Restless — An Alex Hall Portrait (Full Film) | Faction Skis

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!

5’8” 140lbs is the 184cm Sir Francis Bacon to big?

profile picture
qazwsxedc34
Posts: 2955 - Karma: 2,141
I already bought it. I have been riding on 174 recoils and 176 punx, I just thought I needed something a little longer for stability skiing all over the mountain. Should I have went with the 178?
POLL
Edit Poll
Votes:

Take care when editing a poll; Options should be similar to maintain vote integrity.

More options will be added automatically as you type. You must supply a question and at least two options. No HTML is allowed.

Mar 3 2015 12:26PM
4 0
profile picture
qazwsxedc34
Posts: 2955 - Karma: 2,141
I just read that they run really short and are flappy at high speeds so bumping up a size would greatly improve the skis performance. Plus the 184 is actually a 180.

Also, where should I mount them??
Mar 3 2015 12:55PM
1 0
profile picture
Thawg
Posts: 360 - Karma: 542
CONAIR_BUSCEMII just read that they run really short and are flappy at high speeds so bumping up a size would greatly improve the skis performance. Plus the 184 is actually a 180.

Also, where should I mount them??


mount them at pollard's recommended spot, thats where they will perform best.
Mar 3 2015 1:24PM
1 0
profile picture
qazwsxedc34
Posts: 2955 - Karma: 2,141
The_Woatmount them at pollard's recommended spot, thats where they will perform best.


Thanks appreciate it!
Mar 3 2015 1:29PM
0 0
profile picture
qazwsxedc34
Posts: 2955 - Karma: 2,141
This will mainly be a powder/tree ski. Apparently people are voting that it is too big, ahh.
Mar 3 2015 3:10PM
0 0
profile picture
SimplyClean
Posts: 556 - Karma: 1,752
184's should be just fine for you OP. Mount them -2 from true center (Eric's mounting point).

I'm 5'9" 140lbs and love riding my 185 Opus everyday all around the mountain. It's not too big and it rips everything. They ski shorter than you'd think and when you're close to center it's not too much ski between your feet. If your bacons were for a park ski, I'd say the 178 would have been better but a 184 for all mountain is perfect.
Mar 3 2015 3:35PM
0 0
profile picture
qazwsxedc34
Posts: 2955 - Karma: 2,141
SimplyClean184's should be just fine for you OP. Mount them -2 from true center (Eric's mounting point).

I'm 5'9" 140lbs and love riding my 185 Opus everyday all around the mountain. It's not too big and it rips everything. They ski shorter than you'd think and when you're close to center it's not too much ski between your feet. If your bacons were for a park ski, I'd say the 178 would have been better but a 184 for all mountain is perfect.


Yeah, thanks. I was debating on whether to get the 178’s or 184’s but I read that a lot of people regretted getting the 178’s as they actually measure much shorter and ski even shorter.

I think I made the right choice. Plus, I’ll gain a little more in the weight department and might shrink a little more due to scoleosis but that’s fine.
Mar 3 2015 4:05PM
0 0
profile picture
qazwsxedc34
Posts: 2955 - Karma: 2,141
SimplyClean184's should be just fine for you OP. Mount them -2 from true center (Eric's mounting point).

I'm 5'9" 140lbs and love riding my 185 Opus everyday all around the mountain. It's not too big and it rips everything. They ski shorter than you'd think and when you're close to center it's not too much ski between your feet. If your bacons were for a park ski, I'd say the 178 would have been better but a 184 for all mountain is perfect.


Yeah, I won’t be riding them in the park. They are going to be my go to skis when there is a ton of snow. I did get the 184’s and with boots they are 2 inches over my head. They do seem quite tall.
Mar 5 2015 9:21PM
0 0
profile picture
AlfredHitchCAULK
Posts: 119 - Karma: 10
yah same mount recommended and the size should be fine cuz they got a good amount of rocker
Mar 6 2015 3:02PM
0 0
profile picture
phyz
Posts: 573 - Karma: 937
I'm 145, 5'8", and have the 178's. They're great for groomers, park, trees etc, but they are definitely on the shorter side of things. 184 would be totally comfortable, plus a little more stable and floatier. They're such manueverable easy to ski skis that you should be totally fine
Mar 9 2015 5:48PM
1 0
profile picture
qazwsxedc34
Posts: 2955 - Karma: 2,141
phyzI'm 145, 5'8", and have the 178's. They're great for groomers, park, trees etc, but they are definitely on the shorter side of things. 184 would be totally comfortable, plus a little more stable and floatier. They're such manueverable easy to ski skis that you should be totally fine


Thanks for the input! Yeah, I decided to keep the 184s, I looked at the contact points of the skis and their running length is much shorter than my 174 recoils and 176 punx. I think I made a good decision.
Mar 9 2015 10:59PM
0 0
profile picture
phyz
Posts: 573 - Karma: 937
CONAIR_BUSCEMIThanks for the input! Yeah, I decided to keep the 184s, I looked at the contact points of the skis and their running length is much shorter than my 174 recoils and 176 punx. I think I made a good decision.


Solid man, yeah, my 171 chronics actually feel longer than my bacons. They're such fun skis though, you should have a blast on them!
Mar 9 2015 11:15PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)