Comparisons (plus a Sad Disclaimer)
I’m sad to report that I’ve never skied the previous Sir Francis Bacon, so I can’t draw direct comparisons there. But the previous Bacon has been heavily referenced, reviewed, and awarded on Blister. Jason Hutchins has great reviews of both the 184 cm and 190 cm models of the previous Bacon, and Jonathan Ellsworth has skied the previous 184 & 190s as well as the new Bacon while we were in New Zealand. So I’ll have to defer to those guys for Bacon comparisons.
Line Sir Francis Bacon vs. Rossignol Sickle
Frequent Blister readers already know that the 186cm Rossignol Sickle is one of fellow Bister reviewer Jason Hutchins’ favorite skis of all time, and the 181cm Sickle is one of my personal favorites. In Jason’s review of the previous Bacon, he said that choosing between the old Bacon and the Sickle was difficult to do. The previous Bacon—with its wider waist and much-less-tapered tips—certainly looks more like the Sickle.
I would say that now, the decision of when to use the new Bacon or the Sickle is more clear: the new Bacon feels like a very jibby all-mountain ski that performs very well in the park, while the Sickle is a jibby all-mountain ski that performs very well in deep snow and technical lines.
As for me, I would take the Sickle out on a pow day, and take the Bacon out a day or two after, and especially if I was going to spend some time in the park.
Line Sir Francis Bacon vs. Line Mordecai?
As you know by now, in addition to overhauling the Sir Francis Bacon, Line also discontinued Mr. Pollard’s Opus and brought in the new Mordecai. The Mordecai comes with a much stiffer flex pattern than the Mr. Pollard’s Opus, and at first glance, the Mordecai basically seems to be beefed-up Bacon. We spent time skiing the Mordecai and the Bacon back-to-back in New Zealand, and we were really intrigued by the differences between the two. We’ll be saying more about this comparison in an upcoming ‘Vs Review, but for now, I’ll just say that it would be wrong to think of the Mordecai merely as a wider Bacon.
Who’s It For?
Line sums up the new Bacon quite well, stating that it’s “for the skier whose playground is the entire mountain.” Freestyle-minded skiers looking to jump off everything all over the mountain will love this ski, especially if you also enjoy lapping the terrain park.
I see the Bacon as a 60 / 40 all-mountain / park ski. More traditional, directional skiers looking for an all-mountain powder ski will probably want to consider other options, unless you ski with a very light touch; otherwise, the near-center mount, tapered tips, low swing weight, and tight sidecut radius will likely feel twitchy at times. But those same characteristics are precisely what will make the Bacon so much fun to those looking to trick their way down and around the mountain.
If you are looking for an energetic, quick, poppy, and (most importantly), FUN ski to jib and jump around the entire mountain, the new Sir Francis Bacon ought to be on your radar. This ski doesn’t nose-butter as well as other skis in its class, but it makes up for it with lots of pop and energy in the tip and tail.
On days when I plan to lap the terrain park at Taos, I still always take at least a few runs down Reforma, West Basin, or something off of Chair 4. The Bacon is perfect for this type of skiing; it can ski the whole mountain very well, but it also feels right at home in the terrain park. For my next park / all-mountain ski, the new Bacon is quickly making its way to the top of my list.
For comparisons to the Armada ARV 106, K2 Marksman , and ON3P Kartel 108 check out our Deep Dive.
NEXT: ROCKER PROFILE PICS