Member of the Month

hi_vis360
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 2.0s or 3.0s?

profile picture
CentAlto
Posts: 19 - Karma: 2
My dream ski for some time is the faction Candides and I have a great deal lined up 3-400 per pair depending on size. the only question I have is which one to get. I am at Park City this year, but who knows where future years might take me. Aspen Snowmass, Jhole are a couple I'd like to make it to at some point. Maybe Taos. So I'm anticipating powder, though not as deep as it was in Tahoe. Last year in Tahoe I skied multiple storms greater than 2 feet in depth with 83 undefoots and did fine off piste all season (120 -83 -110) I like tight turns and lots of tree skiing and here in PC the trees are tight so I was thinking since it's not so deep and I"ve skied deeper with narrower the 2.0s would be a good call. Those are 102 underfoot. The 3.0s are 108 though and a lot of people recommend that. I just don't want to sacrifice turning radius. Any thoughts? I will say I don't do park yet but I'm trying to explore it a bit more this year.
POLL
Edit Poll
Votes:

Take care when editing a poll; Options should be similar to maintain vote integrity.

More options will be added automatically as you type. You must supply a question and at least two options. No HTML is allowed.

Nov 30 2018 2:46AM
2 0
profile picture
xxACIDTRIPxx
Posts: 5980 - Karma: 8,175
You'll be fine w a 3.0
Nov 30 2018 3:52AM
4 0
profile picture
22Kevin22
Posts: 39 - Karma: 101
I'd go with the 2.0s. The only reason you would get the 3.0s over the 2.0s is if powder is an issue, but if you did fine skiing powder with 83 underfoots, why would you sacrifice a tighter turn radius and a more playful ski overall?
Nov 30 2018 7:43PM
1 0
profile picture
old.man.tibbles
Posts: 223 - Karma: 1,061
3.0 for a 1 ski quiver if you like skiing pow and aren't a park rat. If you thought 83 was fine in 2 feet of pow I'd think 108 will change your life.
Nov 30 2018 7:56PM
3 0
profile picture
ObjectMocked
Posts: 100 - Karma: 230
I just rode my first day on the 3.0s today and demoed the 2.0s last year.
I am 150lbs, 5’10”, and type 3+.
Demo skis were 186 all mtn Mount. I bought the 186cm 3.0s because they were 50% off (Look pivot 14 on the Candide Mount line -2 from center.)

Today I skied them on fresh courderoy, 3-4” of pow, and in a whole lot of chop. They absolutely RIP at high speeds and really shine on open freeride terrain. In trees the turn radius is a bit tough. They do pretty well in chop, especially on edge. If you want a more charging freeride ski, then go 3.0. Only time I’d go 2.0 is if I wanted to get into a whole lot of park. The 2 doesn’t drive as well through a variable west coast snowpack.

**This post was edited on Nov 30th 2018 at 9:33:06pm
Nov 30 2018 9:01PM
0 0
profile picture
WoFIowz
Posts: 9794 - Karma: 72,497
0.6cm isn't a whole lot different but I've rode the 3.0's and they're a sick ski
Nov 30 2018 9:03PM
0 2
profile picture
old.man.tibbles
Posts: 223 - Karma: 1,061
ObjectMockedI just rode my first day on the 3.0s today and demoed the 2.0s last year.
I am 150lbs, 5’0”, and type 3+.
Demo skis were 186 all mtn Mount. I bought the 186cm 3.0s because they were 50% off (Look pivot 14 on the Candide Mount line -2 from center.)

Today I skied them on fresh courderoy, 3-4” of pow, and in a whole lot of chop. They absolutely RIP at high speeds and really shine on open freeride terrain. In trees the turn radius is a bit tough. They do pretty well in chop, especially on edge. If you want a more charging freeride ski, then go 3.0. Only time I’d go 2.0 is if I wanted to get into a whole lot of park. The 2 doesn’t drive as well through a variable west coast snowpack.


Damn you use a ski almost 34cm taller than you? Sounds kinda savage...
Nov 30 2018 9:25PM
2 0
profile picture
ObjectMocked
Posts: 100 - Karma: 230
old.man.tibblesDamn you use a ski almost 34cm taller than you? Sounds kinda savage...

It was the sale that got me. Otherwise I’d be rocking the 182s. Also ‘‘twas a typo. I’m 5’10”

**This post was edited on Nov 30th 2018 at 9:33:30pm
Nov 30 2018 9:32PM
0 0
profile picture
CentAlto
Posts: 19 - Karma: 2
old.man.tibblesDamn you use a ski almost 34cm taller than you? Sounds kinda savage...

thats what candide does
Dec 4 2018 12:30AM
1 1
profile picture
CentAlto
Posts: 19 - Karma: 2
22Kevin22I'd go with the 2.0s. The only reason you would get the 3.0s over the 2.0s is if powder is an issue, but if you did fine skiing powder with 83 underfoots, why would you sacrifice a tighter turn radius and a more playful ski overall?


thats kind of my thoughts on it so far, but I've also heard the 3.0 is stiffer and busts crud better so that could be another consideration on the western US on/off piste stuff I do between storms. But park city has super tight trees so I'm torn. I found a place that actually demos them(first time ever in a year of looking) and will let me try them both so I might do it
Dec 4 2018 12:32AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)