Back to School '14Back to School '14

Description

Bacon-wrapped powder pillows ... drool.

At the meat of the Line Sir Francis Bacon Ski, there's a little fat and a buttery smearability that's not too soft or slippery. Yup, this Bacon was cooked with the perfect amount of handling crispness. Before we tell you more, you need to wipe your mouth … you're drooling. You can enjoy your Bacon forward or backward because there's enough early rise aided by the Symmetric Flex to keep your tip or tail on top of powdery freshness or choppy leftovers—bacon in the morning or Bacon in the late-afternoon.

Maple Macro Block core uses two full-length maple stringers surrounded by aspen, which balances the power and stability of maple with the durability and reduced weight of aspen. It's a do-all ski, after all. Fatty Base and Edge means a thicker base and edge, which increases ski durability and tuning lifespan. The SideWall construction uses P-Tex plastic walls that sit over the edges and beneath the top sheet in order to absorb vibration and ensure solid edge hold—schmear it all over the mountain without fear.Thin Tip reduces the weight at the ski tip by using a super thin core and sidewall, ultimately reducing weight by 100 grams per per pair of skis. A 108mm waist floats through deep snow and provides a stable platform for landing airs, all without feeling so wide that it affects your ability to make quick edge changes. Sounds delicious, right?

  • Early-rise camber profile
  • SideWall
  • Maple Macro Block
  • ThinTip
  • Fatty base and edge
  • 108mm waist
  • 5 Cut sidecut
  • Symmetric Flex

Share your thoughts

Review Summary
5
6 4
1 3
0 2
0 1
0

What do you think of the

Line Sir Francis Bacon Ski

? Share a...

Write a review

No file chosen

Rather attach a photo from another website?

Rather attach a photo from your computer?

  • Product review:
  • Share a video
  • Share a photo

How familiar are you with the product?(Optional)

Only jpg, jpeg, png, gif or bmp files please.

Save

Here's what others have to say...

5 5

Pollard's Legendary One Ski Quiver

  • Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer

I love the Bacon as much as I love bacon. Like the much liked pork product, the Sir Francis Bacon is something you can take delight in every day no matter the conditions.

It's slim enough to rip a groomer or park, but wide enough to shred the deepest of pow.

The sidecut is forgiving in pow and crud, but still able to hold a decent carve. Want to ski switch? The Bacon has got your back.

I mount mine at the recommended line, cause I'm a bit more traditional. Even at this mounting point, I find switch skiing no problemo.

The ski is as good as it gets!

(To Skifreak) -Thanks, that helped it out...

Posted on

(To Skifreak) -Thanks, that helped it out a lot.

-For my racing GS skis I ride a 165cm, and I also have a pair of park skis at 142cm. My only worry with going with the 172, is that it might feel to short once the skis season comes. My worry with the 178 it might not slip through the trees of New Hampshire as well as a shorter ski might. Ski season doesn't start for about another 7-8 months, so I will probably grow in the meantime. Around how tall would I have to be so i could comfortably ride the 178cm?

Responded on

One of my kids will turn 16 years old in October and he will probably be 5'6" and 125-130lbs by then. I would make him buy the 178cm to make sure he gets a couple years out of it and they really do ski that short, particularly if you mount them on Eric Pollards recommended line.

Really depends what your intended use of the Bacon is. Deep snow only then you could size up, all around everyday fun plus soft snow days then stay 172cm. Going from a 142cm park ski to even the 172cm Bacon will be a very different animal on your feet just in overall width and weight while trying to spin it around.

Kids are tough to buy lengths for because they change so fast. If you come from a family that updates gear frequently and passes it down to other kids then stay more true to your current size. If you only get to buy skis once every five years then you better size up and tough out the first season a little bit.

I think for the upcoming season the 172cm will be perfect for you. If you grow a ton for the 2015/2016 season the 172cm could be too short on the deep powder days.



Best Answer Responded on

Kenneth,
Yet again SkiFreak is on the money here. Are you trying to catch a summer deal or waiting to buy? If I were you, I would try and demo a 178cm and see how tough or easy it is to ski that. If it doesnt destroy you, and your having fun on it definitely go with that as it will last you a long time. If you replace skis every 2 years the 172cm will be just fine and you can size up after your done with that. Minimize the core shots and you could even sell that thing! You might not be able to demo this exact ski but, look for something like it and try it in a few sizes.

I am 14, and weigh 130lbs. I am roughly...

Posted on

I am 14, and weigh 130lbs. I am roughly 5'4-5'5. Experienced skier. Should I go with the 172 or go down to the SFB Shorty?

Best Answer Responded on

Ken,

Great last name by the way!!

172cm all the way, the shorty is not near enough ski for you. The SFB skis so short if you were a little bit bigger I would recommend going for the 178cm.

I'm assuming your current skis are pretty short?? The 172cm will remain playful in all conditions, even in the park. I'm afraid jumping up to the 178cm with being as wide as it is could hinder your progress as a teenager.

Let me know what you think

How would you compare the SFB to the K2...

Posted on

How would you compare the SFB to the K2 Annex 98? I am a west coast skier and like to ski all over the mountain in all types of terrain but don't spend much time in the parks. I like to charge the mountain but also like to cruise the grooms with the kids. Do you think either of these would be a good fit or do you have any other suggestions.

Responded on

Hi there,

In my opinion you can't really compare the two skis side by side. That would be an apples to oranges comparison.

K2 Annex is narrower to start with, will have a more traditional on the snow feel for all mountain, flat tail, longer turn radius, will do very good in tracked out snow and crud. Hard to argue that it isn't an excellent choice for someone that wants to tackle the entire mountain and isn't interested in the characteristics of the Bacon I mention below. Cruising groomers will also be more relaxing on the k2 vs the symmetrical shape of the SFB.

SFB is a new school way of approaching all mountain skiing. Plenty of tip and tail rocker, tight turn radius, extremely playful, surfy, buttery, more float in deep snow, excellent for riding switch, and a fun wide park ski. I love the ski to play on in many conditions but I'm used to trying all the different gear and know what to expect.

Hope that helps,

SF

Sizing question...
5'6", 140#, 41yo...

Posted on

Sizing question...
5'6", 140#, 41yo athletic/experienced skier. Confident on all terrain. Currently ski Kastle BMX98s and 118s in 168 length. Spend most of my ski time in Rockies (Alberta, BC, Utah, Montana) and prefer to be off-piste in the trees, bumps and on steeper open bowls. With young kids I'm now skiing switch, and hitting features in the park and on groomers more often. I've also been enjoying jumping off things a lot more than in the past. Love the Kastles, but looking to add a more nimble, playful ski. Thinking either 178 or 184 in the SFB. Any thoughts?

Best Answer Responded on

Erip....,

I will give you a couple reference points. My 17 year son is 5'11" 145lbs, I'm 6'1" 178lbs 42 years old and we share the 184cm SFB. I would say that for his weight it's was a little much for him last season but he's only going to get bigger.

I absolutely love the ski and wouldn't want any other size for all mountain fun. I will add that if it was my ski only I would have mounted the binding further back than Eric Pollards recommended. There isn't enough ski out in front for my size when in anything deep.

I think if you currently ski 168cm in the Kastles jumping up to the 178cm makes sense. The 184cm will lose some of its playful side for all the days when it's not deep. Also when you jump in the park, spin, and ride switch the 178cm will be a lot easier to handle.

SFB is not a heavy ski but it's not super light either, it is very well balanced with a low swing weight. The Bacons do ski very short remember and if you are looking for a true deep powder specific ski then going up to the 184cm would be a good choice also. It's the trees, bumps, and playing in the park that make me recommend the 178cm for you.

I hope that helps and it is a FUN ski,
SkiFreak

5 5

Just gets better!!

  • Gender: Male
  • Familiarity: I've used it several times

I spent more time on it today with nice firm groomed conditions and about 5" of fresh snow on top of icy crud. I can't say enough about this ski, it just truly blows me away in terms of edge grip and stability when locked on its edge. A lot more muscle than anybody would think, but still retains a huge playful side. That turn radius is just a blast on groomers. Its hip dragging time if you find the center of the ski and it wont let go unless you're on pretty steep icy pitches. I have a Griffon on it so the added leverage and platform I'm sure helps the edge grip.

The 184cm mounted on Eric Pollards recommended line will NOT be enough float for me in the deep, no way. I will be over the tips pretty fast and would have to mount the binding farther back or go to the 190cm. But personally I wouldn't give up the fun factor of the 184cm for the float of the 190cm. I would just get a different ski for the deep days. Quick in the trees, fun in the bumps, surfy, smeary, buttery, and still has enough backbone to blast through crud. Im a JJ lover through and through and this just feels like a carvier, stronger ski than the JJ. Better in busted up crud if you can keep yourself from going over the handlebars from that short tip. Remember Line skis run a little short versus Armada so the 184cm is actually pretty short in my opinion. For deep snow the 185JJ will float quite a bit better than the 184cm Bacon. I have always loved my 185jj on any kind of groomed snow but I have to say I think the Bacon out does it in that department.

FUN SKI!!

4 5

Even though limited demo, FUN!

  • Gender: Male
  • Familiarity: I've used it once or twice and have initial impressions

Today I jumped on my sons 184cm Bacon, typical spring soft snow conditions and only a couple groomer runs. He has a marker griffon mounted at Eric Pollard's recommended line. After about a dozen turns I figured the ski out and oh my this is fun. That tight turn radius and really soft tip and tail with early rise just flowed seamlessly into and out of the turns. I know I just said soft but it didn't ski like it was soft. It had amazing hold and bite, even at higher speeds as long as you kept the edges fully engaged. That buttery feeling wasn't there when I was locked on edge today. If it was my ski only I would have mounted the binding another 2-3 cm back or possibly even on the recommended line. I don't ride switch and park just isn't my gig. The extra float on the deep days would be needed versus being so center mounted. But even with it like this it was amazingly stable on groomers and fun.

I can't wait to jump on them again and enjoy some powder, bumps, and some firm icy groomers. Only giving it 4 stars until I can try it in other conditions.

Home run ski for my son!! And of course Dad. Love it when the kids grow up and I can justify buying them skis easier:)

5 5

Genius ski

  • Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer

Have had many days on this now. 190 cm, mounted -2.5 cm from true center, 190#, 6'3", lifetime West skier.

Incredibly fun ski: light, great balance with more centered mount, plenty of energy at speed, super stable in chop, turns when you want, floats and smears nice, and even carves fine. Yup, it's a quiver.

Unlike comments below, I don't find the 190 to be unwieldy, in fact I think it's perfect match for my size and style of skiing. I'm not "charging in AK" but I like to go everywhere, like to play, and like to go fast. The progressive flex is genius and gives it huge versatility. Except for the deepest days, which are rare, this ski pretty much does it all for me.

Sizing...should I go with the 184 or 190...

Posted on

Sizing...should I go with the 184 or 190 length?
For context, I am 5'11", 200 lbs. I'm an expert level snowboarder that switched from skiing to snowboarding when I was 17 (I am 30 now). At the time of the switch I was an advanced level skier. I continued nordic skiing in the intervening years but never really alpine skied again until this season. It came back like riding a bike and I was able to go down the blacks and double blacks at sugar bowl (using really bad, outdated gear that didn't fit well). I didn't feel comfortable pushing it like I would have on my snowboard as far as top speed and hitting cliffs/exposed areas, but I feel like that will come with time.
Perhaps at first the 190's will seem like too much ski, but I might grow into them? Any help will be greatly appreciated, thanks in advance!

Responded on

In my opinion you would never HAVE to have a 190 ski unless you are the ultimate charger who frequents AK (and then you wouldn't bring the Bacon on those trips anyways). If you are worried about stability, then I'd get something stiffer with less rockered tail instead of jumping up to a 190. I personally think 184 would be perfect for your height and weight and you defiantly wouldn't be limited by the length of the ski. The Bacon is a ski that loves to jump, spin, and go switch so if that fits your style you can't go wrong.

Best Answer Responded on

Your height suggests 184cm but your weight pushes the limits of it at least in my opinion. But definetely depends on your style and aggressiveness on the hill. I'm 6'1" and 178 lbs and just bought the 184cm for my son and I to play on. I know on deep days the 190cm would be the way to go but I didn't want to give up the playful and very nimble feel of the 184cm. I agree with Matt above that if you are looking to charge harder look at other skis.

Example, met a guy on he hill skiing the 190cm about your size and asked him how he liked them. He made a mistake. He demoed the 184cm and loved them, but decided to buy the 190cm to cover deep days. He regrets that decision because the ski lost some of its shorter, fun, playful, energetic feel for most of the time he is on the ski.

Looking to get my son a pair of bigger...

Posted on

Looking to get my son a pair of bigger skis end of season, he's 14 now, about 5'6" and 120lbs. Skis half park and half all mountain. Coming off salomon threats. Any thoughts? He skied my 185jj on a deep powder day and loved them but even going down to a 175 seems just to wide to toss around in the park all day to me. Same with the bacon which he really likes. Any thoughts? Stick to around a 90mm waist? Atomic vantage panic?

Responded on

Out of those options I would defiantly go with the bacon. Its the only "wide waist" ski that I really see ripping around the park. Have you looked at the Armada Alpha X? Its a really stiff park ski that actually really rips the rest of the mtn. Or the Armada Halo2. Its also a park ski that he could explore everything else in. The halo is rockered tip and tail but has a lot of flex.

I'm 5'7", 210 lbs and looking for a second...

Posted on

I'm 5'7", 210 lbs and looking for a second set of skis for the quiver. I'm intermediate/intermediate-advanced at this point, currently skiing mostly a 169 Nordica Enforcer. Definitely interested in finding a wider underfoot and rockered "powder" ski. Any suggestions on the 178 v. 184 for me?

Responded on

184 for sure. They ski and feel very short

184 for sure. They ski and feel very short
Responded on

I am 5'10" and 190lbs, I have a pair of the 178s that I love. My ability range sounds much like yours. I moved down from a pair of 182 Bacons from several years ago, the pre-rockered version. With 108 underfoot I feel that the 178 is a large enough platform, even with the rocker. They swing around in the trees very nicely, and skiing them on both powder and hardpack I have run into no issues. Given your height and ability I would recommend the 178. The best way to know is to demo some, try them on a powder day or hardpack, I think you will find that these will become your everyday go-to ski. They are awesome.

5 5

Mounting Point

For the 190s, here's what I learned: The ERIC line is generally regarded as the optimal place to mount boot center. Apparently some batches of the ski have a topsheet error, including mine. The Line/K2 spec sheet gives a single mounting site for this line at 933 mm from the tail, as measured along the base underside. Because of the topsheet error, Line also put out a tech note confirming where the line should be, although for that tech note they said 919 mm straight pull of tape from the tail instead of along the base. Either number should put you in the sweet spot.

Responded on

Where did you end up mounting them?

Responded on

Mounted at -2.5 cm from true center. I think that's where the ERIC line is supposed to be; at least, a lot of posts from last year's model said that's where it should be, and apparently this year is the same ski. Couldn't be happier

Will a 184cm bacon have more or less tip...

Posted on

Will a 184cm bacon have more or less tip dive than a 185cm JJ on deeper days? What about carving on groomers, I know JJ can actually rip quite well because of the stiff center, bacon?

Responded on

The Line Sir Francis Bacon is an excellent powder ski, but its really forte is being able to transition seamlessly to all kinds of terrain with no hesitation. The JJ on the other hand has substantial freeride rocker in the tip and tail. Both skis will keep you happy powder riding, but the JJ is most at home there and will have less tip dive than the SFB.

If given the choice though I would still match the Line SD with your AKJJ rather than the Line SFB. Sadly I have not been given such awesome choices.

Responded on

Thanks for advice Mike. I'm actually thinking of changing up my quiver, selling some things and simplifying. Plus kids wanting to steal my older JJ's

Was trying to decide between 178 and 184....

Posted on

Was trying to decide between 178 and 184. 5'9" and about 175lbs. I ski many black, double black and triple black diamonds. ski a prophet 98 in 178 for my daily driver. looking for something more playful. Mostly ski east coast, one trip out west each year. ski approx 50 + days a year.

Responded on

rpfeiffe,
The word on the street is that the Line Sir Francis Bacon Ski feels short because of its minimal rocker and substantial camber underfoot. The 184cm will allow you to ride powder better than the 178 and the major camber will allow the longer 184 length to engage fully on hardpack for a minimal turning radius and a more playful feel. You will be gaining lot of speed and power with the 184 without giving up much if any responsiveness.

5 5

best "do it all" ski

  • Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer

Theoretically, you could ski this ski in the pow, in the park, in the bumps, on the groomer and even in Alaska. I have put that theory to the test and it has passed with an a+ in all categories. I literally wont go any where without my bacons and dont think it is a replaceable ski. It has so much pop, a great flex, and a shape that makes so much sense. The Bacon has a symmetrical feel although the tail is a bit thinner than the tip. For being so forgiving and flexible, its stability is surprising! The bacon is a true twin tip ski and its skis well from the middle of the ski. It is a well balanced ski and with its camber underfoot and rocker tip tail it does well on and off the powder. I think were this ski does the absolute best is jumping in softer conditions, and thats pretty much my favorite thing to do. I've been skiing the bacon for many years now. LINE changed the design for the last time 4 years ago and now it is perfect! I will be skiing this ski for many years to come.

5 5

Fun EVERYWHERE

  • Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer

I have had this ski for 3 seasons now and it is an absolute blast. Shredding pow, to the corduroy this ski gets it done. Have taken it into the backcountry and floats pow wonderfully. A super playful ski that is incredibly versatile in all conditions.

Hi, I'm 5'8" tall, 145 lbs., in my 50's,...

Posted on

Hi, I'm 5'8" tall, 145 lbs., in my 50's, an expert skier but tend to ski slower with lots of short radius turns, and spend at least a third of the day in the bumps and trees. I currently ski the 164cm X-Wing Fury (83mm underfoot), which is a fully cambered ski and don't feel they're too short except in deeper slush/powder/crud. I'm looking at the Bacons as a versatile all-mountain ski for trips out west, where I'm not always blessed with snowbird powder days and perfect conditions. Given my preference for quick, short turns in tight places versus high speed sweeping turns in the bowls, I'm hesitant to jump to the 178cm from a 164cm ski despite the rocker. Would the 172cm be too short? Though I don't ski that fast I want them to be stable and have enough edge hold on hard pack. Thanks for the advice.

Responded on

I skied and older version of these in a 184 and they felt short. They were super nimble and they still held an edge and railed hard pack. I think you would be fine with either size. But if its for trips out west why not go longer?

Responded on

Thanks, Matt. If you don't mind me asking, what is your weight, height and skiing style? When you said they felt short, did you mean too short or just right?

Responded on

172 will be too short. If you are an expert you should be on the 184 at least. It can't be emphasized enough how short these ski. I'm 5'7 46 years old and just bought the 190. My 178's are for sale on TGR. Way too short. Remember, the mount is also more centered. To be honest I think you should look at the SICKDAY 95 or 110 given the type of skiing you do. More of a traditional directional ski that you may be used to.

Responded on

Thanks, Brad,

I just got off the phone with Line and they recommended the 172cm because when the ski is on edge the full length engages the snow, and that I wouldn't find it squirrely. But everyone in all the forums agree with you and advise folks to buy longer. I wish I could demo these first but it's not an option. I'll look into the SICKDAYs as well as the Kung Fujas (aka the new Shreditor 102). For the Kung Fujas the 169cm is probably the right length rather than 179cm given the more modest rocker and slightly stiffer tips and deeper camber (though it's a softer ski underfoot).

Responded on

I am 6'1" 180lbs. I have 184cm 130's and this year bought 178cm Bacons and 185cm Opus to replace K2 SideStash and DarkSide. Working in the ski industry 25 years, pretty strong skier, 100 days a season. I was a little unsure on going to the 178cm Bacon but they have worked out great for shorter radius turns in tight terrain, trees, bumps etc. The 185cm Opus I use for faster, easier terrain and powder. I like soft, fat skis so Line is the ski for me. Love the soft tail and edge contact with the snow. Both skis will carve like crazy if you put them up on edge. Recommended boot centre worked for me.