Did my research but still need help on my new set up (ski+bindings).

[exile_ch]

Hi All! I'm buying a new pair this year and although I think I know which skis I'll go for, I'm still not 100% sure and I'd love to know if you have alternative suggestions.

Swiss

31yo

88kg (195lbs)

179cm

Around 20 days per seasons

Volkl Kendo for the last 3 years

75% Groomers 15% Park 10% Powder (for now).



I'd say I'm a good skier, been skiing every year since I'm 5. Been riding on Volkl Kendo for the last few years and loved them. They handle speed perfectly and I could power through almost anything but I wish to try something more fun. I wish to improve my switch skiing and go off piste a bit more as I suck balls in anything deeper than my ankle =/. I wish to learn a few easy tricks as well and enjoy the mountain in a different way than just charging GS turns.

For now, I'm looking at Faction CT 2.0 but I'm open to new ideas? CT 2.0 seem to be playful freestyle all-rounders but with enough stiffness to allow for my style of fast riding groomers.

My kendo were 90 at the waiste and I think I'm ready to try 100+ skis.

I'd like to have twin tips, at least tails with more rise than my kendo to feel safer when riding switch.

I'm also wondering about my bindings, I believe i could get them with Tyrolla Attack 13. How are they?

Also where to mount them? As I ski mostly groomers for now I still think I should mount them at the all terrain mark which is +5 I believe? Will I still be able to ride switch without too much work with bidning that far back? Should I move them a bit more towards center?

Anyhoo.. Sorry for the wall of text. Cheers to anyone with suggestions!

Recap:

Faction CT 2.0 or something else for an allround freestyle ski fun but I can charge with?

Tyrolla Attack 13 ?

Where to mount them?

 

[DesertStix]

Never skiid the CT 2.0 but I don’t think you can go wrong based on it’s reputation. There are also plenty of skis that fit the 100 waist, twin tip, all mountain mold if you’re not set on Faction...

Attack 13’s are arguably my favorite binding. They will be great for this set up and just mount them at factory suggested depending on what skis you choose unless it’s way back or something since you want to ride switch more.

Enjoy whatever you you end up getting!

 

[exile_ch]

Never skiid the CT 2.0 but I don’t think you can go wrong based on it’s reputation. There are also plenty of skis that fit the 100 waist, twin tip, all mountain mold if you’re not set on Faction...

Attack 13’s are arguably my favorite binding. They will be great for this set up and just mount them at factory suggested depending on what skis you choose unless it’s way back or something since you want to ride switch more.

Enjoy whatever you you end up getting!

Thanks!

I'm also wondering about the J Ski All Play? Any review on those? It's a bit more difficult to find reviews/test online.

 

[DesertStix]

Use the search function and type in “vandal”. J Lev gives a pretty good breakdown of the all play in a side by side comparison. Threads called like “vandal vs all play” or something. There’s plenty of info on that ski from the guy who makes it. Hope this helps, bruv.

 

[SofaKingSick]

I haven't skied the CT 2.0 but that seems like a weird choice to me in this situation. You're going from a great, strong all mtn carver to a symmetrical ski with a short turning radius?

Seems like an overly big change unless you're keeping the Kendos and you want something different to complement them. Is that the idea or is this largely a replacement ski?

 

[DesertStix]

I haven't skied the CT 2.0 but that seems like a weird choice to me in this situation. You're going from a great, strong all mtn carver to a symmetrical ski with a short turning radius?

Seems like an overly big change unless you're keeping the Kendos and you want something different to complement them. Is that the idea or is this largely a replacement ski?

I got the sense he was tired of racing down the mountain repeatedly and wanted to change up his skiing. He mentioned more switch riding and trying some features etc.

Something in the 95-105 waist with camber wouldn’t bee toooo dramatic especially if he’s experienced.

**This post was edited on Nov 15th 2018 at 2:14:07am

 

[exile_ch]

I haven't skied the CT 2.0 but that seems like a weird choice to me in this situation. You're going from a great, strong all mtn carver to a symmetrical ski with a short turning radius?

Seems like an overly big change unless you're keeping the Kendos and you want something different to complement them. Is that the idea or is this largely a replacement ski?

I got the sense he was tired of racing down the mountain repeatedly and wanted to change up his skiing. He mentioned more switch riding and trying some features etc.

Something in the 95-105 waist with camber wouldn’t bee toooo dramatic especially if he’s experienced.

**This post was edited on Nov 15th 2018 at 2:14:07am

Indeed that's the crux of it. Been riding a certain way (and having a blast) for the last few years and I wish to evolve and learn a few new way of enjoying my skiing. Mainly being more playful, better at riding switch, doing more 180s 360s nollies, butters and so on. Nothing fancy or too technical but that will be more than enough learning for a year, with me being and old grand pa (31yo).

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a bit apprehensive as I do love skiing fast and charging down groomers. From all the test and videos I saw online, it does seem like the CT 2.0 can surprisingly hold their own in that regards which is why I'm leaning towards them.

I understand they won't be as stiff or stable as my Kendos but I feel like it's a good compromise for what I have in mind.

 

[DesertStix]

Indeed that's the crux of it. Been riding a certain way (and having a blast) for the last few years and I wish to evolve and learn a few new way of enjoying my skiing. Mainly being more playful, better at riding switch, doing more 180s 360s nollies, butters and so on. Nothing fancy or too technical but that will be more than enough learning for a year, with me being and old grand pa (31yo).

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a bit apprehensive as I do love skiing fast and charging down groomers. From all the test and videos I saw online, it does seem like the CT 2.0 can surprisingly hold their own in that regards which is why I'm leaning towards them.

I understand they won't be as stiff or stable as my Kendos but I feel like it's a good compromise for what I have in mind.

For sure the CT’s will hold up but there are PLENTY of other skis that will fit your bill unless your partial to Faction. I’d say demo some different options and see what tickles your fancy the most.

 

[exile_ch]

For sure the CT’s will hold up but there are PLENTY of other skis that will fit your bill unless your partial to Faction. I’d say demo some different options and see what tickles your fancy the most.

Indeed! Well I'm not sure how many I'll be able to demo but I'll be in Zermatt a week by the end of Dec where I could rent some alternatives and try them out.

Unfortunately, won't be able to test the JSkis but I'll see what's out there. Maybe BlackCrows? Any other suggestions?

 

[JulianSharpe]

Indeed! Well I'm not sure how many I'll be able to demo but I'll be in Zermatt a week by the end of Dec where I could rent some alternatives and try them out.

Unfortunately, won't be able to test the JSkis but I'll see what's out there. Maybe BlackCrows? Any other suggestions?

Could try the black crow atris? seems like a reasonable compromise between what you currently ride and where you'd like to move towards.

 

[exile_ch]

Could try the black crow atris? seems like a reasonable compromise between what you currently ride and where you'd like to move towards.

I've just checked a bit of BlackCrows and the Camox seem to be more what I'm looking for at 98 underfoot? Seems actually as good as the CT 2.0. I think I'll need to try them out.

 

[JulianSharpe]

Would be more inclined towards the Atris if you're looking for better off-piste performance. Other skis to throw in the mix (euro ones) would be the down Throwdown 105, whitedot director and maybe the prodigy 3.0. Believe that blacksheepsports (German shop) are stocking some Moments this year too - could take a look at the PB&J - retain the stiffness/power of your current set up with a bit more playfulness.

 

[SofaKingSick]

I got the sense he was tired of racing down the mountain repeatedly and wanted to change up his skiing. He mentioned more switch riding and trying some features etc.

Something in the 95-105 waist with camber wouldn’t bee toooo dramatic especially if he’s experienced.

**This post was edited on Nov 15th 2018 at 2:14:07am

Indeed that's the crux of it. .

oh don't get me wrong i totally hear that and i think it's a good idea. but if youre going to replace your volkls entirely, i think you should get something that is at least a little similar to its carving abilities. yeah you can do that just fine on anything, but i feel like someone like you will miss real ripping ability if you lean too hard into the park style ski. there are plenty of skis that are fun, playful, poppy, more symmetrical, but don't go full bore into a fully symmetrical ski. i just feel like a person like you won't like a fully symmetrical ski coming off your old ones. have you skied a symm ski before? it's not amazing IMO

my 2 cents is that you should get something that's super similar, just not fully symmetrical (and not necessarily something with such a small radius) but that's just me!

 

[exile_ch]

oh don't get me wrong i totally hear that and i think it's a good idea. but if youre going to replace your volkls entirely, i think you should get something that is at least a little similar to its carving abilities. yeah you can do that just fine on anything, but i feel like someone like you will miss real ripping ability if you lean too hard into the park style ski. there are plenty of skis that are fun, playful, poppy, more symmetrical, but don't go full bore into a fully symmetrical ski. i just feel like a person like you won't like a fully symmetrical ski coming off your old ones. have you skied a symm ski before? it's not amazing IMO

my 2 cents is that you should get something that's super similar, just not fully symmetrical (and not necessarily something with such a small radius) but that's just me!

Oh for sure I'm a little apprehensive and will keep my Kendos for the time being. I'll hopefully be able to test a few pairs before I rip the credit card.

Any suggestion regarding alternative a bit less symmetrical/loose ?

Nordica Enforcer 100? K2 Poacher? Volkl Revolt?

Let me know what you think

And thanks for the sound advice!

 

[SofaKingSick]

enforcers are great skis but that might be a little too much to the side of your volkls, enforcers have metal im pretty sure and are kinda burly (which makes them awesome skis, but perhaps not the best pick for someone looking for a switchup like you are)

poachers are great! awesome all around ski for this kind of use

im a huge arv96 (and arv 96 ti) fan, i consider them the easiest choice for an all around park and all mtn ski that can do anything and is plenty loosey goosey for the park and stuff

i dont mean to talk you out of the faction ct 2s, i just think you should make sure youre chill with a symmetrical ski before you buy it

 

[exile_ch]

enforcers are great skis but that might be a little too much to the side of your volkls, enforcers have metal im pretty sure and are kinda burly (which makes them awesome skis, but perhaps not the best pick for someone looking for a switchup like you are)

poachers are great! awesome all around ski for this kind of use

im a huge arv96 (and arv 96 ti) fan, i consider them the easiest choice for an all around park and all mtn ski that can do anything and is plenty loosey goosey for the park and stuff

i dont mean to talk you out of the faction ct 2s, i just think you should make sure youre chill with a symmetrical ski before you buy it

Alright so now I'm starting to get interested in the ARV 96 ti, is it still playful (butter, ollie etc) with the titanium all the way`? I'm sure it helps when charging groomers tho.

 

[SofaKingSick]

Alright so now I'm starting to get interested in the ARV 96 ti, is it still playful (butter, ollie etc) with the titanium all the way`? I'm sure it helps when charging groomers tho.

I wouldn't consider it playful, it's pretty stiff and damp. But it's still a park ski and can do it all

In my mind it's like this: if you're looking for something to complement your kendos, i say go ahead and get something like the Ct 2.0 or something that is specifically park. If you might replace them, I say get something like the arv ti or the poacher or the regular arv 96, so you have great park ability but still have a little backbone in your ski for all mtn stuff

Poacher seems like a nice safe all around pick for this. Arv 96 is softer (but not as soft as it used to be), and arv ti is stiff

 

[exile_ch]

I wouldn't consider it playful, it's pretty stiff and damp. But it's still a park ski and can do it all

In my mind it's like this: if you're looking for something to complement your kendos, i say go ahead and get something like the Ct 2.0 or something that is specifically park. If you might replace them, I say get something like the arv ti or the poacher or the regular arv 96, so you have great park ability but still have a little backbone in your ski for all mtn stuff

Poacher seems like a nice safe all around pick for this. Arv 96 is softer (but not as soft as it used to be), and arv ti is stiff

Thanks! One more question: what size, I'm a bit torn. For example, for the CT 2.0 should I go 178 or 184 cm?

I'm 178cm tall but a bit heavier than I should (88kg). I do like to ride fast, so maybe 184? Or should I go with the 178 to help with the fun aspect of the ski?

Cheers

 

[DesertStix]

Thanks! One more question: what size, I'm a bit torn. For example, for the CT 2.0 should I go 178 or 184 cm?

I'm 178cm tall but a bit heavier than I should (88kg). I do like to ride fast, so maybe 184? Or should I go with the 178 to help with the fun aspect of the ski?

Cheers

Considering your height, weight, and assumed skill level, I would opt for the longer skis. 178 is not a deal breaker though and will be perfectly fine. I’d just take the 184 (same height as you) if it were a pure toss up. You’ll like the length for charging a little harder like you used to. I also ski everything from 172-180 so you’ll be fine either way!

 

[Greg_K]

With your size, the 184cm for sure if you choose the 2.0. Skis from every manufacturer get a touch stiffer as you move up in length to compensate for the heavier skier, so the 178cm would be much too soft for a 195lbs skier.

If I were you, I’d honestly consider the CT 3.0 instead as it is a touch stiffer, a better carver and more stable at speed than the 2.0. More of an all mountain freestyle ski which it seems is what you’re after. It still will be very playful compared to your Kendo as your Kendo skis are very stiff compared to any of the freestyle type skis mentioned in this thread.

The Candide 3.0 will still be very playful due to the softer flex, twin tip with more rocker and a more forward binding mount. Find just behind the Candide line is perfect binding mount for all mountain use.

 

[exile_ch]

With your size, the 184cm for sure if you choose the 2.0. Skis from every manufacturer get a touch stiffer as you move up in length to compensate for the heavier skier, so the 178cm would be much too soft for a 195lbs skier.

If I were you, I’d honestly consider the CT 3.0 instead as it is a touch stiffer, a better carver and more stable at speed than the 2.0. More of an all mountain freestyle ski which it seems is what you’re after. It still will be very playful compared to your Kendo as your Kendo skis are very stiff compared to any of the freestyle type skis mentioned in this thread.

The Candide 3.0 will still be very playful due to the softer flex, twin tip with more rocker and a more forward binding mount. Find just behind the Candide line is perfect binding mount for all mountain use.

Thanks! I'm now leaning towards the 184. It's funny caus until yesterday, it was pretty clear I would have gone for the 178, even a ski shop suggested that size for me. I went then to another one, and they clearly said I should go for the 184 with my size and riding style. A few other people online also pushed me towards the bigger size. So yeah that's that.

As for the 3.0, I think it's still too big of a jump coming from my 90's waist Kendos. I'm still primarly a groomers/side slopes skier and powder will only be a sporadic session when the snow really push me there. I'm still learning to be at ease in deeper snow and the 2.0 should be the right fattness to help me transition slowly to ungroomed piste.

So yeah, 90% sure I'll go for the 2.0 in 184cm.

Now the only questions left is the bindings and their mounting position.

The shop I wish to buy from only have Griffons or Pivot and not my first choice which were Tyrolia Attack 13. I think Pivot might be over kill with how little I'll be sending it in the park. How's the Griffons? I've heard conflicting reviews on them?

Also, mounting them. I'm pretty sure the Candide line (-1.5cm - true center) is too centered for me. Should I go for the All mountain one (-5cm) or a bit in between (-3,5cm?).

Cheers and again, thank you all for the great great help on my questions!!

**This post was edited on Nov 16th 2018 at 4:16:03am

 

[Greg_K]

The shop I wish to buy from only have Griffons or Pivot and not my first choice which were Tyrolia Attack 13. I think Pivot might be over kill with how little I'll be sending it in the park. How's the Griffons? I've heard conflicting reviews on them?

Also, mounting them. I'm pretty sure the Candide line (-1.5cm - true center) is too centered for me. Should I go for the All mountain one (-5cm) or a bit in between (-3,5cm?).

Cheers and again, thank you all for the great great help on my questions!!

**This post was edited on Nov 16th 2018 at 4:16:03am

I much prefer the Attack2 binding over the Griffons-easier to get in and out of, lower stand height and lower cost. The pivots in the 12 or 14 model are similar cost to the Griffons but offer much better performance. Allow the ski to flex better with its shorter mount and don’t pre-release unless they should. So pivots all the way if those are the 2 options.

I’d go slightly behind the Candide line but not as far as the All Mountain line which is too far back for a symmetrical ski. So about -2.5 or 3cm back from center and you’re golden!

 

[JulianSharpe]

Thanks! I'm now leaning towards the 184. It's funny caus until yesterday, it was pretty clear I would have gone for the 178, even a ski shop suggested that size for me. I went then to another one, and they clearly said I should go for the 184 with my size and riding style. A few other people online also pushed me towards the bigger size. So yeah that's that.

As for the 3.0, I think it's still too big of a jump coming from my 90's waist Kendos. I'm still primarly a groomers/side slopes skier and powder will only be a sporadic session when the snow really push me there. I'm still learning to be at ease in deeper snow and the 2.0 should be the right fattness to help me transition slowly to ungroomed piste.

So yeah, 90% sure I'll go for the 2.0 in 184cm.

Now the only questions left is the bindings and their mounting position.

The shop I wish to buy from only have Griffons or Pivot and not my first choice which were Tyrolia Attack 13. I think Pivot might be over kill with how little I'll be sending it in the park. How's the Griffons? I've heard conflicting reviews on them?

Also, mounting them. I'm pretty sure the Candide line (-1.5cm - true center) is too centered for me. Should I go for the All mountain one (-5cm) or a bit in between (-3,5cm?).

Cheers and again, thank you all for the great great help on my questions!!

**This post was edited on Nov 16th 2018 at 4:16:03am

I'd 100% take one of the prodigy's over the 2.0, especially if you're primarily going to be skiing groomers some side piste? You're already considering chucking the mounting point back on a symmetrical ski, why not just go for a fun, slightly more directional twin? 3.0s got a 104 waist, still plenty of fun/rocker and would suit you much better in my opinion. A bit stiffer and will outperform the 2.0 over the mountain which is where it sounds like you're going to be spending the majority of your time..

 

[SofaKingSick]

Thanks! One more question: what size, I'm a bit torn. For example, for the CT 2.0 should I go 178 or 184 cm?

I'm 178cm tall but a bit heavier than I should (88kg). I do like to ride fast, so maybe 184? Or should I go with the 178 to help with the fun aspect of the ski?

Cheers

yeah id say 184 because of your weight and skill level. but either way will be fiiiine so go with your gut!

 

[rob.howard.7965]

My riding buddy made a similar move, he would ski a similar % terrain mix to what you do. He went from piste skis to a 2.0 and a Völkl revolt. I have still only had my punx last season and he was killing me on his 2.0’s. He’d hammer groomers, blast through crud no stress at all. Have to say he doesn’t carve them at all anymore, he spends too much time playing around on the edge of the piste or straightlining looking for anything to air off. I think the 2.0 woke him up to be a much more playful skier and the waist width gave him a lot more confidence. We are both around the 30 age mark also.

I’m personally getting Moment Deathwishs to be able to ride with him. He won’t stop paying me out saying they will be shit and I should get 2.0’s.

**This post was edited on Nov 17th 2018 at 6:45:56pm

**This post was edited on Nov 17th 2018 at 6:46:36pm

 

[exile_ch]

My riding buddy made a similar move, he would ski a similar % terrain mix to what you do. He went from piste skis to a 2.0 and a Völkl revolt. I have still only had my punx last season and he was killing me on his 2.0’s. He’d hammer groomers, blast through crud no stress at all. Have to say he doesn’t carve them at all anymore, he spends too much time playing around on the edge of the piste or straightlining looking for anything to air off. I think the 2.0 woke him up to be a much more playful skier and the waist width gave him a lot more confidence. We are both around the 30 age mark also.

I’m personally getting Moment Deathwishs to be able to ride with him. He won’t stop paying me out saying they will be shit and I should get 2.0’s.

**This post was edited on Nov 17th 2018 at 6:45:56pm

**This post was edited on Nov 17th 2018 at 6:46:36pm

Haha dude I'm so excited ! Choice is now done, getting the skis at the end of the month !

May I ask what's his size, which ski size he decided on and where did he mount the bindings?

I'm pretty sure I'll go for the 184 but still debating where to mount my 2.0.

Cheers!!

**This post was edited on Nov 18th 2018 at 4:21:00am

 

[rob.howard.7965]

He’s 6’3 and at least 110kg so he got 188. I dare say he mounted them on the recommended line. We aren't techy enough to go mounting skis off recommended. From reading your previous comments it seems like the 184 would be the choice. Unless you tricking out then more ski has better perks than less ski.

 

[Greg_K]

I’m personally getting Moment Deathwishs to be able to ride with him. He won’t stop paying me out saying they will be shit and I should get 2.0’s.

**This post was edited on Nov 17th 2018 at 6:45:56pm

**This post was edited on Nov 17th 2018 at 6:46:36pm

Saw your post abut the Metal vs Deathwish and the Deathwish in 190cm would definitely be able to charge much harder than the 188cm 2.0 of your buddy especially with the slightly stiffer 2018/19 Deathwish. But if charging past him is the ultimate goal, a 190cm Wildcat would make him your bitch! lol

The Wildcat is on another level for playful charger through crud.

 

[Greg_K]

Haha dude I'm so excited ! Choice is now done, getting the skis at the end of the month !

May I ask what's his size, which ski size he decided on and where did he mount the bindings?

I'm pretty sure I'll go for the 184 but still debating where to mount my 2.0.

Cheers!!

**This post was edited on Nov 18th 2018 at 4:21:00am

Still say the 184cm for you and for mount, still think about 3cm back from center(2cm back from 2019 line) on the 2.0 for your use. The 2018/19 Candide models now just have a single recommended mark which was the old Candide line. Think they found the recommended "all mountain" was too far back like Line did on the Sir Francis Bacon which is similar sidecut to the Candide 3.0 and now both just have just a single recommended line. So on the recommended line is you ski like Candide(switch very often and often spinning) and a few cm back if you ski all mountain but want a freestyle feel.

As always, get them to tape measure the distance from the tail to ensure the sidewall/top sheet recommended marks on the ski aren't off.

 

[exile_ch]

Still say the 184cm for you and for mount, still think about 3cm back from center(2cm back from 2019 line) on the 2.0 for your use. The 2018/19 Candide models now just have a single recommended mark which was the old Candide line. Think they found the recommended "all mountain" was too far back like Line did on the Sir Francis Bacon which is similar sidecut to the Candide 3.0 and now both just have just a single recommended line. So on the recommended line is you ski like Candide(switch very often and often spinning) and a few cm back if you ski all mountain but want a freestyle feel.

As always, get them to tape measure the distance from the tail to ensure the sidewall/top sheet recommended marks on the ski aren't off.

Thanks! Will do as suggested and I was also thinking a few cm down from the Candide line. -2 looks like a wise choice.

I'll send a pic and a review in mid December !