I will share my experiences with the hellbent.
I own the 189 from several seasons ago. These are the skull and eyeball graphic that are 122 underfoot. Mounted +6
The ski is undeniably excellent in soft, deep snow (even tracked as long as it's soft). Performance is unbelievable.
However, if I had to nit pick and change the ski:
1. I would flatten the tail, or reduce the rocker altogether. Frankly it seems the floatation is a function of the length, width, and soft flex rather than the radical rocker.
2. Possibly stiffen the entire ski ever so slightly.
I have noticed if you do end up in the back seat, it is harder to recover because there isn't any tail on the ski. Also, in late afternoon chop, you as the skier gets all of the snow feedback and then some which can be teeth rattling (no metal, soft flex). Something you just have to put up with if you are still getting after it.
Sorta off topic, but something I have noticed over the last few years since skis have gotten disproportionately wider:
I have found a point of diminishing returns on the powder performance capability of skis. Case in point. The 189 hellbents are 122 underfoot and don't float a whole heck of lot better than my 191 Scott P4 which is traditional camber, 2 sheets of metal, medium flex, 108 underfoot. But the P4 is a whole lot quicker edge to edge, more stable, more versatile. Furthermore though, the P4 is light years better in soft snow than my 186 LP's that are 97 underfoot. Again, ski design is often the limiting factor in how a ski performs in soft snow, not just the waist width.
Will I continue to ski my hellbents? Sure i will on really deep days only. But to me a 105-110 underfoot, long (187-195), medium flex ski is the ideal ski for me on most soft ski days here in central colorado.