Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,983

    Faction Candide 3.0

    Anyone have significant time on any of the Candides? Iíve been skiing the 204cm 3.0s this week and am having a blast on them.

    Iíve hard of some durability issues, but havenít been able to get more info about which years, models, etc, had the issues.

    Best comparison I can come by so far is these feel like a modern GunSmoke, which is awesome cause Iíve missed mine. They arenít as soft as some people have said. Weight didnít seem to be an issue today in our cut up pow, they did what I wanted when and didnít get deflected as I thought they would.

    I did have them not grab an edge on me once, but I was going 40 mph into a small bump field and tried to throw them sideways to slow down. The tip and tail did flap a bit trying to grab and edge, but it wasnít to be.

    The skis did what I asked, and how I asked. I canít ask for anything else. Their wasnít a learning curve, I just pointed them and skied. First ski Iíve instantly clicked with in a while.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    48
    I've got about 50 days on a pair. I absolutely love them with one caveat, I got the 162s and really wish I got the 176s, but I'm tiny and the 162s were about $350 cheaper.... Ignoring that sizing issue here has been my experience. They can carve hardpack (do people do that on TGR?) way better than they have any reason too for the waist size. I got down a run one time and met up with a friend on the lift and he looks down at my skis and goes "Holy shit dude I thought you were on your slalom skis watching you come down". They are so much fun in cut up pow, they don't go through it but rather love to just bounce around and off everything. Every little thing is a kicker. I do wish they were every so slightly heavier but that is likely due to me needed a longer size instead. Durability issues I haven't had any but I stay out of the park.

    I completely agree with your last statement "The skis did what I asked, and how I asked. I canít ask for anything else. There wasnít a learning curve, I just pointed them and skied. First ski Iíve instantly clicked with in a while.". Felt the same way the instant I got on them, when I can justify soon enough it I think I am gonna get another pair in the correct size.

    EDIT: About me, 135lbs 5' 5". Fairly aggressive ex-racer from the east coast. Not quite used to this powder stuff yet. Have skied them all over in storms at Jackson, Alta, Snowbird, Mammoth, Squaw, as well as sugarbush and whiteface ice.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by davjr96 View Post
    I've got about 50 days on a pair. I absolutely love them with one caveat, I got the 162s and really wish I got the 176s, but I'm tiny and the 162s were about $350 cheaper.... Ignoring that sizing issue here has been my experience. They can carve hardpack (do people do that on TGR?) way better than they have any reason too for the waist size. I got down a run one time and met up with a friend on the lift and he looks down at my skis and goes "Holy shit dude I thought you were on your slalom skis watching you come down". They are so much fun in cut up pow, they don't go through it but rather love to just bounce around and off everything. Every little thing is a kicker. I do wish they were every so slightly heavier but that is likely due to me needed a longer size instead. Durability issues I haven't had any but I stay out of the park.

    I completely agree with your last statement "The skis did what I asked, and how I asked. I canít ask for anything else. There wasnít a learning curve, I just pointed them and skied. First ski Iíve instantly clicked with in a while.". Felt the same way the instant I got on them, when I can justify soon enough it I think I am gonna get another pair in the correct size.

    EDIT: About me, 135lbs 5' 5". Fairly aggressive ex-racer from the east coast. Not quite used to this powder stuff yet. Have skied them all over in storms at Jackson, Alta, Snowbird, Mammoth, Squaw, as well as sugarbush and whiteface ice.
    My buddies today knew I was on my Candide 3.0s, but were amazed at how fast I took off on the groomers, even with the mini bumps that had been forming, it was a storm day. They would carve amazingly well for how rough the groomers were. And if I wanted to let them run bases flat, they would sort of just float over everything but in a less violent way then my stiff charging skis do.

    The first time I went to double a bump, I almost tripled cause they pop so easily and smoothly. It took me a few kickers to adjust, but now everything on the mountain is a kicker. The tails have such a smooth pop, itís deceiving.

    I was also really surprised at how the whole ski loaded up in the medium heavy pow we had today, and popped into the next turn. The first few times it caught me off guard. Iím used to Shiros and my Super Freerides which donít do that. Once I started to get a feel for how the ski loaded, I could use that to get into the next turn quicker and easier.

    Iíve to 80lbs and 10Ē on you, and prefer long skis, so I got the 204s which were also on sale. My friends asked how long they were, and everyone was surprised when I said 204 cm, because they look proportionally correct on me.

    Have you tried any other Factions?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    48
    Agreed with all of the above, I've lent them to some friends who share similar sentiments. Everyone is always stoked when they get on them.

    I haven't skied any other factions. I have a friend who is a much better skier than I (Used to be a freedride/mogul coach) swear by his Dictators. I'm looking into the candide 2.0s to fill a spot in my quiver, but it sounds like they are pretty different from the 3.0s and not just a narrow version.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by davjr96 View Post
    I've got about 50 days on a pair. I absolutely love them with one caveat, I got the 162s and really wish I got the 176s, but I'm tiny and the 162s were about $350 cheaper.... Ignoring that sizing issue here has been my experience. They can carve hardpack (do people do that on TGR?) way better than they have any reason too for the waist size. I got down a run one time and met up with a friend on the lift and he looks down at my skis and goes "Holy shit dude I thought you were on your slalom skis watching you come down". They are so much fun in cut up pow, they don't go through it but rather love to just bounce around and off everything. Every little thing is a kicker. I do wish they were every so slightly heavier but that is likely due to me needed a longer size instead. Durability issues I haven't had any but I stay out of the park.

    I completely agree with your last statement "The skis did what I asked, and how I asked. I canít ask for anything else. There wasnít a learning curve, I just pointed them and skied. First ski Iíve instantly clicked with in a while.". Felt the same way the instant I got on them, when I can justify soon enough it I think I am gonna get another pair in the correct size.

    EDIT: About me, 135lbs 5' 5". Fairly aggressive ex-racer from the east coast. Not quite used to this powder stuff yet. Have skied them all over in storms at Jackson, Alta, Snowbird, Mammoth, Squaw, as well as sugarbush and whiteface ice.
    Iíve never heard such high praise for a ski blade, have you tried skiing an appropriately sized ski before?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    48
    Hahaha my other skis are 178, 182, and 173 (touring) which are plenty big for my size. Just got a screaming deal on these ski blades....

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by davjr96 View Post
    I've got about 50 days on a pair. I absolutely love them with one caveat, I got the 162s and really wish I got the 176s, but I'm tiny and the 162s were about $350 cheaper.... Ignoring that sizing issue here has been my experience. They can carve hardpack (do people do that on TGR?) way better than they have any reason too for the waist size. I got down a run one time and met up with a friend on the lift and he looks down at my skis and goes "Holy shit dude I thought you were on your slalom skis watching you come down". They are so much fun in cut up pow, they don't go through it but rather love to just bounce around and off everything. Every little thing is a kicker. I do wish they were every so slightly heavier but that is likely due to me needed a longer size instead. Durability issues I haven't had any but I stay out of the park.

    I completely agree with your last statement "The skis did what I asked, and how I asked. I canít ask for anything else. There wasnít a learning curve, I just pointed them and skied. First ski Iíve instantly clicked with in a while.". Felt the same way the instant I got on them, when I can justify soon enough it I think I am gonna get another pair in the correct size.

    EDIT: About me, 135lbs 5' 5". Fairly aggressive ex-racer from the east coast. Not quite used to this powder stuff yet. Have skied them all over in storms at Jackson, Alta, Snowbird, Mammoth, Squaw, as well as sugarbush and whiteface ice.
    I've been doing a lot of research of wanting an all-mountain do it all kind of ski in the mid-fat range and have been leaning towards the 3.0s... Im 5'8" about 165lbs and definitely not an ex ski racer. Im a solid upper intermediate- advanced skier. Im thinking of leaning towards the 176s over the 182s to keep things light to maybe put some shifts on these for next season to start touring... Was curious of your thoughts... does it ski super short? I don't want to get the 182s and feel like they are too much skis and can't progress as a skier.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    mammoth
    Posts
    151
    I had a pair of this past seasons 186 3.0s but never mounted them, and ended up selling them to a buddy of mine.

    Went skiing with him during his first time on them, and he was popping all over the place. It appears there's absolutely 0 learning curve for that ski, and he seems to really like them.

    I don't know how they handle crud and such, but it seems to be a really balanced and jibby all mountain ski. Reminded me of how I liked to ski my meridians, but with camber.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by djbartlett21 View Post
    I've been doing a lot of research of wanting an all-mountain do it all kind of ski in the mid-fat range and have been leaning towards the 3.0s... Im 5'8" about 165lbs and definitely not an ex ski racer. Im a solid upper intermediate- advanced skier. Im thinking of leaning towards the 176s over the 182s to keep things light to maybe put some shifts on these for next season to start touring... Was curious of your thoughts... does it ski super short? I don't want to get the 182s and feel like they are too much skis and can't progress as a skier.
    Hmm that's a tough one. Regardless of my sizing on this ski, I almost always advocate for longer skis. But a bit shorter is helpful for touring IMO. It depends how you intend to ski these. If you intend to sit centered and bounce around on them then shorter would probably be more fun. If you want to lay down some long turns with a fair amount of weight on the tips then longer would be better. I would demo if you get the chance. Maybe someone else can chime in too.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by davjr96 View Post
    Hmm that's a tough one. Regardless of my sizing on this ski, I almost always advocate for longer skis. But a bit shorter is helpful for touring IMO. It depends how you intend to ski these. If you intend to sit centered and bounce around on them then shorter would probably be more fun. If you want to lay down some long turns with a fair amount of weight on the tips then longer would be better. I would demo if you get the chance. Maybe someone else can chime in too.
    I honestly think I would be more confident on the 176s and with these being my all mountain do everything ski I think the 176s would be perfect for that especially for a 50/50 in the future for backcountry tours... I demoed the 174 salomon qst's last year and felt comfortable after the first handful of runs. Wasn't crazy about them but i think I just figured out this years sticks!! But would still love to hear others' opinions!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Eagle River Alaska
    Posts
    10,931
    I'm on the 194s from last year, started at the "candide" mounting point which was a mistake, as I couldn't for the life of me ski powder with them. Moved my bindings back to .5 behind the "all mountain" point, and holy shit, hands down my favorite resort ski. They do basically everything I ask them to. They are playful when I want to rip short little turns, ski moguls, slash pow, etc. They are powerful when I want to do big long radius turns. They are just super easy and fun to ski. For how light they are they are just incredible skis.
    Its not that I suck at spelling, its that I just don't care

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    laus'angeles
    Posts
    187
    Tell me more about the 204. There is a new pair for sale locally not too expensive.

    Sent from my FRD-L09 using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by djbartlett21 View Post
    I've been doing a lot of research of wanting an all-mountain do it all kind of ski in the mid-fat range and have been leaning towards the 3.0s... Im 5'8" about 165lbs and definitely not an ex ski racer. Im a solid upper intermediate- advanced skier. Im thinking of leaning towards the 176s over the 182s to keep things light to maybe put some shifts on these for next season to start touring... Was curious of your thoughts... does it ski super short? I don't want to get the 182s and feel like they are too much skis and can't progress as a skier.
    I went long, 204cm, and am really happy. I would personally get the 194 to tour on, but mainly because I can get skins long enough. I would not go any shorter for me.

    Iím also on the all mountain line and feel itís perfect. If I had demo bindings on them Iíd try -1 but I have no need to drill these again to try them back further. On the all mountain line works really well.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    15
    Wondering what other's thoughts are... There is an older thread on here about the Candide 3.0s vs. the BC Atris whats your guys opinion's between the 2.. I've been looking at both this season...

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by djbartlett21 View Post
    Wondering what other's thoughts are... There is an older thread on here about the Candide 3.0s vs. the BC Atris whats your guys opinion's between the 2.. I've been looking at both this season...
    Iím just not a Black Crows fan, but the ones Iíve tried are the 18X, and I donít like skis that short


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    322
    I picked up a used set of 2017/18 3.0s (186), threw some Shifts on them for general resort use/occasional slack country and they're saweeeeet! So poppy it's almost ridiculous and they can actually carve! I was on a pair of automatic 109s before these and it's night and day. Love them so much I got a new set for touring! Mounted up with MTNs and they're decently light.

    I kind of want a pair of 4.0s for slightly deeper days...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •