Faction Agent 100?

[adrenalated]

Anyone been on the most recent iteration?

Looks interesting as a touring ski.

[adrenalated]

Bump. Bueller?

[mntlion]

kinda light, 100mm, 25m? stiffish.

very average, and works well

[telelebowski]

I had been looking for any info on the Agent 90 or the Agent 100 for a long time, they look like excellent touring skis for multiple deep day trips. Suffice it to say that literally within days of getting a screaming deal on another pair of skis I walked randomly into a shop off I-70 in Glenwood Springs and they not only sell them, they also demo them? WTF? Bizarro. They only had the 179s. Fondling them, I was very impressed with their weight-much lighter than I anticipated-but also with the flex and how sturdy the construction felt. I talked to the guy behind the counter, he says that he likes them a lot, and that it is the only light weight ski he has been on that doesn't get totally punked around in more variable snow (he was referencing it to the Denali, which he said skis well but definitely gets tossed around). I was very surprised by how much camber they have, and it is also a flat tail. I even remarked on it, and he said that while there is a lot of camber there, to him the rocker does its job, and he likes the way it skis. It is also a very subtle rocker. Anyway, if you are ever around Glenwood Springs, Summit Canyon Mountaineering is demoing 179 Agent 100s with Dynafits.

[adrenalated]

^^^ that is good info, thanks!

Any chance either of you could compare the flex to any other skis?

I am going to be headed to A$$pen in the next couple weekends, I'll try to stop in Summit Canyon on the way and fondle.

I'm basically looking for something lighter than my Praxis Freerides (9lbs even) for spring ski mountaineering that doesn't suck on the way down. Longish radius, light, little tip rocker, fairly stiff, excellent edgehold, and doesn't get kicked around in shitty snow are requirements. I know there are other skis that fit the bill, but these certainly look like a contender.

[kokomas]

I had a pair from 2011 of the alias 100s and I found them to be hooky in deep pow. Not sure if the radius is still the same though

[Smails]

My buddy skis the Agent 100. Never tried them myself because they aren't my size, but I can't believe how light they are when I load them in the car. They are a good looking ski (and I don't mean the graphics), sidewall construction, nice tip rocker profile and traditional tail. He's very happy with them.

[Lindahl]

Word from a buddy that rips is that it's a good ski that has a great combination of lightness, dampness and stiffness that leads to a pretty smooth ride. He liked it better than the ZeroG series, specifically mentioning the 108, which deflected a lot because it was too stiff for how light and damp it was.

[Mountain Relish]

I have one of the older versions for touring and I love them. A friend who is a very good skier had the older version and recently got the new version and he says that they are significantly better as a touring ski. Basically lighter without loosing much of the versatility and performance.

[Bumba]

I have those 186cm agent100 skis this year model and i really like those. Nice traditional skis tiprocker flat tail and light. Very nice touring skis not a best in really deep powder days.

[langleybackcountry]

Old thread, I know, but...

Any more feedback out there? I am interested in the Agent 100 as an AT touring ski for the Pacific Northwest where we get...ummm..."variable" snow. Heavier, sometimes rain-infused, but often soft and deep. Needs to manage hardpack, too, but since I grew up in New England I can manage hardpack pretty well. Probably driving with a medium flex boot like the Maestrale 1.0, but I might consider the RS or a Scott Cosmos II.

[galibier_numero_un]

Bumping for a take on the current Agent 100's vs. the Zero G 95. I'm looking at something that sits the broad middle range between a powder touring ski at one extreme and a Spring ski at the other ... maybe closer to a Spring ski in the sense that handling refrozen crap would be nice.

Looking at the rocker profile (in the absence of any other dimension details), the Agent 100's appear as if they might bias a bit more toward crud performance and deeper/softer snow than the Zero-G 95's, but this is at best, an uninformed guess.

Word from a buddy that rips is that it's a good ski that has a great combination of lightness, dampness and stiffness that leads to a pretty smooth ride. He liked it better than the ZeroG series, specifically mentioning the 108, which deflected a lot because it was too stiff for how light and damp it was.

This comment really rings true to me. There has to be a limit in dampness of a light, stiff ski. It's the old "light, stiff, damp ... pick two" (or a balanced distribution of the three, depending on priorities).

I'm also trying to make sense of the Agents in relation to the CT 2.0. I think the CT's are more spinny/flippy (the way their namesake skis). Am I getting this right?

Mount point/skier bias ... any thoughts on mount points (and skier bias - jibby vs. trad) of the Agent? Is it closer to the the Zero G's more traditional stance/mounting point than it is to the CT's (assumed) modern/centered stance?

... Thom