Backland 117 vs Bentchetler

[Jaybrtn]

Hey guys, looking to get a pair or two of new skis this winter and it seems as though both the new backland 117 and the bent fit what I want in two different ways.

I ski Washington mostly, occasionally JH/Utah. Resort and backcountry. 170lbs plus gear, 5'9, aggressive 3+ skier.

I've been skiing Pettitors as my pow ski for a few years now but I'm looking for something a bit more directional and stiffer for bigger, steeper stuff, as well as possibly a new set of less directional playful pow sticks. That description fits both of those skis pretty well, but what I'm wondering is if there's really that much of a difference between the two for it to be worth it to buy both, or even buy more than one of them at all. I just picked up the backland actually, but the bent sounds like a ton of fun as well.

so, do I just stick with the backland and call it good, or should I pick up a set of bents/whatever else?

 

[gapersarefriends]

Not sure if you've ridden the backlands or not but i'm quite a bit bigger than you (6'2" 195lbs) and found the bents super similar to the pettitors, really playful and poppy but got really floppy at high speeds

 

[onenerdykid]

I've been skiing Pettitors as my pow ski for a few years now but I'm looking for something a bit more directional and stiffer for bigger, steeper stuff, as well as possibly a new set of less directional playful pow sticks. That description fits both of those skis pretty well, but what I'm wondering is if there's really that much of a difference between the two for it to be worth it to buy both, or even buy more than one of them at all. I just picked up the backland actually, but the bent sounds like a ton of fun as well

Given that you want a more directional ski that is slightly stiffer/more supportive, the FR 117 is definitely the way to go between these two skis. The FR 117 has way more of a directional shape (V-shape), less tail rocker, and further rearward mountain point (a lot of our guys mount them +2 or +3cm ahead of recommended still).

Bents are super fun, but if you are looking for more of a directional ski, stick with the 117s.

 

[Jaybrtn]

Given that you want a more directional ski that is slightly stiffer/more supportive, the FR 117 is definitely the way to go between these two skis. The FR 117 has way more of a directional shape (V-shape), less tail rocker, and further rearward mountain point (a lot of our guys mount them +2 or +3cm ahead of recommended still).

Bents are super fun, but if you are looking for more of a directional ski, stick with the 117s.

Thanks for the advice. I'm going to stick with the 177s anyways because that's what I was looking for in that type of ski. I was more just curious about how the two compare, as in are they different enough that it wouldn't be a waste of money to buy both. I love how fun the pettitors are and I can only assume the bents are even more so, would I be giving up that fun playfulness with just the 117?

 

[Outoftowner]

Not sure if you've ridden the backlands or not

Probably not, considering they're brand new for this year.

The Backland 117s are very similar in cut and profile to the BCs. The carbon inlays in the 117s will allow you to charge a little harder and will handle your weight a little better if you're a bigger guy.

I'm 6'3", 205, and if I was deciding between the two, I'd go with the 117s

 

[Zypher]

Bibbys? 118 underfoot, stiffer flex pattern, fairly directional, one of the greatest big mtn/pow skis made, etc...

 

[gapersarefriends]

Probably not, considering they're brand new for this year.

The Backland 117s are very similar in cut and profile to the BCs. The carbon inlays in the 117s will allow you to charge a little harder and will handle your weight a little better if you're a bigger guy.

I'm 6'3", 205, and if I was deciding between the two, I'd go with the 117s

Thanks man i figured that...anyways the backlands and the bents would make for a very interesting quiver, seeing as they're such different skis