Thread: Line Sir Francis Bacon... Legit Powder Ski?

Sup guys,

Found a pair of each of the skis on the cheap contemplating which I can pick up that can be my legit powder ski for out west, but still use on the east in the trees and get by on groomers if need be.

I currently rock the 2011 Line Prophet 90's, which are good for anything up to 5-6 inches, but wouldn't work out West, and anything more that 5-6 just wouldn't fly well.

I am choosing between the Seths, and the Sir Francis. My worries are the obSeths will be overkill for anything but a 12 inch type of day, and that the Sir Francis will be over matched on a 12 inch day, not sure how much of a rocker their early-rise is. I do like the versatility of the Sir Francis with 144 tip, and 108 underfoot. Wondering if they can be the one-ski quiver for light and heavy powder days.

Also, what size would you go for? I am 5"9 190, ski aggressive.

What is a fair price for these ski's off-season, as well as in-season without bindings?

My buddy has them, rode all season in Whistler and loves them.
They are versatile. He doesn't have any issues in powder and can still ski groomers, crud, park easy. If you want just one set of ski's you can't go wrong. They seem pretty similar to JJ's in size and all-terrainedness.

Originally Posted by robbo

My buddy has them, rode all season in Whistler and loves them.
They are versatile. He doesn't have any issues in powder and can still ski groomers, crud, park easy. If you want just one set of ski's you can't go wrong. They seem pretty similar to JJ's in size and all-terrainedness.

Used a pair of JJ's last year in a pow day at Breckenridge, probably got 8-10 inches they were cool.

Is there even a point to keeping my prophets if I went with the Bacons at 140-108-136? Prophets are 125 90 113.

Originally Posted by ammonation

Used a pair of JJ's last year in a pow day at Breckenridge, probably got 8-10 inches they were cool.

Is there even a point to keeping my prophets if I went with the Bacons at 140-108-136? Prophets are 125 90 113.

First, I'm 5'10", 185 lbs, and I think you'd be making a serious mistake if you went any shorter than the longest SFB - 184cm.

The SFB is a really fun ski, but I would want more ski on a big day at Alta or Jackson or Taos; you can certainly get by on a 108mm ski on big days out West, but I wouldn't call a 184cm, 108mm ski (at your weight) a "legit" West Coast pow ski. In 12" or less, you'll be fine on the SFB. In 2-3 feet, you'll wish you had more ski.

So if you don't think you'll actually get that many big days (12"+), go 184 SFB and enjoy.

But if you do expect to really hit some big days, hang on to your Prophet 90s and get the Seth in a 189.

Not sure which year's Obsethed you're looking at, but you might want to check out these reviews of the 12/13 SFB (same as the 11/12 SFB) and the 11/12 Seth.

http://blistergearreview.com/gear-re...-francis-bacon
http://blistergearreview.com/gear-re...obsethed-189cm

Originally Posted by JFE24

First, I'm 5'10", 185 lbs, and I think you'd be making a serious mistake if you went any shorter than the longest SFB - 184cm.

The SFB is a really fun ski, but I would want more ski on a big day at Alta or Jackson or Taos; you can certainly get by on a 108mm ski on big days out West, but I wouldn't call a 184cm, 108mm ski (at your weight) a "legit" West Coast pow ski. In 12" or less, you'll be fine on the SFB. In 2-3 feet, you'll wish you had more ski.

So if you don't think you'll actually get that many big days (12"+), go 184 SFB and enjoy.

But if you do expect to really hit some big days, hang on to your Prophet 90s and get the Seth in a 189.

Not sure which year's Obsethed you're looking at, but you might want to check out these reviews of the 12/13 SFB (same as the 11/12 SFB) and the 11/12 Seth.

http://blistergearreview.com/gear-re...-francis-bacon
http://blistergearreview.com/gear-re...obsethed-189cm

Thanks for your feedback. I read both reviews, they are very thorough great stuff.. I was looking at the 2011 Seths @ 179. Found them fairly cheap, I probably should have picked up used skis because in April/May.

FYI I live in NJ, I only make out west 1-2 times a year. So getting a pow day is hit or miss. On the east coast I ski as much of the trees as possible. How well will the Seths handle in the trees after its been chopped up a few runs?

Also, what would you say the minimum snowfall required is to break out the Seths, 6 inches?

I would also go fatter for an out west ski, especially if you're planning on keeping the 90's. Seths would be legit pow skis, but will probably be more of a chore in crud, due to a soft flexing. It also comes down to personal choice, and in my case I would go fatter, because that's what I like...

Originally Posted by ammonation

Thanks for your feedback. I read both reviews, they are very thorough great stuff.. I was looking at the 2011 Seths @ 179. Found them fairly cheap, I probably should have picked up used skis because in April/May.

FYI I live in NJ, I only make out west 1-2 times a year. So getting a pow day is hit or miss. On the east coast I ski as much of the trees as possible. How well will the Seths handle in the trees after its been chopped up a few runs?

Also, what would you say the minimum snowfall required is to break out the Seths, 6 inches?

I haven't skied the Seth, I have skied the 184 Bacon. (The links I posted were from one of our other reviewers who, obviously, has skied both the Seth and the SFB.)

But if you can only get your hands on the 179 Seth, but can get on the 184 SFB, I would get the 184 Bacon, end of story. If, however, you can only get the SFB in something shorter than the 184, I would just get the 179 Seth - the 184 SFB is already short, with an actual tip to tail length of 180.5.

Just my 2 cents.

And again, I haven't skied the Seth, so best I can do is point you to Jason's review of it.

Originally Posted by Karl May

I would also go fatter for an out west ski, especially if you're planning on keeping the 90's. Seths would be legit pow skis, but will probably be more of a chore in crud, due to a soft flexing. It also comes down to personal choice, and in my case I would go fatter, because that's what I like...

I wouldn't go any fatter than 120. I do the majority of my skiing in trees on the east coast, and on a pow pow day I would break out the Seths or SFB over the p90's now. The trees are also a lot tighter on the east IMO.

Currently I can only get my hands on the 178 SFB and the 179 Seths. From what you guys are saying that size SFB is out. I have only seen the Seths @ 179 for a good price. I am specifically looking for the 2011 graphics, they are pretty sweet.

just for point of clarification, I have only used rockered skis out west, and we got dumped on 3 days in a row, probably 3 1/2 feet over a 3 day span.

The east coast can go pretty long without getting dumped on until a storm comes. Whats the minimum amount of fresh pow you guys would break the Seths out in? And the SFB?

Originally Posted by ammonation

just for point of clarification, I have only used rockered skis out west, and we got dumped on 3 days in a row, probably 3 1/2 feet over a 3 day span.

The east coast can go pretty long without getting dumped on until a storm comes. Whats the minimum amount of fresh pow you guys would break the Seths out in? And the SFB?

If you weigh 190, I seriously can't imagine that you'll want a 178 SFB. It will actually be about 174-175cm long, and already on the skinny side for a pow ski.
If these really are the only 2 skis you are considering, then go with the 179 Seth. You can break it out in 2 to 6 inches and be fine. On the other days, ski your Prophet 90s.

Originally Posted by JFE24

If you weigh 190, I seriously can't imagine that you'll want a 178 SFB. It will actually be about 174-175cm long, and already on the skinny side for a pow ski.
If these really are the only 2 skis you are considering, then go with the 179 Seth. You can break it out in 2 to 6 inches and be fine. On the other days, ski your Prophet 90s.

would you go with the 179 seths, or hold off and hope I can score 2011 K2 Obsethed 189 for a higher price in the fall.

Originally Posted by ammonation

would you go with the 179 seths, or hold off and hope I can score 2011 K2 Obsethed 189 for a higher price in the fall.

The more serious you are about looking for a 'legit' west coast pow ski, the more I would hold out for a 189 at your size. Again, just my .02.

Originally Posted by JFE24

The more serious you are about looking for a 'legit' west coast pow ski, the more I would hold out for a 189 at your size. Again, just my .02.

Maybe I should change to title to "looking for fat ski for west powder, and east powder trees".

For what its worth I ski sfb as quiver of one, I got the 10-11? Color wheel ones that are 115 at waist. I ski them every day they handle it all well I love them ski trees and steeps lots. A fun ski. I am 150 and 5'11 and have 184 and live in sea. Tour with them some even. That said I'm looking for a lighter setup for doing longer tours.

I thought Seth's were considered a stiffer / better charger ski where sfb is poppy but softer. But haven't skied Seth's


Anyway good luck

Sent from my Droid using TGR Forums

Depending on where you'll be skiing out west, you might want a stiffer flexing ski for once things get skied out. For example, the on3p jeffery has a very similar shape to the SFB but has a longer rocker in both the tip and tail and more splay, which would help in powder, but a stiffer flex would help power through crud and help with edge hold on grooms. Probably wont be quite as playful as the sfb, but will still be super fun. Just my .02. The SFB looks fun, but seems like kind of an odd ski that doesn't really fit into any particular category. On one hand, it has the dimensions of an all-mountain ski (at least for the west), yet without really a stout enough flex to bust crud like an all mountain ski should do. It's just a bit wide to excel in the park, but not quite wide enough or with enough rocker to excel once things get super deep. It would do all things well but nothing truly great, except for maybe shallow powder and BC kickers. The jeffery to me just seems like an improved SFB, in the same way that the caylor seems like an improved hellbent. Do what you will, but for me the jeffery seems like the obvious choice for this niche of ski.

Sell your 90s, get 100s, then get a bigger pow ski for your western trips. If that is not an option, get the SFBs for a solid EC quiver of one.

Or (here it comes....wait for it....SPAM!) give us a try!

If you spend time in the woods on the EC, there is nothing wrong with wide.

You're talking a lot about how much fresh you need to break out the big skis. The answer is not a lot (I often take my big skis out even when there's no fresh, they're still fun), but you need a stiff enough ski to handle the crud and tracked out stuff. A stiff fat ski will handle conditions like that better than a narrow noodle. And both the skis you're looking at are pretty soft.

I have lived in CO and now live in NJ (hopefully temporarily) so I can understand your position. I did get 30 days in in VT last year and only used my JJ's twice for a whole day, Bent Chetlers never and skiied armada arv's daily.

Basically anything that is supposed to be a powder ski with rocker won't hold on east coast hardpack (JJ, Chetler). But they are still great as long as the groomers are soft. So basically i would bring your prophets everyday and get something fairly absurd (east coast-wise) for your powder ski. That way you can always get back on your prophets once its skiied out or the crust emerges.

Originally Posted by ammonation

Maybe I should change to title to "looking for fat ski for west powder, and east powder trees".

Step up to the 185 Opus. More powder built than the bacon, plenty of maneuverability for the trees, and rides the groomed stuff pretty damn well if you take care of the edges. I had a great year on them. They were small for me at 6'3"-210, but I imagine they'll be about perfect for you. My only gripe is that because they're such a playful ski, you get tossed a bit in heavy crud. It's manageable, but the price you pay for the extra manueverability.

It would also have less overlap with your 90's (another ski I also own).

I would focus on buying an "east coast powder/tree ski" since that is the type of skiing you will be doing for most of the season, and demo powder skis when you travel west. Depending on the amount of (flying) trips you make out west, the baggage fees for your skis will eventually end up costing, more than the skis themselves. Additionally, if you pay the baggage fee to fly out your "powder skis" and the storm fizzles, you are stuck with your big sticks on days you wish you had something more appropriate for the conditions.

If you are looking for a ski to bring out for days 6+ inches, why not go for the Opus in the 192 (probably a better fit for someone of your size)? I would assume you would enjoy having the extra width and length to help float on days that are 10+ inches and would be kicking yourself if you had bought the SFB and were unable to keep on top of the snow.

Just my 2 cents.

I had a great year on my tree painting SFBs. I guess I could update the review I did earlier which you should find with a search. They're a great Whistler + backcountry quiver of one and there were only a few situations that I found them to be difficult in. They're fun in everything from untouched pow to chopped crud to corduroy. Not so fun in moguls and at slow speed in deep heavy snow in the trees.

I have the 184s and am 5'8" 160#. For me they are a good stiffness so they might be a bit soft if you're a lot heavier.

Well.. I bought a pair of Seths that were advertised at 179.. Turns out they are really the 189... Don't know how I feel about the 189, they literally measure out to 194cm. That seems like a huge ski for the trees, I am only 5"9 190lbs.

Originally Posted by ammonation

Well.. I bought a pair of Seths that were advertised at 179.. Turns out they are really the 189... Don't know how I feel about the 189, they literally measure out to 194cm. That seems like a huge ski for the trees, I am only 5"9 190lbs.

I am the same height, though...ahem...heavier than you. I had 189 Seths (non-rockered) and was quite happy with them in the trees. They didn't exactly dance the jig, but they behaved very well. Then I was on some Praxis Big Mountain 120s in the 192 with tip rise, and they were fantastic in the woods. Then it was 197 Katanas, which also were fine. If you know anyone who has skied with me, they can tell you I don't shy away from chewy tree stands.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. If you can ski solidly over your feet and are reasonably quick, you can manage them just fine. And, when you do go out west, you will appreciate the extra surface area. My only complaint with the Seths was what I felt was an over-soft fore-body. But then, at my tonnage, it would be...