2018-2019 Atomic Bent Chetler 100

As we noted in our First Look, the Bent Chetler 100 wasn’t quite what we were expecting. On the one hand, it’s named after one of the most playful skiers out there, Chris Benchetler. And it shares the name with the Bent Chetler 120, one of the most playful powder skis on the market.

But the Bent Chetler 100 didn’t seem to share all that much in common with either Chris Benchetler or his powder ski. The Bent Chetler 100 has a recommended mount point of -7.8 cm from center (aka, a pretty traditional mount), and has neither a symmetrical rocker profile nor symmetrical flex pattern. So you can probably see why we were a bit confused when we first got the ski.

We posted a Flash Review of the Bent Chetler 100 back in the spring, and now that Sam Shaheen, Jonathan Ellsworth and I have all spent time on the ski, it’s time to further tease out what this ski is, what it isn’t, who it’s for, and what it’s for.

Mount Point

Luke Koppa (5’8”, 155 lbs): One of the most unusual things about the Bent Chetler 100 is that it includes marks for mount points ranging from -1.8 cm to -11.8 cm from center. I started out on the ski at the recommended line of -7.8 cm from center, and here, it definitely feels like a directional ski that rewards a forward stance. But I tend to like skis that feel more balanced in the air, and really appreciate skis that give me the option of either skiing with a forward stance or a more centered one.

So after a few runs, I bumped the bindings forward two cm to -5.8 cm, and then another cm to -4.8 cm from center.

Luke Koppa and Jonathan Ellsworth review the Atomic Bent Chetler 100
Luke Koppa on the Atomic Bent Chetler 100, Taos Ski Valley, NM.

With the bindings two and three cm forward of the recommended line, the Bent Chetler 100 felt more versatile to me as I could still drive the front of the ski and I didn’t feel like I lost any edgehold, but I could also ski with a more centered stance. With a more forward mount the Bent Chetler 100 also felt more comfortable in the air, more playful overall, and easier to hop-turn down runs like Stauffenberg and Zdarsky on Taos’ West Basin.

And while I preferred it with the bindings moved forward, Jonathan and Sam (who tend to get along well with skis with more rearward mount points) both liked the Bent Chetler 100 on its recommended line. Point is, the Bent Chetler 100 works well across (at least a modest) range of mount points, and that’s one of the reasons why I’d recommend it to a pretty wide range of skiers.


Luke: I spent a good portion of my time on the Bent Chetler 100 on fairly firm to super slushy groomers. In these conditions the ski felt pretty precise, and I was surprised by how hard I could ski it. The Bent Chetler 100 is still a light ski at ~1820 grams, so it did get knocked around when I encountered some firmer or more roughed-up portions of the groomers, but I’d say that the Bent Chetler 100 punches a bit above its weight when it comes to stability.

The Bent Chetler 100 didn’t feel like the most dynamic carver (it didn’t feel extremely energetic in a turn), but I’d say that the Bent Chetler 100 is a pretty strong carver for its weight.

Jonathan Ellsworth (5’10”, 180 lbs): I totally agree with Luke — on even slightly soft groomers, these were fun to carve. And while I didn’t find them launching me out of turns, the back half of the ski (or at least behind the heel piece) felt pretty strong.

Point is, the Bent Chetler 100 is not merely some slimmed-down, floppy powder ski.


Luke: Despite its Bent Chetler name, the Bent Chetler 100 feels like more of a directional ski than some sort of jibby spin stick. While I could break the Bent Chetler 100’s tails free into slashes, I definitely would not call it a particularly surfy or loose ski (I skied it with the factory tune, so there’s a chance it could be loosened up a bit with a detune). There are much better options in this class if you like to spend much of your time on your skis sliding across the fall line, rather than pointing down it.

But while the Bent Chetler 100 doesn’t feel very loose, it’s still easy to pop off its tips and tails, and its flex felt more symmetrical on snow than it did while just hand-flexing the ski. In the air, the Bent Chetler 100’s swing weight felt quite light and conducive to quick shifties (and this is further improved with the bindings moved forward a bit).

Blister reviews the Atomic Bent Chetler 100
Luke Koppa on the Atomic Bent Chetler 100, Taos Ski Valley, NM.

So despite its traditional mount point and slightly asymmetrical flex, the Bent Chetler 100 still felt quite poppy and playful. And it felt a lot more playful with the bindings pushed forward. But while some of Atomic’s athletes are riding the Bent Chetler 100 with the bindings around -2 cm from center, I think there are better skis out there if you’re primarily focused on tricking, spinning, buttering, etc. (Mounted around -2 cm, I think the back half of the ski would feel weirdly stiff, and the front would feel weirdly soft, but that’s just conjecture for now since I haven’t had a chance to ski it with the bindings that far forward.)

But while I don’t think it’s the best ski out there when it comes to freestyle performance, I do think the Bent Chetler 100 falls on the more playful end of the all-mountain spectrum.

Sam Shaheen (5’10”, 140 lbs): It’s important to reiterate Luke’s point. Although this ski can be broken free and slashed / popped around, this ski felt very directional to me when mounted on the recommended line. It felt quite locked into a turn (with the factory tune) and exhibited strong edge hold. The shape and pedigree of the ski all point to it being a park ski / all-mountain freestyle ski, but that is not how I’d classify it. While you can trick this ski, there are better options out there if you’re primarily looking for an all-mountain freestyle ski.

Steep, Tight Terrain

Luke: While I never imagined that a ski bearing the Bent Chetler name would be one of my top pics for steep, consequential terrain, I had a lot of fun hopping around Taos’ West Basin on the Bent Chetler 100.

The ski’s combination of (1) a pretty low weight, (2) strong edgehold, and (3) a fairly forgiving but still supportive flex pattern all felt pretty ideal in this terrain. The Bent Chetler 100 was very easy to flick around, its tails felt like they offered a nice blend of support and forgiveness, and it didn’t feel unpredictably hooky, despite its good edgehold (and large amount of camber).

Blister reviews the Atomic Bent Chetler 100
Luke Koppa on the Atomic Bent Chetler 100, Taos Ski Valley, NM.

Heavier skis will definitely feel more composed at higher speeds, but for picking my way through tight, steep terrain, the Bent Chetler 100 felt like a great choice.

Sam: To me, this is what it seems like the Bent Chetler 100 was made for. Specifically for skiing a wide variety of snow types in steep, technical and consequential terrain. It has the edgehold to make due on firm / icy couloirs while being light enough to easily flick around (and to skin for your turns).

I suspect Chris went to Atomic and said, “I really dig the Bent Chetler 120 for surfing around in pow, but I need a ski that can get me through no-fall terrain in the backcountry too.” I think the Bent Chetler 100 achieves this quite well.

Jonathan: While the Bent Chetler 100’s big, soft, boat-hulled tips make it look like it’s designed for powder, this ski actually holds up on firm conditions and steep, techy lines. And personally, if I’m on a ski that’s only 100mm-wide, I want that. I don’t just want my 100mm-wide ski to punch above its weight class in deep snow.

Blister reviews the Atomic Bent Chetler 100
Luke Koppa on the Atomic Bent Chetler 100, Taos Ski Valley, NM.

To zoom out for a sec, it’s quite interesting what Atomic has done here. This isn’t a ski that I would have associated with the name “Benchetler,” but I’m not against the idea that skis in a series (“Bent Chetler”) should simply be slimmer or wider versions of the same ski. I think as you go wider or as you go narrower, there can be very good reasons to adjust flex patterns and rocker profiles. I’m not going to break out a 120mm-wide ski on the same day or the same conditions that I’m going to be taking out a 100mm-wide ski, so, rather than make these two skis feel the same, why not make them complement one another?

And furthermore … we should probably stop pigeonholing Chris Benchetler as being one single type of skier. Granted, there are worse things in the world than being categorized as one of the most creative all-mountain skiers in the world, but lest you think Chris is simply spinning every line then running it out switch, check out how much consequential backcountry couloir skiing he’s doing on some pretty beat snow.

As a 50/50 Ski

Luke: Yes. Definitely.

The Bent Chetler 100 has pretty much all the characteristics I personally look for in a ski that I’d use both inside and outside the resort. First, it comes in at a reasonably low weight for a touring ski (~1820 grams for the 188 cm), but it provides better suspension than many skis I’ve used in this weight class. Second, the Bent Chetler 100 has performed very well across a wide range of conditions, from steep chalk to deep slush. For a truly do-everything 50/50 ski, versatility is huge. And lastly, the Bent Chetler 100 is a bit more playful than most skis I’ve used that fill my two criteria above, which is a fairly rare combination in the 50/50 category.

Blister reviews the Atomic Bent Chetler 100
Luke Koppa on the Atomic Bent Chetler 100, Taos Ski Valley, NM.

And with all that said, it’s important to keep in mind your personal preferences when it comes to backcountry, inbounds, and 50/50 skis. Some people prefer lighter skis and might not need the stability of a 1800+ gram ski like the Bent Chetler 100. And other people don’t mind hauling up a heavier ski in the backcountry, since they get more stability on the way down. But for me personally, I think the Bent Chetler 100 strikes a really nice balance between weight and stability.

And for what it’s worth, if I were picking the Bent Chetler 100 for 50/50 use I’d get the 180 cm instead of the 188 cm for an even lower weight and better performance in tight spots, and would mount it with the Atomic / Salomon Shift binding.

Jonathan: My thoughts on this are summed up very well by Luke in the next section…

Who’s It For?

Luke: I think the Bent Chetler 100 could work for a lot of different people, but I think the most important thing to consider is the ski’s weight. This ski is light for an inbounds ski, and while it offers very good suspension for its weight, it’s not as stable in rough conditions as skis above the ~2000-gram mark. So if you know you like the damp, smooth feel of heavier skis and want to basically ski like you’re driving a monster truck, plowing over everything in your path, the Bent Chetler 100 is not for you.

But if your skiing style is less monster-trucky and more active, dynamic, and playful, then the Bent Chetler 100 makes a lot more sense. It is a fairly strong ski that offers nice suspension for its weight. But it’s also a fairly playful ski, and I’ve found it to work pretty well with the bindings anywhere from -7.8 cm to -4.8 cm from center. So I’d recommend it both to directional skiers looking for a slightly more playful all-mountain ski that they can still drive, and to more playful skiers that are looking for a lighter ski with a bit more backbone than some of the jibby all-mountain skis out there.

Bottom Line

While it wasn’t what we were expecting, the Atomic Bent Chetler 100 is a very good ski. It is not just a slimmed-down Bent Chetler 120. Instead, Atomic made a narrower ski that performs quite well on firm snow, while retaining some of the playful character of Chris Benchetler’s fat ski. The Bent Chetler 100 is not the most playful ski out there, and it’s definitely not the most stable, but it strikes a really compelling balance of weight, stability, and playfulness.

Deep Dive Comparisons Update: Atomic Bent Chetler 100

Become a Blister Member or Deep Dive subscriber and check out our Deep Dive of the Bent Chetler 100 to see how it stacks up against the Line Sick Day 104, Fischer Ranger 102 FR, Liberty Origin 96, Faction Prodigy 3.0, Blizzard Rustler 10, Nordica Enforcer 100, Black Crows Daemon, and Rossignol Soul 7 HD.

NEXT: Rocker Profile Pics

34 comments on “2018-2019 Atomic Bent Chetler 100”

  1. Good list of skis to compare. Maybe throw the black crows freebird navis in there? I think a lot of are curious about the 50/50 capabilities of the Bent 100 / Rustler 10 / 190 Raven / 186 Sick Day / Navis Freebird, especially with the Shift on the horizon. The Backland 102 is gone, but maybe the new backland 107? kinda wide

    The Rustler 10, Liberty Origin, QST, etc getting to be a little heavy for an apples to apples weight comparison (theyre all bumping up against or over 2000grams i think) which opens the door to tons of other skis. The others you listed are all in the 100-105 width, soft tips with firmer backbone ski category, directional but tip and tail rockered, 1900 or less grams, and with the exception of the Raven, have camber.

    • Hi Krys,

      I’d say the Bent Chetler 100 is in the acceptable weight range for touring or 50/50 use, so we’ll be addressing this in our full review.



    • krys, I do tour with Atomic Backland 102 (1950g/ski) with no problem. I use it in combination with Atomic Tour tech binding and Scarpa F1 (weird but true). And yes, this combo proved to work great (tested in Europe and Japan).

    • We’re spending more time on the Bent Chetler 100 over the coming weeks in order to get it in more conditions and A/B it against some other skis, so I’d expect the full review to be dropped in a month, maybe two months at the latest.

  2. I’m wondering how the Bent Chetler 100 might compare to the ON3P Kartel 96. I assume the Kartel will have more tail rocker, but in regards to stiffness they might be in the same park. Since Atomic is putting such a wide range for mount points, it seems that depending on where you mount, you could set it up as a ski you can pivot and have it feel as though there is more tail rocker than what is actually there.

  3. Why are you getting so hung up on the ski’s name? It’s basically an evolution of the Access ;) Atomic probably just rebranded it to profit off of the Bent Chetler name…

  4. How would you compare the 100 Bent Chetler to the Salomon Mtn Explore 95 for couloir skiing? I am not overly concerned with the weight penalty of the Cheater on the way up.


    • Hi Jeff,

      That’s an interesting question. While I wouldn’t typically think of comparing the MTN Explroe 95 and Bent Chetler 100, I think I’d like both of them for couloirs. I think I’d take the Bent Chetler 100 in rougher, deeper, or more inconsistent snow since its extra weight, wider waist, and deeper tip rocker helps it stay a bit more composed in those conditions. But if things were really icy, I’d take the MTN Explore 95. I’d also take the MTN Explore 95 in *really* tight couloirs just since it’s a bit easier to flick around due to its lower weight (and it’s important to note that I’m comparing the 184 cm MTN Explore 95 to the 188 cm Bent Chetler 100).

      And if I were using the ski for couloirs in addition to skiing in the resort, or skiing a mix of pow, trees, hitting cliffs, etc., I’d take the Bent Chetler 100 for its better stability.

      Hope that helps, and let me know about any other questions.



  5. They seem like a great daily driver ski for me in Japan. Any feedback on how well they behave in powder? Shape and flex suggests they would punch above their width, but any direct experience? Same question for bumps

    Length wise for resort and side country use, I am 178cm around 83kg. Upper intermediate pretty aggressive 180 or 188 length? I preordered 188 but can change

  6. Interesting review!! I know they’re widely different in construction, but how would you compare it to the Sakana? They are the two skis I’m looking at for next season for a 50/50 ski.

  7. Volkl 90eight is the only way to go IMO it’s a better ski!! Plus you can tour in it hit the steeps jack of all trades. Bigger tips play for powder and more power overall. Surfy but stable and a great tour and steep ski.

  8. I had a chance to ski on the Rustler 10 188cm and the Bentchetler 100 188cm (and the Rustler 10 180cm, more on that shortly) back-to-back on a moderately wind-affected powder day (read: highly variable conditions) at Treblecone yesterday. Despite similar dimensions and flex profiles, these two skis reward very different approaches to skiing any type of snow/terrain. To summarize my experience, the Rustler 10 maintains an outstanding balance between maneuverability and edge hold, but sacrifices chop-ability to maintain its effortless turn initiation. Very engaging and very fun, but not so stable at high speeds. The Bentchetler 100 sacrifices this effortless turn initiation for impressive chop-ability and easily transitions from wind-blown powder stashes to wind-scoured crud, which can be quite scary on the Rustler 10.

    For a quiver of one, the Bentchetler 100 188cm is more versatile. But if conditions are good (fresh to tracked powder or soft groomers), the Rustler 10 180cm (yes, 180, not 188) a bigger smile on my face. The 180cm length in the Rustler 10 compliments its ease of turn initiation and versatility of turn radius. Bentchetler 100 188cm for blasting chop/crud and versatility, Rustler 10 180cm for energetic turns and all-day smiles in good snow. IMO the Rustler 10 188cm just doesn’t make sense next to the 180cm.

    I am going to buy one of these 2 pairs of skis this year (Rustler 180 or Bent 188) and will have a very diffucult time deciding.

    • Update: I skied on the Bentchetler 100 180cm today, an experience which had me questioning whether I’ll ever ski on anything else for the rest of my life. Ok, maybe that’s a little hyperbole but the Bentchetler 100 180cm strikes a divine balance between maneuverability, aggressive edge hold, and stability in crud. Nearly as maneuverable as the Rustler 10 180cm and much, much more stable. At no point throughout the day did I wish I was on a longer ski.

      For reference, over the past few years I have been skiing on the 2016/17 Navis Freebird 180cm, 2014/15 Blister Pro 188cm, 2012/13 Squad 7, and 2014/15 Black Diamond Carbon Convert, all skis which I have grown to love for their intended purposes. I have also spent a fair bit of time on the original Bentchetler (the one with tie-die bases and anime top-sheets), which I was never a fan of. While the Bentchetler 100 180cm may not be as light as the Convert or Navis, nor as stable as the Blister Pro, nor as floaty as the Squad 7, nor as “playful” as the OG Bentchetler, I am dumbstruck at how Atomic has achieved such a well-rounded balance of my favorite qualities from all of these skis with the Bentchetler 100 180cm. I would ideally mount these with robust AT binding such as the Kingpin 13 or Beast 14, and I’d be hard pressed to ski on anything else in any conditions, whether in-bounds or touring. If only they had a tail designed to be used with skins.. I’ll manage.

      • Hi Jack,

        I am having a hard time deciding between the 188 and 180 Bent Chetler 100.

        What is your mount point on the 180 length? Mind sharing your weight and ski style?

        Based on your experience, If one were skiing mostly inbounds on hardpack and occasionally on soft stuff in side-country, would you still recommend the 180 or the longer 188?

        Thanks for your help!

    • Due to its weight and flex pattern, I’d say the BC 100 definitely falls on the more forgiving and easy end of the spectrum in terms of mogul performance. It’s so light that it’s very easy to flick around, but its pretty solid flex around the bindings provided plenty of support for me (5’8″, 155 lbs). In really nasty, firm, off-piste snow it got knocked around significantly more than more directional, heavier skis. But if you want a ski that’s light, still fairly strong, but that will forgive mistakes, the BC 100 could be a good fit. It’s not very loose, so if you want a ski to pivot and slide through bumps, the Line Sick Day 104 might be a better choice. And if you really like to press hard into the shovels of your skis in bumps, you’ll probably find the BC 100 to be too soft.

      Hope that helps, and let me know if you have any more specific questions.

  9. How does it compare to the Salomon QST99 or 106? The weight is pretty similar and they do work as 50/50 skis too. Just bought the qst99 but didn’t mount my salomon shift yet.

  10. I’m pretty torn between the 180cm BC 100 and the 184 Fischer Ranger 102 FR. How would they compare? I like the idea of the little extra weight and stiffness on the 102 FR, but I’m not sure if it’s worth the extra money. Or if the rangers would be more fun.
    I’m about 5’11 160lbs

  11. Is the Bent Chetler 100 basically a slightly updated replacement for the Backland FR 102 from last year? Dimensions and construction seem very similar. Anyone know how much difference there is in the handling of these two skis?

  12. Great review as always. I was wondering how you would compare this with the Salmon QST 99 and Fischer Ranger 98Ti? I’m basically looking for a 50:50 ski and ski mainly in Europe (France), gaining more exposure to off piste skiing and taking my first steps into some touring. I’d be putting a Shift binding and using Nordica Strider boots.

    I currently ski a 2015 Blizzard Brahma 173 (I’m 170cm and 90kg) and while I wouldn’t say I’m an aggressive charger type skier I find the Brahma’s stable, dependable, confidence inspiring and surprisingly capable off piste for its width.

    Previous to that I had a Fischer Water 84 which I really enjoyed (more so then the Brahmas) and found gave more pop in turns on groomers compared to the Blizzards. I’ve also skied a Nordica Soul Rider 97 which I understand is quite a different kind of ski and found them a fun easy ski to ski on but didn’t get to try lots of different conditions.

    I tried last years Salamon QST99 for a day, which was noticeably lighter then the Brahma and found them to be very good but not great – perhaps I just needed more time on them. I’m wondering if the new Basalt layer this year will have given them some more of the stiffness/stability I’m used to in the Brahma?

    Reading this review of the Atomic BC 100 which you describe as being a good 50:50 ski gives me another ski to consider.

    I’d be grateful for your thoughts.

  13. I am skiing the Blizzard Rustler 11 in 188 with Marker Kingpin. I like it a lot and think it’s a good ski for various conditions but I find it a bit too big in more technical terrain or when touring. Do you think Bent Chetler 100 in 180 cm length would be a good complement for more form conditions, including groomer? I’m 5”8 tall with a weigth of 148 lbs.

Leave a Comment