EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2011 Atomic Bent Chetler and Dynastar Huge Rocker: full length reviews
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2011 Atomic Bent Chetler and Dynastar Huge Rocker: full length reviews

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 

Conditions: 40" and up of new snow, the top 18" of which was blower dry; somewhat tracked up crud, and soft bumps forming at the end of the day. 

 

About me: 5 foot 9, 155lbs, competent all-mountain skier, ski 30-50 days a year, overall high level of fitness

 

The skis:

 

2011 Atomic Bent Chetler, 183cm, mounted center w/Dukes. 123mm underfoot, tapered tip, 19m radius, fairly soft with quite a bit of sidecut underfoot.

 

Review: This ski was just what the doc ordered for the deep conditions we were in.  As the tip is aggressively rockered and soft, with quite a bit of taper, it was a great tool for deep snow.

 

1st run: untracked, deep snow: the Bent is quite surfy, and kept me up on top of the somewhat light, somewhat heavy snow (wind loaded), at least as well as could be expected. It liked more of a medium-radius turn, and came around quickly. Float was excellent, and the tip stayed up well, better than the Huge Rocker.  I felt the center mount was a bit far forward for deep snow skiing.  It was actually hard to get a read on the ski in pure untracked snow, as the ski isn't really responding to much in terms of terrain.  But, it was a joy to ski.  Extremely easy to turn, huge sweet spot, very forgiving.

 

2nd run: somewhat tracked out deep snow, some blower crud. I was able to get a better read on the ski here.  In the somewhat tracked out stuff, I could let the ski rip a bit more (the super deep snow slows me down, the mountain actually skis better with less snow, as it isn't a steep mountain).  At speed, this ski was very playful in crud: light in weight, not stiff, and liked to bounce over the crud piles, rather than blast through them. Again, surprisingly forgiving: I didn't have to ski well to enjoy it, but when I really did focus on pulling my feet back and extending into the belly of the turn, the ski ate up the snow contact and really accelerated through the turn.  It was so light on the snow, and the tail was forgiving and seemed easy to recover off of, if in the back seat.  It was somewhat smeary, but not so much that it didn't like to arc, and in that respect, better than many of the reverse camber stuff out there. I didn't have to change my technique to ski the Bent: I could ski it aggressively, arc-to-arc, and it loved edge angle.  It wasn't as stable as the Huge Rocker here, but quicker edge to edge and wanted to be in a smaller turn radius

 

3rd run: choppy bumps, "ex" groomer (was a groomer at some point, before 12" of new snow fell on it): Again, the Bent impressed.  It was really quick, really fun, extremely nimble on the "groomer" section, which in reality was just a crud field with less snow than the off-piste stuff, and as such, I could ski it faster.  It really liked to skip through the transitions, but allowed me to load it up at the top of the turn. There was a bit of a loss of stability at higher speeds in rough snow.   In the soft bumps, it was also money; forgiving, easy, and smooth. The tail is so soft that it was easy to pilot. 

 

Conclusion: this is a ski that could make a lot of people happy.  The only downsides I found were a bit of loss of stability compared to stiffer skis in rough snow, and the 183cm feeling short, at least with the mounting point I was on.  Other than that, it was a really fun, multi-condition soft snow ski, and a ski that I would love to own.

 

 

2011 Dynastar Huge Rocker: redesigned for 2011, approximately 15cm of tip and tail rocker (when measured from the start of the rocker to where the contact point would be on a non-rockered ski), fairly stiff and heavy, dual laminate construction. Mounted 2.5cm behind "standard" although I could go back 3cm or more. It is a twin, and it can ski short when skied at "center".  115mm underfoot, sidecut tip to tail.   Mounted with adjustable track Griffons.

 

1st run: deep, uncut snow (1st run of the day);  this ski is big, and it feels big, heavy, and hefty.  As it doesn't have a tapered tip and is pretty stiff, it doesn't seem to float quite as well as the Bent: I would say somewhere along the lines of 95% as good. It feels longer, probably due to the mounting point.  It is a more straight-ahead, no fooling around feel on this ski, even though it is a twin, it shares a lot of the same feel of the old Legend Pro and Legend Pro XXL; damp, smooth, powerful laminate ski with no speed limit.  On the Huge Rocker, I could have used more ski 1st run (snow was that deep, I had the old Huge Trouble in up to 24" of fresh and never wanted more ski, so that tells you just how deep it was). In fact, I couldn't even turn: skiing straight was required just to keep from stopping!  

 

2nd run: starting to get cut-up crud, higher speed untracked snow:  This ski really comes alive in floaty, soft snow at speed. It wants to run in medium to big arcs, and to be tipped and arced. This ski doesn't respond to heel-pushing, back-seating, or otherwise crappy skiing: it requires some solid technique to pilot.  In comparison to the old Huge Trouble, it seems to bounce out of the turn easier with the addition of the rocker at the tail: it releases smoother, and at the tip, floats out of trouble.  This ski is quite floaty as well, but more direct than the Bent. It likes modern, inside foot tipping and arc-to-arc skiing.  At speed, in crud, rather than the floaty, snow-skimming nature of the Bent, the Huge Rocker is a bulldozer. You can see it on the video: it just moves snow out of the way, with a minimum of fuss.  there are times that I was skiing with my hair on fire (not shot on the video, mostly later in the day when the sun came out) and the HR did not disappoint in those conditions: this ski was eating up the terrain.  Very powerful ski.  One difference in the wind-lips that can get packed and hard underneath: on the Bent, the ski just absorbs the terrain as you are dropping off of them, whereas on the Huge Rocker, the tail is stiffer, and it actually bounces you down them, like a flight of stairs.  Completely different feeling ski.

 

3rd run (later in the day, getting tracked out, small bumps): For a stiffer ski, the Huge Rocker was (as I reported in the other, 100mm+ wide skis thread) surprisingly good in bumps; much better than the old Huge Trouble. It is the slightly more forgiving tip and tail, I think, than the old model.  Excellent, predictable in soft bumps: it really eats up the terrain. You can predictably push it down on the back side of the bumps, and it likes to be in contact with the snow.  It likes to be driven; this is not a ski for backseaters;  to get the most out of it, you want to have the cuff of your boot engaged on the bumps: do that, and it rewards you with a very snaky, terrain absorbing feel that is predictable, smooth, and powerful.  

 

Overall, I loved this ski as well.  It is more of a high-speed, mixed condition and windpack ski than the Bent, which is more soft-snow oriented and lighter on the snow.  Both are great. Not that I am a big-mountain competitor, but I bet the Huge Rocker would be excellent there; as it is quite laterally stiff and will stick on anything.  I also really liked this ski and thought it was a great wide every-day type ski for bunches of new snow; would gladly own it as well.

 

Here is video of me on the Huge:

 

post #2 of 29

NICE!  as a Benny addict myself, I have to agree on your review and also add that your center mount point is too far forward. I am at -5; team line. I think Kawo is actually -7 (-2 back from team) In correspondence with Chris himself, he recommended -3 to -5 for more all mountain skiing. This is a really interesting ski in the way it ski's different conditions and terrain so well given it's 123 underfoot. It seems to be a much better variable snow ski than the S7, the lower rise and stiffer tip doesn't get as deflected and when on edge, hooks up to make a longer effective running length.

post #3 of 29

Scott- Two very predictable questions; can you talk about the old HT vs the new Huge, and also compare the HR with the PR115.    I am still kind of in the dark about the utility of the tail rocker.  If you want easy release, isn't a twin tip enough?  Maybe if I try a ski with tail rocker, I will get it.  In your video, I can clearly see the front rocker working, the tips are up on the surface almost all the time. 

post #4 of 29

tail rocker has come a long way, on the Benny, the tail is tapered nicely and has a long run to it. In the powder you have the tail there. In general, you don't need a lot.

post #5 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

tail rocker has come a long way, on the Benny, the tail is tapered nicely and has a long run to it. In the powder you have the tail there. In general, you don't need a lot.

You kinda do... nice to have it when you get tossed to backseat ;-)
 

post #6 of 29


you don't need a lot... of tail rocker, we agree.... icon14.gif
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

tail rocker has come a long way, on the Benny, the tail is tapered nicely and has a long run to it. In the powder you have the tail there. In general, you don't need a lot.

post #7 of 29


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post


you don't need a lot... of tail rocker, we agree.... icon14.gif
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

tail rocker has come a long way, on the Benny, the tail is tapered nicely and has a long run to it. In the powder you have the tail there. In general, you don't need a lot.


 


so is the gypsies Icelandtics attempt at a bentchentler?

post #8 of 29

not sure, In the short time I played with it, I would almost say an EP pro maybe....  It has  A LOT of rise and run, much more than the Benny. 

post #9 of 29

Spectacular review dawgcatching, thanks.  We're about the same size (5'8", 165) and ski similar conditions (Tahoe).  I have a 182 Shogun and a 185 HT and my impression of both those skis lines right up with yours, so I'm paying extra close attention to your other reviews.  

 

Now that I have the Shogun my infatuation with the HT is waning.  The HT is a great ski, but for me it's strength is versatility and the Shogun is even more versatile.  Which means the HT is relegated to only the deep days, where they are good but not great.  So I'm looking for something more magical in the pow, but still reasonably versatile and the Bent Chetler looks promising.

 

You said the 183 BC felt a bit short.  Did you also feel that way about the 182 Shogun?  And in terms of length, how did the 183 BC compare to the 188 Rossi S7?

 

Thanks again.


Edited by barcolounger - 1/4/11 at 8:28am
post #10 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post


you don't need a lot... of tail rocker, we agree.... icon14.gif
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

tail rocker has come a long way, on the Benny, the tail is tapered nicely and has a long run to it. In the powder you have the tail there. In general, you don't need a lot.


 


OK, I get it now smile.gif

post #11 of 29


Barco- I had the 188 s7 and the 183 benny side-by-side. I wish I had taken a pic, the S7 has so much more abrupt tip rise that the Benny.  The 7 in 188 was actaully about 1" or so longer than the 183 (which is actually 182- read my review on the benny). The profile is much different than the S7, the benny tip does not get knocked around like the 7, its not stiff by any means but it can be skied much more seriously and charging if you want.  I wish scott could ski the Benny back at least Team line (-5 from Center) and my guess is he would not have the same impression. I am 6' 170 and the 183 is fine. I believe Kawo who is similar has his -2 back from team (-7 from center) and is very happy with his. Magical?  that's hard to say for sure but skiing powder should be fun in my book and this ski just is damn close to a ride at Disney...
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by barcolounger View Post

Spectacular review dawgcatching, thanks.  We're about the same size (5'8", 165) and ski similar conditions (Tahoe).  I have a 182 Shogun and a 185 HT and my impression of both those skis lines right up with yours, so I'm paying extra close attention to your other reviews.  

 

Now that I have the Shogun my infatuation with the HT is waning.  The HT is a great ski, but for me it's strength is versatility and the Shogun is even more versatile.  Which means the HT is relegated to only the deep days, where they are good but not great.  So I'm looking for something more magical in the pow, but still reasonably versatile and the Bent Chetler looks promising.

 

You said the 183 BC felt a bit short.  Did you also feel that way about the 182 Shogun?  And in terms of length, how did the 183 BC compare to the 188 Rossi S7?

 

Thanks again.


Edited by Finndog - 1/5/11 at 6:11am
post #12 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by barcolounger View Post

Spectacular review dawgcatching, thanks.  We're about the same size (5'8", 165) and ski similar conditions (Tahoe).  I have a 182 Shogun and a 185 HT and my impression of both those skis lines right up with yours, so I'm paying extra close attention to your other reviews.  

 

Now that I have the Shogun my infatuation with the HT is waning.  The HT is a great ski, but for me it's strength is versatility and the Shogun is even more versatile.  Which means the HT is relegated to only the deep days, where they are good but not great.  So I'm looking for something more magical in the pow, but still reasonably versatile and the Bent Chetler looks promising.

 

You said the 183 BC felt a bit short.  Did you also feel that way about the 182 Shogun?  And in terms of length, how did the 183 BC compare to the 188 Rossi S7?

 

Thanks again.

The 188cm S7 feels shorter; it must be that huge tip and tail rocker and soft tail.  The 182cm Shogun is about the same as my 183cm Olympus: feels like plenty of ski, more than the Bent did at the center mount.

 

The new Huge Rocker is a better soft snow ski than the HT was, and more forgiving too, especially with respect to the tail. Also more funsmile.gif

 

If you have a Shogun for mixed days new snow, I would get something really huge for the deepest days: maybe a Hellbent or similar?  
 

post #13 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

Scott- Two very predictable questions; can you talk about the old HT vs the new Huge, and also compare the HR with the PR115.    I am still kind of in the dark about the utility of the tail rocker.  If you want easy release, isn't a twin tip enough?  Maybe if I try a ski with tail rocker, I will get it.  In your video, I can clearly see the front rocker working, the tips are up on the surface almost all the time. 


The times I really noticed tail rocker being an advantage were on stair-step wind lips. They were easier to bounce through on the HR, and easier yet on the Bent, than they were on the old Huge.  The old Huge (flat camber) probably has the edge in high-speed windpack and rough snow though, although it is only a minor edge.  I have yet to exceed it's stability on any other ski in those conditions.  I definitely wouldn't say rocker is automatically "better" for all situations: sometimes it helps, and sometimes it detracts.  For example, I would rate my flat-camber Olympus (with a smaller tip rocker) over either of these skis for crudbusting and bumps.  I have only skied the Pro Rider 115 in poor (for deep snow skis) conditions.  With it's tapered tip, softer flex, it should be even better in deeper snow.  It may be a bit less forgiving in the tail than the HR though, but it is meant for "good" skiers, and that won't be much of an issue; intermediates first venturing into deep snow aren't on an LP115.   I think that tail rocker is probably not really a key feature for those who aren't skiing and landing switch; at least on the HR, it plays a minor role.  Obviously, the ski will feel less aggressive with more tail rocker: the ski may slarve more, instead of when you tip a ski onto edge with a flat tail, it bites and carves. I think it all depends: there are plenty of good skis out there with zero tail rocker, and I think too much tail rocker can definitely detract from mixed-condition performance and make skis too soft when skiing fast.  It seems like more of the non-full twin, big mountain skis don't have tail rocker than do.  

post #14 of 29

I'm a little confused about the graphics on the Huge, from last year to this year.  I demo'd the 2010 Huge (non rockered) 2 years ago, and can't remember for sure what the graphics were.  From what I can find in pics online, it looks like back then both skis were the sam?  And for 2011, they kept one ski the same as the previous year and made the other ski mostly black?  Is that correct?  Seems like a confusing way to do it, especially when the ski has changed with the addition of the rocker.  If you're seeing them in person, I assume the rocker would make it easy to tell the '10 from the '11.  But when looking online, it makes it more confusing.

post #15 of 29

Got it!  When I demoed the PR115 I really liked it, I felt like the tip rocker definitely made powder skiing foolproof, and the rest of the ski worked as a normal ski would.  I should say that the snow on that day was perfect, the kind of day when people are doing stupid airs off the Fingers.   So looks like the PR115 is at least as good of an alternative to the HR is you are looking for a deep day resort ski.  I am on the old Huge now, and love that ski, but I must say that the PR115 was much more fun and felt a lot snappier.  Huge is a tank, and PR115 felt like a sports car in comparison.   (For the record I have not tried a real "funshape" ski like S7, JJ or Benny yet, but from what I read and hear, I am convinced that tip rocker only may be the way to go for a resort powder ski.)     
 

Alex

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

Scott- Two very predictable questions; can you talk about the old HT vs the new Huge, and also compare the HR with the PR115.    I am still kind of in the dark about the utility of the tail rocker.  If you want easy release, isn't a twin tip enough?  Maybe if I try a ski with tail rocker, I will get it.  In your video, I can clearly see the front rocker working, the tips are up on the surface almost all the time. 


The times I really noticed tail rocker being an advantage were on stair-step wind lips. They were easier to bounce through on the HR, and easier yet on the Bent, than they were on the old Huge.  The old Huge (flat camber) probably has the edge in high-speed windpack and rough snow though, although it is only a minor edge.  I have yet to exceed it's stability on any other ski in those conditions.  I definitely wouldn't say rocker is automatically "better" for all situations: sometimes it helps, and sometimes it detracts.  For example, I would rate my flat-camber Olympus (with a smaller tip rocker) over either of these skis for crudbusting and bumps.  I have only skied the Pro Rider 115 in poor (for deep snow skis) conditions.  With it's tapered tip, softer flex, it should be even better in deeper snow.  It may be a bit less forgiving in the tail than the HR though, but it is meant for "good" skiers, and that won't be much of an issue; intermediates first venturing into deep snow aren't on an LP115.   I think that tail rocker is probably not really a key feature for those who aren't skiing and landing switch; at least on the HR, it plays a minor role.  Obviously, the ski will feel less aggressive with more tail rocker: the ski may slarve more, instead of when you tip a ski onto edge with a flat tail, it bites and carves. I think it all depends: there are plenty of good skis out there with zero tail rocker, and I think too much tail rocker can definitely detract from mixed-condition performance and make skis too soft when skiing fast.  It seems like more of the non-full twin, big mountain skis don't have tail rocker than do.  

post #16 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by barcolounger View Post

blah blah blah

The 188cm S7 feels shorter; it must be that huge tip and tail rocker and soft tail.  The 182cm Shogun is about the same as my 183cm Olympus: feels like plenty of ski, more than the Bent did at the center mount.

 

The new Huge Rocker is a better soft snow ski than the HT was, and more forgiving too, especially with respect to the tail. Also more funsmile.gif

 

If you have a Shogun for mixed days new snow, I would get something really huge for the deepest days: maybe a Hellbent or similar?  
 


99% of my in-bounds days are at squaw, so I don't really have huge days - a few huge runs at best (followed by a lot of fun).  I guess it's time to demo.  Thanks again.

post #17 of 29
Thread Starter 

Yes, it is really hard to say without demoing some stuff.  The Bent had a moderate amount of tail rocker, and felt great. The S7 and Gotama felt like they had no tail, which I didn't care for. The Slicer and The One technically had tip rocker, but didn't ski like it; it felt like the tail was flush on the snow at all times. The Huge Rocker's tail rocker was only noticeable in a few situations, throughout 2 full days of skiing.  The JJ had more than the Bent, and felt like it was more suited to deep, soft snow and not varied conditions.  The Katana had mild reverse camber and felt like a flat ski.....it seems like "what the ski does on paper" really doesn't mean anything.  It also seems like "rocker" is becoming a catch-all trendy phrase that really may mean many, many things.  And, like everything else, a ski is measured much more than by how much or how little rocker it has: construction, weight, flex, sidecut, radius all has effect on a how a ski performs.  

 

So yeah, demo if you can!
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

Got it!  When I demoed the PR115 I really liked it, I felt like the tip rocker definitely made powder skiing foolproof, and the rest of the ski worked as a normal ski would.  I should say that the snow on that day was perfect, the kind of day when people are doing stupid airs off the Fingers.   So looks like the PR115 is at least as good of an alternative to the HR is you are looking for a deep day resort ski.  I am on the old Huge now, and love that ski, but I must say that the PR115 was much more fun and felt a lot snappier.  Huge is a tank, and PR115 felt like a sports car in comparison.   (For the record I have not tried a real "funshape" ski like S7, JJ or Benny yet, but from what I read and hear, I am convinced that tip rocker only may be the way to go for a resort powder ski.)     
 

Alex

post #18 of 29

 

I just want to point out with respect to mounting points that Finndog seems to be referring to the mounting lines on the ski, which each represent 0.5cm. So his -7 mount is actually -3.5cm from true center, and the team line is -2.5cm back from true center. This is also where I have my chetlers mounted, and so far so good. I've never had a ski even this far forward, and I don't think I'd want them any more forward. 

 

post #19 of 29

good clarification, and to be honest, I just referenced the lines as that was how it was explained to me as the mount point but yep, just be careful that you tell the shop "lines" or actual distance. Mounting comment. After skiing about 10 powder days the Team line is fine. I wouldn't mind them at another line back to 6. I haven't really experienced any real tip dive but on steeper stuff with rollers and such, a bit more tip would have been nice for a bit more fore/aft.

post #20 of 29

One word about the 183 BC feeling short:

 

Some people's sensation of going over the handlebars with the 183 appears mostly due to the pretty forward mounting point. I threw an adjustable binder (Jester Shizo that is in my case) and worked my way back to find my own sweet spot on these planks. Right now I'm at -1.5 cm from the so called 'Team Line' (= -4 cm from center) - it worked great in all conditions so far but I'll try even further behind and will report back here. Very versatile and playful tool on any terrain in any snow as described. Even when bombing groomers with a buddy (he was on Line Prophets 115 in 186) I had no problem keeping up with him and did not feel undergunned. I was amazed how stable they skied despite the short running edge, just put them on same and let them fly.

 

Could also ski the 192s, they are an entirely different animal due to the considerably stiffer flex thruout the ski. Except for taller and beefier guys above 6' and 200 lbs or for mainly charging in wider open spaces I don't see a need to upgrade lengthwise, it's about the proper mount IMO. BTW me 5'9", 175 lbs, 46 years of skiing, mostly backcountry, old but still o.k. to go I guess.

post #21 of 29

Yep, I agree with you 100% on the mount point. I may move mine back from TL. Skier size: This is going to be a preference thing, I tend to agree on your 6' 200# limit but I would love to hear from anyone who is bigger and is on the 183 as to thier impression.

post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

Skier size: This is going to be a preference thing, I tend to agree on your 6' 200# limit but I would love to hear from anyone who is bigger and is on the 183 as to thier impression.



You asked and you shall receive....

 

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php/215262-what-size-bent-chetlers

post #23 of 29

THANKS!  Interesting comments and I do agree that the mount point on the Benny is crucial.  you are spot-on. 

post #24 of 29
post #25 of 29
Thread Starter 

Did anyone try the 192's yet?  Seems like a better bet for big guys.  Ran out of time to get on it at the Snowbasin demo. 

post #26 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

Did anyone try the 192's yet?  Seems like a better bet for big guys. 

 

Yes, see post# 20 + 22 in this thread.
 

post #27 of 29

I know this thread is very old but still pertinent for me so I will attempt to ask my question anyway...

I am 5'5" 160lbs and 58yrs old and still like to charge the best I can and always seek soft or at least piles of snow off piste, open or trees or chutes, etc.

I am riding the 6th sense Huge (175 no rocker) 2010 and have read all the good reviews/comparisons and have just one more question.

I finally got the bindings mounted back from Std 2.5cm and that made a noticeable difference in my issues with open untracked heavy/sticky 1-2ft deep snow but I still find myself working too hard to keep the tips up and just enjoy the ride, like I had on my rockered Gotama that I gave to my son.

The Huge is great for everything else and is quick/playful and bombproof, (more so than the Gotama) and deep soft pow is no issue, but the heavy sticky deep has me exhausted and my calves screaming 3 days later. (backseat to prevent diving issue I assume)

 

My question is:

Is this just how these skis are without rocker or is my technique simply in need of adjustment so I can keep them for all kinds of deep days, as I am considering moving to a rockered ski such as the Bent, etc. to hopefully make it easier on myself and still able to ride same ski all day after a good morning of 2' fresh.

 

I know one cannot tweek technique without skiing together but wondering your thoughts on the ski itself and if this is just something I have to work through/change technique, or should consider a rockered set for deep days.

If you have input that would be appreciated.

 

thanks

 

 

Yes, it is really hard to say without demoing some stuff.  The Bent had a moderate amount of tail rocker, and felt great. The S7 and Gotama felt like they had no tail, which I didn't care for. The Slicer and The One technically had tip rocker, but didn't ski like it; it felt like the tail was flush on the snow at all times. The Huge Rocker's tail rocker was only noticeable in a few situations, throughout 2 full days of skiing.  The JJ had more than the Bent, and felt like it was more suited to deep, soft snow and not varied conditions.  The Katana had mild reverse camber and felt like a flat ski.....it seems like "what the ski does on paper" really doesn't mean anything.  It also seems like "rocker" is becoming a catch-all trendy phrase that really may mean many, many things.  And, like everything else, a ski is measured much more than by how much or how little rocker it has: construction, weight, flex, sidecut, radius all has effect on a how a ski performs.  

post #28 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by thoiness View Post

I know this thread is very old but still pertinent for me so I will attempt to ask my question anyway...

I am 5'5" 160lbs and 58yrs old and still like to charge the best I can and always seek soft or at least piles of snow off piste, open or trees or chutes, etc.

I am riding the 6th sense Huge (175 no rocker) 2010 and have read all the good reviews/comparisons and have just one more question.

I finally got the bindings mounted back from Std 2.5cm and that made a noticeable difference in my issues with open untracked heavy/sticky 1-2ft deep snow but I still find myself working too hard to keep the tips up and just enjoy the ride, like I had on my rockered Gotama that I gave to my son.

The Huge is great for everything else and is quick/playful and bombproof, (more so than the Gotama) and deep soft pow is no issue, but the heavy sticky deep has me exhausted and my calves screaming 3 days later. (backseat to prevent diving issue I assume)

 

My question is:

Is this just how these skis are without rocker or is my technique simply in need of adjustment so I can keep them for all kinds of deep days, as I am considering moving to a rockered ski such as the Bent, etc. to hopefully make it easier on myself and still able to ride same ski all day after a good morning of 2' fresh.

 

I know one cannot tweek technique without skiing together but wondering your thoughts on the ski itself and if this is just something I have to work through/change technique, or should consider a rockered set for deep days.

If you have input that would be appreciated.

 

thanks

 

 

My feedback, having owned/skied the non-rockered Huge (185) for a couple seasons, and now owning the 183 Bent Chetler for a couple seasons, is this: the Huge is a really great ski, but if it has one major downside, it is float in really deep snow. I'm 5'11", 180, and found tip dive to be a real issue on that ski, even mounted -2.5cm back. The Bent Chetler, IMO, is not nearly as versatile a ski as the Huge, but does float a lot better and is super fun in the deep stuff.

 

I have a Cochise 185 filling the slot that the Huge used to, and I'm loving the Cochise as a resort powder/charging ski. I haven't found float to be an issue on the Cochise, but I haven't had it in super super deep heavy snow. For 95% of the resort powder days I am likely to encounter, the Cochise seems to fit the bill. I still have the Bent Chetler as a touring and super deep day ski, but have retired it from resort charging because it really isn't fun outside of the untracked, for me.

 

Hope this helps a bit. 

post #29 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by crank54 View Post

My feedback, having owned/skied the non-rockered Huge (185) for a couple seasons, and now owning the 183 Bent Chetler for a couple seasons, is this: the Huge is a really great ski, but if it has one major downside, it is float in really deep snow. I'm 5'11", 180, and found tip dive to be a real issue on that ski, even mounted -2.5cm back. The Bent Chetler, IMO, is not nearly as versatile a ski as the Huge, but does float a lot better and is super fun in the deep stuff.

 

I have a Cochise 185 filling the slot that the Huge used to, and I'm loving the Cochise as a resort powder/charging ski. I haven't found float to be an issue on the Cochise, but I haven't had it in super super deep heavy snow. For 95% of the resort powder days I am likely to encounter, the Cochise seems to fit the bill. I still have the Bent Chetler as a touring and super deep day ski, but have retired it from resort charging because it really isn't fun outside of the untracked, for me.

 

Hope this helps a bit. 

Thanks Crank, this is a good review and validation for me. This year, as was last yr in CO, had been a bit lean with snow but I have had the good fortune of skiing in 1-2' untracked the last 3 times out (2 at Steamboat and one at Copper) and so I felt the weakness of the Huge all at once it seems. Had a great time each day but was well worn days later! They are great skis otherwise, but I thought I could use them for even the deepest days and was a little discouraged. I think that I would now keep the Huge and the Bridge and perhaps add a Benny or similar as a quiver ski when I can, for those special deep days that we do not always get so much of in one month, as I had this last month. I think it is hard to find one ski that can handle deep and heavy open field pow and still be quick and playful in the trees and soft bumps. I was not sure if the Benny was that versatile but in your experience I see perhaps not. I can cram another ski into my closet I think! I will then have a full quiver with the K2 CABRAWLER, Volkl P50 SL Race, Volkl Bridge, Dynastar Huge and add a Benny! I suppose the Cochise or similar could replace both the Bridge and the Huge, will have to think on that one. Thanks again.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2011 Atomic Bent Chetler and Dynastar Huge Rocker: full length reviews