Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

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!

179 or 169 hellbent?

profile picture
BennyB
Posts: 2800 - Karma: 62
first of all, apologies for yet another hellbent thread. read all the others...couldnt find exactly what i was looking for.

sooo im moving out to utah for the winter and ive decided to get a pair of hellbents. no other ski suggestions please, im set on hellbents...ha. but word, im about 5'9" 155lbs...so im kinda inbetween the two sizes.

i plan on using them primarily for BC jibbing and pow rippage, but would love to be able to mess around in the park with them and what not. so my main concern is whether or not ill be able to throw around a pair of 179s, cuz they will be seeing alot of spinning and flippaging both into pow and in the park. if they were a true 179 i wouldnt be too worried about it...but the true length of 184 kinda scares me, ha.

thanks amigos...any help would be much appreciated!
Sep 11 2008 9:59PM
0 0
profile picture
Jmanski
Posts: 1152 - Karma: 13
your not in between sizes at all. 169 is absolutely tiny. yes i know that they are bigger than that. im 5'8'' with 179 and they feel pretty good.
Sep 11 2008 10:14PM
0 0
profile picture
richards
Posts: 2177 - Karma: 11
179 for sure
Sep 11 2008 10:28PM
0 0
profile picture
BennyB
Posts: 2800 - Karma: 62
word, i think im just being a puss...needed some reassurance. haha...thanks.
Sep 11 2008 10:32PM
0 0
profile picture
Jballz
Posts: 1638 - Karma: 79
79s fo show, i am either getting 79s or 89s prolly 79s
Sep 11 2008 10:47PM
0 0
profile picture
JonathonChandler
Posts: 905 - Karma: 423
179
Sep 11 2008 10:51PM
0 0
profile picture
Aenigma
Posts: 11256 - Karma: 424
You're between sizes, but not those ones!  Go for the 179's.
Sep 11 2008 11:27PM
0 0
profile picture
freshlyDIPPED
Posts: 1160 - Karma: 121
be a man get the 189......


i mean 179
Sep 12 2008 1:03AM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
179. the rocker will make it ski shorter, and you can mount those things at or damn close to center too.
Sep 12 2008 1:35AM
0 0
profile picture
FirstLight
Posts: 5 - Karma: 10
Definitely get the 179. The ski runs so short. I have the 169 and I'm only 5'3 and they're too short for me. Like skiing on fucking rollerblades.
Sep 12 2008 4:00AM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404
179
Sep 12 2008 9:28AM
0 0
profile picture
BennyB
Posts: 2800 - Karma: 62
alrright it has become clear to me that i was being a dumbass! haha...179 fo sho.

thanks for your help hombres!
Sep 12 2008 11:34AM
0 0
profile picture
CFSGabe
Posts: 354 - Karma: 11
179, if you did get the 169 it would be a lot of fun at first and then you would feel like you out grew it way to fast. also with the rocker is will be very easy to just tip over the tips or tails with the shorter length, you will need that extra 10cm in deeper pow for a larger platform to land on, 169 to easy to go over the bars, get the 179 and you'll be happy you did
http://www.coloradofreeskier.com/product_detail.cfm?PID=1242
Sep 12 2008 11:35AM
0 0
profile picture
LC.
Posts: 5952 - Karma: 2,423
McConkey says go 10cm bigger than your normal powder ski size for full rockered skis (new issue of Powder).
Sep 12 2008 11:47AM
0 0
profile picture
dorikin
Posts: 1914 - Karma: 16
Problem is. McConkey Doesn't ski like most of us. I am 5'9" 175. I normally ride a 188 powder ski, so with that Logic I should ski at least a 200cm ski if it were rockered. If i were getting bents just to rip and charge I would go 189 no question. But, if you intend on jibbing, or doing flippy spinny things, the 189 is A LOT of ski.
Sep 12 2008 1:43PM
0 0
profile picture
LC.
Posts: 5952 - Karma: 2,423

Yeah he did say something like that about butters/switch etc. You could probably handle 189 though, they're extremely manouverable. I can't see how you even considered 169s in the first place though/.
Sep 12 2008 3:01PM
0 0
profile picture
skisquaw@420
Posts: 1802 - Karma: 13
your logic is completely flawed. if you were to get an all-mountain park ski (not STRICTLY for park) you should add 5+ cm to your directional all-mountain ski. with a powder ski, you need to add 10+ cm due to loss of tip. with a rockered/negative camber ski, your running length is drastically reduced, therefore, you need to compensate by going even longer (this is especially true when skiing all-mountain), at least 15-20 cm longer. the main issue with this problem is that no one makes skis this long. they need to make them longer and stop making the fatter.


To the creator of this thread: you shouldnt be asking whether you should get a 169 or 179, you should be asking why k2 doesnt make anything BIGGER than 189
Sep 12 2008 5:52PM
0 0
profile picture
skisquaw@420
Posts: 1802 - Karma: 13
this assumes a true center mount, and expert skier
Sep 12 2008 5:53PM
0 0
profile picture
Fish_Sandwich.
Posts: 9108 - Karma: 16
179, I'm 5'9 150 lbs. and I skied 184 Bacons all last year, or are they 182? I dunno, but they were fine and I could have gone bigger.  If I were to buy Hellbents I'd go for 179 for sure.
Sep 12 2008 5:54PM
0 0
profile picture
dorikin
Posts: 1914 - Karma: 16

I am pondering what you said, it makes sense. I just need to demo both the 179 and 189.

Sep 12 2008 7:01PM
0 0
profile picture
JaySkier107
Posts: 288 - Karma: 29
179 for sure. Rockers ski shorter so 169s will feel super short
Sep 13 2008 6:07PM
0 0
profile picture
QuazBotch
Posts: 3909 - Karma: 223
go 179. I'm 5'6 120lbs and thought the 179s weren't too hard to handle for cruising around. With your weight and height, they should be manageable in the park. You just won't be dancing across rails like with a park ski.
Sep 13 2008 6:40PM
0 0
profile picture
skyabamba
Posts: 1144 - Karma: 10
yeah man im 5'8 145lbs and im trying to get rid of my 169s so i can get a pair of this years 179s. so stoked. 169s are for like 14 year olds.
Sep 25 2008 12:49AM
0 0
profile picture
shortdawg
Posts: 1359 - Karma: 19
im gonna say 169s just to screw with your brain -_-
Sep 25 2008 12:55AM
0 0
profile picture
KramerC
Posts: 619 - Karma: 21
go 79 or 89. Im your same height and weigh a little less and went with the 189. center mount makes things seem smaller as well as rocker.
Sep 25 2008 12:55AM
0 0
profile picture
shortdawg
Posts: 1359 - Karma: 19
dude thats too damn big. how do you jib.
Sep 25 2008 12:57AM
0 0
profile picture
*WonderBread*
Posts: 401 - Karma: 13

kingswood
146 underfoot

190 somthing

that sounds like fun.

Sep 25 2008 1:23AM
0 0
profile picture
Fish_Sandwich.
Posts: 9108 - Karma: 16
http://www.kingswoodskis.com/home/skis-megafat




HOLY FUCK!

That is just too big, no need for that, my Donner Party's are even pushing the limit, but with reverse sidecut it's not too bad.



Sep 25 2008 2:00AM
0 0
profile picture
KramerC
Posts: 619 - Karma: 21
i jib on my jib skis. i got blends 179 for all mountain.
Sep 25 2008 2:38PM
0 0
profile picture
Literature
Posts: 13673 - Karma: 3,085
As everyone said: 179.
Sep 25 2008 2:49PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)