or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › What size Line Sir Francis Bacon? 184cm or 178cm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What size Line Sir Francis Bacon? 184cm or 178cm

Poll Results: Size?

 
  • 14% (1)
    184
  • 57% (4)
    178
  • 28% (2)
    Get a different Ski
  • 0% (0)
    190
7 Total Votes  
post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 

I’m 21 years of age, 5’7” 140lbs and still growing, at least in the weight department. I ski mainly on the east coast and I am an aggressive skier.

 

I hear they have a playful, jibby and I’m not sure what size to buy.

 

I hear from everyone that one would regret purchasing the 178cm size as they actually measure 3cm to 4cm shorter and ski even shorter than that due to their fair amount of rocker. They say if you are aggressive get the 184cm. I’m just doubtful due to my height and weight. I have been riding 174 K2 Recoils for all over the mountain and 176 Atomic Punx for the park, both are fine in length. 

 

I just would rather bump up in size for more stability and float and not regret my choice. 

 

Help me out! Input greatly appreciated.

post #2 of 18

Couple questions first

 

Where is your home mountain? Or where are you skiing most? 

 

Are you planning for these to be a pow ski, park ski, all mountain ski?

 

 

 

 

I have similar specs to you, slightly larger frame at 5'11 155#, and don't ski any park. Have skied the 184 SFB for 3 seasons in VT.

post #3 of 18
Thread Starter 


Will not be skiing any park with these skis. Killington is my home mountain but I’ll travel to dozens of different places in the North East, including sugarloaf, Jay Peak, etc. 

 

They will be a pow ski/all-mountan ski.

 

I have been using my recoils for three seasons now and every time we get 5 inches of fresh I just sink and it is a pain. 

post #4 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust View Post
 

Couple questions first

 

Where is your home mountain? Or where are you skiing most? 

 

Are you planning for these to be a pow ski, park ski, all mountain ski?

 

 

 

 

I have similar specs to you, slightly larger frame at 5'11 155#, and don't ski any park. Have skied the 184 SFB for 3 seasons in VT.


Will not be skiing any park with these skis. Killington is my home mountain but I’ll travel to dozens of different places in the North East, including sugarloaf, Jay Peak, etc. 

 

They will be a pow ski/all-mountan ski.

 

I have been using my recoils for three seasons now and every time we get 5 inches of fresh I just sink and it is a pain. 

post #5 of 18

Also check out the Rossignol Soul 7. Easy to ski and handles anything. Specially at your weight. Super versatile ski.

post #6 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuchosPixels View Post
 

Also check out the Rossignol Soul 7. Easy to ski and handles anything. Specially at your weight. Super versatile ski.


I don’t want a directional ski but thanks for the input!

post #7 of 18
Thread Starter 

Please, I need a little more input I have a good deal right now on these skis!

post #8 of 18
I would describe it as a medium fat ski. I have a similar ski dimension wise, but with 2 sheets of metal ( so quite stiff). I'm 1.80m, 80kg and the ski is 1.83m. I wouldn't want the ski to be any longer and I would describe myself as an expert skier.
post #9 of 18

They both should measure something like 3 to 4 cm shorter tip to tail. Never skied the Atomic or K2, but I'm tempted to say the 178 will ski shorter than both skis.

 

For a pow/all mtn I'd go 184.

post #10 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfa81 View Post
 

They both should measure something like 3 to 4 cm shorter tip to tail. Never skied the Atomic or K2, but I'm tempted to say the 178 will ski shorter than both skis.

 

For a pow/all mtn I'd go 184.


K2 measures small the actual size of the recoils are 3 to 4 cm larger, I believe Atomic measures true to length. Yeah, the 178 definitely will be 175ish and ski much shorter than that. I’m only worried because of my weight and height. 

post #11 of 18

Have you tried the ON3P Kartel 106? ON3P is around the east coast right now, they are gonna be in smuggs saturday and loon mtn sunday. I have no idea if it's easy for you to get to any of these demo days, but I'd definitely take a look at the 106, you could try both 176 and 181. These skis are going to be exactly 176 and 181 tip to tail

post #12 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfa81 View Post
 

Have you tried the ON3P Kartel 106? ON3P is around the east coast right now, they are gonna be in smuggs saturday and loon mtn sunday. I have no idea if it's easy for you to get to any of these demo days, but I'd definitely take a look at the 106, you could try both 176 and 181. These skis are going to be exactly 176 and 181 tip to tail


Yeah, I was looking at the Kartels as well they are just really expensive. I could take a drive up to smuggs saturday and demo a few pairs. 

post #13 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfa81 View Post
 

Have you tried the ON3P Kartel 106? ON3P is around the east coast right now, they are gonna be in smuggs saturday and loon mtn sunday. I have no idea if it's easy for you to get to any of these demo days, but I'd definitely take a look at the 106, you could try both 176 and 181. These skis are going to be exactly 176 and 181 tip to tail


How much to demo for a day? Probably not too much, right?

post #14 of 18
free, the guys from on3p are doing the demo tour, so it's a free demo day! of course you can't keep the skis for the day like a regular demo but you can try as many as you want!
post #15 of 18

The bacons definitely ski shorter than they are, just measured mine and both come in right around 181cm. That would be approximately 4.5" over your head. If you are a strong skier you can get away with it but physically you can't get rid of the extra length. For tight ec trees the 178 is probably a better size especially considering the more centered mount point, you have a lot of tail behind you. Though the 184 will float better and the extra running length could be useful.

post #16 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust View Post

The bacons definitely ski shorter than they are, just measured mine and both come in right around 181cm. That would be approximately 4.5" over your head. If you are a strong skier you can get away with it but physically you can't get rid of the extra length. For tight ec trees the 178 is probably a better size especially considering the more centered mount point, you have a lot of tail behind you. Though the 184 will float better and the extra running length could be useful.
Thanks for the input. Doesn't the 184 SFB have a turning radius of 17.7? So I i have to take it in tight trees I might be fine. I made a thread on Teton gravity and everyone over there says to get the 184. I mean you have the 184s how short do they actually ski?? I just may gain a lot of weight and I could overpower the 178 as they ski like skis in the 160s.
post #17 of 18
East coast skiing means tight turns. Go shorter.
post #18 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by coasthafron33 View Post


Thanks for the input. Doesn't the 184 SFB have a turning radius of 17.7? So I i have to take it in tight trees I might be fine. I made a thread on Teton gravity and everyone over there says to get the 184. I mean you have the 184s how short do they actually ski?? I just may gain a lot of weight and I could overpower the 178 as they ski like skis in the 160s.

Yea it's an 18m radius in the 184. For all mountain skiing it would make sense to go with that as you're going to want all the contact length you can get. I'm just saying in extremely tight trees they are physically larger than ideal and the 178 would be better for that scenario. 

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 › What size Line Sir Francis Bacon? 184cm or 178cm