Hey Cy, can you describe your height/weight and skiing ability/style? I’m about 5’8″ and 175 and am not sure if I should size up from 179 to 184 on this ski or not? I have some 178 Bent-Chetlers and some 185 Opuses so would hate to make the wrong choice (either way too long OR too short). Having a little info about your height etc may help as a reference point. I looked through the article a few times looking for that info, my apologies if it is there and I somehow missed it. These skis sound amazing! Great review!
Given that you’re skiing both 179 Bent Chetlers and 185 Opuses I think you’d probably be fine on either size Catamaran. It’s a much less chargy ski than the Bent Chetler, so you could definitely get away with upsizing, especially if you’ve been enjoying your Opus.
Really I’d say it depends on what you want out of the ski. The longer version is not going to be as quick / manoeuvrable for you, given your height, but I’d wager it’s as easy / playful as your 185 Opus, if not more so.
But if you want to get really jibby (and if you’re skiing tighter terrain) the 179 should be great, it just won’t be as stable.
Hey, thanks for the quick reply! I had looked around for a bio but only found more articles! I go through Driggs sometimes on my way to Jackson or Grand Targhee. I’m in Bozeman, so it’s good to know that this review is also based off of similar terrain and conditions that I would encounter.
Hi, thanks for the review. I’ve had for three seasons both the 179 (actual pull 180) and the 189 (191) Pettitor 120, love them, and am very interested finding out more with the longer 190 Catamaran. But it sounds like the Catamaran is softer in the middle than the stiff-in-the-middle Pettitor.
If you’ve skied either of those much, I’d love your comparisons.
The one drawback to the Pettitors, for me, is their weight. But there’s lots to like.
I’m 145-150 lbs/5’10”, Schizo mount both – the 179, usually @ -1 1/2 (for directional fore/aft stability in variable/uneven) and the 189 usually @ +2 1/2 to +3 1/2 (more chargy) to +4 or even +4 1/2 (more turny).
I find the shorter 179 ski to be more playful but chargeable, fun. More like your description of the 184 Catamaran, maybe, but stiffer?
Even better, the longer 189 ski is for me a real crud buster/fast charger standout. In pow or on groomers. It holds a sharpened edge at speed, very well. The longer ski mounted so forward I find much more stable than the shorter, but both fun.
I am a more directional skier, so only the longer one might fit me. Thanks for your great review!
Hmmm. I can’t really speak to the Pettitor but getting on a 190 Catamaran is a top priority for me next year. I’m a huge fan of the 184 but am really intrigued by the idea of an extra 6 cm on this ski…
It sounds to me like replacing the 179 Pettitor with the 184 Catamaran might be a really good choice for you. It will probably be even more playful, and then you’ll still have the 189 Pettitor for when you want to ski fast in more variable snow.
Hope that helps!
Hi Cy, great review. How do you think this ski would go in Japan for an intermediate/advanced skier. I’m currently on the 188cm Rossi soul 7 and love it but want something a bit wider to take with me. Ive only ever skied in Aus and nz so have never had the chance to ski really deep light snow so I need a ski that will be very easy to ski and forgiving. I’m not looking to charge down the mountain and I enjoy more tight technical skiing off piste. I’m 6’2 185lbs, do you think the 190cm might be a better choice and still easy enough to ski. Other options Im considering are the 185cm bent chetler or the armada arv 116.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers.
Given its superiority at certain things you listed does the Catamaran have a higher “minimum required amount of powder” before this superiority is realized? Or is this still super fun as long as there’s a few inches of fresh snow? My use for it will be to fit my style of hitting as many untouched resort lines as possible and then spend the rest of the day in the trees finding all the remaining ones
I’m 5’6 and around 115 pounds and have never skied something above a 100 waist width ski
Would skiing these skis make me adjust my feet like crazy or no?
I meant adjust
I have been skiing hellbents for the last 10(!!) years and they’re finally done done. I love em because of how wide, surfy, charging, blast though anything type of ski they are.
Sounds like the catamarans are the progression of the hellbents but you mentioned they weren’t as great in chop pow. But then also mention they’re better than the hellbents. I personally think the hellbents are fantastic with that, and maybe because they’ve turned into an extension of my body. So wanted to get your take if I was interpreting that correctly, and if you think the catamarans are even better than the hellbents, I am sold, all in, and trying to find a pair since they’re discontinued. Let me know please? Thanks!!
Hey Cy, can you describe your height/weight and skiing ability/style? I’m about 5’8″ and 175 and am not sure if I should size up from 179 to 184 on this ski or not? I have some 178 Bent-Chetlers and some 185 Opuses so would hate to make the wrong choice (either way too long OR too short). Having a little info about your height etc may help as a reference point. I looked through the article a few times looking for that info, my apologies if it is there and I somehow missed it. These skis sound amazing! Great review!
Hey Cody,
You can find my info in my bio (http://blistergearreview.com/contributor-bios/cy-whitling) I’m 6′ 180-ish lbs.
Given that you’re skiing both 179 Bent Chetlers and 185 Opuses I think you’d probably be fine on either size Catamaran. It’s a much less chargy ski than the Bent Chetler, so you could definitely get away with upsizing, especially if you’ve been enjoying your Opus.
Really I’d say it depends on what you want out of the ski. The longer version is not going to be as quick / manoeuvrable for you, given your height, but I’d wager it’s as easy / playful as your 185 Opus, if not more so.
But if you want to get really jibby (and if you’re skiing tighter terrain) the 179 should be great, it just won’t be as stable.
Hey, thanks for the quick reply! I had looked around for a bio but only found more articles! I go through Driggs sometimes on my way to Jackson or Grand Targhee. I’m in Bozeman, so it’s good to know that this review is also based off of similar terrain and conditions that I would encounter.
Hi, thanks for the review. I’ve had for three seasons both the 179 (actual pull 180) and the 189 (191) Pettitor 120, love them, and am very interested finding out more with the longer 190 Catamaran. But it sounds like the Catamaran is softer in the middle than the stiff-in-the-middle Pettitor.
If you’ve skied either of those much, I’d love your comparisons.
The one drawback to the Pettitors, for me, is their weight. But there’s lots to like.
I’m 145-150 lbs/5’10”, Schizo mount both – the 179, usually @ -1 1/2 (for directional fore/aft stability in variable/uneven) and the 189 usually @ +2 1/2 to +3 1/2 (more chargy) to +4 or even +4 1/2 (more turny).
I find the shorter 179 ski to be more playful but chargeable, fun. More like your description of the 184 Catamaran, maybe, but stiffer?
Even better, the longer 189 ski is for me a real crud buster/fast charger standout. In pow or on groomers. It holds a sharpened edge at speed, very well. The longer ski mounted so forward I find much more stable than the shorter, but both fun.
I am a more directional skier, so only the longer one might fit me. Thanks for your great review!
Hmmm. I can’t really speak to the Pettitor but getting on a 190 Catamaran is a top priority for me next year. I’m a huge fan of the 184 but am really intrigued by the idea of an extra 6 cm on this ski…
It sounds to me like replacing the 179 Pettitor with the 184 Catamaran might be a really good choice for you. It will probably be even more playful, and then you’ll still have the 189 Pettitor for when you want to ski fast in more variable snow.
Hope that helps!
Hi Cy, great review. How do you think this ski would go in Japan for an intermediate/advanced skier. I’m currently on the 188cm Rossi soul 7 and love it but want something a bit wider to take with me. Ive only ever skied in Aus and nz so have never had the chance to ski really deep light snow so I need a ski that will be very easy to ski and forgiving. I’m not looking to charge down the mountain and I enjoy more tight technical skiing off piste. I’m 6’2 185lbs, do you think the 190cm might be a better choice and still easy enough to ski. Other options Im considering are the 185cm bent chetler or the armada arv 116.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers.
Given its superiority at certain things you listed does the Catamaran have a higher “minimum required amount of powder” before this superiority is realized? Or is this still super fun as long as there’s a few inches of fresh snow? My use for it will be to fit my style of hitting as many untouched resort lines as possible and then spend the rest of the day in the trees finding all the remaining ones
I’m 5’6 and around 115 pounds and have never skied something above a 100 waist width ski
Would skiing these skis make me adjust my feet like crazy or no?
I meant adjust
I have been skiing hellbents for the last 10(!!) years and they’re finally done done. I love em because of how wide, surfy, charging, blast though anything type of ski they are.
Sounds like the catamarans are the progression of the hellbents but you mentioned they weren’t as great in chop pow. But then also mention they’re better than the hellbents. I personally think the hellbents are fantastic with that, and maybe because they’ve turned into an extension of my body. So wanted to get your take if I was interpreting that correctly, and if you think the catamarans are even better than the hellbents, I am sold, all in, and trying to find a pair since they’re discontinued. Let me know please? Thanks!!