Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Thugs vs. Sir Francis Bacon
Posts: 1347
-
Karma: 53
so today i made my way over to the friendly neighborhood ski shop to see what new stuff they had. among the icelantics, (never see those in dc...) i was checking out the SFB and thugs, and they seem to be fairly comparable. the thug is a bit wider and a touch softer, and they are the same length. the sfb has a deeper sidecut however. so my question is how do these skis compare? pros/cons, etc. if you had to pick one, what would it be. I have rossi bc wrs and am about 6'1 150. huge, i know. i ski fairly aggressively, but prefer a softer ski. i ski jackson hole, will go to CO this year, perhaps alaska, and locally at whitetail and liberty. thanks alot
Posts: 95
-
Karma: 10
what it sounds like i would go with the Bacons but i havent personally ridden the thugs but no one has told me anything good about them. i rode the bacons in brundage idaho and they absolutely ruled slaying soft snow and crud. but like i said i havent ridden the thugs yet
Posts: 6901
-
Karma: 551
i haven't skied either yet, but i just got my bacons, they seem so dope
Posts: 7056
-
Karma: 2,785
Sorry to be another "I haven't skied either" person, but I thought I might as well point out that I've heard nothing but good things about the bacons, and nothing at all about the thugs.
I'm going to pick up some bacons soon because they look like they'll be an absolutely amazing ski.
Posts: 95
-
Karma: 10
True that bacons seem to be a huge hit this year and seriously nothing about the thugs seem to stand out. i havent heard any good reviews
Posts: 23992
-
Karma: 4,272
bacons for sure, buy mine
Posts: 11335
-
Karma: 4,615
skied both!!!
Bacons: PERFECT FLEX for a soft, fat ski, great in pow, forget what they're like for jibbin, great for steeps. Good size for you.
Thugs: bloody soft, I had a pair for the season. Floaty as hell, couldn't turn on a dime though. Really fun for jibbing around, charging and cliffs/steeps.
They were too soft for my weight though, I'm 170lbs and 6'2" ( I skied the 182). Did lots of butters on them, butters to flips and what not. ended up with a pressure blow up and the ski just blew apart on me under the toe. Your wieght sounds better though, if your still growing or planning on getting OBESE, go with a 193. Over all, funnest ski i've been on
Posts: 1160
-
Karma: 121
^i always thought that thugs were stifff
Posts: 1347
-
Karma: 53
no man, thugs are super soft.^
the bad thing i hear about the thug is that it is not a very good turning ski, and given the dimensions, im not surprised. the bacons have a deeper sidecut, and i hear they are sick even on hardpack. im leaning a bit more towards bacons, but the thugs look interesting. how do the bacons and thugs handle butters/park? i probably wont be spinning anything over a 7, so i dont care if they are not amazing at spins
Posts: 11335
-
Karma: 4,615
I'm not muhc of a big spinner, spun a 5 acouple times on the thugs, nothing bigger. The flex of them gave me a chance to try out stuff like butters ,hand drags and hand plants. Didn't touch a rail on them though.
Posts: 95
-
Karma: 10
they probally wont be a good park ski either one but i would think the bacons would be a little better cause they are a touch skinnier. but both are made for powder/all mtn
Posts: 2785
-
Karma: 474
Be careful, if you plan on mounting near center the Bacon's are going to seem really short. I would look at the 190something thugs or 189 hellbents if I were you.
Posts: 1347
-
Karma: 53
if i were to get the bacons id mount them at reccomended. It might seem a little short, but again, im a pretty light guy. id like to keep the skis as light as possible too
All times are Eastern (-4)
