Pugski Test Team

Testing skis so you don't have to.
Admin
Pugski Ski Tester
Posts
263

FACTION_W19_Logo_Block_POS 500.png

FACTION CT 1.0.png
Faction Candide 1.0
Dimensions: 121-90-121
Radius: [email protected]
Sizes: 164, 170, 176, 182
Size tested: 182
Design: Carryover

dean_spirito: (from last year) When the greatest freeskier on the planet designs a ski, people should probably stop what they are doing and take notice. While many brands have moved away from fully symmetrical designs in order to appeal to larger audiences, Faction has figured out a way to combine the body of a traditional park ski with the soul of a big-mountain ripper. The Candide 1.0 was the only symmetrical ski I tested this year, and it also happened to be the stiffest and most conducive to hard charging. Candide Thovex is probably one of the most aggressive freeskiers out there, and this ski is a perfect reflection of that style: incredibly stable at high speeds and burly enough to handle any size airs, whether in the park or backcountry.
  • Who is it for? Big-mountain skiers and heavy, aggressive park riders.
  • Who is it not for? Beginners and intermediates skiing on piste: this is a stiff ski that demands a competent driver.
  • Insider tip: Symmetrical skis have a unique feel and can be difficult for traditional skiers to adjust to; don’t disregard this ski simply because of its shape, just realize it may take some getting used to.
Screen Shot 2018-08-16 at 12.02.42 PM.png
Faction Candide 2.0
Dimensions: 135-102-135
Radius: [email protected]
Sizes: 158, 166, 172, 178, 184, 188
Size tested: 178
Design: Carryover

dean_spirito: The Candide 2.0 is more than just a symmetrical park ski: it is an all-mountain ripper that can handle anything in your path! Camber underfoot and rocker in the tip and tail work together to create a versatile ski that holds solidly in firm snow yet floats effortlessly through pow. To create a stable platform for landing huge airs, the Candide 2.0 incorporates a carbon stomp pad into the poplar/beech core. This helps to absorb impact and dampen vibrations without making the ski feel too heavy or too stiff. Whether you are lapping the park or sending cliffs in the backcountry, the Candide 2.0 is right for all occasions!
  • Who is it for? Advanced to expert skiers looking for a playful ski that won’t fold under pressure; park rats looking for something to take to the big mountain.
  • Who is it not for? Those not looking to catch air or ski switch; it is most definitely a freestyle-oriented ski.
  • Insider tip: Candide Thovex is arguably the greatest skier on the planet, and there is a good reason why you see so many of his skis out on the hill.
19 FACTION CT 3.0.png
Faction Candide 3.0
Dimensions: 135-108-132
Radius: [email protected]
Sizes: 162, 169, 176, 182, 186, 192, 204 (yes, 2 Oh 4)
Size tested: 186
Design: Carryover/NGT

Ron: For the better part of this season, friends at my local ski shop were nagging me to get on this ski, but I already owned another ski that I used for powder days. Fast forward, I demoed a pair of Faction Candide CTs and was blown away. Named for Candide Thovex, who defies gravity in his internet sensation videos, the Candide 3.0 is a lightweight ski that can still charge. The CT 3.0 has a softish tip but gets progressively stiffer until underfoot where its quite stiff. From the heel back, it softens but maintains some stiffness for support. I had to get used to a twintip, but found I really like this design for stability and turn shape. There is low but long rocker on both the tip and tail. This shape allows the ski to maintain stability while still providing good float.

Despite being thought of a park or freestyle ski, this ski is impressively versatile on soft groomers, crud, and above-the-knee deep days. In fact, although I typically never evaluate a wide ski on its groomer performance, this ski rips and is a ton-o-fun on soft groomers. The tip engages very well for a ski of this width. In powder, you can really work this ski which has a lot of pop and energy but still feels grounded to the snow, and with its camber (more than the published 2 mm), you can pop around small features and have a blast on it. The 3.0 has a very low swing weight and can be pivoted and schmeared in very tight spots. I am skiing this much more often than I thought I would be.

There is a 4cm span for mounting on the CT; from the forward "CT line," which is more for park or freestyle skiing, to the aft, "all-mountain" mark, which frankly is too far back. I played around with the mounting point and ended up at +1 from the all-mountain mark. FWIW, my LSS says most skiers go mid-point between the two marks, or just about where I am.
  • Who is it for? Those looking for a super fun powder and damn near perfect all-mountain Western ski.
  • Who is it not for? I'm not sure!
  • Insider tip: Demo first if possible for best mount point; +1 to mid-point will work for most skiers.

Screen Shot 2018-08-16 at 12.03.10 PM.png
Faction Prodigy 1.0
Dimensions: 120-90-112
Radius: [email protected]
Sizes: 152, 158, 164, 170, 176, 181, 187
Size tested: 181
Design: Carryover/NGT

dean_spirito: Faction designed the Prodigy series with intermediate skiers in mind. If you think that the Candide lineup is too aggressive for your taste but you want a similar flavor, take a closer look at the Prodigy. At 90 mm underfoot, the Prodigy 1.0 could be a great one-ski quiver. Rocker in the tip and tail contributes to smooth turn initiation and effortless float in deeper snow. Camber underfoot allows the ski to hold firmly on hard pack and explode from one turn to the next. Finally, a poplar core makes it light, playful, and easy to bend.
  • Who is it for? Intermediate skiers looking for a one-ski quiver; aspiring park rats.
  • Who is it not for? Advanced to expert skiers who like to go fast; heavier skiers.
  • Insider tip: This versatile ski will appeal to a lot of different intermediate skiers.

Screen Shot 2018-08-16 at 12.03.35 PM.png
Faction Prodigy 2.0
Dimensions: 122-96-112
Radius: [email protected]
Sizes: 154, 158, 164, 174, 178, 184
Size tested: 178
Design: New Construction

dean_spirito: Just because a ski is designed for intermediates doesn’t mean that it should make you ski like one. Unfortunately, Faction missed the mark on the Prodigy 2.0. I found it to be downright scary on piste. Although it performed slightly better in variable chop, that did not make up for the lack of performance elsewhere on the mountain.
  • Who is it for? People who like to torture themselves.
  • Who is it not for? Most people.
  • Insider tip: Don’t let this lackluster review discourage you from looking more closely at the Prodigy 1.0.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ski otter 2

Out on the slopes
Skier
Posts
836
Thanks, you guys.

One addition: I and some others I know who have skied and/or own the Faction C.T. 2.0 are not switch or lots-of-air skiers but LOVE THIS SKI. To me, skied over several days, it is very versatile. It charges, it is damp in crud, very fast but does slow well too, and yet it is fairly turny, and playful (when asked for that). I had fun on groomers as well. And in bumps, either soft or older. This ski reminds me of the Blizzard Rustler 10, and is of similar width. (However, I skied them over a year apart, both on powder days [although with the 2.0 I tried an old snow day too]; I'd have to ski them back to back in the same conditions to be more specific.) For the way I ski, I preferred the C.T. 2.0.
 
Last edited:

ski otter 2

Out on the slopes
Skier
Posts
836
Thanks, @Ron . The 2.0 could be a Western one ski quiver or daily driver ski, and is for a few I know, whereas the 3.0 108 seems to be a soft snow ski, for me, at least, from what I could tell. And very promising at that. (I've put a circle around that ski to try again in pow thanks to you.)

I demoed the 3.0 one-two days after a powder day, so I was not able to ski it in optimal conditions for that ski. I did find crud and a bit of new to try it in, and found it great. It reminded me of my V-Werks Katanas, which is my favorite soft snow ski. Had I not had that and a few other soft snow skis for other niches, I'd have made sure to try the 3.0 again on a pow day, if possible. And I still will, if given an opportunity. Gad, we live in a time of so many great skis, a golden age for that, seems like, thank Heavens.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ron

Ron

Seeking the next best ski
Pugski Ski Tester
Posts
5,874
Location
Steamboat Springs, Co
I will get on a 2.0, if its like the 3.0 then, the mount point becomes critical. Does the 2.0 have the same 4cm span of suggested mount points? AM through the CT line? I would not go further back than 2.5cms from the CT line. I think mid-point, 2.0cms is a good option as well. the AM line is not suggested unless you only plan on ripping soft groomers. that's for the 186.
 

ski otter 2

Out on the slopes
Skier
Posts
836
Hi, Ron!
For the 2.0 there isn't a 186.

What I'm seeing for C.T. 2.0 both last year and this, 18/19, are lengths of 178, 184 and 188.

I just skied the demo mount for the 184, as set up routinely by the Faction reps directly, not sure what line (and this was where the Christy's guys I ski with had also suggested I try it.) On this ski, this mount gave me the quick turning and stability combined I'd get moving way forward on the longer AXes and other skis.

I'd guess not the C.T. line by how it handled; but I can call around or ask the Christy's guys next time I see them. Or, to be sure, I can always ask the Faction reps at the first, Loveland Demo this year. If someone else hasn't yet posted the info yet, I'll do so when I get it.

Anyway, I liked that 184 length and standard demo mount point, at both the Loveland (Christy's) and Keystone (Epic) national rep days - 184 as per buddy recommendations; and I was thinking "non-ice and soft snow up to 6" or so," and thus was looking for more fore-aft stability, rather than the probable one ski quiver length, for me, of 178 (which would have taken bumps more into account).

(I'm sure I'd still put either Marker demos or Marker schizos on them if I buy them, to experiment at leisure; high on the list of great skis I've tried but don't own - yet. :D)
 
Last edited:

Ron

Seeking the next best ski
Pugski Ski Tester
Posts
5,874
Location
Steamboat Springs, Co
Hi, Ron!
For the 2.0 there isn't a 186.

What I'm seeing for C.T. 2.0 both last year and this, 18/19, are lengths of 178, 184 and 188.

I just skied the demo mount for the 184, as set up routinely by the Faction reps directly, not sure what line (and this was where the Christy's guys I ski with had also suggested I try it.) On this ski, this mount gave me the quick turning and stability combined I'd get moving way forward on the longer AXes and other skis.

I'd guess not the C.T. line by how it handled; but I can call around or ask the Christy's guys next time I see them. Or, to be sure, I can always ask the Faction reps at the first, Loveland Demo this year. If someone else hasn't yet posted the info yet, I'll do so when I get it.

Anyway, I liked that 184 length and standard demo mount point, at both the Loveland (Christy's) and Keystone (Epic) national rep days - 184 as per buddy recommendations; and I was thinking "non-ice and soft snow up to 6" or so," and thus was looking for more fore-aft stability, rather than the probable one ski quiver length, for me, of 178 (which would have taken bumps more into account).

(I'm sure I'd still put either Marker demos or Marker schizos on them if I buy them, to experiment at leisure; high on the list of great skis I've tried but don't own - yet. :D)
in my conversations with the reps, some preferred the +1cm from AM, from the guys at my LSS, they all ski the 3.0 at mid-point (+2 from AM). I am happy at +1.5 :) that can be influenced by our terrain, more trees, no real open terrain (off piste of course) so we do value quicker, shorter radius turns,
 

ski otter 2

Out on the slopes
Skier
Posts
836
I talked to a friend, L., at Christy's about the 2.0/3.0, but not as yet one of the men who used it for 16/17 as their daily driver, with more neutral skiing styles. L. is a more traditional charger, drives his skis usually, even in bumps, so it was no surprise he skis the 2.0 at the a.m. line, though he would recommend it at +1 from that line also. He said lots of the people buying that ski go with the C.T. line as a matter of course (probably as freestyle skiers). L. also said that for him, the 3.0 with the 2.0 in the same quiver makes a lot of sense. They feel like very different but complementary skis, to him. To him, the 3.0 is more burly. (That surprised me, as he skis a lot of really burly skis, which to me the 3.0 is not, good as it is.)

I learned that almost certainly, the Faction reps set the 184 demo 2.0 skis I tried at the a.m. line. (That also surprised me a little, because even at that line the ski was so turny and easy/forgiving, not burly, even though it was stable on groomers/crud at speed, for me.)

I notice that whereas the 3.0 is r 22 @ 186 (straight pull 184), the 2.0 is r. 16 @ 178 and r. 18 @ 184 (straight pull 182), which about fits my impression/comparison of the turns of the two skis; but to me the 2.0 feels like it's r 15-16 at 184/182 because it is so turny comparatively, even at the a.m. line. At that line it still wasn't burly, and gave the option of skiing upright or more forward, skier's choice. But I'd still definitely want to experiment 1-2 cm forward, as @Ron suggested, especially if I was skiing more off piste, in aspen and bumps.:D
 
Last edited:

ski otter 2

Out on the slopes
Skier
Posts
836
P.S. I've read that the 18/19 3.0, at least, is doing away with the two lines 4 cm. apart, and going with just one line instead. Apparently, that one line is the same as the C.T. line, so the unmarked a.m. point would now be -4 cm. back, and @Ron's suggested point would be -2.5, if that is the case.
 

davjr96

Putting on skis
Skier
Posts
113
Location
SF Bay Area
How true to length do the CT 3.0 ski? Steep and Cheap has a pretty good deal on the 162cm but I'm not sure if that'll be a good size for me. I'm only 5'5" 130lbs but haven't skied anything that category to compare length too. I'm used to FIS 157 Sl skis, cheater GS, or 172cm super light weight touring skis but looking to expand my quiver to an out west all around/east coast pow ski. Is the 162 CT 3.0 a good idea or should I keep looking?
 

Jtlange

Getting on the lift
Skier
Posts
145
Location
Denver, CO
They ski shorter than what they are listed. If you ski 172cm touring skis, you would be fine at 162. It is a twin tip after all.
 

Ron

Seeking the next best ski
Pugski Ski Tester
Posts
5,874
Location
Steamboat Springs, Co
P.S. I've read that the 18/19 3.0, at least, is doing away with the two lines 4 cm. apart, and going with just one line instead. Apparently, that one line is the same as the C.T. line, so the unmarked a.m. point would now be -4 cm. back, and @Ron's suggested point would be -2.5, if that is the case.

Interesting. I would believe that. I can reach out o faction on this. The AM line is too far back for sure I didn’t ski it on the ct line but from I was told that’s probably too forward for most traditional skiers who are not trying to be Candide. :thumb:I could def see skiing the 3.0 at mid point but I think it might start degrading it’s on piste broken snow chops. Once we get some snow, I will get on the 2.0 and the 1.0. I don’t know if the 2.0 is too much overlap with the 3.0. That’s only 6mm difference and unless there’s a difference in shape and flex construction, etc, that’s just too close. (For me).
 

GregK

Out on the slopes
Skier
Posts
756
Location
Ontario, Canada
The Candide line changes flexes through the range as the CT 1.0 is fairly solid, symmetrical ski with playful tip tails and the CT 2.0 is quite a bit softer throughout and much more forgiving. The 2.0 is not as good at higher speeds or at hard snow carving as the 1.0 but very playful and fun at lower speeds. If you are lighter skier on a longer 2.0 size, it would be a super fun all mountain ski as others have said.

When you move to the CT 3.0 it is now not a symmetrical ski and its much stiffer than the 2.0 is especially in the tails. The binding mounts move from -1cm from center/-5 cm back(all mountain) in the CT 1.0 and CT 2.0 to almost -3cm/7cm(all mountain) back in the CT 3.0. Most people find the CT 3.0 to be the best at carving, through crud and best at higher speeds of the three narrowest CT models. The CT 4.0 is very similar to the CT 3.0 in flex and sidecut and has a single mount point of -3.7cm back.

I would agree with others that recommend a mount point about 2cm or so back of the CT mark on all of these skis for those that don't ski park or ski switch often. 3cm or so back of center on a symmetrical ski like the 1.0 and 2.0 is still good for all mountain use while still being playful and 5cm back from center on the CT 3.0. Further back than that and you lose the playfulness and further forward and you lose stability and carving capability.
 

ski otter 2

Out on the slopes
Skier
Posts
836
So I'm a "lighter skier" (150 lbs., though 5'10") "on a longer 2.0 size" (183), and can charge it some; though I can do so with true chargers more.

I got a hold of one of my friends in the ski biz, E., who has skied the 2.0 183 for the past two years as one of his main skis, and found that he still favors it, mounted at the midway point between the two lines, 2 cm back of the C.T. line, as @Ron mentioned. E is very happy with it there. In fact, he's getting a pair of new 18/19 C.T. 2.0s in the next few days, because his Faction rep wanted his old ones back. (Go figure.)

I found E. also got the C.T. 3.0 186 sometime last season, and skis it more than the 2.0, also at the midway point, 2 cm back of the C.T. line. He prefers its longer turning, rail riding. As I experienced, and as @GregK just noted, the two skis handle differently, and are complementary to one another: different enough to be fun. (Mainly, as I noted above, the 2.0 is more turny, and more laid back, though to me, both are pretty forgiving and laid back; while at the same time, both handle crud and variable well, at least in my experience as "a lighter guy skiing longer.")

At the beginning of last year, E. used his 17/18 Dynastar Legend x106 182 a lot, he said. But once he got the C.T. 3.0, he found himself shifting to that ski. He said he'd now use the x106 at most a dozen times a year, as a more frontside ski than the C.T.s.
 

ski otter 2

Out on the slopes
Skier
Posts
836
Since this is the Faction thread, there is at least one more Faction ski - or rather, series - worth mentioning:

The Faction Prime 3.0.
133-108-123
r. 23 @ 182
1710 gm per ski @ 182
177, 182, 189

This ski appears to be unchanged for this year. It is a winner: compares very favorably to the Kore 105.

FACTION PRIME 3.0 SKI 2019




I skied the Head Kore 105 the same day. The Prime is also a lightweight carbon-added ski.

For me, a ski of this width is mostly a soft snow ski, though for some this width can be a daily driver. Rightly or not, I tend to rate skis of this width first by how they do in chop/variable/crud. By this standard, I liked the Prime 3.0 better than the Kore 105 - for myself, on that given day. Charging crud just worked for me on that ski, whereas I wanted the Kore 105 to do better in similar conditions, relatively speaking.

If you are considering the Kore or one of the other carbon-added skis, for soft snow especially, consider the Prime 3.0 if you get a chance.
 

Advertisement

Top