Sir Francis Bacons 178 or 184

[seti44]

I'm 5'11 195lbs. I demod a pair of 178s that were mounted at -2 but felt like I wasnt doing too great in the thick powder. I'm probably going to mount them with FKS 140s. Do you guys think 184s would be better or should I just stick with 178s

 

[FreeVillain]

184 for sure. 178 would def be unstable for you at higher speeds.

 

[TimRiley]

184

 

[lukemeahan.]

184

 

[last_tango]

184 at the lowest. I would even consider the 190 length. I'm 5'11 220lbs skiing out in utah and would ride the 190. If you are skiing anywhere in the east or plan on spinning them I would go 184 to get some extra maneuverability and less ski in the tight ass trees.

Line skis measure short. The 184 measures out to 180.5cm according to blister gear review. Sauce: http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2012-2013-line-sir-francis-bacon

 

[seti44]

Yea I guess my main concern is just being able to get them moving in the moguls and tress and whatnot. I felt rather good on the 178s but the 184s wont be too much different right?

 

[haggis_hunter]

According the blister the 184 pulls up a few cm short, the 190 is a lot more ski than stepping up from the 178-184.

 

[radish]

I'm 5'11 145lb. and the 184 is perfect for me. I had the same decision to make and I think it would have been a mistake to get the 178

 

[milk_man]

If it's just between those two sizes, 184

 

[Twig]

I'm 5'9 and around 135lbs and I ride the 178s... as a park ski. For pow I'd definitely go up to the 184.

For you, I'd probably say go to 190 but if you dont want to go that big, definitely 184.

 

[powerbong2000]

A dude your size should prolly ride something bigger!

 

[SoCore]

190

 

[Dorf.]

That would be perfect

 

[SKIboss802]

184 all day.