or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › EAST COAST SKIER: Sir Francis Bacons vs Line Influence 105 vs 4FRNT Skis Turbo Ski
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

EAST COAST SKIER: Sir Francis Bacons vs Line Influence 105 vs 4FRNT Skis Turbo Ski

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 

After the ski season, I will be finally adding a true all mountain ski to my quiver. (I despise my K2 Apache Raider's for being incapable of digging into any ice and my Volkl Racetigers despise the soft snow).

 

I'm 17 and been skiing since I was little. I have a competitive high school racing background and am an expert skier. I live in New York, so I primarily ski the Cats & Berks and occasionally (a couple times a season) further up north in the dacks or Vermont. I'm about 5'6", 145.

 

So I definitely need a new ski (most likely to be bought after this season), as I don't know if I damaged the edges on the 163 K2 Apache Raider's (2008 model maybe?) or they just plain suck. They slide out at the littlest piece of ice, and it's definitely not my technique. When I'm skiing strictly groomers and some hard bumps, I can bring out my slalom racing skis (150 Volkl Racetigers) but they're not heading into any soft snow or any where where I might risk base damage (trees).

 

So I definitely need to move on and upgrade. I ski park occasionally, but not thaaat much and I don't want that to be any more than a  minor deciding factor. I want an all mountain ski that will get up on edge and dig into the ice that is frequently out  here but also has a strong preference to soft/fresh snow and powder that is playful and needs to be able to wing it around the tight trees that I always end up skiing out here. Which means, a ski like the Blizzard Bonafide can quickly be crossed out thanks to that last thing that's necessary (able to manuever precisely and sharply)

 

After quite a bit of research, I think I've narrowed it to these three skis:

Sir Francis Bacons vs Line Influence 105 vs 4FRNT Skis Turbo Ski

 

Help me out Epic!

post #2 of 18

Have you looked into giving the rossignol s3 a chance?  I've been on those a few times and they would be right up your alley. 
 

post #3 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boone View Post

Have you looked into giving the rossignol s3 a chance?  I've been on those a few times and they would be right up your alley. 
 

 

Hmm... I could add that  into the mix but, however, they appear to be a more intermediate ski that you can't drive as hard. I have a racing background and you'll often see me high up on edge and the other skis seem to be better for that type of skiing. But, again, I might be wrong.

post #4 of 18

I really enjoyed it and was able to have enough fun with them on groomers.  You say you have a racing background, cool.  The s3's that i rode are my room mates who was a high level collegiate racer.  He LOVES them so take that for what it's worth. 

 

Never been on the bacon but i'd say that the s3 is more groomer friendly out of the two just based on construction.

post #5 of 18

Hey Skiking4.  If a ski like the Bonafide is off your list (and at your height and weight and stated preference for something snappy, fun and maneuverable in tight spaces it should be off your list), then you should also cross the Influence 105 off the list as well.  As I have said elsewhere, the Influence 105 is a great ski, I loved it both times I rode it (fwiw), but it is more of a damp big mountain charger.  Not a comparable ski to the Bacon.  More like a ski you'd compare to Bonafide, Cochise, Ritual, E98, Cham 107 to name a few.

 

The Bacon is a whole different ballgame.  Rode a buddy's Bacon a couple of mornings ago and was impressed.  Conditions were +/-8" of blower in steep trees with smaller stashes of powder, and soft lumps of snow on the sides of the groomers.  The Bacon is super light feeling, very quick, fun and jibby.  It has a reasonably traditional shape, however, so on edge it doesn't feel too clowny or ski bladeish on the groomers.  I don't think that it is stout enough for a full-on hard pack day (for me), but it is excellent on soft groomers (quick and fun), when groomers are transport to the main event - my buddy and I both outweigh you by a ton and we were both pushing the Bacons hard through down this groomer over a series of rollers that returned us to the chair (and back to the pow stash).  Soft bumps, tight trees, loose low angle trees in a few inches of blower they were great.  As advertised, it skis pretty short.  I was on the 184 and found that perfect for me, but I am 5'11, 185#.  At your size, the 177 would be perfect for you.

 

Of course, in powder the Bacon was dynamite.  Nice float, ability to surf and slarve.  I didn't feel like it gave up much over a fatter powder ski - and the return was a way snappier ski, better carving ski in lower snow, skied off conditions.  I have another buddy in the market for a fatter ski right now, about your size, who loves a quick high energy ski and I immediately thought that the Bacon should be on his demo list - at his/your weight the Bacons would plenty of float for deep days and would be way more useful on more ski days than something fatter.

 

If you want a wider, lightweight, high energy ski that will be great on soft snow, soft bumps, tight trees in soft snow and is modern and loose enough to migrate to the park, the Bacon kills it - you'll love it.  Just save your Volkls for ice/full-on hardpack days, which would not likely be the Bacons' best venue - workable if tuned and if you have good technique, but save them for the fun stuff where they will shine.  My perspective is very western-oriented, but I could see the bacon as a great eastern powder ski (especially for a lighter skier with some park interest).

 

Plus, they are reasonably easy on the pocketbook - especially in late Feb/March.

 

Only word of caution - the Bacon is not the ski for the skier who likes a damp, powerful, metal laminate feel (the skier who would be looking at the Influence 105, for example).  It isn't that the Bacon isn't enough ski or that it is unstable when sized correctly - it just falls on the lightweight, snappy, quick side of things.

 

Don't know anything about the 4FRNTs so I can't comment there.  If you thinking about the Bacon, another ski to consider that I have been on would be the Nordica Soul Rider.  ~10mm more narrow and a little more firm underfoot, so a little more solid feeling on groomers, but similar fun factor.  All mountain twin tip, so you can take to the park and back, like the Bacons.

 

At 17 years old, and your size, you'd love the Bacons (as long as you have something to pair them with for firm days out east).  Pick some up, don't look back and report back on the cool stuff you are doing with them.  Don't overthink it.  Have fun.

post #6 of 18

Bacon is not in the same category as the the Influence 105, and the Turbo. It's more of a jibby pow ski than a directional charger like the 105, and Turbo.

 

Even at comparable lengths the Turbo has a much longer chargier sidecut than the 105. I ski the 105 but I don't feel like it sticks in ice all that well, but it's the factory tune, so i'm sure more agressive edge angles would make it perform better in that category.

 

You might want to look in to the Rossi Soul 7 for next year. It's looking like a badass ride.
 

post #7 of 18
Thread Starter 

Thanks guys! Looks like perhaps the Bacons are the best choice.

Just wondering, is it possible to demo a ski like that?

post #8 of 18

I know Whistler's Show Case demo center has it, probably not gonna help you here. I personally hate the Bacon... the tips are diving into the powder every time. I love the S7.

post #9 of 18
Thread Starter 

So with ski season coming around, its time to actually make a purchase. Probably gonna purchase the evo deal on Rossignol S3 ski, it's a little over 500$ for the Rossignol S3 skis + Axial2 120 XL Bindings 2013. It's certainly a better deal than the SFB which gives it a big edge for a budget. The 168 cm is the same size as my height, but should I get the 178 even though it's a full 10 cm above my head? I'm used to always skiing on short skis (slalom skis or 163 K2s) and never have skied rocker.

post #10 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiking4 View Post
 

So with ski season coming around, its time to actually make a purchase. Probably gonna purchase the evo deal on Rossignol S3 ski, it's a little over 500$ for the Rossignol S3 skis + Axial2 120 XL Bindings 2013. It's certainly a better deal than the SFB which gives it a big edge for a budget. The 168 cm is the same size as my height, but should I get the 178 even though it's a full 10 cm above my head? I'm used to always skiing on short skis (slalom skis or 163 K2s) and never have skied rocker.

 

get the 178cm and find the Schimtar if you can find it.... its better ski IMO for eastern tree skiing..

 

http://www.skis.com/Rossignol-Scimitar-Skis-2012/227490P,default,pd.html this is the ski that is better than the S3 at its on game.

post #11 of 18

stick with 168cm for trees and eastern skiing. i'm 5'9" and my quiver goes from 160-170cm. if i skied out west i would probably move up in size but eastern skiing is different.

post #12 of 18

So what are you going to be skiing mostly?  AKA what are your priorities when buying this ski?  Ski purchasing is all about narrowing it down to what you really want/ need.  There's no perfect ski, and every ski has its strengths and weaknesses.  So is it more important for this new pair of skis to have great edge hold (will you be skiing ice and hardpack mostly?), or for the new ski to be able to perform in soft snow?  Likewise, is it more important for these skis to be able to perform on groomers, or maybe its more important that they can perform in the trees?  Or maybe you just want something that can do a little bit of everything, but that doesn't really do one thing exceedingly well?  What does this ski NEED to be able to do?

post #13 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Matta View Post
 

 

get the 178cm and find the Schimtar if you can find it.... its better ski IMO for eastern tree skiing..

 

http://www.skis.com/Rossignol-Scimitar-Skis-2012/227490P,default,pd.html this is the ski that is better than the S3 at its on game.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by frkny View Post
 

stick with 168cm for trees and eastern skiing. i'm 5'9" and my quiver goes from 160-170cm. if i skied out west i would probably move up in size but eastern skiing is different.

 

Um what should I do ? 168 or 178? BTW I'm pretty sure I'm gonna go S3 over the Scimitar.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eastskier44 View Post
 

So what are you going to be skiing mostly?  AKA what are your priorities when buying this ski?  Ski purchasing is all about narrowing it down to what you really want/ need.  There's no perfect ski, and every ski has its strengths and weaknesses.  So is it more important for this new pair of skis to have great edge hold (will you be skiing ice and hardpack mostly?), or for the new ski to be able to perform in soft snow?  Likewise, is it more important for these skis to be able to perform on groomers, or maybe its more important that they can perform in the trees?  Or maybe you just want something that can do a little bit of everything, but that doesn't really do one thing exceedingly well?  What does this ski NEED to be able to do?

 

Mostly eastern all mountain skiing. I'm gonna need it in all conditions and often trees and bumps and the occasional park run, but hardpack days not as important because I got race skis for those 100% groomer days. I'm also confident I want it wide under foot ( >90 underfoot) for the pow days. I think the S3 fits what I want.

post #14 of 18

So you're an eastern skier, 145 pounds, who wants an all mountain ski for pow days? Are you sure you want a ski that large for...how many pow days we have around here again? If you already had a 80-90 something all mountain ski, I would say no problem...but you don't...

A ski in the 80-90 will be more fun in the bumps and the skied out trees and will still be nice in most of the new snow conditions you could encounter, and it will be better on icy conditions too...IMO...

post #15 of 18

It sounds like you're set on the S3, and that's fine.  I think you'll be fine as long as you stay in the 88-98 underfoot range for bumps, trees, skied out pow, light amounts of fresh snow (this is what you need the ski for).  You should know that the S3 is a bit of a noodle, but if you're ok with that, you could do worse than going with the S3.

post #16 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogsie View Post
 

So you're an eastern skier, 145 pounds, who wants an all mountain ski for pow days? Are you sure you want a ski that large for...how many pow days we have around here again? If you already had a 80-90 something all mountain ski, I would say no problem...but you don't...

A ski in the 80-90 will be more fun in the bumps and the skied out trees and will still be nice in most of the new snow conditions you could encounter, and it will be better on icy conditions too...IMO...

 

I'm really leaning on going wider.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eastskier44 View Post
 

It sounds like you're set on the S3, and that's fine.  I think you'll be fine as long as you stay in the 88-98 underfoot range for bumps, trees, skied out pow, light amounts of fresh snow (this is what you need the ski for).  You should know that the S3 is a bit of a noodle, but if you're ok with that, you could do worse than going with the S3.

 

My personal cruising speed is often 30 to 40 mph (or more like 50+ when with friends) so I'm not the biggest speed demon so I'm really not that worried about a ski being a "noodle", especially when I also already got groomer skis to go along with them.

 

However, 178 or 168? I'm real confused about that.

post #17 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiking4 View Post
 

 

I'm really leaning on going wider.

 

 

My personal cruising speed is often 30 to 40 mph (or more like 50+ when with friends) so I'm not the biggest speed demon so I'm really not that worried about a ski being a "noodle", especially when I also already got groomer skis to go along with them.

 

However, 178 or 168? I'm real confused about that.

 

 

178 really this skis short and despite being in east coast trees its the size you want....

post #18 of 18
Quote:
 My personal cruising speed is often 30 to 40 mph (or more like 50+ when with friends) so I'm not the biggest speed demon so I'm really not that worried about a ski being a "noodle", especially when I also already got groomer skis to go along with them.

So you're ok with going 30-50 mph on a noodle?  You "cruise" at 50 mph?????

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › EAST COAST SKIER: Sir Francis Bacons vs Line Influence 105 vs 4FRNT Skis Turbo Ski