188) skis, the retail S9 (165), the X9 WB (168) and the Bent Chet 120 (184). I bought the 100s to have something between the X9 WB (75mm underfoot) and the BC 120s, for those days when it hasn't snowed in a bit, but I don't want to stick to groomers, as well as a one-ski quiver for travel purposes, should we ever get back to traveling. Based on initial impression, I think the fit that quiver hole well, but I may have gone longer than ideal.

I didn't get mine ground, so they've got whatever the factory put on the base edge, and I've got the side edges at 2 degrees. I don't think the bases are completely flat, but I think they're close enough for an all-mountain ski. I haven't felt like the tune was impairing the performance of the skis.

I have them mounted near the line; I was attempting for "on the line", but my tech got so obsessed with lateral position of the binding holes that he forgot to double-check fore/aft positioning (next time I do a fresh mount, I'm printing the templates on transparencies, not paper).

[Supermoon]

Good help is hard to find. Especially when they are drinking.

[Lvovsky]

I personally wouldn’t move them back, if anything I’d sell them and buy a 188. At 5’11 on a 180 with any of these progressive mounts and coming off a redster it’s going to be comparing apples to oranges. 188 when you are mounted -4 from center or even -6 leaves so little shovel that the ski can pivot well regardless, especially with the rocker profiles but the longer length will allow you to drive it like a race ski. My Corvus 183 I am mounted on the line and constantly feel like I want more shovel, until I go and put them in the trees and remember how much I like the length of tail. My solution is to use a different ski on those days that I am on the groomers all day or not ski as aggressively. I could buy a 193 and that would solve the problem. I am 5’11 and I won’t pick up a ski less then 183 if it’s a progressive mount. I think a lot of people that are finding the BC skiing like shit is due to the wrong size being skied. I wouldn’t want to ski a redster in anything over a 183 at this point, due to the fact that I’m lazy and that takes work, but I’ll ski something 100+ in anything over 185 any day of the week.... difference in construction and technology. It’s like buying a Tacoma and wondering why it does haul like a super duty. Use the right tool for the right application... I guess that’s why I only take out certain skis on certain days.

You bring up good points about 188. I need to wait for more snow and more terrain to open to test BC in the conditions they were designed for. My poor ski technique will appreciate shorter sticks I bet. The more centered/slarving style seems to be fun too. BC are definitely fine for getting to the chair from a powder runs unlike Chams 107 that didn’t like groomers at all (borrowed 175cm for a day, way too short, but floaty in fresh snow).

[Lvovsky]

Interesting to compare thoughts; I got mine out for one run (before work) on Saturday morning, and I thought they skied well as a wide charging ski, but they didn't feel as playful as I expected when I tried less-race-oriented turns. I'm 5'9" and about 185, and I went with the 188; it felt like a lot of ski when I was trying to steer it, and I'm wondering if I'd have been happier with the 180 (but 180 with rocker just seems...short).

FWIW, my alpine quiver at this point is all Atomic—I've got FIS SL (165) and GS (188) skis, the retail S9 (165), the X9 WB (168) and the Bent Chet 120 (184). I bought the 100s to have something between the X9 WB (75mm underfoot) and the BC 120s, for those days when it hasn't snowed in a bit, but I don't want to stick to groomers, as well as a one-ski quiver for travel purposes, should we ever get back to traveling. Based on initial impression, I think the fit that quiver hole well, but I may have gone longer than ideal.

I didn't get mine ground, so they've got whatever the factory put on the base edge, and I've got the side edges at 2 degrees. I don't think the bases are completely flat, but I think they're close enough for an all-mountain ski. I haven't felt like the tune was impairing the performance of the skis.

I have them mounted near the line; I was attempting for "on the line", but my tech got so obsessed with lateral position of the binding holes that he forgot to double-check fore/aft positioning (next time I do a fresh mount, I'm printing the templates on transparencies, not paper).

It would be fun to swap our skis for few runs to check if we like different length.

My bases are reasonably flat. A tiny bit concave (edges higher tha middle by less than 1 mm).

[anotherVTskibum]

I finally got some real turns on mine last Saturday. It was about 2" of fresh, slightly wet snow when I left the house and probably 3.5-4" of more wet stuff when I got on the lift. Skiing that on top of the groom with the BC 100 was a total blast, even going slow with a bundle of gates over my shoulder.

I think the length is okay, although one size shorter may have been more ideal (I'll probably have a better idea if we ever get enough base to go ski trees). They were remarkably easy to ski in the cut-up chop that ensued later in the morning, even when my goggles were opaque and I couldn't see if I was about to hit a pile. As the piles got a little more firmed up, the skis still performed well; I had a few moments with fogged goggles and flat light where the ground disappeared from under my feet, but as long as I was reasonably balanced, it was pretty easy to just keep skiing whenever I landed.

I've also been on a short skin on firm-ish previously groomed snow, and they worked pretty well there. Overall, I'm happy with them so far and hoping we get enough additional snow that I can really test them in a variety of conditions soon.

[grapedrink]

So what's the final consensus for some who wants to use this ski mostly as an east coast pow ski, which usually means 12" fresh over hard bumps and rutted out trees No switch skiing or spinning. On the line -7.8cm from center? Or +2 from there? Don't care about railing groomers I have SL skis for that. Just want something I can toss around quickly and easily in the trees and bumps like my old 186 Rossi S3's which I believe are mounted on the rec line. I got the Chetler's in a 180cm.

[anotherVTskibum]

So what's the final consensus for some who wants to use this ski mostly as an east coast pow ski, which usually means 12" fresh over hard bumps and rutted out trees No switch skiing or spinning. On the line -7.8cm from center? Or +2 from there? Don't care about railing groomers I have SL skis for that. Just want something I can toss around quickly and easily in the trees and bumps like my old 186 Rossi S3's which I believe are mounted on the rec line. I got the Chetler's in a 180cm.

I'm happy with mine on the line, but I'm 180 lbs and on the 188, and "toss around easily" is not how I would describe them. If I'd gone a size shorter, I might feel differently. They do rail pretty well on groomers, though.

If I'm spinning, it's probably in the process of crashing.

Massive edit above to fix my misreading of the thread title, thought we were talking about the 120s (which I do consider easy to toss around at 184cm, also on the line).

[jacob_dbu]

I would go on the line. I had one mounted +2 and at slow speeds there was not enough tip, the tail was too stiff it just felt unbalanced to me. -7.8cm sounds about right to me if you're not planning to ski park / switch.

[DEVO]

So what's the final consensus for some who wants to use this ski mostly as an east coast pow ski, which usually means 12" fresh over hard bumps and rutted out trees No switch skiing or spinning. On the line -7.8cm from center? Or +2 from there? Don't care about railing groomers I have SL skis for that. Just want something I can toss around quickly and easily in the trees and bumps like my old 186 Rossi S3's which I believe are mounted on the rec line. I got the Chetler's in a 180cm.

I have my Bent 100 180's mounted on the line as my east cost daily driver and I am really happy with them. I had the automatic 102's before these, mounted on the line, which is about 2cm back from the Bent 100 line (if I remember right). So because of that, I was hesitant at first to mount the 100's on the line, but glad I did.

[grapedrink]

Cool thanks

[Lvovsky]

So what's the final consensus for some who wants to use this ski mostly as an east coast pow ski, which usually means 12" fresh over hard bumps and rutted out trees No switch skiing or spinning. On the line -7.8cm from center? Or +2 from there? Don't care about railing groomers I have SL skis for that. Just want something I can toss around quickly and easily in the trees and bumps like my old 186 Rossi S3's which I believe are mounted on the rec line. I got the Chetler's in a 180cm.

Final consensus about a ski topic? You are funny.

Mine are on the line. Super fun in soft snow bumps and trees. Rail real good on groomers, just gotta stay centered and feet closer together. I wish I had demo bindings on them to try different mount points to see what the fuss is about.

[anotherVTskibum]

So I thought I'd come back and provide a few more thoughts.

tl;dr: these have become my go-to ski if it's not firm enough to warrant being on race skis (or their retail brethren). They're probably not the hardest-charging ski out there, but they charge as hard as I want to and will probably go harder if asked firmly. They behave consistently in variable conditions and, aside from surfaces where a race ski would've been more fun, I haven't found anything that made me really regret having them on my feet.

As noted above, I've got a racing background (not that I was ever fast), clock in around 180 pounds, and am skiing on the 188 mounted with Shifts and driving them with the Hawx Prime XTD 130.

Even on groomed snow I'd describe as "fairly firm", I could follow another coach on proper GS skis so long as he didn't really crank on it (the BC100 feels like it's going to wash out if I ask it to tighten the arc mid-turn on that surface; that may be pilot error, but I'd call it the edge of the envelope for my use of the ski). They're perfectly willing to do 60 MPH on a groomer, but I wouldn't ask them to make a sudden move at that point (largely because they just might, and I don't think my body would be able to keep up).

On anything groomed from softish to nearly slush (i.e. spring groomers that didn't really set up overnight), they're an absolute blast. Tip 'em over, load em up, and grin. They are capable of unloading pretty good, so that's worth keeping in mind (I've managed to get a lot more pop than I expected a couple of times when getting light on breakovers). In the slush or in crud, they go where they're pointed unless you ask them to pivot and slide, and they are pretty easy to manipulate in and out of an arc in those conditions. They do absorb the 3D snow pretty well and tend to be fairly polite in how they bounce when you get a firmer chunk.

They are substantially more work in the trees when compared to my Bent Chet 120s; my perception is that they're stiffer (which makes sense given their manners on the groom) and I did go longer, which probably exacerbated that difference. They will float, but I find that I'm happier when I can point them down the fall line more and spend less time forcing them all the way across it. YMMV on that one.

They have also become my go-to uphill setup; despite owning a Dynafit kit as well as these and the lighter BC 120s also mounted with Shifts, the 100s provided better experiences when the down wasn't perfect snow. They handled everything from corn to refrozen, days-old grooming pretty well (most of my uphill days were at a local ski area that only turns lifts Thurs - Sun), at both cruising speed (~25 MPH with the dog) and more conservative speed when skiing with both my kid in a backpack and the dog.

[NBABUCKS1]

trying to decide between the 180 and 188. I'm 5' 10" @ 195 pounds. Utah. Resort only

Currently on a qst 106 @ 188. This would be my non pow day <6" daily driver. I'm not the greatest skier and have always struggled with turn initiation on qst 106. When I get off piste I struggle in the trees trying to make turns and get backseat. Lessons would be the best I understand, but throwing money at gear is easy. I like how light the bent chet is as I believe it would help me swing the skis better.

180 rational - easier to maneuver in the trees and on bumps
188 rational - better for my fat ass

Anyone have any thoughts?

[anotherVTskibum]

trying to decide between the 180 and 188. I'm 5' 10" @ 195 pounds. Utah. Resort only

Currently on a qst 106 @ 188. This would be my non pow day <6" daily driver. I'm not the greatest skier and have always struggled with turn initiation on qst 106. When I get off piste I struggle in the trees trying to make turns and get backseat. Lessons would be the best I understand, but throwing money at gear is easy. I like how light the bent chet is as I believe it would help me swing the skis better.

180 rational - easier to maneuver in the trees and on bumps
188 rational - better for my fat ass

Anyone have any thoughts?

I'm 5'9" and 185 pounds last time I got too close to a scale. I ski the 188, but I'm a race coach, and I do find them to be a handful in the trees. If you struggle with turn initiation, I'd go shorter, especially if you're planning to use something else when you're trying to float.

Sent from my SM-G892A using TGR Forums mobile app

[Supermoon]

^^

[NBABUCKS1]

Thanks just bought the 180's. I've got the 120's if it's time to surf.

[Lvovsky]

Thanks just bought the 180's. I've got the 120's if it's time to surf.

I’m 5’11”, 160#. The bc100 in 180cm served me well last season. Loved them everywhere.

I’m drooling over 120s knowing that I don’t really need them. What length are yours?

[NBABUCKS1]

went 184 on the Bent chet 120.

180 on the bc 100 (if I wasn't clear earlier)

[anotherVTskibum]

FWIW, I'm also on a 184 BC 120, and I'm generally happy with that decision. If I was regularly skiing wide-open pow, I think I might appreciate either the 192 or something with a little more charge and a little less playfulness, but since I got used to it, I've really enjoyed the BC120 (when we get enough snow for it).