If I went for the JJ, should I go for the 175 or the 185, I'm 5' 10" and 185, I know bc the skis are rocker they ski shorter, not sure what I should do.

You can make any type of turn on it you want, as long as you are aggressive enough, and you ride the ski instead of the other way around. Personally, unless you ski a ton of snow on a daily basis, I would look elsewhere for a quiver of one ski. Maybe the JJ from Armada, since it has the same design philosophy, in a smaller more everyday package.

Depending on what you are looking for- yes, you may want to look at a ski with a narrower waist. I have to preface my comments by saying I have a pair of BC's but have not skied them yet. However, my buddy- whom I solidly trust, had this to say:

The early rise in the shovel and tail of the Bent Chetler (what Atomic calls Pop Rocker) makes it ski like a shorter ski on hardpack. The flotation and stability benefits of the 183 length come back into play in the steep and deep stuff. The BC's are fairly stiff underfoot, with traditional camber, which gives them fantastic edge hold and liveliness. They reward hard charging, and are surprisingly easy to tip on edge for a 123mm wasited ski. With the exception of the JJ, the BC's have about the shortest turning radius of any ski at this waist size. This is further enhanced by the fact that Atomic poured all their race knowledge into the construction of the ski. Add all that to the BC's very low swing weight, and you end up with an absolutely killer ski, that's incredibly nimble, responsive, and capable of just about anything.

So to get back to your question about the length, I think the BC would suit someone of your size and weight just fine. Personally, I'm a pretty big guy- 6'0", 225#, athletic build (think fullback). I tend to charge hard and ski aggressively. I like a stiffer ski, and have been skiing Volkls for years. I wanted a ski that was a solid two-size jump up in waist size from my Mantras. I was actually looking at comparable Volkls, and my tech buddy sold me on the Bent Chetlers. They are exactly what I was wanting, and I'm sure will not disappoint.

You might actually want a ski that has a narrower waist dimensions. Something like the Armada JJ would be awesome, because it has similar characteristics to the Bent Chetlers, but is narrower. They handle great in the deeper snow, rip groomers, will be more manageable in bumps, and tighter terrain. For sure check out the Volkl's but the JJ would probably be better.

Hey, read the review above for JJ reference:

written by eri3374524:

...is how my very knowledgeable and trusty ski tech buddy describes the Bent Chetlers.

He has skied pretty much every comparable ski offered by Volkl, Armada, K2, Rossignol, Line, other Atomic models, etc (he specifically made comparisons to the JJ, Hellbent, and Chopstick). According to him, the BC's are hands down- by far, the best ski out of the bunch. To avoid redundancy, his comments echo all the strong positives that have already been posted.

After a long conversation and some research, I took the plunge on faith alone. I opted to set up my BC's with Jesters, mounted 2.5 back from factory recommendation. I'll post my experience once I have had the chance to ski them.

Yes, the Bent Chester was only made in a 183.

with respect, i don't think peter's answer is very accurate. i'm 5'9" and about 145# and i've skied the 189cm 139mm waisted bluehouse maven in a resort and loved it. if you're 5'8" and 150 the bent chetler would probably be really good for you. that's the thing with rocker is that the actual running edge of the ski, contact point to contact point, is much shorter and makes the ski ride like a much shorter ski. so that's kindof the reason i think it's only offered in the 183. rockered skis of this type with camber underfoot and reverse sidecut at the tip and tail allow for a very wide range of skiers

yes, but it depends on the type of ski, fat (powder) skis you wont need the lenght because you are small and light and will get plenty of flotation from the width, but if you go for a thinner more on piste ski then you will need the extra length for flotation in powder. the bugger is that there is really no all mountain ski, just all mountain skiers. if you are a good skier you should be able to ski powder on any ski of any length, but there are powder skis which are just not any fun to ski on piste with. the best compromise i can think of is the Dynastar legend or mythic Ryder, in which 176 cm would be fine for you if you are an expert skier otherwise go a little shorter.

its really really really hard to find skins over 130mm right now, 130mm won't be optimal but should be more than fine.

Yeah you should be fine. If you can find some 140's then I would suggest that, but 130's will fit and work just fine.

waaay more stiffer than the EP for sure. EPs are soft! And the ARG and EP both lack traditional camber and only have reverse camber/rocker/early rise. The Bent Chetler's have rocker and traditional camber making this ski one of the most versatile fat skis on the market!