or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Sir Francis Bacon Versus Kung Fujas (Shreditor 102)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sir Francis Bacon Versus Kung Fujas (Shreditor 102)

post #1 of 3
Thread Starter 

I'm hoping for feedback from anyone who has skied BOTH the Sir Francis Bacon and Kung Fujas (and/or Shreditor 102) who can offer some side-by-side insights as to which is better as an everyday all mountain ski for my trips out west.  I'm curious which works best in each of the following... powder, hardpack, bumps (real ones) and trees... and why.


I purchased both the Bacon (172cm) and Kung Fujas (169cm) brand new online at a good price and am trying to decide which to keep and which to return or sell.  I'm a an older advanced/expert skier, 5'8" and 145 pounds, who skis all terrain but prefers slalom turns in bumps and trees at slower speeds rather than hard charging the bowls. 


These will be my only skis on trips out west, so they have to be fairly versatile in all conditions, including hardpack and deep icy bumps in trees if that's what the week brings.  I prefer lively skis, especially the trampoline effect I get off the tails in quick slalom turns.  My other skis are the 164cm Salomon X-Wing Fury which are perfectly fine but show their limitations in deeper powder, slush and crud so they'll stay back east.


Thanks for your feedback.

post #2 of 3

I cannot give any feedback on the kung fujas, but as stated in my reply to your other post I'm your size and own the 2013 SFB in 172cm.  Ironically I considered the K2 in that 169cm a long with a few others in that width, flex and radii.  It came down to price because I suspect I would have been happy with any one of them.  that fact that I could not ski any of them actually simplified the process.  The deal I got on this unpopular sized SFB was too good to pass, plus they threw in some crampons for my Barons. 


I was very concerned when I got them home and laid them next to my 169cm el pacos and saw that they had more ski in front of the bindings than the bacons, I read they were almost 4cm short.  Mainly because the consensus for sizing was "go big", but as I said the consensus for mounting the 2013 was "the line is the sweet spot".  I convinced myself that I would just give them to my 14 year old if I screwed up.


After two days on them I am amazed. 


The first day was on refrozen post thaw/rain, man made with a dusting to a few inches of fresh on top, yikes, I was desperate to ski them.  Their performance in those conditions surprised me, and they did not feel anything close to 108mm underfoot.  Low edge angles on ice or severely scraped off snow at speed was scary but I discovered when I laid them over a little more they held, I then had more confidence.  It was crowded so there was 4" of nice sugar on the sides of the runs anyways.


The second day (today) was in 14" of brand new 2014 snow, but I got there late (12:00), and was severely hung over.  This is where I had the most concern about the forward mount and small size.  I very quickly adjusted to the center of the ski and had a real blast.  I found some fresh lines and could not initiate any tip dive unless I really got over the fore body.  In the cutup, pushed around mess they were steadfast in any shape turn on edge, and even fun while running them flat on the tails over the big piles at speed, they tracked perfect.  In the tight trees they were markedly more easy to bring around than my 168 s3's in this type snow. Though this is where I felt that I had more tail behind my bindings the most, but quickly adjusted and was glad it was there a few times.  they are still light and easy to throw around when you have to.  I spun them around a few times and the tracked easy, I'm not really into that, but may be now.


I'm very happy and could easily use these everywhere.  I'm ordering up some skins asap.  Mount them on the line, you will easily adjust and like them as I did

post #3 of 3
Thread Starter 

Thanks, Rich,


Very insightful.  Of course now you've given me more to think about since I was leaning toward the 169cm Kung Fujas with their slightly longer tape pull measurement, more subtle rocker, and rearward mount.  But clearly the 172cm Bacons sound long and floaty enough given my slightly lower weight and similar skiing style/preference... so now it's back in contention. Quickness in the trees and bumps are a priority for me, so if they're even more nimble than the 168cm S3 that's very impressive.


Reviewers often say "great skis, get 'em" or "buy longer, you won't regret it" without giving any indication of their skiing style, height/weight, aggressiveness, or preferred terrain.  Depending on the person, "tree skiing" can mean fairly open glades only on powder days or tight icy bump runs with branches whacking your helmet.  I ski both, and when I've demoed longer have hated them, but oddly never have regretted buying "shorter" (i.e. manufacturer's recommendation) since I'm conservative and tend to scrub speed, even in bowls.  As an inline skater who occasionally hits around 38mph on a 35cm wheelbase, I guess "squirrely" is a matter of perspective.


My big concern was the rocker, but it sounds like the 172cm Bacons will be as stable as my current all-mountain skis (which are only 164cm and 83mm underfoot) but with decent enough float... especially since I'm rarely lucky enough to ski more than thigh-deep powder.  Hmmm... maybe I need a psychic to better time those trips out west. 


Half of me wants to mount both the Bacons and Fujas just so I can write a side-by-side review myself, but since the skis are similar it would be a waste of money to keep both.  It's odd that the only side-by-side I've found is from a guy in the UK who demoed them at an indoor bunny hill, which clearly wasn't the best venue... especially since rental skis can be such a wildcard (wrong sizing, dead camber, dull edges, etc.).  He loved the Bacons but said the Kung Fujas felt dead, which is the exact opposite of pro reviews in both Freeskier and Ski mags who said they were playful and poppy... go figure.  


I'm not a ski quiver fan...  lugging several pairs in the car and then assessing terrain conditions to pick the right ski sounds too much like golf.  I just need a versatile pair for trips out west and one for back east. You've convinced me that with the Bacons, I might not even need the separate east coast pair but already own them, so they can deal with the usual ice/rock abuse.


If anyone out there has experience with the 102mm Kung Fujas (not the older 95mm) or Shreditor, perhaps you could round out this discussion with a counterpoint giving your impressions in similarly varied conditions and terrain that Rich was kind enough to detail.  Including your ski length, height/weight, ski style, ability, etc. also would be helpful.


Thanks again, Rich, and Happy New Year (and Ski Season) to All.



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 › Sir Francis Bacon Versus Kung Fujas (Shreditor 102)