Ski: 2017-2018 Line Sir Francis Bacon, 190 cm
Available Lengths: 178, 184, 190 cm
Blister’s Measured Tip-to-Tail Length: 188.9 cm
Stated Weight per Ski: 2045 grams
Blister’s Measured Weight per Ski: 2034 & 2205 grams
Stated Dimensions: 135-104-131 mm
Blister’s Measured Dimensions: 134.6-103.6-130.9 mm
Stated Sidecut Radius (190 cm): 18.8 meters
Tip & Tail Splay (ski decambered): 60 mm / 59 mm
Traditional Camber Underfoot: ~3 mm
Factory Recommended Mount Point: -2.2 cm from center; 92.25 cm from tail
Intro
Line calls the Sir Francis Bacon, “the most well-known name in all mountain freestyle skiing,” and they might be right. So it’s not a surprise that a number of you have written us asking about the 190 cm Sir Francis Bacon — and also the 193 cm Line Mordecai — and these are two skis that we’ve been very interested in ourselves.
You can already check out our review of the 184 Bacon, our review of the previous iteration of the 190 cm Bacon, our review of the 186 cm Mordecai, and our Deep Dive Comparison of the 184 Bacon vs. the 186 Mordecai. And here, we’ll talk a bit about some of our initial impressions of the current 190 Bacon and the 193 Mordecai (click here for rocker pics and complete specs of the 193 Mordecai).
Flex Pattern
Line says that the Bacon features their “symmetric flex,” and the flex pattern of the 190 Bacon is definitely symmetrical.
It is also (like the 184 cm Bacon) surprisingly stiff.
Handflexing the skis, here’s how we would classify the flex pattern of the 190 Bacon:
Tips: 8.5
Shovels: 8.5-9
In front of Toe Piece: 10
Underfoot: 10
Behind Heel piece: 10-9
Tails: 8.5
We consistently talk about how stiff the HEAD Monster series is. But given how surprised I was by the flex pattern of the Bacon and — also the LINE Mordecai — I grabbed our pair of 184 cm HEAD Monster 88’s to perform the most apples-to-oranges ski flex comparison ever. And the punchline is that the Monster 88’s are slightly stiffer than the Bacon, but it’s close. And the flex patterns of the front halves of the two skis are even closer. No butter zones here.
Personally, this makes me not want to ship these Bacon’s off to Cy Whitling to review. I like stiffer shovels, and for those of you looking for a playful but capable ~190 cm all-mountain ski with a very progressive mount point … you should be paying close attention to Cy’s report.
And those of you who prefer soft shovels for butters, you shouldn’t give up on the Bacon quite yet — take a look at Alex Adam’s review of the 184 cm model. Or else, you could take a look at the LINE Blend, which we now — finally — have in hand, and will be reporting on shortly.
Finally, for those of you who are intrigued but would prefer something a bit wider, you should without question check out our initial report of the 193 cm Line Mordecai, which by the specs, at least, very much seems like a wider Bacon.
Bottom Line (For Now)
The primary question for us is exactly how playful vs. stable the Bacon feels in its longest length? It seems quite difficult to predict in the hand, so I guess we’d better hurry up and get it on snow.
Stay tuned, and if you have questions that you’d like us to address in our full review, please leave them below in the comments section.
NEXT: Rocker Profile Pics
When will the full review (sfb and mordecai) be posted?
Jonathan,
Can you or Cy do a comparison in the full review to the PB&J? I’m an OG Bibby/ Blister Pro believer that is on the hunt for an everyday(read narrower) Bibby. I had a pair of the 108 underfoot Bacons and loved the versatility and fun nature of them, they just got a bit soft for my style. Your PB&J reviews make me think that is the ski for me to go with, but am just curious… Thanks for all the amazing content and work. It is appreciated.
This. Exactly me too. Had the 108, loved then found myself needing more. Also curious about the PBJ (and the Kartel 98)
Hi, very interested in this ski. Would like to see how the ski performs on steep technical terrain, fast open faces, big airs, fun small airs/jibs, swing weight, stability at speed, how long does the 190cm feel, recommended mounting points, carving on hard snow (ice edge hold) vs soft snow, is it mostly surfy or can it do a variety of turn shapes, how much pop does it have (carving/jumps), can it be used for touring, how durable does it seem, and how does it compare to other similar skis? I’m sure most of these will be addressed in your review. You guys always do an awesome job. I have greatly enjoyed following the reviews off and on over the past five years or so.
I’m really looking forward to your full review of the current 190 cm SFB. The previous 108 mm wide SFB in 184 cm length has been my favourite and definitely most fun ski for a good few years now, but does feel short and unstable at higher speeds with the near centre mount and my 190 lb weight.
On paper the 190 cm SFB in the slightly narrower width sounds just about the perfect ski for my typical interior BC days. This season I added the 2018 BC Atris to my quiver (190 cm version) and although it is much more stable than the 184 SFB at high speed, it is nowhere near as agile or as fun to ride as the shorter SFB in the same 108 mm width. I intended the Atris to replace my SFBs, but instead they have just made me realise that the SFB is actually a truly great ski for simply having fun!
If the current 190 cm SFB addresses the high speed stability issues, while retaining the agility of the older, shorter, wider SFB I will be on them like a shot!