Bacons vs Elizabeth's

S

Steve-420

Member
Ok i know its been asked a bunch but im really in a bit of a dilema here. I need to buy a new pair of skis this season. I am 5'9 about 145 and I currently ride 179 seth pistols from 04/05. They have around 150 days on them so its time for something new.

I am looking to get something a little wider and more fun for playing around on in the pow and trees that i can still rip around and have fun in when im not. I dont ride alot of park maybe 20% but would like to get into a little more. I really like what i have heard about the Lizzies/Bacons but have no idea which one to go with. I feel like im kinda in between sizes. What do you guys think?

I live in whistler and this will be pretty much my one ski quiver unless i wanna bring out the old pistols. I have also thought about 179 Hellbents (dont think they will be versitile enough) and steeze's (not as playfull) Any imput?

Thanks
 
Toughy.

The Lizzes are soft and playful. Great for trees, groomers, and park stuff. Pretty agile ski. You'll get some tip dive in pow though.. if its deep.

The Bacons on the other hand are stiffer and a bit more clumsy in the trees. Great fun for groomers and any kind of pow. I'm not a great park skier, so my experience in park isn't super valid.. But I thought they were just ok. Fun on jumps, but hard to probably get more tech with.

Have you considered Surface Livelife 2's? I think they'll end up somewhere btw the two. (I am switching from bacons to them.)
 
I'm in the same boat. Looking for a fun ski to play with around the whole mountain. I'm 6' and have a pair of 178cm Invaders, which I love the length of. So park or mogul performace is not important at all. It may see some occasional jumps in the park, but that's about it.

I'm leaning towards Bacons because I cannot see myself on a ski with a forward mounting point shorter than the mid-170s.
 
well this years bacons only come in a 182, not a particulary short ski but id go for the bacons cause they are deffinatly a more all mountian ski. remember, lizzies are a park ski, suggested mounting is only 2 back from center. id go for bacons
 
Surface Life Lifes 2 look really fun... but one important thing to remember is that they have no camber. They'll be awesome in powder... and probably hold their own everywhere... but be ready to sacrafice some all-mountain performance over the other two choices.

The Bacons seem to be the better choice for a one ski quiver.
 
And, as always... I should qualify my response. I haven't ridden any of the three... so I guess I'm not qualified at all. I'm just basing my comment on the overall consensus I've read.
 
Elizabeths are made to be a little short, it's supposed to feel kinda like snowboarding

and be fun in the trees
 
i would say the lizzies are too short but it depends on your experiance. We have the bacons, lizzies and bents at Glacier Shop if you wanna come by and check em
 
Dude ur post sound exactly like the decision i had to make. I'm 5'10" and 155. I chose the lizzies. I used to ski on 175arvs, I also used to ski FIS. Im used to really stiff skis besides the arvs, but i loooooved the arvs! So i said fuck it, i want a ski thats gonna be soooooo fun everywhere. I mean the bacons would prob be better for ripping steep lines and shit, but seriously, how many times a year do u really get to rip steep fresh lines......i got maybe 10-15 days of it 2 years ago skiing 4days a week. And both are soft as shit anyway so ripping lines isn't gonna be that prime.

Go for the lizzies.

But there are a lot of bacons for sale lately that are cheap as shit. Either way i don't think you'll be dissapointed.
 
Wow thats the exact same as me. I'm 5'10 160 and used to ski the ARVs. I chose lizzies I haven't had the chance to ride them yet but it seems to be a win win either way, for you
 
haha yesss, yeah i haven't skied em yet, they are sitting against my wall staring at me. I still need to pay to get them mounted goddamnit.
 
So far its half for lizzies and half for bacons and the only guy who seems to have ridden them says get something else.....see the live life 2's look dope and it would prob be problem solved if i could buy them in a store...I am not a big fan of buying equipment online....if i have a warrenty issue or something i dont wanna be waiting for 2 months in january while my skis are off in the mail somewhere. Hmm thanks for the imput so far...this is difficult
 
^ Jibij is legit.. my friend. They're quick with their shipping and processing. However, if you have a warranty issue, with any ski, you may be w/ out skis for awhile. Whether it is Line or Surface, you have to wait some time. You have back ups right? Or this will be your only ski?

For you, my 1st choice would be Live 2's. 2nd Lizzes. 3rd Bacons.
 
how do you think they will compare in floating in the pow to my 179 pistols which are mounted at +2cms from center cause they dive a bit but nothing i can't manage
 
how deep, i'm also in the same dilemma, and i want the camber cause i looked at live life 2's and i'm not psyched about 0 camber, mind i'm 6'1" but i'm only 160 so i'm fairly thin
 
Gotcha.. I was thinking you were still talking bacons.

I'm getting a pair of bacons in a week or 2. (when my performance bonus at work comes in)

I'm 6' tall and cannot see myself going to 172cm. 182 with a forward mounting like the bacons will not be too long and they should be plenty flexy to smear quick turns if need be in the trees.

If I don't like them, I doubt selling them will be difficult either!
 
Really depends on how you ski. If you lean back they'll be fine in just about anything. But get forward on anything deeper than 8 inches or so.. and they'll (eliz)probably dive. I'm 6'3 190 however.. so if you're smaller you could be better off.

ANd the live 2's would definitely float better. Fat and 0 camber.. gonna be nasty.. and 0 camber isn't that bad. I've ridden dead/0 camber skis before and they handled fine on hardpack.
 
At 6'3, did you find the Lizzies felt too small? Or were they super fun in the length they were?
 
Pretty damn fun to be honest.. so soft and snappy. Great for trees and messing around. But I'd want something longer for charging. I just wish bacons actually were a longer eliz.
 
For a primarily east coast powder, fun tool, would you say Lizzies for someone 6' 195 who loves soft skis.

I ask this because you are one of the few who have skied both and gives honest opinions.

I'm currently on 178cm Invaders which will be seeing park duy and non-powder days.
 
^yeah bud same with me. I was on invaders and anthems for a long time. Loved soft skis, still do. But I'm getting back into stiffer skis. imo the bacons were clunky and hard to manuver in tight spots compared to lizzes. Maybe if they were mounted at center they'd be more like an elizabeth. I don't know about that however. I had mine at recommended. +2 would be ideal.

That being said.. if you're east coast. Lizzes could be real sick for ya.
 
Thanks for the opinion.

It was sort of how I was thinking, just wanted to make sure the Lizzie didn't feel too short. It's hard to find someone who'll give you an honest opinion, not based soley on ski length that has skied both.
 
As you've probably heard before.. they're made to be short. They're like a snowboard. Plus I truly believe the width makes up for a lot of that length. If you're not ripping big lines.. you're an east coaster... just ripping small stashes in the trees, groomer park, etc.. your're looking for a fat/soft ski why the heck not?

Go for it.
 
I am also in the same position, I am 5'6" 150lbs and I am looking into either the bacon or Elizabeth strictly for a pow ski, I am uncertain whether the bacon will too big or not. I have skied on 178 jj's before and the length wasn't to bad but the bacon is alot wider so I need some help figuring out what to get.
 
lizzies are great in the trees, and they're fun on groomers. once you get into variable conditions is where they suck ass. like chopped up pow they are just miserable. i'm also a pretty big dude (6'2" 180) and they were fun as shit, and like grouch said as long as you don't charge any hard shit on them they're fine. too specialized in my opinion, that's why i flipped mine and went with bacons, and i mounted them about +2 or +2.5 (on the "E" in Eric Pollard) to make them a little better in the trees hopefully. i guess we shall see in a month or so when the snow starts falling :)
 
i forgot to mention that they love to turn and hate not to turn. don't even think about hitting big park kickers on them either, as you need to start about 50 feet above your normal spot to get the same amount of speed as you would on most other skis, they ride quite slow, which is why they are money in the trees, but be prepared to be turning constantly on them.
 
I'm 6' 155 and ski my lizzies everywhere so it's definetly a very versatile ski. The Bacons are probably gonna float better in pow, but they're definetly a bigger ski. The lizies are super fun so I'd go with those
 
wow, way off, wax ur damn skis and dont turn b4 the jump and PRESTO same speed. Just because they have a shorter turning radius than most skis does not make them "slow" unless ur turning w/ ur tails like a gayper
 
I am 5 10 and 150lbs and have used the lizzie all season in whistler. For steep gnarly lines I'd probably go with the bacon but for everything else they are alot of fun. Lizzies arent too great in the crud/ crust but that is to be expected. If it was for pure powder I'd probably get bacons, but I am not sure whether I would like them as they are supposed to be pretty heavy.
 
obviously you've never skied them.

when you're used to 180-190 length skis and you get on a center mounted 172 it's going to ski slower. maybe the pair i owned had slower bases, but even after a fresh wax, i constantly undershot kickers that i had no problem clearing on my other skis. and we're talking skate skate skate tuck with no turning involved.

bottom line though, don't tell me to wax my fucking skis you fucking noob.
 
Yeah I found my lizzies to be super slow on the cat tracks unless perfectly waxed. But I think if you keep them well waxed or use some 'not wax' it doesnt really become as much of an issue.
 
even after a fresh wax i still was lagging behind my snowboarder friends. usually i'm waiting for them at the lift.
 
sounds like one ski you could add to this list would be the rory sfs. it's 178, with a 137-111-128 footprint, and a similar playful flex.
 
they're better with it than K2, Salomon or dynastar who won't warranty your skis if there's any sign of rail damage.
 
Ok i know its been a while but my shop just got in a pair of both in so im gonna buy tomorrow morning on my day off.......

.I'm thinking lizzies just cause i allready have my seth's in 179 so they seem like they would accomplish pretty similar to what the bacon's would do (obviously they ski different but will cover the same terrain) I would go with the live life's in a second but I just don't feel comfortable buying anything i haven't seen.

Any other opinions before i basically "enny meenie miney mo" it? Thanks
 
I've had both, and prefer the lizzies over the bacons, but some of that has to do with the fact that I'll have EP pros this year as well.. I'm about 140 5'11. If they are going to be your only powder ski, and you ski a lot of it, I woudln't rely on the lizzie alone.
 
i have had the lizzies for 2 years. great ski too small for me in deep powder. i bought some bacons. the bacons have a tiny running length of like 155 cm, probably the exact same as the lizzies. they have the same turn radius (18m) so i assume they will ski about the same, but the bacons will be longer and better for landing in powder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top