EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Line Sir Francis Bacons (2012) sizes?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Line Sir Francis Bacons (2012) sizes?

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 

Hi all,

I'm looking for a replacement powder/all mountain ski and am leaning strongly towards Line's new SFB, I am just a little unsure on sizes.

Height is 5' 11'' and weight about 170 pounds (male), age 36,  advanced skier. Based in the UK and not skiing as much as I used to now with young family but still getting away when I can. Usuall haunts Verbier, Chamonix, Val D'Isere, St Anton, Whistler whenever funds allow.

 

New planks will be a one ski quiver and previous skis were 2008/2009 K2 Obsethed in 179 and Line Prophet 100 in 186. Loved the rocker tip on the older Obsethed and missed it when I was on the Prophets (though they were awesome in everything but the deepest pow). The SFB looks to be just what I want with early rise for deeper days but still having regular camber for all mountain.

Am leaning towards the 184 as I think this will be a similar real length to my old 179 K2 Obsethed... I found the k2 a little longer than stated and could be wrong but suspect the Line's come up a little shorter than stated.

Any thoughts, I'm trying to decide between 184 and 178 SFB (leaning towards the 184) but don't have chance to demo both sizes?

Thanks folks.


Edited by James-T - 12/24/11 at 11:54am

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2 of 20

The 184 for the SFB will measure very close to your old 179 Seth's.

 

At your height and weight you could go pretty easily with the 184, if you want more maneuverability then go to the 178.

post #3 of 20
Thread Starter 

I do like the idea of the 178s for the trees but  I was thinking the 184 might be a more stable ski on the harder stuff, especially when I do ski on harder/icy groomers. Especially with them having rocker as well.

post #4 of 20

The 184 might provide more stability on harder snow, but it still would be a minimal improvement. Also the rocker on the SFB is relatively small and low so it's not too crazy. For me personally I would take the extra maneuverability and sacrifice some stability, but again, that's just me. For you however, both sizes could work well, depends what you're priorities are.

post #5 of 20
Thread Starter 

Thanks again TSK. Priorities are pow (whenever possible) for sure :)....but.....I do ski with a mixed group and a couple of them love bump skiing so I suppose the 178s might be a little easier to throw around in the bumps and also in the trees.

Do you have any idea how much rocker the SFB has in comparison with the older 2008 Obsethed? For me that had the ideal amount of rocker/early rise for my skiing, and as much as I liked the current Obsethed when I tried it, I didn't like it as much as the older model I owned.

Thanks buddy.

post #6 of 20

I haven't skied the 2008 Obsethed's but I did ski the 2010's and one thing difference between is that the 2012 SFB's are a lighter ski. I remember I found the Obsethed to be a bit bulky and slower on the swing weight, the 2012 SFB's are super nimble and agile. I loved them. Also, not sure if you're even looking at older SFB's but if so, keep in mind they are a completely new ski this year. Everything about them in shape, size, and graphics (obviously) was redesigned. The 2012's are waaaaay better than past models I would say! 

 

P.S. @james, I think we might have been having this same convo on the skiersrealm.com site? Hope those bad boys treat you right!

post #7 of 20
Thread Starter 

Hi Skiersrealm, yeah same conversation I think buddy. LOL.

Decided on the 184 in the end after your input over there and reading the thread in full. 184 should be plenty nimble enough coming off the heavier Obsethed and the Prophets in 186.

Main reason I started considering the SFB was as they were all new and re-designed in this latest version....that 107-108 underfoot  would be ideal for me I think. I had also considered the influence 105 (coming off the Prophet) but thought the SFB might be a more fun ski in softer snow with tip and tail early rise/rocker (think the Influence is early rise tip only).  I would have thought the Influence might be better in firm to hard conditions but reading up on the SFB the concensus seems to be it does pretty well in these conditions.

Also I found the tails to really hold onto a turn in the Prophets, especially at slower speed, and figured the SFB might be a little easier to initiate the next turn with early rise in the tail and early taper......may be wrong in this though, we'll see.

Thanks again.

post #8 of 20

I am 5'10" 175, and ski about 60 days a year.  Just bought the SFB 2012 in a 178 and they are awful.  Try  these before you buy them.  They buck in the bottom of the turn on both sides and nothing I can do makes them turn smoothly in medium to hardpack.  Factory had no suggestions.  

post #9 of 20

hk - I have read literally hundreds of positive comments about the 2011-12 SFB's and your negative comment stands alone - sorry to say. The positive comments about this ski are a little overwhelming. Hope you find a ski that works for you.

post #10 of 20

I just tried a pair at Breck on Sunday and they did everything i wanted them to do. I own a 2010 pair of the Line Prophet Flite and I felt so much more comfertable on the Bacon. They were one of the most fun skis I have ever been on and handled everything I threw at it on a day when the snow wasn't the best. I skiied everything from some steeps to bumps to trees and never once had an issue. They were very quick edge to edge. In fact I found them quicker than my Prophets. Wish I could afford to get a pair... highly recommend them though. 

post #11 of 20

What length did you test? And what's your stats.

post #12 of 20

I'm 5'11 145lbs and I tested the 172cm. I probably could have gone with the 178s but my prophets are 172 so I just decided to go with the same length. 

post #13 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by *KC* View Post

hk - I have read literally hundreds of positive comments about the 2011-12 SFB's and your negative comment stands alone - sorry to say. The positive comments about this ski are a little overwhelming. Hope you find a ski that works for you.


hk may have got a lemon, i.e. manufacturing defect.  This season I demoed some Line Prophet 98's, loved them, bought them new, and found they performed differently then the demos in similar snow conditions.  I rented the demo skis again and loved them, so the problem was in the new ski.  My retailer called Line and Line agreed to take the ski back.  My plan now is to try to get the demo ski at the end of the season.  Not much is said about manufacturing variations or bad batches of skis as very few people (maybe some racers) will try two identical skis.  Inconsistencies must happen, but since most of us can't try before we buy we are at the mercy of whatever we get.

 

As a sidelight, I find that people that post negative experiences with a ski will get shot down or dismissed as we skiers don't like to see negative comments on our favorite ski.  That leads to skewing towards positive comments (anyone else get tired of every ski being either 4 out of 5 or 5 out of 5?).  Sometimes it is the skier that has the problem, but sometimes it is not.  Whether positive or negative, each person's experience with a ski is valid. 
 

 

post #14 of 20

I actually had the same question regarding sizes on the SFB...

 

 

I'm 5'9 145 lbs and fairly recently crossed over from snowboarding.  I like to jib around a bit, but love to charge also. Having demoed a lot of skis with similar dimensions, I've been looking for something in the upper 170s to low 180s range. So, at the moment the decision is really coming down to the 178 vs the 184... I haven't had too much experience with line skis and would feel fairly comfortable going for the 178s if they ran true to size, but i'm not sure whether that's the case (if someone knows, that'd be sweet). 

post #15 of 20


I have nothing to add to this discussion, other than to say that this line is signature worthyicon14.gif
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by James-T View Post

Usuall haunts Verbier, Chamonix, Val D'Isere, St Anton, Whistler whenever funds allow.


Usual haunts, indeed.
 

 

post #16 of 20

Quote:

Originally Posted by bert01 View Post

As a sidelight, I find that people that post negative experiences with a ski will get shot down or dismissed as we skiers don't like to see negative comments on our favorite ski.  

 

I disagree.  What is true is that people who come on here and their first or second post is a complaint about something, especially if the complaint is difficult to understand - like this one, will very likely get taken to task.  " buck in the bottom of the turn on both sides,"  what in the world does that mean?  I don't own any Line skis so I don't have a dog in this fight but I would take issue with that just because it is meaningless.  Yes, the skis might be defective, but then the skier's technique could also be defective.  Sometimes you just have to learn how to ski a particular ski.  I was slightly underwhelmed when I first skied my Shamans but the more I skied them the more fun they became.

post #17 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post

Quote:

 

I disagree.  What is true is that people who come on here and their first or second post is a complaint about something, especially if the complaint is difficult to understand - like this one, will very likely get taken to task.  " buck in the bottom of the turn on both sides,"  what in the world does that mean?  I don't own any Line skis so I don't have a dog in this fight but I would take issue with that just because it is meaningless.  Yes, the skis might be defective, but then the skier's technique could also be defective.  Sometimes you just have to learn how to ski a particular ski.  I was slightly underwhelmed when I first skied my Shamans but the more I skied them the more fun they became.


Yes, the skier could have gone into better detail about what the problem is.  But that does not make it meaningless, it means the problem may be meaningless to you.  It tells me something is happening at the bottom of the turn that causes the skis to be unstable.  You are right that the skier may have to get use to new skis, but, as I stated earlier, it could be the skier or a defective ski.  I stand by my earlier statement that negative comments are in general not well received and a "solution" that the skier either needs lessons or otherwise needs to adjust is almost always given, even for an advanced skier.  Almost no one will give a skier credit that they may be doing everything right.  And my original reason for posting was someone dismissed a negative comment because "everyone else" has said something positive.  Classic case of automatically dismissing a negative comment.

post #18 of 20

Rather than start a new thread with the same question, I figured I'd bump this old one up.  Anyone else been on last year's SFB and can comment on how long/short they ski?  I can't decide on length... 172 or 178cm.  I'm 5'5 on a tall day, 130lb, but preferred range is in the 170-180 range.  Currently on the prophet 98 and 115 in a 172 and really like them in that length, but sounds like the bacons ski and measure a lot shorter than the prophet series.   These are getting mounted with dynafits and mainly going to be a touring ski, which has me leaning toward the 172 for the weight savings and ease of turning switchbacks on my midget legs... but then again I care more about how they'll ski on the downhill.

post #19 of 20

According to Line Ski specs for 2011/2011 the Prophet 98 @ 172 running surface is very similar to the SFB @ 178, 1433 for the P98 and 1440 for the SFB, the 172 SFB running surface is 1390 so shorter than the P98. The 178 is supposed to be 60grams heavier than the 172 so maybe the ski weight is not that important on the SFB.

 

http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2012-2013-line-sir-francis-bacon

 

Have you looked at the blister review on the SFB? I`m amazed how short the ski measures, the 184 tested measures 180.5 tip to tail, so probably we might be talking about 170ish and 176ish I believe.

 

But I haven`t got any close to the skis... just thought I would share some information! rolleyes.gif

post #20 of 20

I have the 2012 SFB in 178 and love the ski in "good" snow conditions - you can do any turn, any time. I am 5'7" 158lb and sometimes I wonder if I should have gone with the 184... it will be perfect for you. It does not like "bad" conditions i.e. really tough going crusty crud, pure hard-pack/ice. I have other skis for those conditions. I don't know the Euro destinations you list but next time I go to Whistler I will be packing the Bacon for sure.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion

Gear mentioned in this thread:

EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Line Sir Francis Bacons (2012) sizes?