Welcome to SkiersRealm!

We cover everything related to skiing. If you would like to automatically receive the latest updates, subscribe to our RSS feed, or sign up for email updates.

Posted on March 12th, 2011 by Kyle

The demo for the 2012 Line Sir Francis Bacon went a little like this….Last few runs of the day: “Hmm what should I ride. Damn, the suns gone behind the ridge and it’s gettin’ shady out. Probably start firming up and getting icy now. What about the Sir Francis Bacon?” Now if this would have been last year I’d have said PASS and grabbed some 90mm underfoot turn burner. And if you’ve ridden the 2010 or 2011 SFB’s you know why, they weren’t the most stable things on hard pack snow or icy conditions. I’m not trying to intentionally bad mouth them but unless you were skiing the deep stuff you were playing the “where’s my edges” game on previous versions of the SFB. But this is a new year and with that comes a completely redesigned ski from Line. This year Line and Eric Pollard have junked the old specs of the Sir Francis Bacon and come up with a completely new ski. According to Line…”…a narrower 108mm waist for increased versatility & quickness, while refining every detail of the construction and geometry for even better float and a smooth, solid feel that is fun everywhere on the mountain.” That narrower waist is sitting at 108mm by the way. So even though it’s gone and jumped on the medifast program, it’s still beefed up enough to handle itself in pow. However, the two words you should focus on from that little blurb line’s are “versatility & quickness”. These two adjectives are a great description of how the new Sir Francis Bacon performs. While the old ones seemed to struggle to an edge, the 2012′s were almost like a slalom ski. Especially on the groomers. Hard pack and ice the new Sir Francis Bacon’s held their edge and made quick little turns whenever called upon to do so. Bigger arcing turns in the crud weren’t quite as easy, but were still doable. They handled the off piste well and I was able to tackle some pretty chewed up stuff as well as some smoother untracked and felt confident in all of it. I also found them to be a stable ski at both high and low speeds. Meaning, when I was cruising the flats or a cat track I wasn’t getting any tweaky edging going on. They were easy to keep steady and straight. At high speeds they were solid as well. I could point and shoot them without being thrown around much at all. They were definitely easy to ski and didn’t create any worry as to what they were gonna do next. No they weren’t the bulldozers that the Atomic Bent Chetlers are, but they were enough to get me through some crud at high speeds.

In my opinion the 2012 Sir Francis Bacon’s are heads and tails above previous models. Being that it’s a completely new ski I think it’s important to take a look at the changes that lead to the improvement. I’ve already heard a few negative comments about the downsizing in the waist. Skiers are definitely in a present mindset of wider is better. Which I’m not totally against. But in this case I think it was a good move. In fact, if you check the specs on the new Mr. Pollard’s Opus you’ll notice Eric has taken a few mm’s off of what previously was the EP Pro. So while wider is better, there is also a point where an all mountain ski just doesn’t need to be HUGE. The new Sir Francis Bacon has dimensions of 140/108/136, the old were at 142/115/139. So the ski came down in width all over. But check the lengths: New SFB’s will come in 172, 178, and 184 while the old ones were available in 162, 172, and 182. AH HA! Well maybe an “ah ha” isn’t warranted but they are longer. So really there isn’t much surface area loss between the two models, and the longer length should on bigger mtn runs.

The last thing I’m going to  bring up about the new Sir Francis Bacon is the graphics. The graphics on Eric’s skis have always been awesome but I’m this year’s I’m really into. To the point where even if I didn’t think they skis very well I’d probably still consider buying them just because they’re just that damn good looking. Same goes for the Mr. Pollard’s Opus by the way. I want to hang these skis on my wall as art because that’s exactly what they are.

So this is what I think you as a reader should take away from this review. The new Sir Francis Bacon from Line is just that…NEW. So don’t just say “I’m not going to buy them because they made them skinnier at the waist.” They’re a completely different ski and def. an all mountain ripper. I wouldn’t have given my blessing on them if they hadn’t gone through the make-over and still won’t with the older models. Pollard’s been doing amazing things on all of them but for me, the normal skier, they weren’t my cup-o-tea. The new SFB’s have me in they’re corner and I’d recommend them to anyone needing an everyday ski in the mid-fat range.


Buy 2012 Line Sir Francis Bacon’s Here !

Oh yea, here’s a video on them…..in French. So if you can speak it, good for you. I can’t….

Présentation du Sir Francis Bacon nouveauté Line 2012.

107 Responses to “2012 Line Sir Francis Bacon: Official Review”

  1. How about the flex and rocker – same or also different?

  2. Kyle says:

    Same flex, Line’s Symmetric Flex. The rocker is still labeled as Line’s early rise rocker in the tip and tail. However, last year’s was 27.5mm x 15mm and this year it’s 20mm x 10mm.

  3. Brian C says:

    do you know how they compare to the mr. pollard’s opus?

  4. Kyle says:

    Well really they’re two different skis so it really comes down to what you’re going to want out of them. The Mr. Pollard’s Opus are 10mm wider under foot and are going to be most comfortable away from the trails and on pow days. The Sir Francis Bacon is much more of an all mountain ski. It will perform in more variable conditions.

    But I’ll leave you with this quote from E. Pollard himself on the new MPO and SFB:
    “The new Opus and the Bacon are the culmination of the last 13 year of work. they blend a perfect mix of flex, sidecut, tip shape, overall shape/footprint, mounting point, early rise, early taper, and camber. They are honestly the best skis I have ever skied.”

  5. Iaki says:


    Floating on powder for you is the same of Sir Francis 2009/10 ?

    I’m a fan of Sir Francis 2009/10 , I loved them, but they are a bit short for me (182cm were real 179cm)… So maybe next year I could buy new Sir that are a bit longer… but I’m afraid of less floating on powder …

  6. Kyle says:

    First: remember that the new 2012 models aren’t as wide as the past models. In fact it’s a completely new ski, nothing is the same as before. You might want to check out the Mr. Pollard’s Opus if float is your biggest concern! These days, staying on top of the snow can be accomplished without going longer. But if you’re thinking your current ski is too short, then yea go longer. Hope that helps!

  7. Rhonda Fisher says:

    Cant believe you would diss the 2010 Bacon’s like that ;)

    When I first jumped on them I couldn’t believe the edge hold. The trad camber and moderate early taper works to apply the edge in almost the full length of the ski. I find it super quick and agile side-to-side and seamless in the turn exit. But perhaps its greatest hard pack strength; when your in speed and fully lean into it, it absolutely rails beautifully, making really sturdy, gripped, railing big turns. The width holds fantastic stability in crud and chop. Not having any rocker (early rise or whatever) up front makes them not a quiver of one, but my preferred all mountain resort stash hunters. This year we’re seeing the tend move towards shorter rockers and longer working edge, and I must say, I love having a wide traditional camber ski in my quiver.

    If I could, Id let you try them ;)

  8. Kyle says:

    Haha, I’ve kinda wondered if the 2010 Bacons I rode were in need of a tune or something. But I’m seeing those same trends as well, also it seems like the the “wide ski” rage is hitting a plateau. Meaning the “wider is better” attitude is changing to “this width is perfect”. At least when it comes to the all-mountain sector.

  9. matt says:

    how does the flex compare to the 2011 SFB or the 2010 Elizabeth?

  10. Mike Grossmann says:

    For what it’s worth, I own and skied the 2010-11 SFBs, and demoed the 2011-12 SFBs side by side at Crystal mountain WA on a pow/crud day in late March. I can’t say I noticed a huge difference. First, I agree with Rhonda above, I have always been able to rail my SFBs in everything except boilerplate (and never tried that category). I did find it took a bit of playing around with technique to pick up some good riding action. They are fine with an old school downhill weighted and tip forward steering technique, but I think they really prefer a more neutral stance with a bit more surfy technique. On corduroy and the kind of piste we get here in Cascade land they are just fun fun fun. They hook up a turn super easy and rail like mad with decent pop when you really load them up. Powder bumps are spectacularly fun (regular bumps a bit less so) and they float like you’d expect in crud and pow – saaweeet! The new SFBs? I agree that they are a bit quicker edge to edge and thus a bit more playful on the packed runs. In this regard I’ll venture they are improved over the 2010-11 version. No appreciable loss of float in the pow or crud. Both top sheet graphics rock in my opinion, but hey, that’s personal style. Enough improvement to trade in my 2010 SFBs? Nope. I will say the 2011-12 SFBs were a delight. Anyone hesitating on a wider softer ski fearing it might be blah on the piste – no fears. Get on a pair of these Lines! (Me: 53, 160, 5’8″ 182 2010-11s and 184 2011-12s. Other skis I actively ski – Volkl Mantra at 177, Rossignol CS 70 at 175 and have ordered next year’s SkiLogik Raves in 182 as replacements for well worn Mantras) Hope this helps!

  11. Kyle says:

    Damn Matt, taking it back to the day and throwing in the Elizabeth’s. You riding those? I’ll see what I can find out for ya.

  12. Eric says:

    Can you compare the SFB’s to the Line Prophets or the 2012 Line Influences? I demoed the 2011 Prophet 100 and really liked the ability to control the metal underfoot without the stability taking over the entire ski. I am pondering whether I should grab the 2011′s cheap now or wait to demo the SFB, Influence 105′s and Prophet 98′s in the fall. intermediate level skiier looking for all mountain ski that can handle groomers, crud, trees and back bowls in Colorado.

  13. Kyle says:

    One thing about the Line Influences is I remember them feeling pretty heavy at SIA. I haven’t actually skied them but with that weight they’re def going to be a charger. I like the new SFB’s with the 108 width underfoot. It’s a completely redesigned ski this year and definitely pointed at being an All-Mtn ripper. Personally I’m a fan of the 110mm underfoot skis +/- 2mm. You might want to check out something like the Moment Bibby Pro, Rossi S7 or Armada JJ as well. They’re kinda the gold standard right now in All-Mountain skis.

  14. Gary says:

    I’ve skied Lizzies 08 and 09. I absolutely love the soft flex for bumps and tight tree lines. They hold well on hard pack, but I had to detune the tips to eliminate grabiness. In deep powder they are can be a little too soft, the soft flex can hook the turns. I was hoping for a new EP like the Lizzies with a little more stiffness. This doesn’t sound like it. Any thoughts?

  15. Nathan says:

    Hi Kyle,
    I am an Aussie that does most of my skiing overseas(US/Canada/Japan) now days as I am sure you are aware the snow here at home is well… rubbish to put it nicely. I have a pair of 2011 Prophet 100′s which I ski here at home and abroad as a 1 Ski quiver. I am looking to upgrade to something over 100 under foot and with some rocker but that can still hold its own on the Groom as when I do hit the snow here at home that is mostly all there is. The new SFB’s look like they would be the go just curious as to how they compare on the groom compared to last years 100′s? Do you think I could get away with these as a 1 ski quiver even here at home? I will prob just keep my P100′s for home and take the SFB’s overseas with me. I am an intermediate Skier, 5″11 approx 170lbs and was looking at the SFB 178′s.

  16. Kyle says:

    Nathan, for sure the SFB’s could work but I think you’d be happier with a pair of either the Rossignol S7′s, Armada JJ’s, or the Atomic Bent Chetlers. Out of all the All-Mountain skis out there that I’ve skied, those three have performed the best I think. You might like the all-mountain ski comparison I did…..here. As for the SFB’s, I personally thought they skied great and I like the new 2012 completely re-designed model this year much more than the past years. But when it really comes down to it, the S7′s, JJ’s, and Bent Chetlers have been my favorites for sure.

  17. Kyle says:

    Well I do think the new SFB’s are a bit stiffer than previous years, but compared to the old EP’s I’m not sure. I do think they would perform for you for tight turns on the groomers, bumps and trees. And I really don’t think you’d have to worry about detuning them for pow or anything else, other than maybe rails.

  18. Billy says:

    I was wondering how the Volkl Katana’s compared to the 2011 and 2012SFB’s.

  19. Vince says:

    I am a tele skier and am planning on getting the 2012 SFB and mounting them with 22 designs axls. I like everything about the SFB except the weight. I will probably be doing about 50% resort and 50% backcountry and I am wondering if the weight is exceptable for backcountry skiing or If I should go with a lighter ski.

  20. Tyler says:

    I like the comprehensive reviews and am looking to fill my daily driver spot. I agree with you in the sense that I like something close to 110 underfoot. I have no doubt that I’ll be able to rail these things on the groomers but thats not really what I care about. I plan on picking up some Bentchelers or Rocker 2′s eventually but for now I need something that will be a one ski quiver thats a little skinnier.

    I realize some of the bigger skis could be one ski quivers, I’ve skied the S7′s and thought they were all right. Amazed on how they slayed groomers. The guys over at blister wrote up a review on the super 7′s that I thought was spot on, more of an lower intermediate ski. (JJ was much better in my opinion)

    They had great things to about the S6 though. That has got me thinking on which I should get between the Sickle (S6) or SFB. Lots of people have good things to say on the S6 but fewer have experience SFB’s and was just wandering what your thoughts were between the two.

  21. Kyle says:

    Weight-wise, Vince, I think the SFB’s would be just fine for backcountry.

  22. Kyle says:

    Tyler, the new Sir Francis Bacon is MUCH different than past years. So make sure whatever reviews you’re reading on them, it’s for the 2012 model. Between the Sickle and the SFB, I think you’ll really have to demo each to know for sure since everyone’s tastes are different. Especially when you’re talking about picking one pair of skis to use all the time. You want to make sure you get what’s right for you. Between the two for me? Tough call, to be honest I wouldn’t buy either for a one ski quiver. I’d get the Moment Bibby Pro or even the Bent Chetlers.

  23. Tyler says:

    I appreciate the response. I’ve been considering Bent Chetlers as a one ski quiver but think there would be some benefits to having a skinnier ski around. I still plan on getting Bent Chetleres to supplement them and would love Bibby Pros but there are a couple reasons I’m not going that way. First off is price, I work at a shop so I can get good deals but not on Moments, Second, there would be too much overlap when I do get Bent Chetlers or Rocker 2′s. Its really not a one ski quiver but the start of a two ski quiver.

  24. Tyler says:

    Its not really a one ski quiver that I’m looking for but part of a two ski quiver. I’ve been considering getting the 183 Bentchetlers as a one ski quiver but think there are some benefits to having a skinnier ski. I would love some Bibby Pros but won’t get them for two reasons. I work at a shop so I can get great deals but not on Moment and it would overlap too much when I get Chetlers or Rocker 2′s. Having this ski will allow me to get the 192 length of either of those skis and have all bases covered with 2 skis.

  25. Tyler says:

    Sorry I didnt think my first post went through.

  26. Andy says:

    Dammit so I thought I wanted the SFB and then I read the reviews of the Blizzard Cochise. Same width, bigger radius. Sounds awesome. Any idea how they compare for flex?

  27. Cam says:

    How are the SFB’s in the bumps?

  28. Kyle says:

    You know I didn’t ski them in any moguls, assuming that’s what you’re talking about….But with how agile they are this year I would think they could handle them just fine.

  29. Bob says:

    Can I get an opinion on these being too soft for a 6’8″ 215pounder?

    Also, some feedback on how you would compare these with a Sidestash 188.


  30. Kyle says:

    Bob, the first question would be what kind of skiing are you usually doing? Resort or backcountry? Groomers or pow?The big diff between the SFB’s and the Sidestash is that the SFB’s are more of an All-Mountain ski with an early rise rocker in the tip and tail. While the Sidestash is a directional ski with tip rocker and a traditional (flat) made more for bigger lines or going out on a tour and skinning into the backcountry. As far as the size goes, definitely go with the longest length in either of them, being 6’8″ and all. The Sidestash is a little lighter than the SFB’s (120grams lighter) which will be nice if you are going to take them out for some skinning.

  31. Bob says:

    Hey Kyle. Thanks for all the great feedback. Yeah, mostly Tahoe/Squaw; so 2 minute pow and a lot of chop. Very little backcountry although always try and catch an outing now and again. Sounds like the SFB might be the ticket.

  32. chris says:

    Hi Kyle…i grabbed a pair of 183 bent chetlers and am putting jesters on them. Do you think there is a noticeable enough difference in versatility or carving on harder pack to justify augmenting the quiver with a pair of SFB’s? This would be the ski that will handle more variable conditions. Most of my time will be spent skiing Utah with a handful of days on the east coast. don’t need an east coast ski but wonder if the bent is versatile enough to be an every day ski out west…

  33. Kyle says:

    Personally I don’t think you’ll need the SFB’s if you already have the Bent Chetlers. The Bent Chetler is made for performance off the groomers. However it’s versatile enough to take on them and rail out turns, even in the hard pack. Now it’s not going to ski as well on the hard stuff as something that’s 100mm or less underfoot, fully cambered and made to cut ice, but if you’re a good skier you should be fine on them. There’s no need to fill the “hard pack ski spot” in your quiver with another all mountain ski. So if you’re really looking at getting a ski that will perform on hard pack go all out and get a ski that’s made for it. Something that’s 100mm or less underfoot, cambered and decent sidecut. That’s my $.02, hope it helps!

  34. james says:

    i am looking for a good all mountain ski that floats in powder but has good edge control in hardpack. i am wondering how the SFB,s would be for that?

  35. Kyle says:

    Well without knowing where you ski or what level a skier you are, I would say yes the SFB’s would work just fine for that. The 108mm waist is a great width for pow as is the early rise tip. Also, Line completely redesigned the SFB’s this year to have more active edge contact making them money for carving on the hard stuff. Hope that helps!

  36. james says:

    im an intermediate skier. do u think i would be better off with these skis or the k2 kung fujas?

  37. Arpod says:

    I have the 09′ line prophet 100 as my one do everything ski. I love carving hard GS turns on this ski and it floats really nice but have been looking to change it up. I’m 6′, 165lbs, aggressive skier and mainly ski Mammoth so get some powder but more sierra cement + groomers + crud. Was looking to replace them with a 2 ski quiver and was looking at the new SFB for my all mountain ski + something 90mm or less underfoot (maybe moment eldorado or line mastermind?) that’s just fun and easy to ride all over when conditions are sub par. I want to get better at riding switch so twin tip is a must. What do you think?

  38. Kyle says:

    Yea the SFB’s would be a great all-mtn ski. Going from 100mm underfoot to the 108mm Sir Francis Bacon will def. give you a little more float in the pow and they are still super agile. I haen’t actually rode the El Dorado yet, but I have heard good things about them. I have been on this years Moment Tahoe’s and they were an awesome ski in the harder snow, but they’re a 96mm waist ski so maybe it won’t work for you. Also, check out the Armada Triumph. It’s right around 80mm underfoot, +/- a mm or two depending on the length, but that ski is made to charge and rail turns in hardpack snow. I’ve heard really good things about them this year too.

  39. Arpod says:

    Thanks Kyle for the suggestions. The Triumph looks like something I could have a lot of fun ripping on. I was looking for a more playful ski, maybe even a park ski even though i don’t ski much park. Basically I was talking to this guy who’s a little older and a veteran skier and about how he tried his son’s park skis and had a blast on them and that they weren’t very expensive and so that got me thinking i should reconsider my preferences for stiff skis and try something lighter with more flex. that’s why i was looking at mastermind or even the new Line Prophet 90 Flite. I keep looking at Line skis because of how much I love my prophet 100s but haven’t skied any of the other “new school” brands like moment, armada, etc…

  40. Kyle says:

    Ok in that case, i’d still definitely recommend the Moment Tahoe and possibly the El Dorado. But from Armada you should absolutely look into Armada and their El Rey. Low price point and proven performance, it’s been one of their most popular skis since the beginning, which is like 9 years or something like that. Also from Armada the Halo and AR7 could be right up your alley. The Halo has a more progressive (JJ-like) tip and Armada’s EST Rocker and the AR7 is a 100% Camber ski. Both are right in that 85-ish mm underfoot range.

  41. Rocco says:

    Hi, I would like to pick up on Vince’s comment from August.
    I am also a tele skier and would like to know if the SFB could be the next step for a daily driver.

    Me, 5’11″, ca. 160, and into my 4th tele season. I ski NTN bindings and currently have a 2 season old coomback that I would like to downgrade to a rock ski and am looking for a good replacement.

    I would like a ski that can do most of the things on the mountain. I mostly ski off-list and occasionally go touring.
    My other ski for the big days is an Atlas in 192, also NTN mounted.

    The SFB would be very interesting since I would like to go a bit longer than the 181 coomback plus a little wider.
    With this I am looking for a ski that is not too aggressive and still fun and stable in deep snow conditions incl. crud and chopped but also does groomers well.

    From the last years I have heard the bacon was a bit wobbly but this year it’s prepared to be crisp.
    Other options for the new boards are: gotama in 186, sidestash in 181 or 188, dynastar LPR 105 in 184, G3 manhattan in 184.
    I am from Munich, Germany and mostly ski in the Austrian alps.

    So, does anybody have experience with these or similar?

    Thanks for your feedback in advance. The ski looks killer and the test and the comments are great.
    Only for telemarkers it’s tough to demo or abstract the actual tests.

  42. Kyle says:

    Hey Rocco! I have never Tele’d and so that’s gonna be tough for me to comment on. But I can give you my opinion on the Sir Francis Bacon’s for this year. You say you’d like a ski that “can do most of the things on the mountain.” That’s the SFB for sure. I agree with you as well in that the new SFB’s are much more responsive and “crisp” than the previous years. Eric Pollard and Line completely redesigned them this year and I think the difference between the new and old is amazing, with the new coming out waaaaaaay in front. I know I would be completely comfortable with the SFB as my everyday ski regardless of the conditions and if you’re on the chairlift or touring in the BC. I’m not sure you would get the same all-mountain performance from the Gotama, I’ve heard they ski a little loose due to the full rocker design they have…

  43. Rocco says:

    Hi Kyle, thanks for your quick reply. That helps a lot. A good friend teles the gotamas and is very happy with them. I think the full rocker is a nice concept especially the way volkl interprets it. I, however, prefer a traditional camber underfoot. With the 184 SFB I would also settle for a tip & tail rocker especially if it then turns out more nimble but still stable enough for various conditions and groomers as well as packed or wind pressed snow which we get quite a bit up here on the glaciers.

    I will check them out at the shop next week and see for myself comparing the candidates. Testing will most likely be limited to alpine setups which is still nice but not the actual real life situation.

    Anyway, if there are any telemarkers that can share their experience with these sticks, all is welcomed.

    Thanks to the SR crew for providing all the great insights and helping the community of powder addicts finding their weapons of choice.
    Keep rockin’!

  44. Kyle says:

    Thanks for the kind words! It’s all about the skiing for us!

  45. Curt says:

    Hey Kyle, thanks for posting this review. I’ve been looking at the SFBs pretty hard, so I appreciate your insights. I can get a bro-deal of sorts on Line or K2, so I’m kind of weighing the SFB against the Kung Fujas. My specs: 6’0″, 205 lbs, I’m in Utah, and I like to push it and be aggressive. Work and location generally allow me to cherry-pick the powder days, but I do a fair amount of skiing on firm snow, too. Care to weigh in on which I’d be happier with? Just to complicate things, what can you tell me about the Line Influence (both widths)?

  46. Kyle says:

    What kind of skiing would you say you do mostly Curt? Big Mountain, resort, backcountry, pow…know those will help. Couple of the main diff’s between the SFB’s and the KF’s…the Fujas only have tip rocker where the SFB’s have tip and tail. The Fujas have holes pre-cut in the tips made for K2 skins if you’re into backcountry touring/riding. The SFB’s are a few mm wider at 108mm underfoot than the Fujas too. I don’t know the weight of the Fujas, but my experience is that K2 generally is heavier than Line so that might play a part in your decision as well. As for the Influences…they are both more geared towards big mountain runs. Both only with tip rocker and I believe much less of a twin tip design. Meaning the tail doesn’t come up very much and it’s more of a directional ski. Also, both of the Line Influence skis are heavier than the Sir Francis Bacon. And if I’m not mistaken they are a bit stiffer as well. So really, I think it’s gonna come down to what kind of terrain you think you’ll be riding the most. I personally would probably go with the Sir Francis Bacon. It was a super fun ski that I know I could ski anywhere.

  47. SFB says:

    How well do the 2012s hold up in the park?

  48. Kyle says:

    Oh they’ll rock the park just fine. I’d take them anywhere!

  49. Nick says:

    Hi, great review! How do you think they’d hold up as an everyday Vermont ski? Too fat? I was also looking at the Prophets, but I”m afraid they’ll be too stiff and lack the playfulness of the Bacons.

  50. Kyle says:

    Well you’re talking about 10mm of difference between the two in the waist. The Prophets are definitely going to be stiffer than the SFB’s but the I wouldn’t say the SFB will be “too playful”. The sidewall construction of the SFB will help in the stability dept. They weigh about the same due to the extra waist and dimensions of the SFB and the metal matrix of the prophet. Personally I would choose the SFB between the two. I really don’t think 108mm underfoot is too fat for an everyday ski and you’ll have more fun on it when it does snow.

    Another great option would be the Rossignol S3. http://www.skiersrealm.com/rossignol-s3.html It’s similar to the Prophet 98 (same 98mm) waist but has rocker in the tip and the tail with camber underfoot. I have a few buddies that ride the S3′s everyday no matter what and love them! Hope all that helps!

  51. derek says:

    Hey Kyle. I currently ride K2 public enemy 165. I ski mostly the Tahoe area where I seek out resort access POW side country As much as possible, but I’m not a pure POW back country skier yet. When there’s nothing fresh I rip the front side and am developing in the park. I’m looking for a ‘one ski quiver’ plank to use on the average day up here. The s7 seem a little fat for those days ill be stuck on groomers and my public enemies are too skinny for when we get deep snow (800 inches last year!). I’m an advance to expert skier, 5’10″ 160lbs, like to ride switch and jib around but still want to be able to rip gs turns at speed. I have been looking at the 2012 sfb. Would you recommend this ski for my situation? And if so what size, I was thinking the 178. Also I want to slap a marker binding on there and would appreciate your opinion on which of the royal family would be a good match. Thanks man. I appreciate your site btw. Very clean and easy to navigate. Also a ton of quality information and good maintenance.

  52. Kyle says:

    I definitely think the SFB’s would be a great ski for what you’re looking for. The other ones that come to mind and are quite similar to the Sir Francis Bacon’s are the Moment Belafonte and also the Atomic Blog skis. I’m not sure if you’re looking for a ski with tip AND tail rocker but the Belafonte’s have tip rocker and the Atomic Blog’s have both Tip & Tail. All are around the same width – a mid-fat ski I’d say. Depending on if you’re riding rails or not, don’t be afraid to break that 110mm under foot width, there are some awesome skis out there between 110-120mm underfoot that I think would still work for what you want.

    Are you trying to go do any BC touring at all? Cause if so, you’re gonna need a binding with a “touring mode”. From marker I’m gonna say either the Duke or the Baron. They also have the Free 10 & 12 but they just aren’t as beefy and you don’t wanna break em riding the resort. The Duke is the way to go if you’re a ripper and need something to stand up to some punishment. If you’re the average freerider (expert who can hang but not trying to go too crazy) you could prob get away with the Baron. Only difference is the DIN setting only goes to 13 and it’s lighter because of less metal. (metal is more durable tho so it’s give and take).

    Totally know what you’re saying tho, I was on a pair of K2 PE’s a few years ago. Great ski, just too skinny this day and age. Especially when a fat ski will perform just as well on the groomers!

  53. derek says:

    I probably won’t do very much if any touring on these. More just the occasional hike to he top of monument peak at heavenly so I can ride the mile of vert down to gardenerville and then catch the bus back… Maybe the jesters for this? So the sfb vs. The armada TST… Who fits the bill best? And coming off my K2 public enemies and being new to the rocker world what size would be appropriate? The high 170 mm or low.180 mm range.

  54. Kyle says:

    Yea I didn’t mention the TST because I thought you were looking for a ski closer to 110mm underfoot. But It’s definitely a great ski, the wider JJ-esque tip and rocker give it some great float in the pow and over crap and crud. The difference other than the waist between the SFB and TST is that the SFB is a rockered tip and tail whereas the TST is a directional rocker, or just in the tip. It’s got a traditional camber underfoot and twin-tip tail. Then, the TST is described as an All-mountain/big mountain freeride ski where as the SFB is more of the all-mountain/freestyle ski…if that makes sense. I’m very similar in size to you 5’10″ 175lbs and I would go with the low 180cm ski if I was you.

  55. Brit says:

    Hey Kyle,

    Just picked up some of the new SFBs as I wanted something a little more versatile for the non-blower days, and something to compliment my Hellbents. Good plan? And curious where you’re mounting the SFBs? Ski mostly in Washington. Thanks!

  56. Owen says:

    I too am curious about mounting position. I’m 5’8″, 145 lbs. advanced. Not really going to be doing much switch, far more powder, but a lot of groomers as well. I was thinking 2cm back from the mid-sole line (which I think is about 2cm back from center) Also not sure if I should go with the 172 or 178. I’d appreciate your feedback on my POA for the SFB in the POW:)

  57. Kyle says:

    Brit, congrats on the new skis! The SFB’s are super dope this year. Heads and tails above where they used to be, my opinion of course. For me, I’d be looking at mounting them boot center, which is just a few cm back from true center. That should give you great control over the effective edge of the ski on the groomers and with the early rise, still give you plenty of float in the pow. Now if you’re planning on skiing switch in the pow, think about going with a +1 over boot center or even do a center mount. And then of course the opposite if you don’t think a boot center mount will give you enough nose in front of your bindings, go -1cm from boot center. Hope that helps!

  58. Kyle says:

    What’s up Owen. You’ll be stoked on the SFB’s for sure! But def don’t rule out something like the Atomic Blog’s or even the TST’s. The TST’s are new from Armada and are a serious performer in both the pow and groomers. But anyway, back to the SFB’s, I think you’re dead on with a boot center mount. If I was you, I’d be looking at the longer 178cm too. Mostly because early rise (rockered) skis always ski shorter than you’d think.

  59. Jason says:

    I agree, -4 is too far back in the sidecut for the SFB, unless all you’re doing is riding super deep snow.

  60. Owen says:

    That’s good info. I went with the SFB 178 and having them mounted boot center. And, it’s snowing like crazy here in Washington!

    Mahalo, bradas


  61. Alex B. says:

    Hey Kyle,

    Im not sure if you have already responded to this, but Im trying to decide where to mount my bindings on the SFBs. I am hoping to get my switch riding going hard this season, but dont want to mess with the overall balance of the ski for some straight backcountry. Should I just mount on Lines mounting points or what do you recomend?

  62. Alex B. says:

    Ps. Im 6’1″ 175lbs and bought the 184′s.

  63. Kyle says:

    Yo Alex, If you’re serious about riding switch, especially if you’re thinking in the pow/bc, then I’d be looking at mounting center ski. If you think the majority of your switch riding will be in the park or on groomers I’d be looking more at the boot center mount. Which would be a couple cm behind ski center. With a boot center mount you’ll be able to ride switch on piste no problem but in the pow might prove to be a bit more difficult than a true center mount. Let me know what you decide!

  64. Devon says:

    Would you personally consider having the 2012 SFB as a one ski quiver? Basically so to being a student I cant buy two sets this year so need to get one ski thats going to do everything. Mostly skiing back side but of crappy days im gonna jib the frontside ect.

  65. Jason says:

    I think it depends on where you ski, and what conditions you typically encounter. If you’re out west somewhere that typically gets snow every few days, then yeah I think a 108mm wide ski is just fine for doing everything.

    If you’re on the east coast though, you’ll probably want something a little narrower.

  66. Kyle says:

    I would absolutely ski the SFB’s as a one quiver ski. Especially if part of you’re skiing could include good pow.

  67. Owen says:

    Just want to give a shout out to you guys. Thanks big time Kyle and Jason! You guys steered me right on the SFB in a 178 mounted boot center. I put some Jesters on them. They are fantastic skis. The best I’ve ever had, really. I’ve got about fifteen hours on them in the past couple of weeks in nearly every type of condition. I can’t believe how well they rail the groomers. I didn’t think a ski this wide could even come close to carving like that – just awesome. And, in the pow, they float me nice and high and bust through the crud like its not even there. Line hit it spot on with this ski.

    Mahalo, bradas


  68. Jason says:

    Awesome! Now let’s hope the snow keeps falling this winter!

  69. Alan says:

    Kyle: I quite enjoyed your comments. I live and ski in the East but spend 3 weeks out West. I don’t exactly like groomers (spend most of the time skiing the sides or the trees) but they are “necessary evils” especially here in Maine. I have a pair of Armada JJs for the West. I’m looking for a playful ski to be used primarily in the East but will take (along with the JJs) out West for nonpowder conditions. I am interested in the SFB, Volkl Bridge, Armada TST, and Moment PB&J. I am 5’9″, 160 pounds, advanced/expert. Your thoughts? And what length?

  70. Kyle says:

    Hey Alan, well the easy answer first: You’re close to my size and I’d consider myself advanced/expert too, I wouldn’t ski anything under 175cm. In fact my pow skis currently are 189cm and I’ve got no issues there. Now on to the skis: First, I’m going to assume you want a ski that can still handle the whole mountain and not just a strict gromer/hardpack ski. So something in the 90-105mm underfoot range. The volkl bridge has a full rocker profile so right away i’m hesitant of recommending that. The Armada TST is really more of a off-piste big mountain/backcountry directional ski so I’ll say no to that as well. The SFB I think you could get away with but it’s also fairly similar to the JJ so you’d be doubling up some in your quiver. The PB & J’s as well as the Moment Tahoe’s would def be skis to look at. I rode the Tahoe and it was a great ski on the groomers/harder pack snow. I’d also recommend the Line Blend’s (I own a pair and love them to death), the Rossiginol S3, and the Armada ARV are also def worth a look.

  71. Alan says:

    Kyle: Thanks for your comments. I had the opportunity to demo the Bridge and S3. The Bridge was quite playful, easy to ski, held an edge (though the conditions were not too icy). The S3 was OK, just OK and somewhat boring. My JJs are great in the pow, not so great on the hard groomed even in the West. Would the SFBs ski “not so great” on the hardpack like the JJ? And, since I’m sold on tip rise/rocker, the ARVs would be less desirable. Now, the PB&Js and the Line Blend – they seem intriguing. Can you comment more on these two pair.

  72. Kyle says:

    I haven’t actually skied the PB&J’s but I did ski the Moment Tahoe’s. Which I loved. The difference between those two is that the PB&J has a bit bigger waist at 101mm and also has both tip and tail rocker. So I’ll go out on a limb and say the PB&J would be a great ski as well. This goes for the Line Blend’s as well. Tip and Tail rocker and a 100mm waist. I own the Blends (just before they had rocker) and I love them. But I do wish they had rocker on them for in the pow. Between the PB&J and the Blend is a tough decision, Moment is made in the USA tho…;)

  73. Eric says:

    So ive been in love with the bacons since I first saw them… Im currently on the 2010 Line Blends 173cm but Im trying to step my ski game up with the new SFB. Im 5’8″ about 165lbs, should I go with the 178cm bacons? Also I do ride switch, but not all that often, would you still recommend center mounting them? Thanks!

  74. Kyle says:

    Eric, I wouldn’t go less than the 178 Sir Francis Bacon’s if I was you. They’ll ski shorter cause of the rocker so you don’t want get stuck with a ski that’s too short for you. Honestly the 184 isn’t out of your range, especially if you’re a good skier. Maybe take a second look at them in person before you buy. As for mounting, are you talking ski or boot center? If you aren’t going to be focusing on switch that much I def wouldn’t go more than boot center. If it was me I’d probably mount them boot center or 1-2 back from boot center. Super sick skis…hope that helps!

  75. Eeic says:

    I’ll definitely compare the two sizes. And I was talking ski center, so I think ill boot center them for sure! Thanks for the help, cant wait to get on them! Any recommendations for bindings?

  76. James says:

    Kyle: Your comments on the SFBs are much appreciated:)
    Thinking of picking up a pair of 2012 SFB as a one ski quiver and am unsure what size to go for….trying to decide between 184 or 178. They will be a do everything ski for me, pow to groomers. I’m 5’11”, 165-175 pounds I suppose. Current skis are 2008 K2 Obsethed (small rocker/early rise version) in 179 and Line Prophet 100 in 186.
    I found the Obsethed to be a sweet length for me and figured the SFB in a 184 might be similar to the Obsethed in 179 as it seemed to come up a bit longer than the 179 stated. Also thought the 2012 SFB might have a little more rocker than the older K2s.
    Any thoughts between 178 and 184?

  77. Kyle says:

    Hey James, I would def go with the longer size. With the bit of rocker in them they will ski a little shorter than 184. Plus if you ski the Prophets in a 186 already I have no doubt the longer Sir Francis Bacons will be just right for you!

  78. James says:

    Thanks Kyle, I’ll go for the 184. I think with the rocker they’ll still ski pretty nimble in the trees and bumps.
    Sounds like the new SFB will be my ideal ski:)

  79. Kyle says:

    That’s awesome James, I think you’re really going to love those skis! Remember to check us out if you’re looking for any other gear to go with them! Sorry to pull the salesman shout out, but we are a retail site now as well! Enjoy those skis man!!

  80. James says:

    No problem Kyle, I’ll check it out if I need anything :)

  81. Elijah Nordhoff says:

    Hey Kyle. I live in Anchorage Alaska and ski at my local resort Alyeska every day i can(which is a lot). I can ski every single run there. I have a pair of Eric’s EP Pro skis and i love them. Eric pollard is pretty much my role model as far as skiing goes(im 14). I am very torn between the SFB’s and the Moment PB&J’s. I like rocker/early rise and they both fill that category. I want a ski that will do great everywhere, work in pow, shred groomers, ski switch amazing, cut threw variable snow and crud but also even work in the park if i wanna take a few laps. Any idea on which ski?

  82. Kyle says:

    What’s up Elijah! Both are sic skis for sure. Personally I’d probably go with the SFB’s. I like their waist width (108mm vs. the PB & J’s 101mm). That extra 7mm will help out a bunch in the pow and I know the SFB’s will still perform no matter where you take them. P.S. You pick good ski role models, Pollard is the man. Such a fluid style!

  83. Zach says:

    Hey Kyle and Jason,

    So I’m considering the SFB’s, but I live on the East Coast and the majority of my skiing will be on the groomers and harder stuff. I ski the glades when I can and take a few runs through the park every day, and try to get out west to hit the real powder at least once a year. My big question is will the SFB’s limit me too much seeing as how I spend most of my time on packed stuff? I’m also looking at the Line Chronics because of their thinner waist, but across the board I’m a lot more into the Bacons.

  84. Boat Wax says:

    I think this is mostly personal preference at the end of the day. I would rather have something more like the Chronic if I was looking for a single ski to perform in the conditions you typically encounter. For me, the SFB is just a touch too wide to be a one ski quiver for someone based on the east coast (or the west coast so far this winter).

    But there are probably quite a few people on SFB or similar skis that rock them every day and would disagree with me. If you lived out west I would so go for the wider ski, but being based on the east coast, I think you’ll be happier with something that’s closer to 100mm UF, and it’s still going to perform great in powder.

    Let us know what you decide to go with!


  85. Zach says:

    Hey Jason,

    Thank you very much for your reply, it is greatly appreciated. I ended up taking your advice and going with the Chronic. I definitely agree that the SFB’s would have been a little wide for my day to day skiing despite being awesome those one or two trips a year out west on the powder.

    I’ll be on them this weekend for the first time so I’ll get back to you guys and let you know how they work out.

    Thanks again for the quick reply and I think I speak for many of the posters on here when I say what you guys do is awesome and extremely personal and it’s really nice to know that when you post here you’re getting solid feedback from people that really know what they’re talking about.

    - Zach

  86. Riley says:

    i have been skiing line skis for the past 5 years now, just park skis though. I recently moved out west for school, since i’m now out of the central canada park scene i am interested in some good all around fattys. I have demoed many skis before on ski trips such as 4-frnt ehp’s, moment bibby’s, salomon shoguns, head johnnys. I have been interested in the bacons for a while however no resorts really demo or rent them. my overall concern is comparing Bibbys to Bacons?? lookin for something rockered, still hold edge in groom and a durable ski!! ive seen quite a bit of lines recently getting chopped up and edges/topsheet going to shits.

  87. Brock says:

    Hi, i’m having a hard time deciding between this and the Mr. Pollards Opus, but im open to other suggestions as well. I live in CO, and I have a 90mm park ski for hard pack/moguls, and am looking for a good twin tip powder ski. I mostly ski in bounds, except for about 10 days of touring per year, and whatever i buy will also be my touring ski. Will the SFBs have enough float, or would the Opus’s be light enough? also any other suggestions are welcome too =).

  88. Kyle says:

    You’d be good to go with the SFB, especially on those tours. The MPO is more pow only whereas the SFB is your all-mountain do everything ski. If you wanted something to be pow specific and really kill it in deep snow then the MPO is your ticket. But if you think you’ll be wanting to use the skis for more than just pow days then I’d go with the SFB. It’s going to perform in pretty much anything for you and you’ll love it!

  89. Brock says:

    Thanks, hopefully ill get them soon!

  90. Jason says:

    The SFB looks like a perfect ski for my inbound play in Colorado – bowls, bumps, trees, etc. I am looking to step up from my 8-yr old Salomon XHots. Back then everything was getting shorter and shorter…now with rocker it appears everything is getting longer. I tend to fall at the “dividing line” on lenght – I’m 6’0″ and 180lbs, ski everywhere, but not super aggressive. I am debating the 178 versus the 184. I think my main concern is navigating tight tree chutes with the 184. I would love to be able to demo the lengths, but the shops I have found typically only have one length. Any recommendations?

  91. Kyle says:

    If I was in your shoes I’d be looking at the 184′s. If you’re a pretty good skier they’re length shouldn’t be a problem at all! I think the 178′s are just going to be too short for ya!

  92. Jason says:

    Thanks, Kyle…so far the demos I’ve found are all 184′s, so I should be able to determine if they are just right or too long…of course, now to debate this year’s versus next year’s graphics! (I really like the new Opus topsheet, the Bacon isn’t that dramatic of a change).

  93. Greg says:

    I’d use these skies for Colorado banging, primarily Summit County resorts with the twice a year day visit to the back bowls at Vail. Total out west of, say, 20 days annually. Me? I’m 63, 5 foot 6 inches, 150 lbs. of aggressive riding. I love the steeps, the trees, and wide open bowls. Groomers at the end of each day, or for a warm up only. Currently I’m on 165 HEAD Monsters 78′s. My desire is for a wider do-most-everything pair and I love the looks and the reviews of the SFB for 2012. Question: which size for an aging advanced skier? Thanks, & keep up the good work.

  94. Perry says:

    I currently ride Volkl Katana skiis (176 cm length) most of the time. I am looking for something with similar dimensions (100ish underfoot) that is a bit softer for when I am skiing with my kids (trees, jumps, some groomers). Fernie BC is my local hill. Was looking at SFB or Blend from Line. I am 5’8″ approx 155 lb. Any thoughts on the Line skiis or other suggestions (including lengths) would be appreciated.

  95. Cole says:

    I have been on a set of 07/08 186 Prophet 90′s for the last several seasons. I am 30yrs old, 6’1″, 215-220 lbs (athletic) and advanced skier. I have really enjoyed this ski on groomers and light powder but when it comes to jumps, bumps, trees and heavy powder, they aren’t as enjoyable. I jumped on my buddies 2011 K2 Kung Fujas in the 179 this past weekend in Park City and had a blast on small jumps, bumps and even the grooms (no powder to be found). I only get between 8-16 days a year out west and only want one ski. I would also like to improve my skill in the trees. With all that said, I have always been a fan of Line and have heard nothing but good reviews on the SFB’s. What are your thoughts on this vs. the KF? Also, if I am looking for a new ski for the trees, bumps and a little jumping, would you go with the 184s or the 178s. Thanks for the help.

  96. Danny says:

    Kyle, I’m looking for a ski to replace my S7s. The S7 is a lot of fun, but I find it really wants to push me in the back seat all of the time. It’s partially due to the fact that I’m not the strongest skier, but I’m hoping for a ski that would make things easier for me. I primarily ski powder and crud in Whistler. I don’t care to much about groomer capability. Some people have told me that it’s the pin tail in the S7 that pushes me back. So ultimately I’m still looking for something that handles really well in the pow and crud but is a bit forgiving and pushes me back forward (to recapture my balance). I’m wondering if the Sir Francis Bacon might be the ski for me. I’ve also looked at the K2 Kung Fu Haas and also the Dynastar Slicer. In addition to this, I’ve also looked at skis with rockered tip but not tail. The two I’ve looked at are the Atomic Access and Salomon Shoguns. I should note that I’m 5’5″ and 135lbs and not an aggressive skier. Thanks for your help.

  97. Kyle says:

    What’s up Danny! So where do you have those S7′s mounted at? Man in this category of ski your options are HUGE! Personally my most favorite skis have come from Moment and Lib Tech the last two years. Moment you’ve got the Bibby’s and the new Deathwish with its Dirty Mustache Rocker. Which by the way is freakin’ awesome, just demo’d them in Snow Basin last week. Then from Lib you’ve got the Pow NAS and the new Fully Functional Five. Both are amazing as well and I’d recommend either to you. Outside of those you’ve got Atomic’s Bent Chetler and the new Automatic (sage’s new ski). Same thing, they both are amazing skis. The SFB’s would be a good one as well, and even the Mr. Pollard’s Opus. Seriously, you’ve got more choices than you need but let us know if you need more help!

  98. Kyle says:

    Hey Cole, sorry for the delayed response, we’ve been hitting up industry events pretty hard lately. I would definitely recommend the SFB’s to you for what you’re describing you need. Personally I’ve never skied the Kung Fujas but spencer, one of the partners here at SkiersRealm used to rock a pair and just sold them. Why? Well his reason was that with them he didn’t need any other ski. Ridiculous right, but makes sense when you’ve got a whole mess of skis to choose from. At your size i’d be looking at the 184′s no question. Anything else you’ll just be bored and limited on. So tough to say which ski exactly is going to be better but I know you’d be stoked on the SFB’s.

  99. Kyle says:

    Both the Blend’s and the SFB’s are going to rock. I ride a pair of blends now and they can tackle anything I put them through right now. Depending on how good of a skier you are you might even look at moving up a notch in length. I’m 5’10″ and my everyday skis are 189cm. cheers!

  100. Kyle says:

    I’m gonna say you should go with the 178′s or at least no smaller. If you’re comfortable on a bigger pair of skis then go for the 184′s. If anything they’ll just make you a better skier.

  101. Cole says:

    Thanks for the help. I have been looking a what seems to be thousands of reviews on various makes and models. Unfortunately, most of the reviews are from someone much smaller tham me. Are there any other skis that you would suggest I take a look at before pulling the trigger? Thanks again.

  102. Kyle says:

    I think you should look into something like the Rossignol Super 7 or Atomic Bent Chetlers. They are a little wider underfoot than what you’re used to but they still ski incredibly well. The Super 7′s especially, I’ve skied them on everything from amazing pow to hard pack crud and they rip. The other great thing is they perform awesome on the groomers and you can still rail out turns with them. I really think they would work for you, and with the titanal used in construction they’d be perfect for someone your size.

  103. Danny says:

    Kyle, thanks for the reply. My S7s are mounted at +3. I know everybody swears by these skis and I too think they float so nicely in the powder but I just find when I pick up speed, especially in the crud, it’s hard to slow them down and am pushed in the back seat. It feels as if I have to make so much effort to lean forward and the tips are always high above the snow so it automatically pushes me back. I also have the S3s which are 168s and my S7s are 176. I find the S3s push me in the back way less. Not sure if it’s the length or if it’s because the shovel is not as big. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

  104. petros says:

    Im set on buying the sfb but will prob wait for the the 2013s. All I need to find out is where to mount them. Im 5ft 8in, 150 lbs and I ski aggressive most of the time but still like to play around. I love steeps, trees, powder, tight chutes, moguls and also like to rip groomers fast. I ski east coast most of the year and ski west coast a few times a year real hard in resorts and also backcountry. I don’t really ski switch much and I only do park minimally because I like ripping better. Should I mount them boot center or farther back. I also did read that for 2013, that they moved the mount line back a little farther. I think the 2012 was 2cm back from center of ski and 2013 should now be 2.5cm back from center of ski. What do you think.

  105. jacob says:

    The SFB’s are unchanged in 2013 according to a line representative at SIA. Not too sure about the mounting though. I’m definitely going to try these out as soon as possible!

  106. Kyle says:

    I probably wouldn’t go any further back than boot center. I haven’t heard anything about the mount line moving, but that would be pretty easy to over look. I’ll look into it. but def if you’re riding switch at all, don’t go any further back than the boot center.

Leave a Reply