Member of the Month

GayWolf420
June, 2025

Online

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!

Bacon length

profile picture
XtRemE11
Posts: 5680 - Karma: 246
Yes i know there is already a thread for this but i wanted to make one thats special for me!!

anyway, im 5'10, 155, already have park skis, and already have ep pros for powder. but my plan is to either sell the eps this year and use the bacons for park and powder, or if i have enough money to waste im thinking i want to buy the opus as my pow only ski.

so im trying to decide between the 178 and 184. the rocker makes me think i could go shorter for powder and still be ok. but a 178 still seems short for a pow ski. and 178 would probably be idea length for park. 184 would obviously be better for powder, but since ill be using this like 50% of the time in the park, i just dont want it to be too long. i dont like having a ton of tip and tail to get hung up on things. im usually one to go a tad shorter than reccomended than a tad longer, as i like to really ski on top of my skis and be able to man handle the shit out of them and use all their flex and everything. when i ski big long skis i usually feel like im riding the ski and the ski is controlling me a little which i dont like.

also, people say go longer with a rocker ski cause it will ski shorter.. ive never felt the need. i dont mind the smaller amount of contact you get with rocker skis, i never really notice it, i kinda like it more if anything, plus if im not mistaken, when you're on edge most of the edge is supposed to be making contact with the snow anyway according to the line skis video..

that all being said. 184's still not very long. even for a park ski its not that big for me.

so anyone got some advice?

does anyone know if these measure shorter or longer than their said length??
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
MarkieR
Posts: 5337 - Karma: 98
Get the 184 length. Anything with a rocker skis pretty short. You'll be fine all over the mountain with the longer ski.
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Banane.
Posts: 3102 - Karma: 414
+1. Get the 184 for sure
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
NWlife.
Posts: 179 - Karma: 14
your light enough for a 178 to slay the pow but it will be good for park too. if you were like 20 pounds heavier i would say 184
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
XtRemE11
Posts: 5680 - Karma: 246
ive skiied 179 hellbents in the powder and the length was fine, actually just about perfect for pow, but k2's usually measure long no? and my ep's which are 185 are by no means too short feeling, if anything they could be shorter. but both these skis are a bit wider...
still dont know..
anyone actually skiied them in either length??
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
mountainviper
Posts: 1931 - Karma: -3
It's weird thing they did with the bacons this year. I love em and they absolutely rip but they feel like the 178s are just a touch too small for all mountain but the 184s feel just a touch too long for park. Combine this with alot of people begging for a longer bacon and I think next year your gonna see it in a 181 and a 191 instead of 178/184. It's real obvious feeling too do I'm sure that line has picked up on this as well. They probably weren't expecting that many people to gravitate toward that ski for park. Now for the OP, I think at your size the 178 will be fine. Especially if your doing 50% park. I got to ride the 184s a few days ago and felt they were just a bit cumbersome feeling in the air. Nothing you couldn't eventually compensate for but the 178s are so much easier to throw around in the air. It'll come down to preference. If you prefer a shorter ski for jibbin the whole mountain go 178 but if you can handle the length and do bigger, floatier airs than go 184.
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
mountainviper
Posts: 1931 - Karma: -3
Actually I just remembered you saying you may get the opus too. That's my quiver. I have the bacons in a 178 for park/groomers/light fresh/bc booters and the opus in 185 for all mountain/bc/trees. Honestly though, you could do it all with the opus. Every time I take it out on groomers it blows me away. Little to no chatter at speed on groomers. Holds an edge even on ice. Hands down the sickest 110+ underfoot that I have ever ridden. It skis like its 100 underfoot. It's badass. If you can afford both do it.
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
XtRemE11
Posts: 5680 - Karma: 246
whats yours height/weight? have u been able to ski the 178 or the 184 in somewhat deep snow yet?? really as long as the 178 doesnt feel like its gonna nose dive or anything, or doesnt feel unstable i might just go for that.

and it might be hard for me to afford both. but if i can i will. if i have to i have no problem keeping my ep's for another year and getting the opus next.
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
mountainviper
Posts: 1931 - Karma: -3
I haven't had the chance to ski the 178 in pow yet. Will in about two weeks though. I'm sure for you it'll float fine. I'm 6'1" and 190lbs. I'm using the opus for pow though and the bacon is strictly for playing. Like I said, to me it's perfect length for that but after riding my buddy's 184s those feel more stable at speed. But I'm bigger. If the bacon was my only ski I'd have gone 184.
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
XtRemE11
Posts: 5680 - Karma: 246
yeah you are quite a bit bigger than me, id think a 178 on me would be pretty damn similar to a 184 on you. did the 184's ever feel overwhelming or too long? do the 178's ever feel too short or like you wish you had more in the park or all mountain?
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
mountainviper
Posts: 1931 - Karma: -3
Well it's like I said above. The 178s feel perfect to me for park but jus the slightest bit too short for high speed carving. The 184s rip high speed but felt just the slightest bit too long for park. Like I said before, a 181 would be perfect for me and a 191 would be great for those begging for a longer one. IMO you'll be fine on the 178s for everything.
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
XtRemE11
Posts: 5680 - Karma: 246
I checked the bacons out today in a shop. the 184 is pretty much the exact same length as a 179 kung fujas and hellbent. i think its k2 measuring long rather than line measuring short.

anyway, ive had the 179 fujas and i did feel like they were just a tad too long for park, but perfect for pow and everything else. the bacons also feel lighter. kinda makes me feel like i could get away with 184's in park and still be happy. yet you have to consider that with the 178 bacons, you have a wider ski, and more rocker, so compared to something like the fujas in a longer size, it should float just as well in powder, and have as much or maybe even more surface area.

so shit, that didnt help me at all.
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
mountainviper
Posts: 1931 - Karma: -3
Yeah dude don't be scared to go shorter. Peeps will talk "manly length" etc but it's all horseypoop. Last year I rode my buds 172 bacons all over the canyons in Utah for a day. Did pow in trees no problem. Now I'm not sayin get 172s. I'm jus using it as an example that it's possible and the only reason he demoed the 172 was because that was the only length they had left. He wanted to try mine and I had so much fun on those short skis. Hope that helps a little.
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Tall_Paul
Posts: 958 - Karma: 57
im using the bacons in the park this year at a 184 length. I'm 6'2 165lbs. figured theyd ride like a 178, anything shorter would be too short considering my height
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
XtRemE11
Posts: 5680 - Karma: 246
hmm ur not that much taller/heavier than me. have u skiied them yet? can u comment on if the length makes them feel too big flappy and in the way for a park ski? the 184 seems like its just right at the tipping point of being too long.

now that i think back to skiing the first year lizzies in a 172 and how fun those were, i gotta think these are designed to be used in a shorter length like those, especially since they come in a 172. i dunno.
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
XtRemE11
Posts: 5680 - Karma: 246
for those of u with bacons where do u have them mounted? one thing im factoring in my decision now is that if i go with the 184 i might go true center, or maybe just like 1 or so back. where if i went with the 178's i may go with the normal mounting position, so i have more tip for powder. mounting the 184 more center is gonna make it feel shorter too.

i just looked at my ep's which are mounted at the reccomended point, but it looks somewhat far back for such a bc jib ski, so it does have a bit more tip than tail, which is why i always felt like it was a little too long and in the way for park. but if i had center mounted those i feel like it would have been perfect. skiing my friends true center 179 hellbents in the park felt like the perfect length.

so i was leaning towards going shorter, now im leaning towards going longer, this sucks
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Twig
Posts: 6472 - Karma: 62,829
I'd get the 184s and mount at true or -1cm. I've ridden most of pollards skis at one point or another and tried them all at true centre and they've all skied really well there. I prefered Lizzies at true to at -2 (recommender) you'll be fine to go centre. I'd keep the EPs for deep days if you can't get opus though.
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
XtRemE11
Posts: 5680 - Karma: 246
im probably not gonna get a new all pow ski this year. so ill keep the ep's maybe sell them if i like the bacons enough in deep stuff.

where is the reccomended mounting point on the bacons in relation to true center?
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Twig
Posts: 6472 - Karma: 62,829
-2cm
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
XtRemE11
Posts: 5680 - Karma: 246
is that from true center? or core center?
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Twig
Posts: 6472 - Karma: 62,829
-2cm from true centre is the recommended mounting point.

going to true centre will in my experience of other Line EP models (Lizzies and EP Pros), hurt the pow performance a little, improve the park performance and make pretty much no difference on the groomed.
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
XtRemE11
Posts: 5680 - Karma: 246
alright if i go 184's i think ill do 1 back. 178's ill probably do 2 back.
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Twig
Posts: 6472 - Karma: 62,829
if it helps, they both measure shorter tip to tail, the 178 is about 174 with the tape pulled straight between tip and tail. they 184 is about 181.5.
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
XtRemE11
Posts: 5680 - Karma: 246
ahh that helps, pretty sure im gonna go with the 184's now. probably 1 back from true
14 years ago
0 0
profile picture
mountainviper
Posts: 1931 - Karma: -3
Dude my 178 cryptos straight pull to 175 and my 178 bacons straight pull to just under that. I'm sure your super anxious to get em but if you live near a shop that will demo both sizes, I would highly recommend it. As I said above, there's a big difference between the feel of those two lengths in the air. It's something you could get used to on the 184s but to use them for alot of park like myself, you may want to go 178s. Either length I doubt you'd regret cause the ski is super sick. I really think you should demo both lengths though. After skiing on both lengths I'm def more confident in my decision to go 178 for park and jibbin. Again, if it was going to be your only ski I'd say 184 but if your keeping your ep pros or possibly getting the opus you may want to demo first. On that note though, the opus is insane. You could just get that to do it all.
14 years ago
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4); Currently it's 11:37PM