Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

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!

Sir Francis Bacon's which length?

profile picture
CradleFills
Posts: 35 - Karma: 20
Hey all. I'm 5'7, weigh 130 lbs and consider myself advanced. I hear they ski a little short so i didn't know if the 172's would be too short? There is a killer deal for them right now so if they are good for me i'm going to pick them up right now.

Also i was curious as to where i should mount them. I like to mainly ski forward but have started to play around with adding some switch elements to my runs. Some spins here and there basically. I don't want to go to far back because if i decide to venture into the park, which is getting rare nowadays, i would like my balance to be more centered. What do you guys/gals think?

And i guess what bindings would you recommend?

Thanks for your time everyone.
Apr 5 2014 10:30PM
3 1
profile picture
SimplyClean
Posts: 556 - Karma: 1,752
Definitely go for the 178s if you can find them. 172s are too short, especially since they ski shorter

I'd also mount them at Eric's point, which I believe is 2 back from center
Apr 5 2014 11:33PM
0 0
profile picture
tomPietrowski
Posts: 7143 - Karma: 17,438
How old are you op. If you still growing the 172 could be fine at your size but it's quite a heavy feeling ski. It's not a ski which is easy to throw around so at your size you may not find it that playfull. If your after a ski for more shredding then playing around on go for it but if you want to jib around look elsewhere.
Apr 6 2014 5:10AM
1 1
profile picture
CradleFills
Posts: 35 - Karma: 20
I'm 22 actually. I'm a shorter skinny white dude. Sad to say but i'm done growing haha. Yea i don't want something super long because i'm a smaller sized individual but i want something thats suited for my ability. Maybe i'll just go with the 172. Still not sure.
Apr 6 2014 2:49PM
1 0
profile picture
.nasty
Posts: 10581 - Karma: 11,150
the 78 wont be to long! I am 6'2 155 and ride the 184. Wish I had a 90 a lot

Erics choice is the only place to mount it!
Apr 6 2014 2:57PM
0 0
profile picture
charmander
Posts: 10636 - Karma: 370
go 178 for sure at 5 9 my shortest ski is a 184, daily driver at home mountains is a 193
Apr 6 2014 3:52PM
0 0
profile picture
CradleFills
Posts: 35 - Karma: 20
You guys don't think me being too light will make it harder handle the 178? I trust your opinions.
Apr 6 2014 4:40PM
0 0
profile picture
skier58284
Posts: 1705 - Karma: 5,365
Go 172, 178 is too long for your weight. Sure, you could handld them, but they aren't ideal.
Apr 6 2014 6:21PM
0 0
profile picture
charmander
Posts: 10636 - Karma: 370
you'll be fine unless youre a beater
Apr 6 2014 6:21PM
0 0
profile picture
CradleFills
Posts: 35 - Karma: 20
Right now im on a 157 ski that i had for four years and its definitely time to get a pair for my size. I feel like the 172's will ski roughly like 157 because they ski short. I don't want to ski a length thats the same as my old pair. Might go 174 or 178.
Apr 6 2014 6:42PM
0 0
profile picture
CradleFills
Posts: 35 - Karma: 20
Leaning towards 178 so i have more edge on the snow, and overall more stability. Probably gonna gain some weight this summer as well.
Apr 6 2014 7:58PM
0 0
profile picture
DrZoidberg
Posts: 5675 - Karma: 4,268
I'm 5'5" 120lbs and I rode the 178s for a day. I found them fine, not too long feeling at all. Great skis actually. Maybe the 172s would permit quicker spinning, but I had no issues on the 178s. They're not stiff or anything; not hard to ski at all.

I aways heard they ski long because they have more effective edge. They definitely don't ski short like a Jj does, and they turn great. I was railing hard turns on them without sliding all over the place.

Pollards choice mount is like 2.5cm back, which is where mine were. I'd say that's a great spot, and it's marked on the ski.
Apr 7 2014 9:40AM
0 0
profile picture
DrZoidberg
Posts: 5675 - Karma: 4,268
Yeah definitely consider 178. I ride a 166cm full camber park ski normally, and that's as tall as I am. I'd go longer too. The SFBs ski longer relative to other rockered skis, like I've ridden 185cm JJs and they ski like 100cm sometimes. Same with 175cm JJs. SFBs still don't ski like a 178 full camber ski, obviously.

But the SFBs are not a hard ski to ski at all. The turn radius is nice and tight feeling, so it's not like you're struggling to turn them or anything. I didn't find them heavy either, and I found plenty of stuff to jump off.
Apr 7 2014 9:51AM
0 0
profile picture
CradleFills
Posts: 35 - Karma: 20
Thank you so much for the interesting information DrZoidberg, i appreciate it.
Apr 7 2014 2:13PM
0 0
profile picture
CradleFills
Posts: 35 - Karma: 20
Bought the 178's for 420 bucks with tax. An amazing deal over at REI.com if anyone is interested. Obviously bindings not included
Apr 8 2014 6:41PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)