Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 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!

Bacon Length question

profile picture
cydwhit
Posts: 5065 - Karma: 42,823
Hey gear people. I have a question for ya'll about the Line SFB. First, a little about me. I am 6'1" 175 lbs. I ski Schweitzer mountain in Idaho and plan on traveling the northwest this winter. I am coming off of some 185cm atomic blogs that I used for everything for two seasons. The blogs were great but by the end of last year they were feeling just a tad short and soft. I am not really an aggressive skier but I am trying to charge a little harder. I need a one ski quiver, I mostly ski pow/crud and I have hell bents for park. I need the ski to be really predictable but it also needs to be able to handle really tight trees as well as some decent size cliffs.

I am also looking to get a ski made by line. I was looking at the Sick day 110 but it seemed a little more chargy/less playful than what I would like. Now I am looking at the SFB in either a 184 or 190. I like the stability of the 190 but the playfulness of the 184 is also very attractive.

Does anyone have any input on this?

Also, if I can get a good enough deal I may be able to afford two pairs of skis. If so is there a different quiver I should look at? Like maybe the blend and the opus? or the sick day 110 and blend? I don't know, please feel free to weigh in!

Thanks!
Aug 1 2014 5:59PM
9 1
profile picture
Twig
Posts: 6336 - Karma: 57,070
I'd definitely rule out the 184 Bacon, they come out at around 180cm which will just be too short. They are also fairly soft, I don't think they are what you're looking for. The 190 might fit as a one ski quiver, I'm only 5'9 so I haven't ridden it but it feels a lot stiffer to hand.

Why don't you ride your hellbents in pow out of interest?
Aug 1 2014 6:34PM
2 1
profile picture
cydwhit
Posts: 5065 - Karma: 42,823
TwigI'd definitely rule out the 184 Bacon, they come out at around 180cm which will just be too short. They are also fairly soft, I don't think they are what you're looking for. The 190 might fit as a one ski quiver, I'm only 5'9 so I haven't ridden it but it feels a lot stiffer to hand.

Why don't you ride your hellbents in pow out of interest?


Good to know, thanks. I like my skis to be a little soft but not very damp, so a quick rebound from flexing. I am basically looking at the blister gear reviews for both the 184 and 190 bacon and trying to figure out which I want. I have seen way too many people on Bacons that were too short for them though.

I don't use the 'bents in pow for a couple of reasons. First, they are 179 with a center mount, I have skied pow with them and I went over the tips off of any decent cliff. Second they are so soft and heavy that they really beat up my legs just trying to stay balanced. I am just not a strong enough skier to use them on anything too gnarly. They are the funnest park skis I have ever had though. I just don't need anything over 110 underfoot for pow where I live.
Aug 1 2014 6:39PM
0 0
profile picture
DrZoidberg
Posts: 5675 - Karma: 4,268
Here's my input. I demoed them for a day at breck. I'm 5'5" 120lbs and I rode 178s. I normally ride a 166cm, 85mm waist line chronic, which is about as tall as I am, in new jersey.

I loved the bacons, first of all. They turn great, pop great and the flex was perfect. Rocker profile seemed perfect. Again, turned great, like, really great. They've got a nice, tight radius to them. I felt little edge slipping during hard turns, unlike JJs or something. I rode the blends too, and I liked the bacons better. They seemed a bit heavier or something. The bacons just seemed quicker in the air and on the ground. I never really ride rocker skis, but if you kept the bacons flat based you could aim them pretty far off where you were actually headed, (aka large AoA) which was fun. Made landing sloppy and butters much easier.

Point is, I rode 178s and they didn't seem long at all, so I'd imagine somebody who's much larger than me wouldn't have an issue with 190. But really, it's 6cm, so, you'll probably end up happy either way. They're fun skis. Definitely great skis for doing park type stuff around the whole hill, which is what I did. They also didn't ski as short as a JJ, which I've ridden a few times. I rode 185 JJs and they still felt like 130cm or something. The bacons didn't feel super short, but not super long.
Aug 2 2014 12:02AM
2 0
profile picture
cydwhit
Posts: 5065 - Karma: 42,823
The referenced post has been removed.


Haha, no Line fetish, all price based.....
Aug 2 2014 1:20AM
0 0
profile picture
cydwhit
Posts: 5065 - Karma: 42,823
DrZoidbergHere's my input. I demoed them for a day at breck. I'm 5'5" 120lbs and I rode 178s. I normally ride a 166cm, 85mm waist line chronic, which is about as tall as I am, in new jersey.

I loved the bacons, first of all. They turn great, pop great and the flex was perfect. Rocker profile seemed perfect. Again, turned great, like, really great. They've got a nice, tight radius to them. I felt little edge slipping during hard turns, unlike JJs or something. I rode the blends too, and I liked the bacons better. They seemed a bit heavier or something. The bacons just seemed quicker in the air and on the ground. I never really ride rocker skis, but if you kept the bacons flat based you could aim them pretty far off where you were actually headed, (aka large AoA) which was fun. Made landing sloppy and butters much easier.

Point is, I rode 178s and they didn't seem long at all, so I'd imagine somebody who's much larger than me wouldn't have an issue with 190. But really, it's 6cm, so, you'll probably end up happy either way. They're fun skis. Definitely great skis for doing park type stuff around the whole hill, which is what I did. They also didn't ski as short as a JJ, which I've ridden a few times. I rode 185 JJs and they still felt like 130cm or something. The bacons didn't feel super short, but not super long.


Thanks, great info!
Aug 2 2014 1:20AM
0 0
profile picture
Twig
Posts: 6336 - Karma: 57,070
cydwhitGood to know, thanks. I like my skis to be a little soft but not very damp, so a quick rebound from flexing. I am basically looking at the blister gear reviews for both the 184 and 190 bacon and trying to figure out which I want. I have seen way too many people on Bacons that were too short for them though.

I don't use the 'bents in pow for a couple of reasons. First, they are 179 with a center mount, I have skied pow with them and I went over the tips off of any decent cliff. Second they are so soft and heavy that they really beat up my legs just trying to stay balanced. I am just not a strong enough skier to use them on anything too gnarly. They are the funnest park skis I have ever had though. I just don't need anything over 110 underfoot for pow where I live.


My review of Bacons is here: https://www.newschoolers.com/reviews/2769/Sir-Francis-Bacon

If you do get them 190 is the only way. I think of Line's offerings they are the closest to what you want. The Blend is far too soft and the sick day/influence sound too directional. Mounted at around -2 they will be great.
Aug 2 2014 4:43AM
1 0
profile picture
SirMurficus
Posts: 20 - Karma: 14
The Opus is perfect for what you are looking for. Just the SFB, just, with extra bacon.
Aug 15 2014 6:01AM
1 0
All times are Eastern (-4)