• Forums
  • Sell and Trade
  • I need some hellbent help hellbent sizing on hellbent skis for the last hellbent time

Member of the Month

je_t.aime_canard
January, 2025

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

I need some hellbent help hellbent sizing on hellbent skis for the last hellbent time

profile picture
Capurnicus
Posts: 9947 - Karma: 1,886
Yeah, cause there's only like 330 threads on this.  BUT!! They're all about 179 vs. 189...and my question is totally different. Should I get the 169's or the 179's? Aahaha. I'm about 5'7' and 135 pounds. I want to ski powder on these skis both outwest down mad steep shit and here on the east coast in the trees. I'm pretty sure that I want the 169's (174's), but has anyone had expierence with that particular size?? I know some ski manufactuers change the flex on smaller sized skis, I just don't want to get tossed off these sticks. Thanks NS!!
Nov 6 2007 9:52AM
0 0
profile picture
mtsteeze406
Posts: 447 - Karma: 11
to be honest dude, i ride the 179 and im 5 8. and i can manuever these things without question through the woods. they ski VERY short. i think you could get away qith the 179 fine...
Nov 6 2007 9:54AM
0 0
profile picture
iggyskier
Posts: 10451 - Karma: 10,029
179.

Soft as hell and remember that the running length on them is fucking tiny.  They will be a lot easier to control than you think, plus the extra length will be better in pow.


Nov 6 2007 10:59AM
0 0
profile picture
=nick=
Posts: 10471 - Karma: 2,182
agreed on the 179. i am your exact height and weight and they were fine. heavy, but still fine.
Nov 6 2007 11:10AM
0 0
profile picture
Capurnicus
Posts: 9947 - Karma: 1,886
Bump bump.

Consensus on 179?
Nov 6 2007 5:27PM
0 0
profile picture
titsLOL
Posts: 7485 - Karma: 396
everyone on this site seems to think they're the shit for riding the longest skis possible. honestly, the 169 will still float in pow no question, will be more fun in trees and in the park, and are still plenty long for someone so short. Unless you wanna go really big and ski crazy lines I think a 169 would be more fun.
Nov 6 2007 5:42PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,145
Allow me to quote the words of the distinguished Dave Pires:
"When you're looking at a ski like this, you don't want to pussy foot around."
Nov 6 2007 5:43PM
0 0
profile picture
Capurnicus
Posts: 9947 - Karma: 1,886
hellbenting hellbumpbent
Nov 7 2007 5:37PM
0 0
profile picture
Kevski
Posts: 7056 - Karma: 2,790

Dave is a good guy who is always right. And he is right again.
But that mainly applies to the west, because that's where i'm sure he was quoted.

Nov 7 2007 5:41PM
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25443 - Karma: 13,844
Bigger is better. I'm 5'11, ride a 179 Maden, but I would only go for the 189 Hellbent.
Nov 7 2007 6:52PM
0 0
profile picture
pbandj
Posts: 5610 - Karma: 28
agreed
Nov 7 2007 6:59PM
0 0
profile picture
quebecfreestyler
Posts: 13040 - Karma: 1,419
well I think 179 (184) would be heavy as fuck when you'll want to have fun in the park
 135 pounds mean skinny.
  I think the 169 could be real fun to mess around and it's not like they are gonna sink in powder.
Nov 7 2007 7:07PM
0 0
profile picture
Capurnicus
Posts: 9947 - Karma: 1,886
Yeah I'm a scrawny motherfucker.

It was a tough decision but I think I'm going to go with the 169. The skis are mad fat and I'm going to be hopping/jumping around a good deal, and though I like big lines too, I'll be in the air way more.
Nov 7 2007 7:17PM
0 0
profile picture
Capurnicus
Posts: 9947 - Karma: 1,886

Thread done! Thanks to everyone who inputted!!

Nov 7 2007 7:19PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)