It's not my fault Hellbents are confusing as fuck!

Admiral

Admiral

Member
Before you verbally lambaste me I have searchbared this a thousand times, and i have not found a direct answer to this: What length of a regular camber ski skis about the same as a 169 hellbent? I ski on 165 slalom ski for racing so I'm used to a small ski, I just wanna know if the hellbents ski about as long as those 165 sl skis or if it would be like skiing snowskates or something. The reason I want them so short is i plan to use them for the park alot and not just powder, so I want the lightest hellbent without it being rediculoulsy squirly. Thanks for having the stomach to open a thread containing the word Hellbent.

 
Hellbents are not light. 169's are really like 175, but keep in mind that the actual length of the ski touching the snow is only a fraction of that.

Sorry for criticizing your choice of ski, but it seems illogical to me to get Hellbents if you're skiing park. I'd go with something like the Anthems or Bacons/EPs if you really want something wider.
 
can someone please explain to me why you would want to ski hellbents in the park, apart from showing others the extent of your "gnarliness"
 
Can someone please explain to me why people have to criticize other peoples ski choices? He didn't ask if hellbents are right for him, he asked how long they ski. Even if he is only buying them to show others the extent of his gnarliness, why the fuck do you care? Don't be a cunt to him in his thread.

To the thread creator, I can't give you a direct answer because I havn't skied the 169s, but I can suggest that if you're used to riding short skis it shouldn't be too much of a problem. I'm prety big and I also like riding short skis, I quite enjoy the 179's even though everybody tells me to ride 189s. Its a matter of personal preference. I can't say too much more without knowing your size, weight etc..
 
they come out to be something like 174. but with the rocker only like 120 is realy touching the snow
 
how tall are you and how much do you weigh? I'm 6' and about 170 and I plan on getting the 179 hellbents for the park next winter.
 
why people buy k2 hellbent for park? it is stupid and poser only would do it. i will not try to stop you buying, regret will be punishment enough for you when realize it is too heavy and bad for popping jumps

 
When I go up to the mountain on a powder day I like to ski natural features and charge around the mountain just as much as the next guy, but I never do that all day. I like to have a ski I can take to the park half-way through the day. That's what I like about the hellbents. Obviously I already have anthems for park, but I don't want to bring 2 pairs of skis up to the mountain just so I can have my choice of either park or pow. I HAVE demoed 179 Hellbents before and they were pretty gnarly in powder. But in the park they were just a bit heavy. I can take the heaviness, but I'm just wondering if I could ski the 169 cuz it will be lighter but also shorter. I'll just go with the 179 if it's too short. BTW Hellbents are really fun in the park particularly on rails. I'm 5'6 150 if anyone wants to know.
 
it is a ton of fun. i skiied mine every day this season, i used my invaders once or twice, but they arent nearly as fun. in the park, they lock onto rails and boxes, and jumps just feel flowy. and its just a personal preference, chill out bro.
 
if i'm not mistaken, the 189s have the same flat spot as the 179s (and possibly 169) but have longer rockered parts.. so really they should handle identical on hard snow. but i could be wrong
 
This is my theory too, which would mean that the only difference between how the 169s, 179s, and 189s ski is the weight. So if I got the 169s it would just be taking off weight that would be on a part of the ski that isnt on the snow anyway... We may have had a breakthrough in the Hellbent case study. Can anyone confirm this theory?
 
according to k2, thats not true. however ive never skied them so i can neither confirm or disprove it. they measure the amount of rocker in it, ill unearth a catalog and let u kno the numbers
 
really? cause I was planning on getting the 189 first, until my research (aka searchbaring) lead me to believe that the 189 was too much ski for just park use...This year I rode 184 urban punx and the length was perfect, could have gone a little longer even...I just wasn't sure what to expect with the hellbents as far as length goes....
 
WWSHD?

flash_video_placeholder.png

 
Not to be pushy or anything, but I kind of want to get this Hellbent mystery figured out quick cuz backcountry.com has 169 hellbents for $520 right now, and I want to get them before they sell out.

Speaking of deals has anyone seen any good ones on 08 Hellbents?
 
if you ony want to use em for park def get the 169's i ski on the 179's all the time. and in the park they are a little much to spin sometimes, i can spin 7's but you need a big jump. i would suggest the 169s especially if your used to a smaller ski. i hope this helps and dont listen to the haters. its deffinitly fun to ski on hellbents all the time, but you will notice a plateu on your park skills with the hellbents i think. especially on box's and rails, its deffinitly hard to get techy with the bents. it took me for ever to get switch ups with them. andi wont do 27's on unless its a BIG lip and gap to a box.
 
Stu would get the biggest jacket and pair of hellbents he can and slay powder/hoodrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top