Hellbent question

Eric_D · 2007-12-03 19:46:01

i'm about 5'8 to 5'9. probably gonna grow a little more. and was wondering which size of hellbents would be good. 169 or 179. i heard they run really big because of the rocker. i head a 185 runs to about 195ish. is this true?

invaderskier36

Posts: 6192 - Karma: 41

Karma: 41

Posts: 6192

No Life

they do run bigger but ski alot shorter

Dec 3 2007 7:47PM

0 0

fouldsys

Posts: 7404 - Karma: 39

Karma: 39

Posts: 7404

Crazy Fool

179

Dec 3 2007 7:47PM

0 0

Eric_D

Posts: 1562 - Karma: 79

Karma: 79

Posts: 1562

Insane

so 179 wouldnt be super huge or anything.

Dec 3 2007 7:49PM

0 0

bigwhite.steeze

Posts: 8227 - Karma: 1,032

Karma: 1,032

Posts: 8227

Crazy Fool

run big but ski very small, go for the bigger size

Dec 3 2007 7:50PM

0 0

chazz.

Posts: 2721 - Karma: 23

Karma: 23

Posts: 2721

Addict

they dont make a 169 hell bent. just 179 and 189.

Dec 3 2007 8:05PM

0 0

invaderskier36

Posts: 6192 - Karma: 41

Karma: 41

Posts: 6192

No Life

nope you are wrong they do make a 169

Dec 3 2007 8:07PM

0 0

Eric_D

Posts: 1562 - Karma: 79

Karma: 79

Posts: 1562

Insane

and bindings wise any suggestions? i heard they were a heavy ski so possibly a real light binding.

Dec 3 2007 8:16PM

0 0

chazz.

Posts: 2721 - Karma: 23

Karma: 23

Posts: 2721

Addict

oops, my bad.

Dec 3 2007 8:55PM

0 0

tjski

Posts: 5859 - Karma: 44

Karma: 44

Posts: 5859

No Life

if you want a really light binding i would go w/ a salomon binding, they are usualy pretty light but if you want a really good heavy duty binding i would go w/ a rossi axial binding, they are a little heavier but a good binding. and salomon's not a bad choice though.

Dec 3 2007 9:00PM

0 0

poofartpee

Posts: 7436 - Karma: 1,540

Karma: 1,540

Posts: 7436

Crazy Fool

there pretty light for their size duuuuuuuuuuude

Dec 3 2007 9:15PM

0 0

skiRay

Posts: 7558 - Karma: 926

Karma: 926

Posts: 7558

Crazy Fool

k2 runs 2 cm larger than they say. so a 179 is really a 181

Dec 3 2007 9:25PM

0 0

emopoppins

Posts: 3996 - Karma: 269

Karma: 269

Posts: 3996

Addict

more like 5 cm longer.

Dec 3 2007 9:27PM

0 0

FUUUCK

Posts: 18426 - Karma: 4,889

Karma: 4,889

Posts: 18426

Post Whore

more like...19cm longer

Dec 3 2007 9:48PM

0 0

chazz.

Posts: 2721 - Karma: 23

Karma: 23

Posts: 2721

Addict

Dec 3 2007 9:54PM

0 0

Aenigma

Posts: 11256 - Karma: 428

Karma: 428

Posts: 11256

Crazy Fool

I'll settle this debate.

Those are 189 Seth Pistols and the skis next to them are 193's. They are within 2mm of each other. So this means K2's run about 4cm long if I can do math--which I can't.

Dec 3 2007 10:12PM

0 0

chazz.

Posts: 2721 - Karma: 23

Karma: 23

Posts: 2721

Addict

wait....193....minus 2....equals 191.......191......minus 189.....equals 2......which would mean they run 2 cm longer. u suck at math.

Dec 3 2007 10:15PM

0 0

tjski

Posts: 5859 - Karma: 44

Karma: 44

Posts: 5859

No Life

so K2 measures running length, i think, (the length from before the tail to before the tip, not measuring the tip and tail?)

Dec 3 2007 10:16PM

0 0

fouldsys

Posts: 7404 - Karma: 39

Karma: 39

Posts: 7404

Crazy Fool

the hellbents run longer because of the rocker. and they are farily light for a ski of that size. they are a little more heavier then my tnks. they have a massive swing weight tho. light bindings wont help that much.

Dec 3 2007 10:19PM

0 0