FACTION candide 2.0s or 3.0s?

C

CentAlto

New member
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
13966751:ObjectMocked said:
I 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.
Click to expand...

Damn you use a ski almost 34cm taller than you? Sounds kinda savage...
 
13966761:old.man.tibbles said:
Damn you use a ski almost 34cm taller than you? Sounds kinda savage...
Click to expand...

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
 
13966725:22Kevin22 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top