179 or 169 hellbent?

BennyB

BennyB

Active member
first of all, apologies for yet another hellbent thread. read all the others...couldnt find exactly what i was looking for.

sooo im moving out to utah for the winter and ive decided to get a pair of hellbents. no other ski suggestions please, im set on hellbents...ha. but word, im about 5'9" 155lbs...so im kinda inbetween the two sizes.

i plan on using them primarily for BC jibbing and pow rippage, but would love to be able to mess around in the park with them and what not. so my main concern is whether or not ill be able to throw around a pair of 179s, cuz they will be seeing alot of spinning and flippaging both into pow and in the park. if they were a true 179 i wouldnt be too worried about it...but the true length of 184 kinda scares me, ha.

thanks amigos...any help would be much appreciated!
 
your not in between sizes at all. 169 is absolutely tiny. yes i know that they are bigger than that. im 5'8'' with 179 and they feel pretty good.
 
179. the rocker will make it ski shorter, and you can mount those things at or damn close to center too.
 
Definitely get the 179. The ski runs so short. I have the 169 and I'm only 5'3 and they're too short for me. Like skiing on fucking rollerblades.
 
alrright it has become clear to me that i was being a dumbass! haha...179 fo sho.

thanks for your help hombres!
 
179, if you did get the 169 it would be a lot of fun at first and then you would feel like you out grew it way to fast. also with the rocker is will be very easy to just tip over the tips or tails with the shorter length, you will need that extra 10cm in deeper pow for a larger platform to land on, 169 to easy to go over the bars, get the 179 and you'll be happy you did

http://www.coloradofreeskier.com/product_detail.cfm?PID=1242
 
McConkey says go 10cm bigger than your normal powder ski size for full rockered skis (new issue of Powder).
 
Problem is. McConkey Doesn't ski like most of us. I am 5'9" 175. I normally ride a 188 powder ski, so with that Logic I should ski at least a 200cm ski if it were rockered. If i were getting bents just to rip and charge I would go 189 no question. But, if you intend on jibbing, or doing flippy spinny things, the 189 is A LOT of ski.
 


Yeah he did say something like that about butters/switch etc. You could probably handle 189 though, they're extremely manouverable. I can't see how you even considered 169s in the first place though/.
 
your logic is completely flawed. if you were to get an all-mountain park ski (not STRICTLY for park) you should add 5+ cm to your directional all-mountain ski. with a powder ski, you need to add 10+ cm due to loss of tip. with a rockered/negative camber ski, your running length is drastically reduced, therefore, you need to compensate by going even longer (this is especially true when skiing all-mountain), at least 15-20 cm longer. the main issue with this problem is that no one makes skis this long. they need to make them longer and stop making the fatter.

To the creator of this thread: you shouldnt be asking whether you should get a 169 or 179, you should be asking why k2 doesnt make anything BIGGER than 189
 
179, I'm 5'9 150 lbs. and I skied 184 Bacons all last year, or are they 182? I dunno, but they were fine and I could have gone bigger. If I were to buy Hellbents I'd go for 179 for sure.
 
go 179. I'm 5'6 120lbs and thought the 179s weren't too hard to handle for cruising around. With your weight and height, they should be manageable in the park. You just won't be dancing across rails like with a park ski.
 
yeah man im 5'8 145lbs and im trying to get rid of my 169s so i can get a pair of this years 179s. so stoked. 169s are for like 14 year olds.
 
go 79 or 89. Im your same height and weigh a little less and went with the 189. center mount makes things seem smaller as well as rocker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top