Riding Line Sir Francis Bacons in the park????

T

tomhowell999

Member
So i am searching for a new ski from either line, or k2 (cuz i get dicounts from those two) I'm 6 foot 1 and 180lbs. i want a do it all ski in biggest sense of the word. i need to ski park, ski some groomers fast, and ski some pow when i get it. I've been considering the line sir francis bacon skis, and mounting them either dead center, or 2cm back. Any input would be appreciated if you think another ski would be better for park 50% groomers 25% and pow(treeskiing)25%
 
Kung Fujas or Revival from K2 would be good for you. They aren't as big as the Bacons but they have a rocker so they'll be quick in the trees and float nicely. They'll also be better for park, they're gonna be a little lighter.
 
Never skied the Revival in pow but id imagine they be pretty sick and they are absolutely amazing in park. My coach was 6'3" and he rode them and absolutely loved them. My favorite park ski i have ever ridden honestly. Plus K2 is the most legit company to work with as you probably already know since your getting some kind of discount.
 
im considering the kung fujases over the revivals just cuz they are softer and more buttery along with still being stable and better flotation
 
I'd go with Kung Fujas over the Revivals, better all mountain/pow performance.
Revival = more park oriented. KF = pow/backcountry/crud riding around, but still be able to hit the park comfortably.
 
I am in the same position as you except I am a little bigger than you. I would check out the Nordica Zero's. They are a symmetrical ski that is 104 underfoot and if you are going to mount center or -2 back get a ski made to mount there.
 
so it's between the SFB and the Kung Fujas. I was leaning towards the KF cuz i ski mostly east coast so we get some powder but not alot, and i feel like the SFB is really more of a west coast ski. I kinda think that the KF will be more fun in the park that the SFB
 
he also skis for line, I guess the bigger question of all this is which is more fun in the park, since i know they both rip everywhere else
 
Bacons in the park are AWESOME. You're talking about the new ones with early rise, right? They're actually very similar to Elizabeths, I really like them.
 
ya the 2011 ones, i hear that both the kung fujas and the sir francis bacon are sort of noodles, but can still charge pretty hard. You think they'd be pretty similar in the park? if so i'd probably go with the sfb"s just cuz the graphic is fucking sick
 
I have demoed them so yes, I have skied them but just a few runs. I ended up ordering them for this season.

They are really playful and fun to do butters on. Thanks to the rocker, they have all the playfulness of Elizabeths but are stiffer for more stability. I didn't have the chance to try them in pow but with the early rise, early taper and wide waist they're bound to be good. Groomers are alright, just keep in mind that it's a 115 mm ski. Still, not bad. Basically Pollard designed a great ski. And I sound like a Line ad. Sorry. :D

 
yes i have ridden the SFB's and the KF's. in my opinion the bacons are an superior ski all around. they are by far one of my favorite skis i have ridden in the park. i thought the KF's are heavier and and not as lively as the bacons. the KF's are one of my least enjoyable skis i have ridden whereas the bacons are pretty much at the top of that list. im sure many people will not agree with me but thats my personal opinion.
 
depends on how fat of a ski you would be comfortable with. the KF, depending on what year you are looking at is going to be 95-100mm and the bacon is 115. my bacons did fine on my shitty little icy home hill, im sure they would do just fine on the east coast. really a matter of personal preference
 
I really enjoyed last years KF, this years, too wide, too soft, too dead. they butchered a great ski.

SFB is an ok choice, but I'd highly recommend the new blend in your position. 100 underfoot, little stiffer than the SFB, but softened even more than years previous with a bit of rocker tip and tail to make it more playful. It kills it in pow, even more so now with the added early rise, and holds its on on groomers.
 
The SFBs are wider, have more early rise/rocker (27,5cm x 15mm compared to 20cm x 4mm on the blend) and have early taper.

Weight wise the SFBs are 100g heavier per. ski
 
arent they supposed to be stiffer than the lizzies? i had lizzies and i thought they were pretty stiff, my first year KF's and my watch lifes were both noticably softer. and both those were pretty medium stiff skis. i just think a ski like bacons or KF's really need to be noodles to be fun.
ive never flexed them yet so ill have to see.
 
I wrote this in another thread but it might help you too.

This is coming from someone who owns or has owned Elizabeths and EP Pros and demoed the new Sir Francis Bacons and Blends. I have also demoed Hellbents.

For park performance the Elizabeths win with the new Bacons being almost as good. The Blends are alright too and EP Pros are far behind. The EPs are fun to play with but far too clumsy and scary at speed to actually do anything with. Some might disagree, but this is how I feel about them. Hellbents are really similar to EP Pros.

The Blends are great all mountain skis but in my opinion the Bacons are simply better at everything. Well alright, Blends might be better at hauling ass and doing long turns on groomers, but I love the tighter radius on the Bacons. Obviously Bacons will be better in powder too and in the park Bacons are a lot more fun than Blends. Bacons are actually really similar to Elizabeths in park.

Bacons aren't too wide for park, they are only marginally wider than Elizabeths. I actually prefer wide skis in the park. They make stomping your landings feel super good.
 
Hahah yeah, but it's relevant in both threads! I thought about writing a different reply here but it would have basically said the same things.
 
Unless you are skiing 90 % solid pow, do NOT i repeat do NOT get the kung fujas. They absolutley SUCK at park and there alright on groomers. They are SUPER heavy and are only good in pow.
 
really? other people who have skiied them said they were great in the park? i dont mind a heavy ski, im not expecting to be able to get really technical with them. i loved skiing hellbents and ep's in the park and i never minded the weight. other than the weight what are they like? like can you compare them to any other skis in terms of stiffness?
 
Well, I do not know the specs of the ski because they are my friends and not mine but I know he HATED them in the park. He could barley get any air off of jumps in the park becuase of their weight. Now their stiffiness, I do not believe they are TOO stiff but they are not the best for jumps but the do have some good butterspots in the pow.
 
Just a little bump for myself, I just need too know, how do they hold up? Do they delam, does the base get gashed easily, does the topsheet chip to shit? I had durability issues with my ar6's So I don't want to get another set of skis that's gonna blow up in a few months.
 
I have a bit over ten days on my Bacons. Minor topsheet chipping. The durability of the bases has really surprised me! I've hit a few rocks but the bases are still in great condition.
 
Exactly same with me. And idk if the op is still deciding but for 50% park I would def get the blenda over bacons
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top