Ski: 2018-2019 Line Sir Francis Bacon, 184 cm
Available Lengths: 178, 184, 190 cm
Actual Tip-to-Tail Length (straight tape pull): 182.7 cm
Stated Dimensions (mm): 135-104-131
Blister’s Measured Dimensions (mm): 134-103-130
Blister’s Measured Weight per Ski: 2032 & 2062 grams
Stated Sidecut Radius (184cm): 17.4 meters
Core Construction: Paulownia + Fiberglass Laminate
Tip / Tail Splay (ski decambered): 63 mm / 57 mm
Traditional Camber Underfoot: 4 mm
“Stance” mm: Eric’s Choice -2 cm / Recommended -6 cm
Measured: Eric’s Choice: ~1.9 cm from center / ~89.5 cm from tail
Mount Location: “Eric’s Choice” Line (~2 cm behind true center)
Boots / Bindings: K2 Pinnacle 130 / Marker Jester (DIN 10)
Test Locations: Craigieburn Valley Ski Area & Porters Ski Area, Canterbury, NZ
Days Skied: 5
[Note: Our review was conducted on the 15/16 Sir Francis Bacon, which was not changed for 16/17, 17/18, or 18/19, apart from graphics.]
Intro
The Sir Francis Bacon has long been Line’s go-to option for freestyle skiers looking to explore the whole mountain, and it’s been one of the very best skis in the category. Previous versions of the Bacon have been capable of slicing up pow in the morning, jibbing around the mountain in the afternoon, and hot-lapping the terrain park at the end of the day.
Several iterations in the design of the Bacon led to a very capable 108mm-underfoot version. This model went unchanged for three seasons (12/13, 13/14, and 14/15), and frankly, we would have continued to throw awards at the ski if Line and Eric Pollard had just left it alone. But they didn’t. Which brings us to the 15/16 Bacon….
For 15/16, the decision was made to reduce both the footprint and the overall weight of the ski. The waistline was slimmed down by 4mm, and initial releases were reporting a target weight of 1760g/ski in the 184cm length.
When we received our pair of production Bacons, they came in heavier than that (2032 & 2062 grams), and you can read more comments from us and Line about that in our Flash Review.
Still, the new Bacon is lighter than its predecessor by more than 130 grams per ski. And the new Bacon feels very solid in hand, both in flex pattern and construction. So as soon as we got our hands on them, we were excited to see how this lighter, slimmer Bacon handled the conditions and terrain of Canterbury, New Zealand.
Flex
The Bacons have a uniform stiffness throughout. These are definitely no noodle; in fact, the tips and tails of the Bacon are quite stiff for a jib ski, and the tips and tails have a very similar flex.
To be clear, these aren’t as stiff as a full-on big mountain charger, but compared to park skis, the new Bacon certainly occupies the stiffer end of the spectrum. There are no butter zones here. The tips and tails do not soften up relative to the rest of the ski. In hand, the Bacon feels like a nice, solid, even, flex pattern.
Initial Impressions
My first day on the Bacons was at Craigieburn Valley Ski Area in Canterbury, NZ. Previously on the trip I had been on directional skis like the K2 Pinnacle 95, the Atomic Vantage 100, and the G3 Synapse 109. When I clicked into the Bacons and first pointed them downhill, I could not stop thinking about how fun, energetic, and instantly comfortable they felt to me. It was immediately clear that I was going to get along pretty well with these skis.
Wind Buff / Small Choppy Moguls
From the top of the highest rope tow at Craigieburn, we first skied small, choppy moguls and some wind buff. The Bacons were very quick and nimble here. It was so much fun pushing slightly into a turn and using the energy of the ski to pop out of it, get slightly airborne, and adjust my body for the next one. When I aligned the exit of my turn with an oncoming mogul, popping from one turn into the next was just too damn fun.
On the flip side, the relatively tight turn radius (~17 meters) combined with a near-center mount (resulting in very low swing weight) can make these skis feel a little twitchy, especially in variable conditions. The Bacons respond quickly to very slight changes in body position. You’ll really appreciate this if you’re making a quick turn around a tree to jump off a cliff in just the right spot, but if you’re trying to smooth out some chunder and charge a line, the Bacons are not going to feel like the most solid option out there (and not as solid as the previous Bacons, according to Blister’s editor, Jonathan Ellsworth).
If you do try to push the Bacon quickly through bumped-up snow, you will be better off keeping a very light touch and skipping across the top rather than trying to bulldoze through it. The substantial flex through the full length of the ski may give it more fore / aft stability than other skis in this category (though certainly less than the Moment PB&J). But the Bacon’s energetic tails make for a very lively ride.
NEXT: Warm Slush / Hot Pow, Terrain Park, Etc.
Nice review. Great pictures. Looks fun. As an older skier who skies the whole mountain on the older Bacon, except not in the park and not in the air, I like the older Bacon very much.
Oh my are these a beautiful ski. Now I’m torn between pretending I can afford this model and pretending I can afford last year’s version!
Thanks for the well-written thorough review. If the new version is twitchy, mounting a little back from Eric’s Choice may help. I’ve owned the 12/13 Bacon mounted at 2cm behind Eric’s Choice and the 14/15 model mounted at Eric’s Choice. The 12/13 were incredibly stable (not twitchy or chattery at all) but I had to get over my tips to turn quickly in trees and bumps. The 14/15 feel more nimble, but at speed they are a bit twitchy with some tip vibration (but it’s more psychological than problematic). So I’m guessing that somewhere between 0.5cm and 1cm behind Eric’s Choice would provide the optimum balance between stability and nimbleness.
Hi Jason,
I currently ski the 12/13 Bacon, but i have the opportunity to buy a 12/13 Sickle in 178.
I´m 5.9 tall, weight 165lbs and consider myself an advanced skier.
I tried to get a hold on a 186 sickle for quite some time now but they are impossible to get anywhere. So i´m thinking about buying the shorter, newer model.
Do you think the Sickles in 178 would be too short for me, or are they as much fun as the 186s?
Cheers and thanks in advance
Fusch
Have you by any chance skied recent Gotamas? I’ve have some and love them (2014 model) but have recently tried some new Bacons. I loved the pop on the Lines, just wondering if it’s worth dropping a pair of skis that have only had a few weeks’ skiing, and a coupla hundred bones, just to get the Lines? Prolly only I can decide, but just throwing the question out there…..
Hi Alex,
Great review. I’m thinking of getting these skis as an all mountain touring ski for the Alps. I used to ski the Opus type powder skis of old and loved them for touring in BC so the new lighter SFB was my first thought. Your review seemed mixed but mainly positive, would you recommend them as a poppy, big drop, all mountain touring ski? Also, how did you find the tail stiffness? did it flop out on you at all?
Cheers for the review,
Mike
Curious if you guys ride different lengths of skis depending on whether they’re centered or traditionally mounted? I typically ride 184 Katanas and picked up a pair of 186 SFB’s (I wanted a very playful ski at the other end of the spectrum from the Katana), but as soon as I stepped into the bindings the 5″ shorter nose threw me off. Even though they ride as I wanted, I can’t shake the feeling I’m going to fold the noses up on a landing and cartwheel down the hill.
Good question, Stephen. Since I bet some others might be wondering the same thing, I’m going to work up a reply to post as a Topic of the Week. And just to be clear, I assume you meant the 184 SFBs — but did you get this new model or the previous edition of the SFB?
Hey Jonathan, I did mean the 184, thanks for catching that. I did get the older version, the 14-15s with the red mountain. I’ve wanted something on the playful, energetic side of the spectrum, so I grabbed the previous version—since they stiffened the newer version’s flex profile.
Got it. And your question is now living as our topic of the week. Hope it’s a little helpful.
Jonathan,
Any more comparisons to the 14/15 Bacon? Educated guesses about the new one in 190?
Comparisons to a Soul 7?
How about some comparisons to the old Bacon? What about the 190 length of the new one?
Oh wise Blister folk. I’m in need of help. I’m trying to replace my tired pair of 2014 Line Bacons with a new ski that performs the same. I’m having difficulty in trying to pick the right ski and even narrowing it down seems to be a tough venture. Anyone know of a ski that rides like the 2014 bacons and will allow me to mount at a more central stance (all mountain freestyle).
Was aiming to have the width between 105-110 so that I could treat it as a 1 ski quiver
thanks
The title reads “2018-2019” but the review seems to be 2015-2016.
That’s correct — our review was conducted on the 15/16 SFB, but the ski hasn’t been changed apart from graphics since this review was published.
Got it. Thanks Luke.