Faction prodigy 3.0 boiiiiis

crustyboot.420

crustyboot.420

Member
Ok so I was thinking about buying like an allmountain- pow- touring- everything else but park-ski, and I can get faction prodigy 3.0s for a really good price... BUT I have heard that the new 3.0s are quite stiff compared to the older prodigys and im a one small ass dude and I usually prefer a softer ski. So i was wondering if someone with experience could tell how they flex and ride in different snow condition and stuf slike that.
 
How big are you and what skis have you liked / not liked in the past?

The Prodigy 3 is stiff for a freestyle-oriented ski, but it also has a very tapered shape and a lot of rocker, so it's easier to ski than its flex pattern would imply.
 
I've been skiing them all season and have loved them up at the bird for all mountain jibbing. They are pretty much just as fun as my Candide 2.0's but more stable at speeds and don't squirrel around and flex out when riding out in variable bumps. Nosebutters are a little harder though as the ski doesn't want to flex out as much as some others. They also want to make wider turns than the candide's but are still quick edge to edge
 
I got a pair and theyre awesome. Noticeably stiffer than the previous versions, but that translates to more stability on the hill. If you are using them everywhere except the park, you dont need a soft ski it will hurt more than help
 
14040825:patagonialuke said:
The Prodigy 3 is stiff for a freestyle-oriented ski, but it also has a very tapered shape and a lot of rocker, so it's easier to ski than its flex pattern would imply.
Click to expand...

Hi Luke. I skied CT 2.0 which were mount on Candide line. I really liked swing weight, flex and rail performance in park. However I have doubts about its off piste performance (bumps, chop, slush).

So I'm looking for just slightly stiffer but still playful skis.

I'm looking to current Faction Prodigy 3.0 (183) or even Faction CT 3.0 (184)

I wonder how Prodigy 3.0 or CT 3.0 with -2.5…-3 mount would ski everywhere, except park.

Also with CT2.0 butters was really easy to learn. Also I’m 177 cm and 60 kg. Would it still be easy to butter these skis (prodigy 3.0) in 183?
 
14048391:severniy said:
Hi Luke. I skied CT 2.0 which were mount on Candide line. I really liked swing weight, flex and rail performance in park. However I have doubts about its off piste performance (bumps, chop, slush).

So I'm looking for just slightly stiffer but still playful skis.

I'm looking to current Faction Prodigy 3.0 (183) or even Faction CT 3.0 (184)

I wonder how Prodigy 3.0 or CT 3.0 with -2.5…-3 mount would ski everywhere, except park.

Also with CT2.0 butters was really easy to learn. Also I’m 177 cm and 60 kg. Would it still be easy to butter these skis (prodigy 3.0) in 183?
Click to expand...

Yeah it seems like the Prodigy 3 is a solid option. It really doesn't feel stiff in a bad way — just solid without being demanding. And it's got a lot of rocker which makes butters totally feasible (I'm 5'8" 155 lbs and suck at butters and am able to do them pretty easily on the Prodigy 3 since its taper and rocker keeps it from feeling hooky). I think at your height and weight you could definitely get used to the stiffer flex of the 183 Prodigy 3.

The CT 3.0 is a fun ski, but I like the Prodigy 3 better for inbounds use as its more stable and similarly playful.

The Armada ARV 106 would also be worth a look. It's a bit better on firm snow than the Prodigy 3 and its tips and tails are a bit softer. But I can ski both skis in a pretty similar way.
 
14048415:patagonialuke said:
Yeah it seems like the Prodigy 3 is a solid option. It really doesn't feel stiff in a bad way — just solid without being demanding. And it's got a lot of rocker which makes butters totally feasible (I'm 5'8" 155 lbs and suck at butters and am able to do them pretty easily on the Prodigy 3 since its taper and rocker keeps it from feeling hooky). I think at your height and weight you could definitely get used to the stiffer flex of the 183 Prodigy 3.

The CT 3.0 is a fun ski, but I like the Prodigy 3 better for inbounds use as its more stable and similarly playful.

The Armada ARV 106 would also be worth a look. It's a bit better on firm snow than the Prodigy 3 and its tips and tails are a bit softer. But I can ski both skis in a pretty similar way.
Click to expand...

What do you think about mounting far forward from recommended (-3 from center) on Prodigy 3.0?
 
14048429:severniy said:
What do you think about mounting far forward from recommended (-3 from center) on Prodigy 3.0?
Click to expand...

I think they'd be fine. They didn't feel very sensitive to mount point when I skied them. I skied them from -8 to -5 from center and they felt normal, so I think going -3 would be alright. I just like to have a bit more ski in front of me to lean into when skiing fast.
 
14048429:severniy said:
What do you think about mounting far forward from recommended (-3 from center) on Prodigy 3.0?
Click to expand...

That’s fine, the recommended line is -6 or -7 but it is a freestyle-based ski. I mounted mine at true center and they still ski great. At -3 you’ll have more stability but still be close enough to center to ski the park too
 
14048429:severniy said:
What do you think about mounting far forward from recommended (-3 from center) on Prodigy 3.0?
Click to expand...

FYI I'm skiing a pair right now (for a Roofbox Review) and they are mounted at -1cm from true. Feels fine. A few of the team guys are also riding them -1 or -2.
 
14048429:severniy said:
What do you think about mounting far forward from recommended (-3 from center) on Prodigy 3.0?
Click to expand...

I've got mine mounted at -2 from center and they ride great. Corey Jackson mounts his there as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top