K2 HellBent Ski

The short answer is no. These don't even work as a 1 ski quiver at a place like Alta.

these skis are going to be heavenly in powder, okay on groomers, and terrible on ice. obviously there are going to be plenty of people who will disagree with me and tell you that they ski their hellbents every day on ice all the time. i'm not saying you can't do that, just that the skis are not designed for that and there are better options if that's what they're going to be used for primarily. if you're looking to ski mostly powder...great choice.

Having not skiied this years, but the 2009 version I am not sure if they are the best in tight trees/chutes. You will tend to "upsize" the ski because of the huge amount of rocker. This makes it a pretty long ski. But because of the significant rocker it is easy to pivot, just the swing weight is significant.

I don't think it would be my 1st choice for thight trees and chutes

These are great in deep powder, but in tighter conditions, like tight tree areas and chutes, they take some skill to maneuver (think having a snowboard on each foot). If you're not an expert/advanced skier, or plan on being primarily in tighter conditions, I'd maybe check out the K2 Obsethed, especially if this is your first fat ski. Normally I'm all for the "go big or go home" mantra, but since the Obsethed are a little narrower and easier to manage in the trees, yet will still rock the wide open deep pow easily, they're a great alternative to the HellBent.

http://www.backcountry.com/k2-obsethed-ski

Minimum 179. these ski very short

go bigger for sure!

Considering the 50% Rocker 50% Camber the 179 will ski like a ski you're probably more used to and the 169 will ski like a ski far too small for you. Go with the 179. Or go demo both of them to decide for yourself.

They own moguls.

Yes, there is a difference- REI has a shot of the old - http://reviews.rei.com/review/805592/K2-HellBent-Skis-Mens-20102011. These are the new.

I have a friend who did that and he loves them all he did was bend the brakes but he loves the preformence of it and thinks its the best

A 130mm brake can be bent a bit to fit a 132mm ski without any problems.

i know people who have done it on the old bents 122 underfoot vs 132 on this years model but they really love how they ski

Mount it Pins on chord center. Just like any good backcountry sticks.

no, theyr a pretty big ski so that should help you muscle them around

you might have more control over the 169 and the lighter weight might make it more fun. The 179 will give you more stability but is not really necessary. You will be able to handle both sizes fine but Its really easier to have fun on a shorter ski.

If I were you I'd take the 179 (following the +10cm rule that usually works the best), then again it's all depending on what you expect from the ski to do and how to act and on what your skill level is. If really just for a fun ride, then 169 will do but if for serious powder, take the 179.

its still super floaty, i would probably get the old one if its cheaper.

Its a floatier ski but the float difference will not be as great between the old hellbent and the new. But i still would reccomend buying the old. In my experience a 122 waist ski is muck funner than a 130 waist ski in powder. The hellbent will give you a different powder experiece than the obsethed will. The hellbent is a much poppier play-fuller ski And since the bents have more tail rocker and a softer flex, they will give you a much more surfy, playful feeling than the obsethed. The extra money spent on buying the new bents really isn't worth it.

I just bought that same model. From what I have heard that model is way floaty. Full rocker underneath you. And at 122 waist and full rocker. There is no way anything is floatier.

Weight: Single Ski Weight:169 (5.15lbs/2338g), 189 (6.14lbs/2783.5g)