New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

K2 Hellbent 179 - Page 2

post #31 of 37
Thread Starter 

Hey Spin, good points. We are both looking at an old post. I should have looked at it more closely. I saw the dude mentioning skiing niseko and assumed (perhaps incorrectly) he had chops. You are correct in your last post as well as the earlier posts where we were both saying the same thing  #18, 19.  gotta look at actual ski length as well,  example, JJ at 175, measures pretty much the same, the 179 HB is longer and skis longer even with more rocker.

post #32 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

OK, ancient thread revived for some reason. But the whole "go super long on every rockered ski" thing is getting a bit crazy.

 

Very, very few people "need" a 189 Hell Bent. I know silly good skiers ranging from 150-ish pounds to 200-ish pounds who prefer the 179 Hell Bents. Think about it -- the HB has huge tips. The swing weight (and absolute weight) as you grow a fat ski that long gets pretty significant. For what the Hell Bent does best, that's an issue. 

 

If you want to do jibby & switch things under anything but massive conditions, my most reliable sources say to go with the 179. If you are doing those things on really big fast lines - or you are a serious clydesdale, the 189 seems to get the nod. If you think the 179 isn't "enough", and you just want a regular powder "surfer", maybe consider something else.
 

While I'm at it... let me pre-empt the frequently heard tales about Hell Bents esp the 179s - being easy to "outski". I'm pretty sure I could count the number of people on this board (& probablyTGR too) who can actually "outski" either a 179  or a 189 HB (current or prior) on my fingers... Now, it is fair to debate what they are best at, but that's a different discussion.

 

BTW - I have no issue with longer rockered skis. I just think you need to think about where the design & use sweet spot of each ski is. 

Mostly I agree with you. I had the 189 Hellbents until recently. For what the Hellbent is made for, I just think it's too heavy. Although it is super easy to pivot and maneuver, it can often take a lot of strength due to the weight.

 

The problem I had was the soft flex- It just doesn't hold up as well as you want it to in variable and cut up snow. It's pretty easy to see that the people who designed it only really use it to ski untracked pow which normal skiers don't get to do as often. IMO if a ski is already bent into the best shape to ski powder, the need for a soft ski is less.

 

Now that the ON3P Caylor is out I see no reason whatsoever to buy hellbents. The Caylor has a similar rocker profile, but it weights a LOT less, and is stiffer so more versatile. Basically everything I wished the hellbents were.
 

post #33 of 37

I guess if you dont ski 30 to 60 mph in pow and jump cliffs and booters a 179 is ok. IF u really want to charge u need the 189. if the skis feel heavy your not letting them do the work,physics dictates the less of the skiers body weight is the fully geared skier-the more enegy the total wieght absorbs.equals the heavyer the ski the less impact the skier takes,remember the bowling ball and the bb.............next


ps you must have a thousand fingers.lol
post #34 of 37

I'm in. Thinking about getting a pair of 10/11 HB's or OS's. I like my skis short, don't own anything over 176 right now (I'm about 5'10" 175). 179 sound right? I'd even be tempted to go 169 as I like to ski in the trees.  

post #35 of 37

168 would ski so short with the amount of rocker on the HB

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by prickly View Post

I'm in. Thinking about getting a pair of 10/11 HB's or OS's. I like my skis short, don't own anything over 176 right now (I'm about 5'10" 175). 179 sound right? I'd even be tempted to go 169 as I like to ski in the trees.  



 

post #36 of 37

*169

post #37 of 37

179 is the go-to size in the hellbent. Simple as that 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews