Candide 3.0 for Backcountry?

patagonialuke

patagonialuke

Active member
I'm looking for a freeride, preferably twin tip backcountry setup. I will likely be going with a frame style binding because I'll be splitting my time between backcountry and resorts. I was looking at the Faction Candide 3.0's as an option. They seem solid, and relatively lightweight with the balsa/flax core. Any thoughts? other similar options?
 
I'd go for it for sure. Couple of my friends ride for faction and use those as their primary BC ski. They are actually really light, and from what I have heard ski everything really well besides hard snow
 
They'd work, but not excel. I have the Moment Bibby with Guardians, which would be a very comparable setup...... and I plan on putting some dynafits on them instead. Personally, I can't stand how heavy they are with the guardians on them, and the Bibby's aren't a heavy ski by any means (for how big they are).
 
13577683:ThaLorax said:
They'd work, but not excel. I have the Moment Bibby with Guardians, which would be a very comparable setup...... and I plan on putting some dynafits on them instead. Personally, I can't stand how heavy they are with the guardians on them, and the Bibby's aren't a heavy ski by any means (for how big they are).
Click to expand...

Bibbys are pretty damn heavy. Candied 3.0 is much lighter and makes more sense.
 
I've been cruisin between resort and backcountry as well and I can tell you that I never got dissapointed in this skis. I got the 112 version from last year and love it. Not too much rocker just enough to float, Light, Fast and still hold really good on firm condition.

I good DO IT ALL ski for sure.
 
13577683:ThaLorax said:
Personally, I can't stand how heavy they are with the guardians on them, and the Bibby's aren't a heavy ski by any means (for how big they are).
Click to expand...

Yes gaudians are heavy. No bibby's are most definetly not a touring ski nor are they light.

3.0's = 1850G

Bibby's =2140G

Anything over 2000g a ski with a heavy binding like the gaurdian youre gonna be struggling uphill. 3.0's are a nice because of their versatility sans the extra weight that skis with similar profiles are going to have.

Id take a look at the K2 Marksman as well if I were you
 
pleeze do not disrespect a beautiful ski like the 3.0 and mangle it with guardians. they are shit. frame bindings suck for skiing inbounds. stack height for days.
 
13714477:methscratchface said:
pleeze do not disrespect a beautiful ski like the 3.0 and mangle it with guardians. they are shit. frame bindings suck for skiing inbounds. stack height for days.
Click to expand...

do you have a binding to recommend?
 
I ski on dynafit radical st's. I enjoy them on the uphill, but honestly I feel more timid on them when actually skiing compared to on my fks inbounds. They are a necessity for long days tho. I rode alpine day wreckers for 8 years of utter hell. It made me dread long tours and fear switchbacks. But being able to ski on a turntable binding on sketchy lines and big drops was so nice. I am in the same predicament. I want to get a pair of 4.0's and I dont know what to put on them. I need to find something with a little more lateral play than my dynafits. Like the kingpin but not as heavy. If you are into short sidecountry missions and like to build booters and hit cliffs and do hood shit the Daymakers look to be an interesting offering. But if you want to go deep to get the goods the pincher setups are key. sorry for excessiveness.
 
13714728:Kucher said:
do you have a binding to recommend?
Click to expand...

Tyrolia Adrenalin 16

One of the lowest stack heights of a frame binding, plus a free floating heel that allows the ski to flex naturally, plus the switch from tour to ski is done without removing the boot.

I honestly don't understand why these bindings aren't more popular. They're basically the only true AT frame option that doesn't have some major flaw.
 
13715498:~Gotama~ said:
Tyrolia Adrenalin 16

One of the lowest stack heights of a frame binding, plus a free floating heel that allows the ski to flex naturally, plus the switch from tour to ski is done without removing the boot.

I honestly don't understand why these bindings aren't more popular. They're basically the only true AT frame option that doesn't have some major flaw.
Click to expand...

Thanks dude! +k for the help
 
I got the 3.0s this Spring for my next touring ski and am beyond stoked. They are super light for that type of dimension ski without being carbon and way expensive. I've only gotten a few days of touring on them cuz I got them late spring, but they are amazing! I mounted them with kingpins so definitely lighter than your heavier type of touring binding (duke, guardian, those tyrolias mentioned, etc.). That being said I had a buddy that mounted his 4.0s with dukes and I couldn't believe how light they still were (I got to ride them for a few runs). My last touring setup was dukes on JJs and the dukes on the 4.0s was a massive difference. Honestly it wouldn't even be that bad for a main touring ski and you'd have a super solid binding underneath your feet for sending on.
 
13725740:SHampson said:
I got the 3.0s this Spring for my next touring ski and am beyond stoked. They are super light for that type of dimension ski without being carbon and way expensive. I've only gotten a few days of touring on them cuz I got them late spring, but they are amazing! I mounted them with kingpins so definitely lighter than your heavier type of touring binding (duke, guardian, those tyrolias mentioned, etc.). That being said I had a buddy that mounted his 4.0s with dukes and I couldn't believe how light they still were (I got to ride them for a few runs). My last touring setup was dukes on JJs and the dukes on the 4.0s was a massive difference. Honestly it wouldn't even be that bad for a main touring ski and you'd have a super solid binding underneath your feet for sending on.
Click to expand...

I have 3.0s right now with dukes on them and kind of want to switch to kingpins do you think it is worth it/ how do you like the kingpin?
 
13729060:The-Rodent said:
I have 3.0s right now with dukes on them and kind of want to switch to kingpins do you think it is worth it/ how do you like the kingpin?
Click to expand...

No complaints on the kingpins, they have been super solid for skiing and are amazing for the uphill. That being said I just got them and only have 3 days of touring on them. Also you gotta have a boot that fits with tech bindings so that could be a change for you too idk. Like I said I rode the dukes on the 4.0s and they were sick! But switching from dukes to kingpins was a huge upgrade for me
 
13729121:SHampson said:
No complaints on the kingpins, they have been super solid for skiing and are amazing for the uphill. That being said I just got them and only have 3 days of touring on them. Also you gotta have a boot that fits with tech bindings so that could be a change for you too idk. Like I said I rode the dukes on the 4.0s and they were sick! But switching from dukes to kingpins was a huge upgrade for me
Click to expand...

Ya im trying to make the move to tech but still want some of the capabilities that a duke has thats why ive been looking at the kingpin for that freeride type tech binding. How do they feel to you coming from the duke?
 
ski: Imo backcountry touring on a really symmetric ski is BS. Get something directional with camber and some rocker/early rise in the tip. Moment Tallac, Underworld; on3p Steeples/Wrenegades... with a Beast/radical ft/Vipec/Plum Yak/Ion 12. Crossing or traversing on windblown snow fields is straight cancer with a rockered ski like a 3.0.

binding: I was touring on a Duke, now on a Beast 14. The different is magnificient. Free heel when going uphill. The weight difference may not seem much at first but since you dont have the frame attached to your heel when going upwards it feels so much lighter.

tl;dr: touring specific ski like on3p steeple with beast/radical ft/vipec/Ion is the way to go for backcountry touring. I recommend an avy course too :D and the p-b-s.
 
I'm really struggling to decide between the 3.0 and 4.0, or maybe even armada JJs. The 3.0 looks super light and fun but I don't know if 108 underfoot is big enough for the really deep days and for cliffs.

Does anyone have experience with any of these skis? Would probably be looking to fit them out with dukes just for the flexibility.
 
13729813:The-Rodent said:
Ya im trying to make the move to tech but still want some of the capabilities that a duke has thats why ive been looking at the kingpin for that freeride type tech binding. How do they feel to you coming from the duke?
Click to expand...

Super solid. The uphill difference you can't really compare, it's like jogging with running shoes when before you were using hiking boots. They feel super solid downhill as well. I don't think you can really beat the duke for having a solid piece of binding you can trust but so far the kingpins have felt real solid under my feet. I've done some fast skiing on them and icy crud skiing on them and trusted them completely. But I haven't had a full season to drop cliffs and shred hard all year on them so I'll have a much better review next summer. My initial thoughts are you don't need to hold back with them.
 
13729940:SHampson said:
Super solid. The uphill difference you can't really compare, it's like jogging with running shoes when before you were using hiking boots. They feel super solid downhill as well. I don't think you can really beat the duke for having a solid piece of binding you can trust but so far the kingpins have felt real solid under my feet. I've done some fast skiing on them and icy crud skiing on them and trusted them completely. But I haven't had a full season to drop cliffs and shred hard all year on them so I'll have a much better review next summer. My initial thoughts are you don't need to hold back with them.
Click to expand...

Thats great to hear I am probably going to make the move to those pretty soon. Which ones do you have 10 or 13?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top