New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

K2 Hellbent Alpine Ski

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
So the big question! 179 or 189?

I've been always sking on 174/179 with ease & anywhere from the alps to the rockies. I'm 5'11 & 200lbs & sking & snowboarding most of my life. This is will be my first rocker ski so i dont want to f___ this up!

Should i go with the 189 due to the large rocker?
Is the 179 gonna feel short?

Will I regret not going with the 189 & end up putting the 179 for sale next year?
Demo is out of the question for me at this point...
 
Please Help! Thanks!

post #2 of 17
Thread Starter 
Looking for someone who has skied them or owns a pair & is close to my size.
 

All opinions are greatly appreicated!!

Thanks, Andy
post #3 of 17
Patience, Andy.  Somebody will come by soon who has an informed opinion.  Welcome to EpicSki.

Where are you going to use these Hellbents?  If they'll be your daily drivers in all conditions, perhaps the 179 is the right length for you.  But I think most people use these as very powder-specific, in which case the longer length is going to give you more float.  So knowing where you'll use these is pertinent - like if all you do is helicopter-accessed bottomless pow.
post #4 of 17
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the warm welcome!

Last weeknd of Feb. gonna be in park city to break them in!
& in mid March m doing 4 days in Insbruck/Stubaier Gletscher & from there driving up to St.Moritz for another 4 days...

was leaning towards the 179 but just thought that due to the big rocker they would feel much shorter... this is why i need someone that has skied them to see if the 189 feel more like 179.

does that make any sense? lol

just would hate to drop all that cash & not be happy or hegret going to long or too short.. :)

Hey SpikeDog, my parents are looking at buying a motel in Dubois... any good big mountain skiing close by???

Thanks!
post #5 of 17
Thread Starter 
bump.. anyone on this board with hellbents?
post #6 of 17
Here's a well known reputable Bear that knows then, has them, and is selling some

K2 HELLBENTS- W/ Griffons 179 excellent condition



http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/90192/k2-hellbents-w-griffons-179-excellent-condition#post_1176237


If they are still available you should snap these up;.
post #7 of 17
He's my two cents. The reason most people get a rockered  ski is to rip in powder. It's not for trees or narrow chutes although you can use them there, they are for fast powder turns and open bowls with out having to worry about tip dive and going ass over tea kettle. They are also used for skiing switch. For these uses you'd want a longer ski anyway and with rocker they will ski short in the non powder/ crud applications.
Hellbent in particular they are meant to be mounted near center again making them ski a little short.
You height and weight I'd say go longer.
Cheers!
post #8 of 17
Thread Starter 
Thanks Crgildart!  Just emailed the guy!
post #9 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski=free View Post

He's my two cents. The reason most people get a rockered  ski is to rip in powder. It's not for trees or narrow chutes although you can use them there, they are for fast powder turns and open bowls with out having to worry about tip dive and going ass over tea kettle. They are also used for skiing switch. For these uses you'd want a longer ski anyway and with rocker they will ski short in the non powder/ crud applications.
Hellbent in particular they are meant to be mounted near center again making them ski a little short.
You height and weight I'd say go longer.
Cheers!


ummmm in powder filled trees or chutes filled with powder rocker is way quicker than anything else.

In skied out trees skis like the S3, night train and Katana make is super easy to be faster than anyone else though them.

You should probably get this in a 179(which is much longer than 179cm in reality....) the ski excel at powder skiing but is super nimble in trees. In the 179 it would be way easy to ski tight places on.
post #10 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by hivltg View Post

Hey SpikeDog, my parents are looking at buying a motel in Dubois... any good big mountain skiing close by???
 

Uh, dude, get out a map.  There's this junky little mom and pop ski hill called JACKSON HOLE about 2 hours away.  Snow King, Grand Targhee also nearby.  I've never driven the road from Moran to Dubois, but it can't be that bad that you couldn't get to JH.  It don't get any bigger.

Listen to Bushwacker on ski length for the Hellbents; he's not just guessing like me.
post #11 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post





ummmm in powder filled trees or pwoder filled trees rocker is way quicker than anything else.

In skied out trees skis like the S3, night train and Katana make is super easy to be faster than anyone else though them.

You should probably get this in a 179(which is much longer than 179cm in reality....) the ski excel at powder skiing but is super nimble in trees. In the 179 it would be way easy to ski tight places on.

 

If they are "super quick" then why not go longer? You aren't giving up quickness and get all the advantages of a longer ski, even if the 189 are not of the "super" and just "regular" quick variety. Rocker may be great in trees but thats not what it was made for, especially the Hellbent. Anyway,  not all rockesr are equal or alike, Katana  is very subtle.
If you are bombing powder I doubt at his weight he will be saying "man I wish I went shorter". Also if someone is getting this ski as their "trees ski" there may be a better option but shorter would be a concideration.
post #12 of 17
Thread Starter 

i came very close to buying the 179 which i would normaly ski, till i did some research i came across reviews like these, so this is where my dilemma started! (So i decided on the 189's.. added some of these reviews if there was anyone out there in the same boat i was)

"I bought these in the 179 thinking it would be enough...they actually measure to 184 or something.

I skiid them two days at Snowbird, and figured out pretty quickly I need the 189. Almost went over the handlebars a few times because they were too short.

They are a lot of fun, and have a really bouncy floaty style. Actually pretty easy to ski in pow, and not bad on the hard pack.

One thing I did not expect is how squirly they are in chewed snow....but maybe the ones I had were too short. Will report back on the 189 ones the pow starts."


" I am very happy with them I got them in 189 go bigger than you think the rocker makes them ski smaller."


I am 6'3" 190lbs and a level 8 or 9 skier. I am pretty good in powder with my K2 seths at 179, but can't imagine something longer in the bumps.

I bought a pair of Hellbent at 179, and tried them out in a foot of snow at 'Bird. I had them mounted at +4, even though I don't ski switch....just went with the recommended setting. The almost don't feel like skiing, and have to say I got thrown around in chopped snow...did not seem to track very well.

I am having second thoughts, and wonder if I should get the 189 and mount them more traditionally?

dont believe the hype that this ski is powder specific (although it is).. you can have a blast doing anything on it as long as you are used to fatter skis... SIZE UP im glad i did... i ride a 176 usually but went for the 189 hellbent and could not be happier...

My new favorite skis... I am 5'8" and have the 189cm mounted at +6 with Rossi SAS2 140 bindings


Edited by hivltg - 1/15/10 at 8:01pm
post #13 of 17
I would not niche the Hell Bent as a powder only or a powder specialty ski per se. It is an all-around play/fun ski. One that happens to be powder oriented. Or maybe better described as highly powder capable. But they will absolutely play well on soft groomers too.

There is a school of thought that with this, and other fat rockered skis (eg Pontoon, Kuro, etc.), any of the longer lengths has a ton of "float". So the question is "what are you going to be skiing with it?" If you will be skiing typical groomers, playful powder, chutes, trees, etc. - the "go-to" length is 179. In fact, one of the two best skiers I know is into season 3 of using the 179 for trees, chutes, pillows, etc. - and considers Hell Bents an ideal ski for this kind of terrain (although his POV is likely skewed by the fact that he does all that sort of stuff switch as well) .  

For big, open, fast lines, big faces, etc. -  - then the 189 might make sense, depending on your size & skiing style,  because the extra length offers a bit more platform for stability at speed. 

As BWPA noted - the sizing on these is a bit nuts. The 179 is more like a 185 in almost any other ski. Likewise, the 189 is pretty much the same length as most "195" length skis.

Like any other type of ski, you need to "get the hang of them". There are plenty of people skiing them in cutup, on groomers, etc.



(context: My family has all 3 lengths. Between us, we have a couple hundred days (at least) on them. I've skied both the 179 and 189. I'm roughly the OP's size. I'm a pretty average skier. If I were buying a pair today, it'd be the 179. )
post #14 of 17
One thng worth noting when reading people's review of rockered skis is that many are very sensitive ot mount point and to balance point over the skis. My experience with rockered skis like the bents is that you need to be more centered than on conventional alpine boards. Can't lean back or forward much with out tiping over.
post #15 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski=free View Post




If they are "super quick" then why not go longer? You aren't giving up quickness and get all the advantages of a longer ski, even if the 189 are not of the "super" and just "regular" quick variety. Rocker may be great in trees but thats not what it was made for, especially the Hellbent. Anyway,  not all rockesr are equal or alike, Katana  is very subtle.
If you are bombing powder I doubt at his weight he will be saying "man I wish I went shorter". Also if someone is getting this ski as their "trees ski" there may be a better option but shorter would be a concideration.

 
I agree, and would get the 189, assuming you are skiing bigger terrain at speed. The HB is nice and nimble, but lacks in stability in rough snow compared to my daily driver wide ski, so I would go longer. Plus, as it is relatively easy to release due to the huge tip, you will feel the ski to be much shorter than it actually is.  A big rockered 195cm just doesn't feel that long, on average, although there are skis that do "ski long", although the HB isn't one of them (you can ski shorter on a stiffer ski like the Gotama, Katana, or my favorite, the 1010). The average aggressive skier is going to be looking at the 189 most of the time.  These things turn themselves practically; any skier with skills is going to be able to turn them in tight spaces.  If you ski at moderate speeds, then the shorter length might be OK, but I out-skied the 179 in a few turns, and am smaller than you.
post #16 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post


The average aggressive skier is going to be looking at the 189 most of the time.  These things turn themselves practically; any skier with skills is going to be able to turn them in tight spaces.  If you ski at moderate speeds, then the shorter length might be OK, but I out-skied the 179 in a few turns, and am smaller than you.

This is not a realistic assessment.

The most credible people I know WRT this ski would recommend the 179 for most good skiers for most uses. Obviously there is a reason that the 169 and 189 exist. But "on average", the 179 is the right choice for a whole lot of people. I know more than one person (ranging from 165 to about 200 pounds) who skis pretty darn well - and aggressively - and favors the 179 out of the available Hell Bent sizes.

As for "out-skiing" the 179, I'm super skeptical. Very few people are likely, in any number of turns, to out-ski the ski that guys like Mahre and Fujas are skiing much of the time. In the hands of people who know how to ski it, the 179 Hell Bent is a very capable ski - off piste and on. 

I agree that the 189 is not especially hard to turn compared to many larger conventional skis. But it is a huge ski with large tips. For most people, there's no reason to add that "swing weight" & length unless they plan to do some pretty big lines at pretty high speeds. And maybe switch to boot...

If someone has a considered reason to go with the 189 - great. But the "common wisdom" of blindly going uber-long with rocker does not hold water with this ski. If in doubt, the 179 is probably a fine choice.

Just my .02...
Edited by spindrift - 1/16/10 at 10:33pm
post #17 of 17
Garrett on this board is rockin 179 hellbents this year, he is your weight and height and most likely more technically skilled skier than you. albeit he is using is as an eastern tree ski. Jakecast who is much smaller but faster skier than Garrett has 179cm Hellbent and uses 189cm Obseth as his go fast ski. 

I would get this ski in 179cm east or west its not a charger in 189cm anyway its still flops at speed unless its untracked and the 189cm just make it less fun in tight soft lines where this ski excels at. There are other 190cm skis out there that are much better at 'chargin" than these. To me just make no sense for mearly good and not great skier to get this any larger.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion