Member of the Month

partyandBS
December, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

FACTION CANDIDE 3.0 VS. 4.0

profile picture
SLEEK
Posts: 175 - Karma: 242
Looking at adding a wider ski to my quiver as I may be moving to the PNW sometime next year.

I currently own Faction Candide 1.0's & 2.0's

I am also taking a trip to Whistler the first week of April and I figured with 2016 skis running clearance prices right now I might as well cop a pair of fat sticks now and take them with me.

Which of the two (3.0 vs. 4.0) would be better as an all around daily driver in the PNW?

If I could add either the 3.0 or 4.0 to the quiver which one should I get and why?

I am hesitant on the 3.0 because Its only 6mm wider than the 2.0 which I already have. If the conditions are any bit icy, groomed, packed, or anything without a decent top coat of powder I will probably ride the 2.0's as they absolutely slay and are more freestyle oriented to my style (butters, spins, etc).

Would the 3.0 really be much different than the 2.0?

I am leaning towards the 4.0 but am afraid that a 122mm waisted ski will suck unless there's a foot or more of fresh. AKA not a good choice for early or late season conditions.

Maybe the answer is obvious but unfortunately living in PA I have never had the opportunity of riding anything over 106mm so I can't speak on how a 122mm ski will handle inadequate conditions like ice, crud, chopped up powder, groomers, etc. for the days its not dumping.

What are your thoughts?

P.S. I have a connection to get Factions on the cheap which is why I am focusing on the 3.0's and 4.0's rather than a pair of Jeffrey's or Bibby's.
Mar 18 2016 4:09PM
24 2
profile picture
gapersarefriends
Posts: 2158 - Karma: 4,270
Firstly gear talk

Secondly get the 4.0s, you'll thank yourself on the deeper days and will actually be surprised on how often you ride them
Mar 18 2016 4:18PM
3 0
profile picture
hot.pocket
Posts: 4235 - Karma: 10,716
Gear Talk

and get the 4.0, no point in having two pairs of skis where the only difference is 6 mm.
Mar 18 2016 4:18PM
3 0
profile picture
californiagrown
Posts: 9794 - Karma: 2,014
Depends on how you ski. But when I looked at em in a shop a few days ago the 4.0s were very soft and very light. Seem like they'd be awesome in untracked or light tracked powder, butwpuld be overpowered when the snow got cutup.

Ya gotta remember that the PNW snow has some density to it haha. It consolidates quickly and youll also be skiing through your fair share of avi debris on pow days here haha.

Depends how big you are, how you ski etc though.
Mar 18 2016 4:37PM
2 0
profile picture
SLEEK
Posts: 175 - Karma: 242
Thanks. Yea that's kinda how I felt about the 3.0 almost pointless. I dig the 4.0 but I'm a powerful skier. 6'/180 130flex kryptons and am more aggressive than style. I'm worried about that balsa core / lightness with that I'll feel the ski getting worked when pushing it hard in heavy chopped snow.
Mar 18 2016 6:15PM
1 0
profile picture
SLEEK
Posts: 175 - Karma: 242
Has anyone even ridden the 4.0?
Mar 18 2016 6:18PM
0 0
profile picture
Willows
Posts: 442 - Karma: 2,631
SLEEKThanks. Yea that's kinda how I felt about the 3.0 almost pointless. I dig the 4.0 but I'm a powerful skier. 6'/180 130flex kryptons and am more aggressive than style. I'm worried about that balsa core / lightness with that I'll feel the ski getting worked when pushing it hard in heavy chopped snow.


It's actually pretty stiff
Mar 18 2016 8:27PM
1 0
profile picture
skierman
Posts: 8403 - Karma: 7,869
Get the 3.0s because the 4.0s are terrible.
Mar 18 2016 8:58PM
1 0
profile picture
californiagrown
Posts: 9794 - Karma: 2,014
WillowsIt's actually pretty stiff



You mean they ski stiff? Care to elaborate for the OPs benefit?
Mar 18 2016 9:51PM
1 0
profile picture
Willows
Posts: 442 - Karma: 2,631
californiagrownYou mean they ski stiff? Care to elaborate for the OPs benefit?


yeah sorry... They won't wash out on you if you can be on top of it, but seeing as you are not used to 120+ skis, they might be a little too insane if you're not skiing floffaduff on a regular basis. I ride the 2.0 and it can hold its own in all conditions. It's one of those magical skis that actually rip groomers, are poppy, but at the same time buttery and great in deeper conditions.. Ask anyone who has ridden it. it's a life changing ski!
Mar 19 2016 4:57AM
2 0
profile picture
patagonialuke
Posts: 1627 - Karma: 8,686
if you've got a connection with faction then just wait till next fall for the new 4.0's. they slimmed the waist down to 118mm for next year.
Mar 20 2016 12:20PM
1 0
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,681
4.0 is not a bad ski, but 122 is fucking wide for day in day out use. Maybe 3-5 days a year in the PNW where a 4.0 makes sense. Next year it drops to 118 which is great for a soft snow ski.

The 3.0 at 108 under foot is honestly perfect for your every day except park and stupid deep days up here.You could probably sell the 2.0s and go for a 1.0 and 3.0 quiver. Or you could try and find last year's 3.0 at 112mm under foot or wait until next year's 4.0 comes out at 118mm under foot.

1.0, 3.0 (108) and 4.0 (118) would be a pretty solid PNW resort based quiver.
Mar 20 2016 3:22PM
1 1
profile picture
str6t9
Posts: 305 - Karma: 61
Go for last years 112 waist. Best skis I've had in years. They can do anything. I use them for my daily driver here in Utah. I'm riding the 191's which I did not have any issues in the deep stuff which we got a lot of this year. Matter of fact I want to get next years 4.0 at 118 waist in the 194 length for the deep deep days but I really don't need them as last years 3.0's have a 142 shovel that kept the skis up just fine. Hope this helps.
Mar 21 2016 8:32PM
1 0
profile picture
SLEEK
Posts: 175 - Karma: 242
thanks for all the info and help guys
Mar 22 2016 8:16AM
1 0
profile picture
JohnLocke
Posts: 337 - Karma: 1,057
For all those questioning the versatility of the 4.0's, I skied them almost every day out east with extraordinarily subpar conditions. They felt rather stable and carved well.
Mar 23 2016 9:49PM
2 0
profile picture
californiagrown
Posts: 9794 - Karma: 2,014
ck0belskiFor all those questioning the versatility of the 4.0's, I skied them almost every day out east with extraordinarily subpar conditions. They felt rather stable and carved well.


We are all now questioning your sanity, and or skills as a skier.
Mar 23 2016 10:26PM
2 0
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,681
ck0belskiFor all those questioning the versatility of the 4.0's, I skied them almost every day out east with extraordinarily subpar conditions. They felt rather stable and carved well.


You obviously have not skied any actual carving ski or have no idea how to ski.
Mar 24 2016 1:32AM
2 0
profile picture
Zypher
Posts: 2337 - Karma: 2,268
cobra_commander4.0 is not a bad ski, but 122 is fucking wide for day in day out use. Maybe 3-5 days a year in the PNW where a 4.0 makes sense. Next year it drops to 118 which is great for a soft snow ski.

1.0, 3.0 (108) and 4.0 (118) would be a pretty solid PNW resort based quiver.


122 is not super wide for day use at all. I recently bought some 125 waisted pow skis and could shread anything on them (And I have). Granted, ice is usually a problem for fat ass skis and that is why I also have SFBs as daily drivers but a 122 waist ski is not un-useable for day in day out use.

Onto OP's original question, definately go for this years 4.0 (122 waist). It may sound big and bulky but honestly its super fun and totally worth it if you're shredding in
Mar 24 2016 3:19AM
1 0
profile picture
SLEEK
Posts: 175 - Karma: 242
Word. Considering I just looked on Whistler Blackcomb's website and apparently its been dumping this weekend. 50cm in last two days. Damn this makes me more inclined to cop....
Mar 25 2016 1:10PM
1 0
profile picture
Coloradoeaton
Posts: 3 - Karma: 10
Im getting this years model 3.0s too. I don't know if I should go for the 176 or 182s.

Im 5'9 150 and currently skiing on 178s. I would still like for them to remain playful and maneuverable in the trees.

Any insight on length for me?
Dec 31 2016 4:39PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)