Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    190

    2021 Candide 2.0 and 3.0 quick reviews

    Just wanted to post a PSA on a slept on series that has gone through a major reform this year and takes a lot of the great qualities of skis mentioned in the Dynastar, Enforcer and Blizzard threads. Itís the 2021 Faction Candide line. Been floored by how good they are a just ordered my 3rd pair in the line yesterday.

    They moved all their ski construction into the Fisher ski plant, now use heavier wood core materials and the quality of construction is MILES better than before. Models have gained 200-400grams vs last years versions. Mild tip/tail taper so they still have good edge grip.
    All have a forward factory Candide mount point and then you measure back 1.5cm(like I did) for the ďprogressiveĒ mount point or back 3.0cm for the ďtraditionalĒ mount point if you drive your skis more and like more traditional mounts.

    I got the 183cm 2.0 this year on a deal from a local rep thinking if I didnít like it, Iíd sell it and be even. The ski weighs(2280gr) and flexes similar to a 2021 Bonifide 97 but has rubber damping tip/tail/underfoot, so itís like an even quieter Bonafide thatís a twin tip. Still playful in bumps and trees and a 20m radius so doesnít mind going straight at speed too. Sold my Enforcer 104 and Fisher 102 FR as this was a more stable, powerful carver thatís damper with better edge grip. Not the greatest float for itís 102mm width with itís narrow tip though.

    Liked the 2.0 so much I got the 184cm 3.0(112mm) with mine weighing 2210 grams and has a full poplar core and a very solid build as well. Loses the extra rubber damping of the 1.0 and 2.0 as well as the extra titanal sheet above the base for rail protection but still a pretty damp ski.
    A 21m radius in this length and very comfortable at all speeds. Shocking how good the grip and carving ability the ski has for itís width and yet itís an absolute blast in moguls and tight trees. Reminds me a lot of the 192cm MFree 108 but easier to manage in really tight spots for my 6í2Ē/175lb size. The 190cm version goes to 23m radius and adds another 50grams or so of weight. Could see a lot of Rustler 11 fans who want a beefier ski without much weight gain liking this ski as well as Enforcer 110 fans that a higher top end and better carving ability.

    Still some Spring Deals out there on them so I wanted to pass on my findings in case someone sees deals on this ski that many donít know about. Just ordered a pair of the 183cm 1.0 that I might use as a low tide/daily driver in the East Coast ski.

    Cheers

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    11
    Thanks for posting on this. The CT 3.0 looks on paper like a really solid playful charger in line with the M-Free 108 or even a narrower Black Ops Gamer. Hoping to demo a pair next season. How easy do they pivot/release in tight terrain? Wondering if I can manage the 190.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by CouloirInTheLines View Post
    Thanks for posting on this. The CT 3.0 looks on paper like a really solid playful charger in line with the M-Free 108 or even a narrower Black Ops Gamer. Hoping to demo a pair next season. How easy do they pivot/release in tight terrain? Wondering if I can manage the 190.
    Very similar feel to the 192cm MFree 108 even in the 184cm length on the 3.0 in it’s feel. So not as loose feeling as the 182cm MFree 108. I’m 6’2”/175 and was pondering the 192cm MFree 108 but would rather something in the mid 180s for length as I like tight trees and mogul runs where the 192cm might feel a bit long for me. The 184cm 3.0 pivots very easily in bumps yet it shockingly good on even firm groomers. I’ve got a sharp 1/2 tune on them that’s sharp right up to the widest taper point and it grips when I want and pivots when I don’t. Flattest base from the factory I’ve had in the last 30 plus skis I’ve bought.

    The Gamer has a very similar, light taper shape but with softer tip/tails vs the 3.0 and a lot more overall weight. The 3.0(and all the Candide models) have a strong, pretty uniform flex tip to tail that’s solid but not too demanding. Not quite the crud destroyer the Gamer is but for it’s weight, it’s very good. The tips smoothly glide over crud and don’t catch in variable terrain. Used them this week in Tremblant where is was warm during the days, cold overnight so solid refrozen groomers to start the day and warm, heavy crud by 11am as it warmed up. The 3.0 gripped in the mornings and carved way better than it’s width should and crushed the afternoon crud. Actually went over a few rollers to find a mini mogul field going fast and was able to ski out of it alive! Lol

    Think anyone who’s a decent skier 175lbs and up would be able to handle the 190cm without issue like the 192cm MFree 108.

    Tip and tail splay on the Candide 2.0(bottom) and 3.0.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	713E40AB-E8AA-46AD-8A77-55FE6A154FA9.jpeg 
Views:	63 
Size:	660.3 KB 
ID:	369430
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CE08238B-7C2F-4D78-AA1E-17FEA99BCA90.jpg 
Views:	66 
Size:	1.26 MB 
ID:	369431
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	B24D75E8-4E87-4CA3-B885-73DA97265220.jpg 
Views:	57 
Size:	1.19 MB 
ID:	369432  

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,116
    I never had any issues with Factions. I had the 2013 183cm Faction Royales (in the end they had 3 mounts on them, super thrashed and they sat in my garage for years....took em to the swap a few years ago to get $100 and I sold them to a ski patroller in the ski swap line up for $80....remember when we had ski swaps pre-Covid?), then had some 2019 182cm CT 4.0's and most recently the 2020 183cm Faction CT 5.0's. I think the 2020 5.0 was a really great ski. Light and nimble for its size/dimensions (150-122-140) and sturdy enough that I skied it everywhere in any condition. Sold them to get some Dynastar Proto 118s.

    I like how the CT's get less camber the fatter they get. The 4.0s had 1-2mm of camber and the 5.0s were flat. Makes total sense. Also love when companies give a 3 cm range of mount points. Other companies can learn from this.

    The 2020 build on my CT's seemed better than the 2019s? Sounds like the 2021 build is even better.
    _________________________________________________
    I love big dumps.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1
    has anyone here skied the faction dictator 2.0? looks good but still not sure on durability.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    190
    Went up the lift with a guy with last years Candide 2.0 when I was skiing my 2021 Candide 2.0 and we teased each other with ďnice skisĒ as soon as we noticed after sitting down. Took a pic as they arenít very common and he said ďtoo bad we arenít closer to my car as I have 3 more Factions in the carĒ. He had some Candide 1.0, 3.0 and 5.0 and he also mentioned how versatile the 5.0 was for itís width.

    Havenít been on the Dictator 2.0 but looked and it hasnít changed in materials this year but like all Faction skis, itís manufactured in the Fisher plant now so itís consistency of quality should be very good.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by m7b51e View Post
    has anyone here skied the faction dictator 2.0? looks good but still not sure on durability.
    Saw this review from a Calgary shop. Itís kinda been funny watching their reviews of Faction skis they sell but have never skied till now as the older guys have been ďwe should be recommending these more as they ripĒ on all their 2021 models. Review of the Dictator 2.0.

    https://youtu.be/mZF7j_uiniY

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,257
    The 2021 CT 3.0 is a solid ski. 2320g’s and skis well for what it is.

    At the CT recommended(-5) it skis well with a soft forward but mainly centered stance and has quite good edge hold underfoot. It’s really fun in the air and stomps landings great. However I find the float awful for a 112mm ski probably because the tips and tails are quite stiff with the flex of the ski coming from underfoot. They are as you mentioned really fun to carve.
    They aren’t super damp for how heavy they are which is kind of a bummer, probably due to how stiff they are, the flex pattern doesn’t absorb quite as much as it could.

    I don’t agree that it should be compared to the Rustler 11 as they feel and ski very different to me(the 190 and 192 weigh the same btw). The R11 is much more powerful along with having better deep snow performance. I’d also say the 191 enforcer is damper, but the CT is better in at making large radius turns.

    They are cool skis, but honestly not really a ski I would think most people on TGR would be that into unless they ski at a smaller resort.

    The new dictator 4.0 does look really good tho and I know quite a few people have been digging the new design which is much more forgiving along with being damper and heavier.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    3,299
    What is this, a couple of Faction reps talking to each other? Nothing against Factions, thereís two pairs in our garage, but this is a little blatant.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by noslow View Post
    Just ordered a pair of the 183cm 1.0 that I might use as a low tide/daily driver in the East Coast ski.
    Also interested in this ski for this use case. Have seen plenty of info on the 2.0, but have not seen much on the 1.0. For anyone who has skied the 2021 CT 1.0, please share your thoughts.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by _Ryan_ View Post
    Also interested in this ski for this use case. Have seen plenty of info on the 2.0, but have not seen much on the 1.0. For anyone who has skied the 2021 CT 1.0, please share your thoughts.
    The 2.0 and 1.0 are the same construction with similar sidecuts but the 1.0 has a bit less rocker and taper to be more hard snow focused. I don’t think it was too much of a gamble to order them as they should be very similar to the 2.0 I like. The 1.0 and 2.0 both have rubber dampening tip/tail/underfoot and extra titanal sheet above the base underfoot, so they both should be quiet and damp. Should get mine this week but won’t be able to try them out till next season I’m afraid.

    There was a Newschooler review of the 1.0 where the tester mounts the ski 2cm forward of the Candide mount and still was impressed with it’s groomer performance.

    https://www.newschoolers.com/news/read/In-Depth-Review-2021-Faction-Candide-1-0-Roofbox


    The recommended “Candide” mounting point on the Candide series is a pretty forward mount designed for freestyle skiers with centered stances who ski switch often. Progressive or traditional skiers should be mounting 1.5cm(progressive) to 3.0cm(traditional skiers) back to improve float and ability to drive the ski.
    The rec mount point on their Dictator/Prodigy line is the furthest back(traditional mount) and you move the mount forward 1.5cm to 3cm if you want a more progressive mount or Freestyle mount.
    Last edited by noslow; 03-28-2021 at 09:24 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    390
    Im now interested in buying some 2.0s in 178 or 184 if anybody has any leads.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by KillerMonkey View Post
    Im now interested in buying some 2.0s in 178 or 184 if anybody has any leads.
    Saw Evo.com has some CT 2.0 and 3.0 on sale right now.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by noslow View Post

    Still playful in bumps and trees and a 20m radius so doesnít mind going straight at speed too. Sold my Enforcer 104 and Fisher 102 FR as this was a more stable, powerful carver thatís damper with better edge grip. Not the greatest float for itís 102mm width with itís narrow tip though.
    Can you tell me more about how the CT2.0 compares to the Ranger 102FR? I'm really enjoying the Ranger 102 FR but if there is a ski that performs even better I am VERY interested!!!

    I've always been intrigued by the Faction CT line but it doesn't seem to generate a lot of great reviews and buzz from the more directional/non-park crowd or the Blister crew.

    Looking for a middle ski between my 2020 Mantra M5 and 2021 Moment WC118.

    Also, I see that you have a Moment WC in your avatar pic so if you don't mind, let me know how the CT3.0 stacks up against the Moment WC.


    Thanks!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by RadSkier_ View Post
    Can you tell me more about how the CT2.0 compares to the Ranger 102FR? I'm really enjoying the Ranger 102 FR but if there is a ski that performs even better I am VERY interested!!!

    I've always been intrigued by the Faction CT line but it doesn't seem to generate a lot of great reviews and buzz from the more directional/non-park crowd or the Blister crew.

    Looking for a middle ski between my 2020 Mantra M5 and 2021 Moment WC118.

    Also, I see that you have a Moment WC in your avatar pic so if you don't mind, let me know how the CT3.0 stacks up against the Moment WC.


    Thanks!
    Honestly, I wasnít overly impressed with previous models of Factions either as I always thought they were too light and too soft for my liking. Unless you knew about the change of production to the Fisher plant and saw the weights of the 2021 models, youíd never know they were so different vs last year as they all have the same model names and similar top sheets.

    The 183cm 2021 Candide 2.0 has a flex pattern in between the 186cm Enforcer 104 and 184cm Fisher 102 FR. Think itís a touch more forgiving underfoot vs the Fisher 102 FR but otherwise pretty similar. All the 2021 Candides are pretty uniform in flex so donít get much softer tip/tail like most. The biggest difference between the Candide 2.0 and Fisher is the added weight and dampening material in the 2.0. So instead of carbon tips, you have rubber damping there(tail and underfoot too) so the 2.0 is much quieter and damp vs the 102FR. Both great carvers when you have the Candide in the ďall mountainĒ mount position but the Fisher more precise and light on itís feet. Fisher has better float and a great tip for float and going over crud and the 2.0 a bit more forgiving in bumps with itís slightly more forgiving flex. Both pretty solid tails for twins and both less ďlooseĒ vs the Enforcer 104.
    So I wouldnít say the 2.0 is ďbetterĒ than the 102FR at all things, just a very good mix of it and the Enforcer 104.

    Find the 2021 3.0 more similar to the Fisher 102 or Wildcat as itís a bit stiffer than the 2.0, more directional and a bit lighter without the rubber damping of the 2.0 and 1.0. Like the Fisher, itís carving ability is great for a twin(again in the ďall mountainĒ mount) and the 3.0 feels like a much narrower ski than itís 112mm. Run mine sharp tip/tail so it grips harder groomers in the morning but can break the tails loose off piste easily. Still quieter and damper than the Fisher 102 but still lively. Tip/tail splay and rocker are in-between the Fisher and Wildcat so the Wildcat is even easier to pivot and the Candide more planted. Might be my favourite Candide.
    Have an online friend in Norway who is 6í4Ē/240 and usually skis the longest length in most skis. He has a quiver in the 40 plus pairs range including the Mantra 102, Katana 108, MFree 108, Enforcer 110, Moment Bibby etc and the 190cm 3.0 is his fav ski in this range.

    Got the 183cm Candide 1.0 last week(along with a ďhard snowĒ Head eTitan) and think Iíll like it as well. Stiffer than my 184cm Kendo 88s and 200 grams heavier(2200gr each) so the Volkls might be sold next fall. Slightly stiffer than the 2.0 or 3.0 with all the damping of the 2.0. Will be my East Coast daily driver I think but wonít get to try them till next season.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	479CEC1F-4524-46DE-BCFA-786B07E9A89B.jpg 
Views:	38 
Size:	626.9 KB 
ID:	371246   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	A71579A9-C016-41F2-9679-B53B17320F16.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	1.22 MB 
ID:	371248  

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    190
    It has been announced that Faction is once again moving itís production facility for the 2022 model year from Fisher to Amer Sports. While it is another very good manufacturing plant, the builds on the Faction Candide line are changing for 2022 and dropping weight significantly.

    The 2022 CT 1.0 goes to 120/88/112mm vs the 122/92/120mm of the 2021 but the big change is the weight is dropping to 1750gr in the 178cm vs 2150gr in the 2021 version.

    The 2022 CT 2.0 has the same dimensions as the 2021 version but again drops 400grams in weight on the 183cm version. The 2022 CT 3.0 again with the same dimensions but dropping 200gr so it will be similar to 2020 levels.

    So, it looks like a return to the lighter, more playful versions of the Candide line for 2022. So jump on the Spring deals of 2021 versions if you wanted some playful skis that can still charge.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    292
    How stable are the 3.0s compared to the Wildcats?

    I love 190 Wildcat 118s, super playful and versatile and can still charge. I can ski them everyday in Tahoe. Iím debating getting those again, 192 Ruslter 11s, or 190 Candide 3.0s

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,257
    Quote Originally Posted by AEV View Post
    How stable are the 3.0s compared to the Wildcats?

    I love 190 Wildcat 118s, super playful and versatile and can still charge. I can ski them everyday in Tahoe. I’m debating getting those again, 192 Ruslter 11s, or 190 Candide 3.0s
    Not as stable as a wildcat.
    The tail doesn’t have as much support in a turn and the edge grip isn’t as good.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_pretzel View Post
    Not as stable as a wildcat.
    The tail doesnít have as much support in a turn and the edge grip isnít as good.

    Thanks dude, very helpful.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by AEV View Post
    How stable are the 3.0s compared to the Wildcats?

    I love 190 Wildcat 118s, super playful and versatile and can still charge. I can ski them everyday in Tahoe. Iím debating getting those again, 192 Ruslter 11s, or 190 Candide 3.0s
    The Wildcat with itís longer radius is even more willing to go straight at high speeds but the 2021 3.0(even the 184cm version) very stable at high speeds.

    The 2021 CT 3.0 is more compatible to skis like the Deathwish, 192cm MF 108 or 191cm Ranger 102(around 106mm in that length). Very good carvers even when itís firm and still great with some snow. Edge grip and carving performance on the 3.0 defies its width. The CT 3.0 has a stiffer tip/tail flex than the Moments or MFree 108 and similar to the Fisher 102 FR but find the CT 3.0 a bit more playful.

    If you had Wildcats and loved them, the extra hard snow versatility of the CT 3.0 would be outweighed by the float of the Wildcats in Tahoe. Not sure what year Wildcats you had but the 2021 core, base and sidewall updates were noticeable for this former Bibby owner. 2021 Wildcats are damper, better gliding and just as easy to ski as the previous Wildcats. Iíd go that route if I were you.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by noslow View Post
    The Wildcat with it’s longer radius is even more willing to go straight at high speeds but the 2021 3.0(even the 184cm version) very stable at high speeds.

    The 2021 CT 3.0 is more compatible to skis like the Deathwish, 192cm MF 108 or 191cm Ranger 102(around 106mm in that length). Very good carvers even when it’s firm and still great with some snow. Edge grip and carving performance on the 3.0 defies its width. The CT 3.0 has a stiffer tip/tail flex than the Moments or MFree 108 and similar to the Fisher 102 FR but find the CT 3.0 a bit more playful.

    If you had Wildcats and loved them, the extra hard snow versatility of the CT 3.0 would be outweighed by the float of the Wildcats in Tahoe. Not sure what year Wildcats you had but the 2021 core, base and sidewall updates were noticeable for this former Bibby owner. 2021 Wildcats are damper, better gliding and just as easy to ski as the previous Wildcats. I’d go that route if I were you.
    I pmd both of you guys about the Rustler vs WC. Idk why, I felt like that was mucking up this thread. I keep seeing different takes, some say Rustler is more stable some say Wildcat. Trying to get your opinions.

    I had the 2019 Wildcats. I had a couple pairs of 190 Bibby Pros tho too. I though both versions were great, the Bibby Pros were burlier but the Wildcats had better float and easier to ski all day everyday. The new one getting closer to the old Bibbys is probably best for me.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    35
    The 2021 WC is a perfect ski for 5CM to 30CM of snow and then a really good ski when itís 30CM+

    Lives up to the hype for sure.

    My other skis are Mantra M5 for groomer ripping and the Fischer Ranger 102 FR for low tide to a few inches of snow.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    292
    Iím still pretty interested in the 190cm 3.0. On paper they seem perfect for me.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    469
    Honestly I’m most interested in the CT 2.0 and CT 3.0 as Rossi Scimitar and Rossi Sickle replacements. The dimensions are very close, as are the mount points and weights. And the CTs (this version at least) appear to have VDS rubber in the tips and tails. Not sure, but I feel like that was a significant factor in the secret sauce of the old Scimitar/Sickle.

    Obviously the Factions are not flat camber underfoot like the old Rossis. But as long as the CT camber underfoot is pretty minimal I’m hopeful that they may ski very similarly.

    Anyone out there been on both?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    190
    Only the CT 1.0 and CT 2.0 have the rubber dampening so the CT 3.0 not quite as damp or quiet but still pretty good. Never been on the Rossi pair but it looks fairly similar shape wise to the Candide line. The rocker profile and flex on the Sickle look similar to a wider Menace 98/Slicer which Iíve owned in the 181 and 187cm. Reviews of the Sickle make it sound like it skis very similar to a wide Menace 98 too. Great carver with itís flatter rocker but not as easy to pivot on heavy variable snow or off piste compared to skis with more tail splay.

    I loved my 187cm Menace 98s when things were fairly flat but found my Enforcer 104s, Fisher 102 FR and now the Candide skis were more fun when things were rough or off piste. All are easier to pivot off trail and all have better sloped tips for passing over heavy crud etc. Use my Candide 2.0 instead of the Menace 98/E 104 and 102 FR and prefer them unless there is fresh snow. I just move up to the 3.0 if there is!

    The Candide 2.0 and 3.0 would be stiffer tip/tail than the Rossi skis and have a bit more pop with their camber(about 3mm so not too high). Solid tails when carving and looser when wanted off piste. Good mix of playful yet powerful. With their fairly even flex tip to tail they arenít as demanding as some skis that are even stiffer underfoot-very natural flex.
    Can be driven and seem to love aggressive skiing. Never saw an actual mount point listing on the rossignol pair so not sure how close they are to the Candide but go from -1.5cm to -3cm from CT line if your not skiing switch often.

Posting Permissions

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