Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 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!

Arv vs CT 2.0

profile picture
thor_tries_park
Posts: 4 - Karma: 13
I am moving out to the Midwest from east coast, level 3+(double blacks Jackson) but looking to move to more jibbing and such, 16 yo, 5’11” and 160(and gaining for track). Looking for skis and I’ve demoed arv and CT and in 3 days learned tail/nose butters and 360 and looking to do more. I like the flex of arv but feel better on ct(tried a buddies EDollos and found them to be a bit much to start with) could u all help point me in a good direction to get into park with?
Apr 15 2019 12:46AM
2 0
profile picture
animator
Posts: 4552 - Karma: 26,249
That depends on which ARV you're looking at. I ski on the East Coast, and the 2.0 is one of my favorite skis to ride. I don't ski park however, so I can't vouch for their durability on that front. Many people on NS seem to think that Factions skis are not the most durable. I also bought my little brother a pair of ARV 96s and skied them for a few days and theyre fantastic. They hold an edge super well in harder conditions, they can charge and they are soft enough in their extremities to get some really good flex. The ARV 106 is also great but has less edge hold and doesn't lend itself as much to skiing hard.
Apr 17 2019 5:30PM
0 0
profile picture
thor_tries_park
Posts: 4 - Karma: 13
I’ve skied the 106 and 96 and I loved the softer tips but don’t really know which to go with and I’ve heard the factions are only bad on durability w/ rails and it will take a while before I learn them well enough to use up said edges
Apr 23 2019 4:26PM
0 0
profile picture
Titus69
Posts: 9329 - Karma: 17,816
Which arv were you trying? The candide isnt a bad park ski to start on and it could also be a decent all mountain ski since the 2.0 is 102 underfoot. If you want just a good park ski to learn on maybe go with the 1.0 or the arv 86 and maybe 96, width will help them be stable and help double as all mtn skis but in park when you're learning the basics a narrower ski is gonna help you maneuver swaps, spin faster etc. Performance wise the flex of both skis is similar, the candides tend to wash out on backseat landings while the arvs can put them down, the arvs have a little but the 2.0s have early tip rise so both are probably prone to chatter in the tips on hard packed snow at high speed.

That's all I got, both skis have potential for quick damage but as a beginner it should take longer to break them, factions warranty works for park damage I think, armadas doesnt.
Apr 28 2019 10:33AM
0 0
profile picture
thor_tries_park
Posts: 4 - Karma: 13
Thanks man, I’m thinking the arv 96 or 106, but I think I’m just gonna commit to the 96 because I see them come up and get recommended a lot more than the candid
May 3 2019 6:12PM
0 0
profile picture
LukeTheWaffle
Posts: 1844 - Karma: 8,857
I ride the CT 2.0s right now and I can't recommend them enough to be honest. People complained about durability, but after 50+ days the only things I've got are normal chipping, a sidewall ding from smashing into a tree, and a edge loose at the tip from whacking the tips on 270s on. The skis are pretty butterable, and are fairly stable at speed, real fun ski, but if youre a beginner I'd suggest something narrower
May 5 2019 3:11AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)