2020-2021 Atomic Bent Chetler 100

(Click on images to expand)

Cy Whitling reviews the Atomic Bent Chetler 100 for Blister
Atomic Bent Chetler 100
Cy Whitling reviews the Atomic Bent Chetler 100 for Blister
Atomic Bent Chetler 100
Cy Whitling reviews the Atomic Bent Chetler 100 for Blister
Atomic Bent Chetler 100 — Tip Profile
Cy Whitling reviews the Atomic Bent Chetler 100 for Blister
Atomic Bent Chetler 100 — Tail Profile
Cy Whitling reviews the Atomic Bent Chetler 100 for Blister
Atomic Bent Chetler 100
Cy Whitling reviews the Atomic Bent Chetler 100 for Blister
Atomic Bent Chetler 100 — Bases

79 comments on “2020-2021 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.

      Cheers,

      Luke

    • 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.

    Thanks!

    • 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.

      Cheers,

      Luke

  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.

    • that’s exactly where I’m at; which one did you end up going with and are you happy w/ your choice?

  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!

      • Hi Jack – Thanks for the great info on your BC experience. How tall are you and what is your weight? I’m looking at the BC 172 as I am still just at intermediate level. I’m 5’9 and 195 lbs. so worried that the 172 will be too short, the 180 maybe too much ski. I did demo the 172 and enjoyed it very much but conditions were not great (all slush, super warm June at Squaw) – so it just left me wondering if I’d be better off going 180. Thanks for any opinion you care to share. Chris

    • 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.

  14. Thoughts on the 180 for a 50/50 ski for someone who I’d 6’1″ 180#? Is the 180 too short for daily driver for my height? Is the 188 annoyingly long to tour?

  15. How would these work as a Telemark ski?
    Currently skiing the K2 Annex @184 w/ Axl’s
    Looking for something a little more playful…….

    Thanks

  16. Hi, I am 5’8″, 75kg, advanced but not expert and after much deliberation went for the 172. I have for years being skiing Japan on Line SFBs from 2013. I still love them but wanted something for the not such good powder days / inbounds and skiing in Europe. Obviously the BC100s are a different ski but given that context where do you suggest I mount please? In the shorter size should I adjust your recommendation of 2.8cm forward of manufacturers recommendation (i.e. -5cm) to something slightly nearer (say -6cm)? Yes I’m probably overthinking this….

    • Hi Matt, how did you find these in that length? I’m a similar build to you and trying to decide on length.
      Where did you mount them in the end?
      Thank you!

  17. Hi guys!
    Another great review. I’m looking “one skis for everything”, I’m gonna mostly tour off-piste, but I want to use them on-piste too (so with Shift bindings). I’m considering these Atomics and QST 99. Which one would you recommend? I don’t want “boring” skis, so the factor of playfulness is quite important to me.
    Also, I’m 6′, 165lbs intermediate, from this two models, should I get 181 (180) or 188?

    • Hello,
      In the Playfullness section you say that there are much better skis in the class for sliding across the fall line instead of pointing down the fall line.
      I was wondering what these skis were because that sounds exactly like the type of skiing I do.

  18. Curious how you would compare them to the Atomic Backland 109 (now 107). I rode the BC 100 180cm in mixed powder/packed powder and found them stable but poppy. Easy to turn, but could straight line sections when needed. A fun mix for an all mountain ski. However, I was skiing them in interior BC where the snow is cold and light. Most of my skiing is in the PNW and I would lean towards a wider waist for an everyday ski. Seems like the backland 107 might be a better fit.

    • We just got the Backland 107, and based solely on its weight (~1650 g for the 182 cm), I highly doubt the Backland 107 would offer the same stability of the Bent Chetler 100, especially in heavy PNW snow. But that’s all conjecture at this point, so we’ll wait to confirm till we can post a full review of the Backland 107.

      • Funny, I was just looking at the weight and core of these two skis and thought the same thing. The 107 uses a lighter wood core with carbon—looks even more geared towards touring than all mountain…

  19. Hi,
    I’m an advanced all mountain skier, who’s looking for an easy and playful ski for the east coast. I’ll use them when there’s more than 5 inches of fresh snow in tight tree section. I’m considering the BT 100 (188), Backland 107 (189), QST 99 (188cm), QST 106 (181) and SOUL 7 (188cm)

    Any thoughts that can help me ?

    Best regards

    I’m 6f, 97kg

    • The Bibby / Wildcat is significantly stiffer at the tips and stiffens quicker as you move to the middle of the ski, and the BC 100 might be a tiny bit stiffer at the very end of the tail, but overall, the Bibby / Wildcat feels like a significantly stronger ski.

      • Thanks for info Luke. I’m 6 ft 160 lbs, and my daily drivers at the resort are Bibby 190 and PB&J 188. I really like how strong the flex is on both skis. I’ve got some Bibby Tour 190s as my pow touring ski, and would like to add a narrower touring ski to the quiver for the spring and longer days.

        Lately I’ve decided I want continuity in design, flex, mount point, shape etc throughout my entire quiver to keep everything intuitive, so I am basically trying to find a PB&J Tour. Since that doesnt exist, gotta find the next closest thing, and the Bent Chetler 100 looks pretty similar in its design just with less tail rocker/splay. But sounds like the flex might not be as strong. Was looking at the MTN Explore 95, but willing to take the weight penalty for better ski performance and get something closer to 1800 grams.

        Although, with Moment’s construction changes making their skis more lightweight, the current PB&J 188 is a stated weight of 1860 grams, so that might actually work too. Thoughts?

        • I think the current PB&J could be a good option as it should be coming in close to its stated weight of 1860 grams. The Moment Wildcat Tour 108 would also be worth a look for a lighter alternative that’d still feel very intuitive coming from your current skis. Lastly, the 4FRNT Raven might also be worth checking. Its reverse-camber profile and slightly softer flex in the tips will feel a bit different, but its mount point is similar and we have a few reviewers who love both the Raven and the Moment Bibby / Wildcat.

  20. Thoughts on the 180 for a 50/50 ski for someone who I’d 80kg 180cm? Is the 180 too short for daily driver for my height? Is the 188 annoyingly long to tour?
    Thanks a lot!

  21. So i just bought the BC 100’s 180cm. I bought the WARDEN MNC 11 bindings and at the moment i have a dilemma whether i should mount those bindings on the factory recommended line (-7,8cm) or up those 2 centimeters to -4,8cm just like Luke has tested and is more found of.

  22. I am considering this ski as a back country ski for Europe (I would mount is with the Marker Kingpin, most likely). I have a wider powder ski for the deeper stuff and I have some narrower skis for hard snow.

    I loved the old Automatic 102 and I am sure I will love this Bentchetler too.
    But which length should I get? 180 or 188?

    I am 1.82 m tall and weigh about 87 kg. I am looking for enough support and float, but want to be able to get through more technical sections too. So I am trying to decide between the 180 and 188. Thoughts?

  23. Hello,

    I am really intrigued by these skis anad have narrowed down my choices between these and the Armada Tracer 108.

    I am looking for skis I would use 85% of the time I go skiing. I would mount them with the shift binding, use them on piste (30%) and off piste (70%) and for some touring as well. In the end I am looking for soemthing that would allow me to have fun on powder days with up to 15-18″ of fresh powder but also on much more normal days, on hard packed, on piste in both firm or soft conditions, and off pist with more difficult conditions like crust or variable snow.

    Which one of the two skis do you feel would offer more versatility? Which one would you feel recommending (I am 6’3″ and 202 lbs and more of directional skier).

    Many thanks for any suggestion you can give me!

  24. Hello! I need your help choosing between Bent Chetler 100 in 164 cm, Fischer Ranger 102 FR in 170 cm and K2 Mindbender 106c Alliance in 167 cm, lengths discussable. I am 159 cm tall and weigh aprox 65-70 kg. I’ve been skiing on Head Mya No.10 (2014) in 172 cm as my one ski for the entire mountain since their release and I love them (https://www.skimag.com/gear/head-mya-no-10-2014). I like to ski a lot of edge/carving, but love to surf powder the most so my winters mix soft snow and powder in the alps, with hard icy snow in the Scandinavian mountains. I do not do a lot of jumps and tricks. Which ski and what length should you recommend? Thank you!

  25. Were you guys both skiing the 188cm?
    I’m debating between these, Ripstick 106’s, and Soul 7 HD

    I’m 6’2″ 183lbs but generally prefer a shorter skis not sure if I should go 180 or 188.
    I’m advanced, but not an expert.

    Thanks!

  26. I’m really torn between the Bent Chetler 100 (180cm) and the Sick Day 104 (179 or 186cm) for a 50/50 one ski quiver mounted with Shifts to be used mostly in the French Alps.
    I’m 6’1 for 165 lbs and enjoy going fast on groomers, poping off small features and looking to progress in Pow / trees.
    Any advice on ski and size Blister readers ?

  27. Thanks for great reviews! I think you really nailed Bent Chetler 100 characteristics. Here’s my 5 cents.
    I’ve been on BC100+Warden 13 Demo 10+ times on tiny home hill and now 7 days on Italian Alps.
    I am (just) 5’6″, 140 lbs, (already) 50y and after some recommendations jumped up to 180 cm version even I have used to ~170 cm skis. 172 cm version would have been a bit closer to 16 m radius that I am used to (and hoped for). I really liked my Head Collective 105 171cm (with Adrenaline16) planted feel on any soft snow (also groomers) but wanted something a bit lighter for 1-quiver Alps set (powder, trees, steeps, groomers and park). For icy home hill days I have Blizzard SL FIS 156 cm (soft flex).
    I started on recommended line but (as expected) moved forward faster than Luke. I felt that strong mid section, long(ish) radius and (too) long ski required too much effort to get pressure on soft tips to lead the turns on groomers. Maybe on 172 cm ski feeling would have been different. Since then I have tested mounting points from recommended to +4cm from rec (ie. -4 to -8 from center). +4 is still skiable but soft tips start to require cautious pressuring. Tried shortly recommended on powder but returned to more forward mount. On Alps conditions were pretty variable (12″ new snow to wind-blown crud). after a week I ended up to +2 from recommended. It felt natural and good in soft snow as well as groomers. As reference I tend to like twintips mounted in the middle of park and freeride/traditional mount lines.
    Ski is light, easy to maneuver and skis fine in most of conditions. It is stable and edge hold is better than I expected. On rough conditions you can (naturally) feel the lightness but as return I could take longer ski for more support on (tail heavy) landings. 99% of the time 180 cm did not feel too long when mounted forward from rec. Sometimes I wished for 10 mm more width but it would mean new compromises. Very short test on bumps felt natural without hooky feel or something. I guess that moderate radius helps here.
    BC100 probably does not excel in any specific category but I have learned to like it as useful allrounder.

  28. I weigh 130lbs at 5’9 so I’m on the lighter side. Would you recommend the 172cm or 164cm? Also considering buying bindings with it because I can find the gear online a lot cheaper, but I’m not sure if it would make sense to buy bindings without boots.

  29. I just picked up a pair of the 188s after skiing the 180s for a year. My 14 y/o son who is 5’8″ and probably 150 lbs is now skiing the 180s. Both mounted on the recommended. My son previously was on the 172s mounted +2. His observations are that the 172 was quicker and better for jibbing around. When he tried my 180s, he thought they had a lot more stability without giving up much quickness. He is constantly tricking and hitting drops on these things. He likes them in everything except thick chop. My guess is he would like them better mounted a little forward, but he has noticed the flexy tips when really going fast in less than ideal conditions, so I won’t bother.

    My experience between the 180 and 188 is pretty similar, I’m 5’11” 185lbs. I’d say the 180 is one of the most natural feeling skis I’ve ever clicked into. Holds and edge well, can go pretty fast and straight, can turn quick and has a lot of pop. You definitely hit a speed limit though, and I didn’t feel like the front of the ski had enough support for me to launch of drops, especially in deeper snow. If you are looking for an all-mountain “freestyle” ski, I think the 180 is pretty much perfect–especially for intermediates to smaller experts. I opted to move up to the 188 to get more stability and support from the front of the ski. After 3 days on them, I’m surprised at how much more directional and stiff they feel than the 180s. I’d call this an all mountain “freeride” ski. They really like to go straight, you have to have a good stance to get the most out of them, and they feel quite stiffer compared to the 180s. Still have a lot of energy, are quick when you get them up to speed, and fun to pop off stuff. I feel much more confident dropping into unknown terrain on these vs the 180s. Mounted on the recommended I’d say these are advanced-expert skis. I might consider moving up to +2 to make them more playful and easier going, but right now I’m pretty happy with them.

    In summary, if you feel in between sizes, I’d go smaller and mount on the recommended for a more freestyle ski. Go longer and mount recommended for a freeride ski. Go longer and mount +2 for something in between. I definitely would not go short and mount forward, unless you are going for park/all mountain ski.

    How that helps, really a great all around ski and can be found for relatively cheap.

      • Well, file this under, “just do what Blister says….”. After a few days of skiing the 188 mounted on the line, I decided to remount at +2 since I prefer to ski with a more neutral stance. That was the ticket. Don’t have to drive them as much to initiate a turn and they feel more natural to me. At +2 they still feel more stable and damp compared to the 180, and float better. The 180 is definitely more playful, quick, and poppy but lacks the stability of the 188.

  30. Luke, when you wrote “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.” Can you elaborate on what you meant and maybe an example or two of skis you have in mind? I think you you may be describing me, but not sure. :-) I’m definitely not a hard charger anymore. At age 64 (but still very athletic and active 185lbs, 6′)I enjoy staying mostly on groomers at Big Sky, MT. I demo’d the BC 100’s last month and they instantly became my favorite skis of the past few years for my style of skiing. I’m just wondering what other skis I should try before pulling the trigger on the BC 100’s. Also I see that for 2020-21 they are making no changes to the models, a pretty good sign that they’ve been well received in the marketplace I think. Thanks in advance for your response.

  31. Skied these yesterday and had a great time. My only issue is I think I could use more damping. I am looking at these other skis and wondering if any could be considered a stronger/damper BC 100? Black Crows Navis, QST 99, Kore 99, Wren 96 TI, Ranger 94 FR, Mantra M5

    • Hmm, I can’t think of any skis that feel *super* similar to the BC 100 while offering better damping, but I think your best bet would probably be the QST 99, J Skis Masterblaster, Fischer Ranger 102 FR, Dynastar Menace 98, and Nordica Enforcer 104.

      So I can further narrow it down, what in particular did you love about the BC 100 and that you wouldn’t want to lose much of with this more damp ski? And did you ski the BC 100 on its recommended line?

      • Thanks, I think those are all good options. I liked the BC100 because it was very maneuverable and precise in bumps/chutes/steeps but also felt like I could lay down some serious turns on groomers/light chop (although I did notice a lack of energy). I did ski on the recommended line.

        I liked the 102 FR but found it to be heavy and got quite difficult in long bump runs. I’m 5’9″ 175lb and skied the 184 length. I noticed you guys measured it at 2100g per ski vs. stated of 2000g. 2100g + demo bindings may have made it simply too heavy (or are the bindings not a factor?). I did try it mounted forward which was better.

        Perhaps I’d be better with the 94 FR since this would be for frontside, non-powder day skiing. Re-reading the review makes it sounds like exactly what I’m looking for.

        If it helps, I also have the Mindbender 99TI 184 which I’m liking more as I have become a stronger skier. However it’s still just a ton of ski, mounted very far back and better for trucking through things than skiing dynamically.

        Thanks as always!

  32. Hi guys, I’d like to add on to mattwbr’s comment as I’m looking for a the same thing. Maybe I can expand his answer and bump the conversation. I think there are probably a lot of skiers looking forward something similar.

    I’m 185lbs, 5’10 athletic skier looking for something 95ish-105ish thats precise, poppy, and energetic for picking my way through tight terrain and bumps at slower speeds- but that will hold up adequately at higher speed. Doesn’t need to be perfect in charging variable, I just don’t want it to kill me if I open up a bit. Would like it to be relatively snappy and energetic for carving on groomers.

    Will be using for storm days in the east and soft-snow resort skiing in the west (glades, groomers, bowls, chutes etc… in order of priority). On really hard days I’ll probably bring out my navigators 85s.

    Looking at
    BC100 180 and 188,
    sick day 104
    BC camox
    Fischer Ranger 94fr
    Fischer Ranger 102fr
    Liberty origin 96/106
    Moment Wildcat 101
    Sego big horn 96/106

    I’m a more directional skier but I’d like the option for skiing a bit more centered at times to slash and slid and hop around bumps and trees too.

    Love the sound of the sick days and chetlers but I’m worried about their speed limit (or whether sizing up for stability negates the nimbleness I’m looking for in tight spaces).

    Ranger FR and liberty origins sound like a logical next step up. Leaning towards the rangers but curious if they’d be too stiff for my wants at low speeds.

    Wildcat and big horn seem awesome but might be a little more charging oriented for what I want, and overly loose/centered and not give me the energetic performance I’m looking for?

    Would really appreciate your feedback. I guess I’m looking for capable well-rounded ski with a bias towards agile maneuverability, energy, forgiveness and playfulness. Would one of these skis fit well? Is there another ski to look at? Feel free to tell me if I’m looking for a unicorn.

    Skis ive been on:
    -Nordica navigator 85- (daily driver for mid Atlantic home resorts. Would prefer something poppier and more energetic with a softer snow oriented tail)

    -Nordica enforcer 94 (far too sluggish and lacked energy for my tastes- especially in tight spaces. Groomer performance was boring. Seemed like a limousine ride rather than what I want: a dirt buggy).

    -solomon QST 99: liked a lot about this in CO. Intuitive on groomers and open terrain. Plenty of stability for me. Carved well. However I felt they were still just a bit sluggish and didn’t have quite as much energy and pop as I’d like. Felt a bit slow to respond.

    Rustler 10: only got one blue groomer run on this at the end of the day… so my impression comes with a grain of salt… but I didn’t like it at all. Felt heavy, boring and didn’t want to hold an edge on chalky snow. Felt like going in the opposite direction I wanted from the QST.

    Thanks guys!

    • I think the Ranger 102 FR and Sick Day 104 would be my top picks. I think the Ranger would provide the stability and energy you’re looking for, but if you found the Rustler 10 too heavy, I think you’d likely feel the same way about the Ranger (though I find the Ranger to feel more lively and nimble than the QST 99 and Enforcer 93). And if you were on the 188 cm Rustler 10, I do think the 184 cm Ranger 102 would feel a bit quicker / lighter.

      The Sick Day 104 (and Bent Chetler 100) will get knocked around more when skiing fast on rougher conditions than the Ranger, QST 99, and Enforcer 93, but they’ll feel a lot quicker in tight spots and more lively. Given what you’ve said, I think I’d lean toward the SD 104 / Bent Chetler 100, but the Ranger 102 is the best ski I can think of in terms of offering a substantial improvement over those two skis in terms of stability, while also creating the smallest tradeoff in terms of quickness and energy.

      As for the SD 104 vs. Bent Chetler 100, that mostly comes down to whether you want to prioritize carving precision (BC100) or tight-terrain maneuverability (SD 104).

    • Hmm, as far as Atomic told us, the construction of that ski has not been changed since the first version we reviewed, but we’ll see if we can weigh some 20/21 pairs.

      • Got a pair of 188 20/21 today and the weight is different in almost 200 g per ski! It came in 1996 and 1961 grams. Hey Atomic what going on ?!

  33. Just put a pair of minty fresh 20/21 180cm BC100s on the kitchen scale. They came in at 1784g and 1792g.
    So it actually looks like they lost about 60-70g this year. Taking them to the shop tomorrow. After reading all this I’m getting them mounted factory +2. Fingers crossed. Semi-confident in that this makes for same fore aft positioning with respect to weighted running length as I have on my 192cm BC120s mounted factory line (with 10cm more both front and back on the shorter ski). That’s it – I am commanded to get them off the dining table right away …

    • According to Atomic website it should be 1700 grams in 180 cm. The whole Bent Chetler 100 lineup might be off the stated weight as mine 188 came in at nearly 2 kg per ski. But still wants to put the backland tour binding on it. Even that I am gonna have to drag uphill another 400 grams. it looks like fun touring setup.

Leave a Comment