or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › HELLCAT 178 - too short?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HELLCAT 178 - too short?

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 
Found a pair of Hellcat 178s. I think I could pick them up for $600.

200#, 5'10" 54 yr old, pretty good skier. Other ski is a 170 Top Fuel which is just right for me with the tighter lines and snug woods. These would be for east coast skiing. I prefer a shorter ski, but would this be too short? What do you think about the cost?

Still looking at the Head iM88 as well. This ski seems like a tank, but that could be fun too.
post #2 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post
Found a pair of Hellcat 178s. I think I could pick them up for $600.

200#, 5'10" 54 yr old, pretty good skier. Other ski is a 170 Top Fuel which is just right for me with the tighter lines and snug woods. These would be for east coast skiing. I prefer a shorter ski, but would this be too short? What do you think about the cost?

Still looking at the Head iM88 as well. This ski seems like a tank, but that could be fun too.
for east coast skiing not too short buy for what I think, you think its good at its probably the wrong ski.
post #3 of 8
Thread Starter 
How so? I am thinking it will perform well in soft snow and very well in firm snow - a good east coast ski? What's it gonna do?
post #4 of 8
That's the yellow one, right? I demoed it once last year. It was a very fun ski. A Top Fuel on roids. 178 won't be too short.
post #5 of 8
Thread Starter 
Thanks Epic
post #6 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post
Found a pair of Hellcat 178s. I think I could pick them up for $600.

200#, 5'10" 54 yr old, pretty good skier. Other ski is a 170 Top Fuel which is just right for me with the tighter lines and snug woods. These would be for east coast skiing. I prefer a shorter ski, but would this be too short? What do you think about the cost?

Still looking at the Head iM88 as well. This ski seems like a tank, but that could be fun too.
I'm the same age as you, 5'8" 185# and have the TF and HC both in 170. I don't find the length short at all. I didn't get out West this past season, but on days I did get to ski power in the East I was very satisified with the float the HC's provided.
post #7 of 8
If you like the feel of the Top Fuel, it would be a good complement. Personally, I would rather not have a system type ski in a ski that size. I skied the Watea 94 and found that to be a blast. The Head is a great choice too. I wasn't a fan of the Blizzard in that range but did like the Stockli. The Hart ONe is more of a softer snow ski.
post #8 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post
Found a pair of Hellcat 178s. I think I could pick them up for $600.

200#, 5'10" 54 yr old, pretty good skier. Other ski is a 170 Top Fuel which is just right for me with the tighter lines and snug woods. These would be for east coast skiing. I prefer a shorter ski, but would this be too short? What do you think about the cost?

Still looking at the Head iM88 as well. This ski seems like a tank, but that could be fun too.
To short? For your height and weight I would think the 170 are to short. I am your weight, but an inch taller and ski a pair of 178 Nitrous and 187 Thunders as my daily skis and 191 Goliaths in powder. I think you will really like the extra length.
The Hellcats sound like a fun ski. I like the dimensions on them and for $600, a fair price.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › HELLCAT 178 - too short?