Is 172cm Sir Francis Bacon Too Short?

E

eg-nj

New member
Everyone in these forums says to size up Sir Francis Bacon skis because they measure short and have rocker. Based on Line's sizing chart and a conversation with their customer service rep at headquarters (who said they have a long effective edge) I ordered the 2013 model in 172cm (168.2cm actual tape pull). I'm a 5'8" and 145 pound older advanced/expert but not very aggressive, preferring quick slalom turns in bumps and tight trees at slower speeds rather than charging down bowls.

When they arrived I noticed that if mounted at the near-center mark they would have as much shovel length as my 164 X-Wing Fury skis (83mm underfoot, no rocker), which I don't find too short except in deeper snow. I know these could be mounted further back at this year's -60mm "recommended line" (versus the -25mm Eric Pollard line) , but everything I've read suggests that's not a good idea since these were designed to be skied near center.

These would be the only skis I bring on trips out west for use all over the mountain in all conditions, including slick groomers and deep icy bumps in the trees if that's what the day brings (no biggie... I'm from back East). So the question is, did I make a mistake and buy too short? Could anyone in my size and weight range who actually has skied the 172cm (not the 178cm) give me some insights as to how they handle in the powder and hardpack? Also, has anyone skied any length at the -60mm line?

I can't return them for the 178cm, so either I'll just keep them or

sell them brand new, unmounted, still in the shrink-wrap for around $550

(close to what I paid). Thanks for your feedback.
 
You should be fine, at your size and the way you ski i don't think you need to go for the 178. And unless you plan on skiing backwards i'd go for the -60 mounting point.
 
btw I ski 172 lizzies (similar to bacons minus rocker) at true center. I'm an aggressive all-over-the-mountain skier who still frequents the park and they're so much fun. i think you'll have a blast on those babies
 
I ride SFB @ 184 from last year, but I've got 3" and 35 lbs on you.

The ski feels short if you're straight lining chop, but the rep is right about the long effective edge. Riding it flat at mach potato I get some wiggles, but as soon as I go on edge the SFBs turn into razors. First few days shralphing groomers I was impressed. The ski isn't particularly stiff (and I usually like stiffer skis) but on edge they are impressive, able to do long and short radius turns--in particular excelling at short radius in tight quarters.

You'll be good, enjoy!
 
I'm 5'11" 150 lb and just got the 184

Are most people mounting at the eric's choice -2?

I demoed them and they were mounted between there and the recommended point, so I'm leaning toward that.

Thoughts?
 
That's a great question... to get more responses you also might want to open a new thread. Someone who answered my thread in a different forum (EpicSki) mentioned that a few times while in the trees he was glad to have the extra tail length (probably for rearward stability given the softer flex).

But he was skiing a 172cm (which he didn't consider too short at 5'6" and 165 lbs.), so at your weight and height the 184cm might have enough tail stability even if you decide to mount back a little from Eric's Choice. However, he didn't get any tip dive in 14" of fresh unless he leaned over the fronts, and thought Eric's Choice worked great even at that length and short front shovel. So you probably wouldn't need to move it back.

Hope this helps.

Edmund
 
By the way, thanks to everyone for their input. From all the comments I've received here and elsewhere it sounds like keeping the 172cm wouldn't be a huge mistake even though the 178cm would be better in deep powder and steeps (but a little worse in tight bumped-up trees at my conservative pace).

I inline skate and occasionally hit 38mph downhills on a 35cm wheelbase, so "squirrely" is a matter of perspective... especially since I rarely ski much faster than that. From what some of you (and the Line headquarters rep) have said, the ski is quite stable on edge, which is where I tend to keep it.

Another concern was float, but the feedback from a slightly heavier commenter who owns them confirmed that given my weight it should be fine for the foot or two of fresh that I typically see on my trips out west. And given my fore-aft balance from skating, going over the handlebars on the 172cm probably isn't a big issue, since it wasn't for that same commenter.

Now I just need to decide whether to keep or sell these or the 169cm Kung Fujas (102mm underfoot) I also purchased as a hedge. I'm trying to get feedback on those in another thread, or if anyone here can give a side-by-side detailed comparison including pros/cons it would be much appreciated.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top