Model: 2013 Line Sir Francis Bacon Skis
Actual Length (Pull Chord): 181cm
Stance -2.5cm from Center
Again for 2013 Line Skis has done an amazing job with the Sir Francis Bacon. It comes back for 2013 with an updated graphic which is another piece of art by the master Eric Pollard. I didn’t think that Line could do a better job with the graphic and I was wrong, Eric really put some amazing color into the ski and the graphic has been getting amazing reviews.
Now to the skiing. I said it last year and I will say it again this year, if you are looking for a one ski quiver ski that is playful and wants to always be searching out for the terrain off the trail then you will be very hard pressed to find anything more versatile in the 100-110mm category than the 2012/2013 Line Sir Francis Bacon Skis.
Other companies seem to always be playing catch up with Line and with the Early Rise/Early Taper on both the SFB and Opus Skis it is easy to see why! They turn on a dime with no effort at all, yet when you need stability on groomers the Line Sir Francis Bacon really holds on edge and with a turn radius of about 17m you will think you are on a ski 90mm in the waist. The Bacon allows you to easily get in and out of turns quickly and playfully. If you are like me and enjoy skiing the side 10 feet of the trail in the crud and sugar snow the Sir Francis Bacon eats those conditions up with ease! With the Early Rise and Early Taper the ski has a surf like feel to it and will easily ski all conditions that you throw its way. If you are into skiing pillow lines and searching out deep snow you can ski the Bacon, but you may want to look at its big brother the Mr. Pollard Opus for true powder lines in the backcountry.
One major factor you need to consider when buying this ski is the length. These skis not only measure short but they ski short as well. The one thing that is need with the Sir Francis Bacon is a 190cm length ski. This would make decisions much easier. The 184cm length is the top selling length and when you get on it you will see why. It turns like a 170cm length ski and sometimes you forget that you have a ski on that is over 180cms. For bigger guys and more aggressive skiers I think a 190cm length would be a great addition to the line up. If you are over 220lbs you may want to consider something slightly longer like the Mr. Pollard Opus. Just don’t sell yourself short, these skis may be 108mm in the waist but you still want the length to truly get all optimal ride out of this ski. If you are over 160lbs you should be skiing the 184cm length.
As for mounting point I would really suggest the Mid Sole mark that Line has already suggested. The skis do ski the best mounted on that line and if you are a tele skier I would really suggest talking to whoever is mounting your bindings and make sure they mount them so your boot mid sole is around the mid sole mark on your boot. These do ski best toward center even on a tele set up.
I look forward to getting out this weekend on the Bacon’s again and see how they perform on true firm Northeast snowpack! Please feel free if you have any questions to post them here and I will do my best to get back to you in a timely manner. Although it is February the weather and snow feels more like April so i have been getting out on the hill and testing as many skis as possible so look for more reviews to follow.
100 Replies to “2012/2013 Line Sir Francis Bacon Skis Review”
Enjoy they are certainly an amzing ski!
Chraging for everyone is different and so is everyones style. I have had no issues hard charging on the Bacon, that being said if I weighed over 200lbs then things may be different, but at 130lbs you will have a fun ride on that ski. Alpha 1 is also a fun ski and you can certainly do more with that ski than many magazines ever said you could. The bacon is a one ski quiver ski and you can do anything on it. If you were saying you were only dropping big cliffs and skiing big lines thne maybe I woul dgo for something a little stiffer but for everything you said you ski the Bacon was a great choice.
You can easily do the Opus as a wider one ski quiver ski if you are keeping your Prophet 98’s. There are plenty of guys touring on big setups, I used Prophet 115’s for a while with a Duke… that was a very heavy setup and one I would not suggest for more than an hour. If you are doing a couple hour tours the Opus would not be that bad at all.
2. Don’t worry about DIN scale, they just make them with high DIN for guys who want it. Salomon Starts at a 7 and the Marker starts at a 6 and if you want to do the Baron that starts at a 4 and goes to 13. If you are only touring with these then I would say you could consider a tech binding like a Dynasfit, however if you are going to be doing more Alpine Skiing than anything then stay with the Marker or Salomon AT Bindings, they are going to Alpine much better than the Fritschi, Dynafit, or G3 is going to. The tech bindigns will tour better and be much lighter but you will certainly give up a lot on the ride down. You can certainly consider the Opus it is an amazing ski and what I am probably going to mount a Guardian or Duke on my new Opus 192cm skis.
Thank you for your review and thoughts on the SFB. I am about to purchase a pair and hope that you would be kind enough to recommend the right length for me. I’m a mere 5’2″, 125lbs and am more than confident skiing anything pisted, now it’s all about getting off piste and amongst the trees as much as I can. I ski in Europe so powder days are always questionable. I currently ski a pair of K2’s, 156 actual length, 76 waist, twin tips but no rocker.
On paper I can’t get my head around going for a pair of skis which are 172, should I go for the 165 Shorty based on my height and build?
You are a prime consumer for the 172cm length bacon. I know the length is tough for you, but you also have to remember the ski actually measures 168cm in length and then when you figure in all the rocker in the tip and tail and the fact you lose another 5cm’s because it is a twin tip a 172cm is the perfect length for you. The 165cm Shorty is a totally different construction and is made for skiers up to about 125lbs so I really would suggest going to the 172cm Bacon as it is only a few cm’s longer than the 165cm Bacon Shorty and it is a much better ski.
Thanks for the great review. I hesitate between the prophet 98 in 186 and the SFB in 184. I ski in all conditions and therefore am looking for a “one-ski-quiver”. I know that such a ski doesn’t exist, but the 2013 line skis do seem quite close…
I am a confirmed skier (181cm and 75kg) and enjoy deep snow, high speeds on groomers as well as having fun in the trees or next to the slope.
What ski would you recommend? Don’t you think that the SFB would be too shaky on (icy) groomers?
Thanks again and cheers,
First of all great review! I’m basically set on these skis, but have yet another size question.
I was in a shop today and all they had was the 178. I’m 5’11” and weigh 145 lbs. I ski most of my season in the east, groomers etc, but would love a ski for the big mountain trips.
I like to charge pretty hard and love to carve. I’m worried that the 178’s may not hold up in the big stuff. I’ve been on longer skis but granted they had a bit more rocker. Will this length be just as playful, and would I regret going too long with the 184? What would you recommend?
From looking at your reviews you seem to have a vast knowledge of these and pretty much all skis. 🙂
My question for you is regarding how the sfb from 08/09 compares to today’s version.
Two reasons im looking at an old ski:
1. Snowboarding is my primary winter obsession. I skied for years and started snowboarding about twelve years ago. Right now my board quiver is dialed and I am just looking for an extra toy. I dont really want to spend much on skis.
2. New skis are crazy expensive. Through finding deals, I picked up 3 boards and bindings last year for less than the cost of these skis. Like I said earlier, im really just looking for an extra toy.
last year I skied on a used set of k2 public enemy skis in 169. Pretty short for my 5’9″ 185lb frame. It was my first year back trying skis and they were only $60 with bindings. It was enough ski for mw to cruise with my 5 year old daughter taking her first year of ski lessons. The problem is that it made me want to ski a bit more.
Anyway, I’ve come across a set of new old stock SFBs for a super deal. The seller says they are 181cm. Any thought on how they ride compared to today’s model? Seems to me that they were even an all mountain ski from the beginning.
Thanks for writing. From what it sounds like the Prophet 98 may be a better ski for you. I dont say that often, but if you want something that will rock on high speed groomers and do really well in deep snow the Prophet 98 or Influence 105 would be a great choice. The Bacon is incredible in fresh snow and such an amazing ski. It does incredibly well on groomers as well, but it really wants to be carving more on groomers than just going straight. I fyou enjoy making really nice turns at higher speeds and don;t just point them down the hill then you can consider the SFB, but if you really enjoy speed a lot then you may want to consider one of the other 2 skis.
You would 100% regret going with a 178cm length in the SFB. The 178cm measures closer to 174cm and they ski even shorter than that. You would certainly want the 184cm length and do not let anyone talk you into going any shorter than the 184cm length. i am trying to get them to make a 190cm for 2014 as I feel there is a market for that length. Myself being one of those. The 184cm measures just over 181cm which is just where you should be on this ski.
I try to keep up the best I can. With so many brands and models it is a full time job!
The ’09 Bacon was a completely different ski from the current model of SFB. Dimensions are totally different and the rocker design and over all shape design is also different. This being said it was an amazingly fun ski and if you can get them for a great deal you should jump on it. Make sure it is a 182cm length though as that ski was never made in a 181cm.
With snowboarding being your main obsession I feel really comfortable telling you that you will enjoy the older Bacon, it skis like a snowboard rides and that was kind of the idea that Eric Pollard had when he designed that ski. He also snowbaords and he wanted a ski that felt like his board when he was in deep snow and yet he also wanted it to be playful on the groomers.
Just make sure they are the Sir Francis bacon with a 115mm waist and you will enjoy them if you can get for a good deal. I still have my pair!
Really enjoyed the review and your answers. Wish I had read this a month ago. Just took the plunge with 178 SFBs. I am an advanced skiier who loves pow but conditions/family dictate that I spend at least 50% of my time on piste, where I prefer carving fast med-long GS turns and also enjoy the occaisional foray into the bumps. I’m 5ft 9 and weigh in around 165 pre-gear. This is the first time I’ll be on anything over 100 – I skiied the Scott Venture last year at 178 and 96 underfoot. Have I made a schoolboy error going for the SFB 178 instead of 184? I also opted for a very light Tyrolia Peak 12 binding. Is that choice going to come back to haunt me?
Grateful for your thoughts.
The SFB just skis and measures so short that the 178cm measrues around 174.5 and the 184cm measures around 181cm and they both ski shorter than that as well. You should still have fun on them, especially when skiing with the family… but you could have easily moved up to the 184cm length. The Peak 12 will work just fine on that ski.
First off, this review really helped me shape up a decision in Ski. I went for the 184 length SFB.
I did however buy them without bindings and therefore, I wondered if you could recommend me a binding that would be decent in any sort of scenario. I quite like the look of the Marker bindings but wasn’t sure about a certain one in particular. Could you recommend me a binding that is suited nicely for this Ski please? (Doesn’t have to be Markers). I weigh about 200lbs and spend most of my time jumping from groomed runs to the crud – 10 ft off the trail, to deep stuff and glade runs. All sorts basically.
Thanks for your help in advance.
Thanks for the nice review. I’m definitely interested in the SFB but the only thing I’m not sure about is the size I should take. I’m 181 cm and weigh 156 pounds. I went to a store and they told me to take the 184’s. Won’t they be too long? I’d like to hear your opinion on it!
Just ordered a set of SFB’s at 184cm. Im 5’10 170lbs.
I just wanted to post this to say thank you for this thread.
Im an aggressive advanced skier and Ive been beating on the same pair of Solomon Pocket Rockets at 175 for over 7 years and 400+ days. These things are like my PR’s were (400 days ago) but more playfull and alive. They feel the same if not shorter then my last skis…and they dont have six pack rings melted into the bases.
Ive spent ages demoing skis trying to find a one ski quiver to replace my PRs, and when I demoed these they sold themselves. Theyre as solid banging trees as they are holding an edge on the groomers at terminal velocity. Nicely done Line.
Hi, I have a chance to buy the 2009 Sir Francis Bacon with Rossi freeski 180 bindings for $350. They are used but in good shape. I am 5’8″ 175 lbs and in Portland, OR. Love powder but ski a lot of heavier snow and crus at meadows. 44 years old but still pushing it as much as I can.
Is the 182cm a good fit, and is this ski a good fit?
The marker Griffon skis very well on thsi ski. I have jesters on mine and they have excellent response time and are also very light weight as well. there are some great Salomon Bindings you could put on as well.
184cm is the pick length as they measure 181cm and they ski so much shorter than that. If you are not aggressive all the time you could go down to the 178cm length but honestly the 184cm is not a stiff ski at all and it is very user friendly.
Trying to get an idea on size of these. I am 5’2″ and 125-130 lbs athletic build. Consider myself an advanced skier as I ski black diamond runs (not double diamonds really) but in tough snow conditions they give me grief and I need to really slow down. I ski In southern Idaho so see very mixed conditions. Anything from a foot of light pow, heavy pow/concrete, cut up pow, crud, dust on crust, wind blown hard pack, or daytime thaw/rain soft snow mix with a nighttime freeze, and of course spring skiing.
I enjoy off trail between the trees and ungroomed steep blues and ungroomed blacks plus open bowls. If its been a while since fresh snow I just deal with it the bad off trail conditions and hit groomers or the edges of the groomers. Currently on a 162cm Nordica Afterburner (126/84/118) but feel its about 5-7cm short, previous skis were Volant Powercarves at 167cm or 169cm.
I Was also looking at the TST and was told to try the 174cm. The 172cm and 178cm of the Bacons straddle this. The review says they measure short and ski short. If the 178cm measures @ 174.5 cm and they ski short thats not much different running length than my 162cm Nordicas. And about the same size as the 174cm TST.
Local shop does not have the 172cm to demo so once they release the skis for demo (low snow pack near local hill) I would have to try the 178cm and guess what the 172cm would be like.
Hope you can help as I want to get the skis as soon as possible. Plan on mounting Marker Griffons on them.
I was just wondering how a shorter girl would fair on these skis?
Hi – have totalled a pair of praxis bc’s that I loved so am on the hunt for a replacement.
Thinking about going for the bacons rather than an exact like for like as they sound fun but want to ensure that fun can be had on hard snow as I ski in europe which always includes some windbuff, ice and hard pack, sometimes exclusively.
I’m 187 cm , 185 lbs and use an NTN set up.
spend 50% of my time on piste 50% off piste. do a fair amount of skinning so weight is a consideration.
the 50% on piste is with my wife / friends who are not strong enough skiers to venture off marked runs for long, I tend to play along the edge of runs.
The rest of the time I will spend seeking decent snow and steep terrain.
So – do you think that the 184 is for me or should I look into alternatives that are less soft snow focused?
hey adam i got myself a pair of sfb for in 178 5’11 195lbs and paired them with carbon kneebindings how do you think that set up will work with nordica f4 from 2011.
Megan, fwiw while i’m not a girl, i am 5’2″, 160 lbs and the 172cm Bacons are my favorite skis I’ve ever owned. Adam, i’m sure will back me up on this… Lightening quick edge-to-edge, turns on a dime thanks to the 15m radius. You would never know they are 108 underfoot until you get them in soft snow and they just levitate. Very forgiving ski but you can rail them on hardpack, superb in tight spaces, bumps, trees, etc. Only weak point is hard crud — you cant power thru like a metal ski but with some finesse it’s not a problem. If you want a do-everything (except maybe true bottomless pow) ski that feels like an extension of your feet and you dont mind a more or less centered stance, I can’t recommend the SFB highly enough. The gorgeous graphics don’t hurt either
Hopefully you have had a chance to try the 178cm SFB, for your ability I think that is the length you would want to be on in this ski. The TST in a 174cm length would certainly be another option as well. For your height and weight you could do the 172cm, but I think for your ability you would want the 178cm length mostly because of how short they measure and how much shorter than that they ski.
Not a problem at all she would fair very well on the 172cm or even the 178cm length.
The SFB with an NTN is an awesome set up 2 of my best friends are using that set up and they love it for patrol. They can use in all conditions and they are playful both on soft snow and on the groomers as well. The Praxis is a little lighter but not as playful so it depends on what you want.
I think the setup will work great, but I think you may have wished you went with the 184cm length instead of the 178cm ski that skis so very short.
You know I certainly agree :)!! The SFB is just an amazing ski and it does everything you want it to do!!
Hi Adam, took your advice (November 1st, 2012 at 11:32 AM EST) and went for the 172. Just gotten back from 2 weeks of snow and even though they are longer than anything I’ve skied before they are so much fun and would never do back to skinnier skis! Thanks again for your advice. Ben.
They are certainly an amazing ski and one that I am excited about coming in a 190cm for next year!!
Adam, I went for the 172’s. They defiantely have a speed limit on the groomers but its much faster than I expected. ANd its its an icy groomer day Ill just run my Nordicas. Finally had a chance to try them off piste it the trees and under the lifts etc with about 8-10 inches of powder (tracked up very quickly too). Decent float and easy to manuver around quickly it the shorter length. Its not as much float as I was hoping for but still quite good, especially as I came off of 84mm waisted skis. As an all mountain one ski do it all they are pretty damn good. If we typically got more snow here in SW Idaho I may have gone for the 178’s for more surfce area. Having said that the Opus would be better suited for that, shame its not done ina 172. That could be the perfect dep powder/tree/off piste ski for me.
Oh also mounted them up with the FKS 14 and loving that binding too! Plus the flouro orange helps find them if lost in deep snow. Additionally I won the base color lottery. Instead of the Red/Blue they are Black/White. Im liking that much better!
Yeah the 178cm would have certainly given you much more float as that is a small 172cm ski and with tip and tail rocker you lose some effective edge as well. I am just glad they are making it in a 190cm for next year. If you can demo the Opus in the 178cm I would suggest that, you would be suprised at how easy that ski handles.
Hey Adam, this is just to satisfy my curiosity more than anything, but…I was looking through Line’s 2013-2014 catalog, and I was kinda shocked by their recommendations for mounting points for the 2014 Bacon and Opus.
Stance(mm): Eric’s Choice -20 / Recommended -60
I have both my SFBs and MPOs mounted at -20, right on the factory printed line, and that feels perfect. I actually have Schizos on my Bacons which has proven to be pretty much unnecessary because -20 is so dialed.
But so then it goes on to say that Line now recommends it at -60mm. WTF? That sounds waaaay too far back on such symmetrical skis. At first I thought it was a typo but it’s also printed that way in the specs at the back of the catalog. Just wondering because if people go with the new “recommended” mp next year I think they might regret it. Any insight into why they went that?
FYI, Scott — I’m 5’2″, 160lbs, advanced and have no problem skiing my 178 Opuses. They ski super short and are agile even in tight trees and bumps. In fact, they secretly make me wish I had gone with the 178 instead of 172 for my Bacons, especially in deeper conditions. But bottom line, I don’t think you’d gain anything from the Opus being shorter than 178. As long as mount them with a lightweight binding you will almost certainly love them. Such a great counterpart for the Bacons.
I 100% agree with everythign you said. Line had asked me about putting multiple mounting points on the sksi and we told them in no uncertain terms to only put the one mark as that is where the ski skis best and there is no reason at all to mount that ski further back. Why they did it I do not know but I know that every person I sell the ski to I will be telling them to mark on the Eric line and certainly not the Recommended line as i would never want that ski mounted 6cm’s back from center. In My Opinion they just opened up a mess by adding a second mark. The ski is so close to symmetrical that you want to be closer to tthe center so you are on the sweet spot of the ski.
Hi, I am looking for a new powder ski and have it narrowed down to the 2013 SFB and 2013 Atomic Blog ($200 cheaper). I already know the SFB is a better quality ski, but I am looking for a closer comparison of the two, to see how much im losing in quality choosing the blogs over the SFB.
I am 5′-6″ 150 lbs and an advanced to intermediate skier. I ski on the east cost in medium to deep powder, mainly in tight trees. What differences will I find between the blog and SFB and would the 177 cm(blog) and 178(bacon) be the right length for me? Thanks
The Blog is certainly a decent ski for the money, but we just love the way the bacon skis and is so damp when you are on groomers. They do ski and measure short. The 178cm measures around 175cm. You could do the 178cm or the 184cm. You can get the 178cm for under $500 in the Bacon which really is a great deal as that is one of our top 3 favorite skis. The Blog is just a little more sluggish in the trees. The Bacon in the trees turns on a dime and with ease, the Blog is a little more work. On trail the Blog does better than it does in tighter areas, but does lack the ease of use that the Bacon has. If you want a ski that is a step or two down form the Bacon you may be alright with the Blog because of your weight, if you were around 165+ I would suggest Bacon all the way, but at your lower weight you may get a better ride out of the Atomic than someone who is 35lbs heavier.
I am a petite woman advanced skier, finesse rather than charger, and have ordered the SFB Shorty in a 155 for going out west. I ski eastern snow (Vermont) most of the time. I went by Line’s weight chart for the length. Wanted to double check with you. I am 95# and 5’0″ tall. Hope this is correct because they’re in the mail!
Appreciate your review and your feedback!
Thanks for the great review. I ordered at a closeout price the 2013 Bacons in a 172cm and Kung Fujas at 169cm, expecting to return the pair I don’t keep. I’m 5’8″, 145 lbs. and want an everyday ski for trips out west. I’m an advanced/expert but not a hard charger, preferring short radius turns to high speed arcs and am regularly in bumps and tight trees, so I figured it made sense to go with Line’s suggested 172cm length (in a chart and confirmed by a phone rep at Line headquarters). But when the Bacons arrived I saw why everyone says to size up… these have about the same running length as my 164cm Salomon X-wing Fury and the center mount gives them about as much length upfront. Will I regret keeping these? If so, I’ll keep the K2 Kung Fujas (tape pull is 170cm versus 168.2 for the Bacons) since they have noticeably less rocker, seem a little stiffer for hardpack, and their suggested mount is further back so they may float better in pow. Any advice on whether to keep the Bacons or Kung Fujas? Thanks.
You will enjoy the 155cm length for your height and your weight. The SFB shorty will give you a great ride and enjoy!
If you said you had a 178cm Bacon and a 169cm Fujas I would certainly say the Bacon, but for your height and weight I would never suggest a 172cm Bacon, they measure much shorter as you know and because of both early rise and early taper they also ski much shorter than that along with being mounted -2cm from center. Go with the Fujas in the 169cm length as it is going to be a more appropriate ski.
have been considering going for some SFB’s, 2013 model, 178cms. Read with interest most of the posts above, & think that that’s probably a good size for me. What do you think based on the following:
didn’t ski for 24 years, got back on skis May 2012 (Blackcomb), very different lengths to my old Dynamic Sl VR27 195’s!
Used to be a pretty good skier, now probably “intermediate-advanced”. Not interested in butters, ollies etc, but still love the powder & may do some gentle cruising in the moguls. Going to Whistler in March, hoping to ski groomers & powder.
Weigh 72 kgs (159 lbs), 174cms tall (5’8.5″).
Thanks, Adam. I’m a little bummed that the 172cm SFB is not optimal… are the Kung Fujas as lively/quick/versatile? Since you’ve skied and seem to like both, are there notable comparative strengths/weaknesses on hardpack, powder, bumps, and trees in a side-by-side contest? And finally, do you still advise mounting the KFs at +4 from Traditional even if I rarely ski switch and stay out of the park? The K2 rep suggested +2 for better float in pow. Thanks again.
Hi Adam, I ski the Armada Vjj in 165cm and I intend to get the Sir Francis Bacon this season, to have a ski that is a bit more versatile:-)I am not really sure about the size though. I am 5’3″ and about 120lbs and would like to use it for (free-)skitouring aswell. I am an advanced-expert skier, so I am looking at the 165 Shorty…after consulting the size chart, which kind of puts me right in the middle between the 155 and 165, I am bit confused:-) Can you please help?
Hopefully you have already bought and have been enjoying your skis :). Because of the rocker and taper in the bacon Shorty you should certainly be skiing the 165cm length. They ski shorter than they look and are so easy to use that you would over ski the 155cm length. The 155cm would still be fun but you would lose a lot at higher speeds.
I am looking at some good deals on both 172 and 178 SFBs, and I am having a hard time choosing one. I am 5’6″ and 140 lbs. I ski in western Wyoming and SE Montana. I consider myself an advanced skier. I currently ride a pair of Nordica Conquers at 84 underfoot. I am looking for a wider and more playful ski for trees and soft bumps that can hold its own (but not necessarily shine) in deeper crud and chop. I was thinking the 178 would be better for the chop, but wasn’t quite sure if tree performance would suffer. I don’t ski switch so I was also considering the Sick Day 110. However, maybe its time to learn to ski switch =) Do you have any thoughts?
Go with the 178cm in the Bacon as they measure and ski short. Even if you aren’t skiing switch being mounted at -2.5cm is going to make the ski more playful. If you end up mounting at the -6cm mark they will not ski as playful but if you don’t know how to ski a ski center you may want to mount further back and it will give you a little more tip.
Hi any advice would be really appreciated. I’m only an intermediate skier 5’5 133lbs. I’m trying to figure out which size to buy 165 or 172? I’m little worried about the weight and length of th 172. I currently use the Rossignol S3 in 159. A former snowboarder. I’m having fun on skis right now. I don’t want to struggle in a longer length ski. I ski all mountain, sometimes the park and i love hitting small kickers on the side also trying to learn how to ski powder. I’m trying to decide between the SFB shorty 165 or the Rossignol Soul 7’s.
That is easy you want to be on the 172cm SFB with out a doubt. These skis not only ski super short but they also measure short so the 172cm measures like a 168cm but then they ski like a snowblade because of where their contact points are. The Bacon will not be a struggle at all and honestly even for how small you are in this ski we would normally still suggest the 178cm but where you like snowblades you can go shorter. The new version of the Bacon will not come shorter than 178cm. Don’t go with the Shorty it is built for kids and if you become aggressive you will over ski the ski.