Looks like you will just have to bend some 110mm brakes to fit your 115mm skis.

I like the P18
http://www.backcountry.com/outdoorgear/Look-PX-18-FS-XXL-Ski-Binding/DYN0175M.html

These skis are not stiff (to say the least), so if you are really aggressive I'd think, despite your height and weight, that you'd be able to handle the 182s.

I'm not sure what you mean by off camber, but they have just a slight camber to them with no early rise or rocker, after about 40 days on my pair the camber is just about gone and they have softened up some but they seem to ski better and better every time out. and we just got 9' of powder in the last 3 days so the bacons will being in heaven.

I have never heard of delam problems with this years or last years bacons, I did hear about some minor problems with the 06-07 model year the first year they came out, but since then they extended the core more into the tip and fixed that problem, I have this years and have put tons of hours on them skiing them very hard and don,t even have any top chips in them, they have held-up better then any ski I have ever owened, the bases are so strong, I have landed on rocks doing pillow lines and drops fully expecting edge blowouts and have just small surface scratches on them, so far no problems.

If you ski switch a lot then +5 or more from trad is a sweet mount, but otherwise + or 3 is a super good all around mounting spot.

You might be to big for them, they measure out at about 179mm but you could mount them back a little and they might be ok, bacons are not as soft as people think, about the same as the obseth and just a tad softer then the blends, kind of midsoft. Motherships might be to stiff and heavy as a powder ski, how about 130's? they are fat and fun in powder and pretty quick in tree's or wait till next years bacon comes out, rumur is they will be rockered and availible in a longer length.I think if the Bacons come out next year in a high 186-190 ski, I'd be all over it. 130 sounds nice, but I ski primarily in the tahoe basin and rarely get up in bottomless days, not that there have been any of those this year, so I almost feel like a 130 would be overkill/not used much. I've already had a few e-mails into the RD guys at Line about coming out with a Prophet 115..... That would be great for guys my size...I also live in the tahoe area and it has been an odd year, 1 1/2 weeks ago I was floating my bacons in waist deep powder and just 2 days ago it was raining at 8000ft. They are calling for a foot of snow on thursday again, powder for breakfeast on friday, only in tahoe.Well, hopefully they'll be a little coverage on Thurs, because that's my day off, and I'm going up.... I'm just happy that most of the rocks finally got buried, although I was getting sniped periodically when I was up last Wed...

If your using them as your powder skis mount at rec. line, If you are going to use them more all-mountain go +1 or 2, mine are at +2 and i love them there for all-mountain/powder.

I USE PX 14 ON MINE AND LOVE THEM. I don't worry about the plastic toe piece breaking on big drops like griffons have, or prerelease on big landings like salomon's do, i know they won't release until they have to so i can push it harder.

I think the bacons would be a better backcountry set up, with the early taper they hook less in powder/soft snow and are lighter and quicker, In my opionion rossie tried to copy the bacon when it came out with the steeze last year same as the s6 this year. The bacon is more versatile then the s6, heck i was riding them in the pipe 2 days ago and they worked great plus they float a little better, I would get 2 pairs of bacons at that price or get 1 and wait till the 2010's come out because they will have a slight early rise/rocker, even better for skinning.If you're getting a two pairs of fat skis, mount the backcountry pair with something other then dukes, fritschis or naxos maybe. The duke just isn't great for the backcountry unless you are using it at the resort all the time as well. Another note, unless you are setting your skin tracks every time you head out in the backcountry, rocker/early rise isn't always a good thing, and reverse camber is definitely bad.

The bacon is softer, fatter, lighter and has the early taper and has more energy to it, sierrasnowboard.com in sacramento has them on sale untiltoday 2/11 for $375- plus free shipping.

They skin excellent with their early taper, light for their size and super versatile, Just yesterday i floated in the powder, carved high speed GS turns on them and to finish out my day spent about 2 hours in the pipe with them, all while grinning ear to ear. NOW thats versatile.

I think the Bacon is far more versatile than the ObSETHed. It's great in the POW but it also tears up the groomers and terrain park. It's my quiver of one. Great in the terrain park on rails and jumps, awesome for POW shreddin with plenty of width for float and good at straight lining big mountain lines. It has in my opinion the perfect flex, soft enough for the POW yet stiff enough for the groomers and straight lining big lines.I agree, I think the bacon blows the obseth away as a overall ski, I also use it as my one ski quiver, in powder, super stable in the park and lands it's self on jumps and loves to carve on groomers, very nimble for its size, why bother looking else where.

I think line is sold out of them or is having a hard time meeting demand.

Yes they do, imo not as much as the bacons, If you want a less turney powder ski how about the 4frnt ehp or vct. the obseth's are fun all over the mountain and if you loved the 189's you will also love the 179's they ski the same you just won't have to work as hard with them, they are longer then the bacon's because k2's twins all run about 5cm longer then they say, so that might help with the float as well. Both ski's are fun but i think the bacon's are more energetic. This has been a odd winter so far in the sierras also , it dumps 3-4ft. and then gets real warm for 1 or 2weeks and then dumps again and gets warm again, very odd. oh well at least their is snow.

I think you kind of missed the point of the design of the bacon, It is ment to ride like a snowboard or surfboard in powder with that quick turning radius and snappiness, it is ment to be fun playful, toss it around ski, not a charging big mountain ski. At your size you are getting at the max size for them unless you mount them -2 or 3 from rec. The recomended mounting point is farther foreward then you would see on a typical powder ski. If you mount at rec or foreward you do have to lean back a little or they tend to dive some, maybe because of the early taper. The obseth will do better in crud because of the slight rocker to them and you can charge a little harder with them but overall IMHO i think the bacon is a funner ski.

The Sir Francis Bacons are a pretty soft, playful ski. For a guy your size, I would definitely recommend the 130's. I skied mine almost every day last year. They are perfect for pow(the best pow skis I have ever skied) and you can still ski them in other conditions once you get used to the size underfoot. It just takes a little more time and effort to get them from edge to edge. You will love these skis when it is deep. So effortless!!!

The bacon is the softest of the 3 and would be noodles compared to your legends, its more of a playful powder ski. The prophet 130 is a more directional powder ski and the softest of the prophet line, it's pretty quick for its size yet you can charge really hard on them and carves pretty well for a fat ski. I have not skied the fatypus but would love to try the fattest one i can't remember its name. If you charge real hard the bacon would be to soft and small but the 130 would serve you well.

I don,t see why not, they are fairly light for there size and with the early taper they would be great, and the fact that they are quick for there size.

the bacons are way under rated on groomers, in all honesty they carve very well on groomers and only start to loose an edge and chatter when it is icey but more then make up for it when in the powder where they float like a dream, flex wise they are similar to the obseth, maybe a tad softer.

They would be fine for you, they measure out at 179mm and with the early taper i feel that they ski about like about a 175mm or so ski. i,m 5'7" and use them as my all mountain. I would prob. recomend that you mount them at +2 or 3cm from the mounting line because your kind of light.

I think you will be fine, i'm 175lbs. and have them at +2 from rec. for your size i would go at rec. or back 1cm or 2cm from rec. and they will float just fine. The rec. midsole is 6cm (2 1/4") back from center a lot of people go 1cm or 2cm back from there if there biggger or if just using them as powder boards, i went +2 because i use them as my all mountain ski including park.

I just got a pair of these. I would say they ski very true to their size. At this point they might be just a touch big for you, but if you're still growing they won't be for long. They are a pretty money ski and can really handle it all. As far as traditional camber, traditional sidecut powder oriented skis, I would say this is one of the best out there.These skis are very easy to ski, one of the best turning fat skis out there and i feel they ski short because of the early taper, i'm 5'-7" and have them at +2 from reccomended, you won't have any problem with them, if your that light go + 3 or 4 from rec. and have a blast. they only measure out at about 179mm.

The bacon is a fatter/slightly stiffer version of the elizibeth aimed at better powder performance. it boils down your height and weight to which to choose, if you weigh more and are taller go bacon, if short and light go elizibeth. I am 5'-7" and about 170lbs, and think the bacon is the funnest ski i have ever ridden in over 30 years of skiing. amazing, versatile ski. but both skis are very much alike.The Elizabeth and the Bacon have the exact same sidecut profile (the tip and tail contact the snow at the same point). The bacon has the extended and tapered tip and tail so they provide a bit more float, and are admittedly a bit stiffer than the Elizabeths. On groomers, unless your skiing ice, they should both feel very very similar. The only place you might want to go with the Elizabeth over the Bacon IMHO is if your not very good at technical jump turns in which case a slightly shorter ski will help you out. Basically unless you want a fat park ski, the bacon is the way to go.

No, if your a good skier you will have no problem, the bacon's measure out at ony 178 and because of the early taper at the tip and tail they ski like about 175 ski.

These will work fine but you may want a tad longer. These are sick but for the price there are many other options.Binders will be fine, soft skis will be good for the pow but you will sacrifice on other sketchy terrain. Have you looked into naxos?

Yes it will, but you will loose switch performance if that matters to you, and also it won't spin as well if your doing jumps, If you are just using them as powder skis then it will be fine, also if you weigh more then 200lbs it will help with tip float because they are fairly soft skis.

Yes--- I ride mostly bc and like to land switch in pow. I would not go any futher towards center, guys who mount on the line say they get slightly better powder performance but lose a little when riding switch. unless you are real heavy mount there.

The factory mount is 2 1/4 inches back from center. I mounted mine 1 1/2" back from center and love them there, some guys mount them on the line for better pow skiing, and some mount them only 1/2" to 1" back for more all around and park use. it would depend on what you want out of them. but 1/2" will not make that much difference.

I believe this ski is softer, just because of the origin of the creation of the ski its a backcountry jiber used for kickers hard landings. Great overall ski I even heard that a few patrollers up in WA use it as their do everything ski. (adding) I own a pair of bacon,s that i love, I use them everywhere. The flex is softer then the obseths, but not by much, the main difference is that the flex on the bacon,s is symetrical in the tip and tail making it very smooth, also the early taper in the tip and tail causes less hooking in deep powder.

The recomended line on the skis is 2 1/4 inches back from center for powder mount their, most people mount a little foreward of that for all mountain.

less than the ep but still a ton of flex. more so than last years bacon but if you are looking for a rigid ski hit up the mothership. i just went from the mothership to the bacon for more flex. i speak from experience...... if you are looking for a really stable ski with less flex for high speed turns line made the mothership with you in mind.the motherships are true big mountain skis for ass-kicking steep mountain ripping at any speed as the bacons are soft playfull powder skis you can not even compare these two skis, one is a freeride ski and one is a freestyle ski. but bacons are a lot stiffer then ep pro's the flex is about the same as armada arv's.i did a bunch of freestyle shizzzz on my motherships but willie is right, the bacon is a "playful powder ski" but with enough stiffness to do most of what you want. probably not the best option for the ass-kicking steep mountain ripping on ice but gets around great when willies mom is icy and there is fresh pow.

Line starts them at $599, but all retailers mark them up 30%-50%. Since you can't order directly from Line, I would bet that any store that carries them (and the price they suggest for online retailers) charges $750.Shopatron.com sells them for the $599 you are looking for. It is linked from the Line website.

I just received a pair, they measure out at 178cm. I can't belive how light they are for there size about the same as my 175VCT's. But the build quility is so much nicer.