Pow Ski: Candide 4.0 (118mm), Candide 3.0 (112mm), Faction Prodigy 4.0 (112mm) or Armada ARV JJ 116?

[Crispy.]

Hi all,

Anyone have suggestions between the Candide 4.0, Candide 3.0, Faction Prodigy 4.0, or Armada ARV JJ 116? It will be a dedicated pow ski for Utah skiing and hopefully a trip to Japan next winter. I have a very jibby/park oriented style and want to be able to skerp around on them.

The Prodigies and JJs are about $100 cheaper, but happy to spend the money for the Candides if they're going to be more fun.

Also, I can't seem to find much online about the Prodigies. Does anyone know the big differences between them and the Candides?

 

[patagonialuke]

If you want a really playful ski, the ARV 116 is the best option out of that group, closely followed by the Prodigy 4. I haven't used the new CT 3.0, but the 4.0 is a pretty burly ski that's a lot of fun for going fast in good snow, but the ARV and Prodigy 4 are much surfier and more playful overall, in my opinion.

I also wrote more about the Prodigy 4 here.

 

[skidemon22]

Do the new Candide 3.0! it's made at an all-new factory for us, and its super well made. We've been testing the crap out of it to make sure it won't have the quality assurance issues of the older models

The CT 4.0 is super fun, and in its final year, so if you want something a bit wider, I highly recommend it

JW, but Why not the CT 5.0? I ski that as my everyday ski haha

 

[Crispy.]

Do the new Candide 3.0! it's made at an all-new factory for us, and its super well made. We've been testing the crap out of it to make sure it won't have the quality assurance issues of the older models

The CT 4.0 is super fun, and in its final year, so if you want something a bit wider, I highly recommend it

JW, but Why not the CT 5.0? I ski that as my everyday ski haha

The 5.0 is just too wide for me. I'm of the opinion that there's not need to go much bigger than 115 unless you're consisently skiing 12"+. What's are the biggest differences between the Candide and Prodigy?

 

[Crispy.]

If you want a really playful ski, the ARV 116 is the best option out of that group, closely followed by the Prodigy 4. I haven't used the new CT 3.0, but the 4.0 is a pretty burly ski that's a lot of fun for going fast in good snow, but the ARV and Prodigy 4 are much surfier and more playful overall, in my opinion.

I also wrote more about the Prodigy 4 here.

Based on your suggestion, I'm between the ARV 116 and the Prodigy 4.0. I'm limited to buying these skis from Freeze Proshop (I won an $800 gift certificate). I'd buy the ARV but the thing that concerns me is they only have a 175cm and 192cm length in stock, and not the 185cm like other sites. 175 is definitely too small and I think 192 might be too big. I'm 6'2" 175lbs and ride 181 Jeffrey 96s in the park. Just worried I might not be able to turn the 192s in tight trees.

Should I stop being a bitch and get the 192 ARVs, buy the 185 ARV 116 UL (ultralight) (will this sacrifice performance in bounds or just add to jib-ability?), or get 185 prodigy 4.0s?

 

[skidemon22]

If you want a really playful ski, the ARV 116 is the best option out of that group, closely followed by the Prodigy 4. I haven't used the new CT 3.0, but the 4.0 is a pretty burly ski that's a lot of fun for going fast in good snow, but the ARV and Prodigy 4 are much surfier and more playful overall, in my opinion.

I also wrote more about the Prodigy 4 here.

The CT 4.0 is far from what I would call 'burly', its a medium flex, and fairly light for its size. the 18/19 prodigy 4.0 was more burly. 19/20, we reduced material in the prodigy to make it more playful, so the two are on par with each other.

Cant speak for the ARV...

 

[FapMasterFLEX]

Based on your suggestion, I'm between the ARV 116 and the Prodigy 4.0. I'm limited to buying these skis from Freeze Proshop (I won an $800 gift certificate). I'd buy the ARV but the thing that concerns me is they only have a 175cm and 192cm length in stock, and not the 185cm like other sites. 175 is definitely too small and I think 192 might be too big. I'm 6'2" 175lbs and ride 181 Jeffrey 96s in the park. Just worried I might not be able to turn the 192s in tight trees.

Should I stop being a bitch and get the 192 ARVs, buy the 185 ARV 116 UL (ultralight) (will this sacrifice performance in bounds or just add to jib-ability?), or get 185 prodigy 4.0s?

If you're a strong skier, i doubt the 192 will be too much ski at all. The radius is super short hence they ski smaller. You're on the lighter side, so you could enjoy the UL more. I have the regular 116's and the weight is a huge help when it gets busted out and choppy. The UL isn't a stout daily driver unless you're too small for the regular 116's

 

[skidemon22]

The 5.0 is just too wide for me. I'm of the opinion that there's not need to go much bigger than 115 unless you're consisently skiing 12"+. What's are the biggest differences between the Candide and Prodigy?

I'd say the prodigy 4.0 or CT 3.0 is gonna be your best bet. Candide series has no tip taper (more of a traditional sidecut), where as the Prodigy has a good amount of tip taper (what we call a multi point sidecut) and tail taper. the prodigy also has more rocker in the camber profile, which may make it more fun around the hill in soft, fresh snow

 

[Crispy.]

I'd say the prodigy 4.0 or CT 3.0 is gonna be your best bet. Candide series has no tip taper (more of a traditional sidecut), where as the Prodigy has a good amount of tip taper (what we call a multi point sidecut) and tail taper. the prodigy also has more rocker in the camber profile, which may make it more fun around the hill in soft, fresh snow

After looking at the width again, I think the CT 3.0 is too narrow for what I'm looking for. You don't seem to be recommending the CT 4.0. Out of curiosity, why?

 

[patagonialuke]

The CT 4.0 is far from what I would call 'burly', its a medium flex, and fairly light for its size. the 18/19 prodigy 4.0 was more burly. 19/20, we reduced material in the prodigy to make it more playful, so the two are on par with each other.

Cant speak for the ARV...

Hmm, maybe the shorter lengths are disproportionately softer, but in my experience, and having had the chance to use a good number of the skis in this class, the 188 cm and 192 cm CT 4.0's feel much stiffer on snow and require much more effort to pivot than most of the other skis in this category. By "burly" I wasn't referring to the weight — they're obviously pretty light for their size, I've just been really surprised by how demanding the 188 cm CT 4.0 is, even compared to the 186 cm 18/19 Prodigy 4.0. Maybe I just need to detune the CT 4.0 more.

 

[skidemon22]

Hmm, maybe the shorter lengths are disproportionately softer, but in my experience, and having had the chance to use a good number of the skis in this class, the 188 cm and 192 cm CT 4.0's feel much stiffer on snow and require much more effort to pivot than most of the other skis in this category. By "burly" I wasn't referring to the weight — they're obviously pretty light for their size, I've just been really surprised by how demanding the 188 cm CT 4.0 is, even compared to the 186 cm 18/19 Prodigy 4.0. Maybe I just need to detune the CT 4.0 more.

Yeah they aren't too stiff (CT 4.0), but i will say they have traditional contact points in their side cut, so they def aren't "pivoty" like other fat skis with a lot of tip taper... so maybe that's what you are feeling...

 

[skidemon22]

After looking at the width again, I think the CT 3.0 is too narrow for what I'm looking for. You don't seem to be recommending the CT 4.0. Out of curiosity, why?

its a slightly dated design, the new 3.0 is based on the 5.0, though 112, not 122, and with a little camber (5.0 is flat camber). don't get me wrong, the 4.0 is a great ski

but with the traditoanl-ish side cut, you'll find the 19/20 prodigy 4.0 more playful

 

[LukeTheWaffle]

I'd say 2020 CT 3s, I've skied em and had a blast and bought a pair. If you don't want any park or inbounds I'd say the 5s. The prod4 is more surfy and playful off you like that

 

[Twig]

I've ridden the Prodigy 3.0 a lot more, but the Prod 4.0 is definitely my favorite of those skis from having spent a few days on it. I really love how both those Prodigies float so well despite being comparatively narrow for their respective categories. I prefer the Prodigies in general vs the Candides though, because I like more surfy skis generally (with the exception of the 2.0s). I haven't skied the new Candide 3.0 shape, afaik there are only a couple of them knocking about at the moment as Faction did a total redesign on that ski super late. Only a few people have tried them.

The ARV 116 is a great ski too, they are the softest and surfiest of the bunch but I'd say they lose out on versatility as a result. I'll defer to Luke's greater experience on them because I've only skied them at ski tests rather than long-term, but they seemed almost too loose to me occasionally, whereas the Prodigies had more support on landings and did better in crud.

 

[patagonialuke]

I've ridden the Prodigy 3.0 a lot more, but the Prod 4.0 is definitely my favorite of those skis from having spent a few days on it. I really love how both those Prodigies float so well despite being comparatively narrow for their respective categories. I prefer the Prodigies in general vs the Candides though, because I like more surfy skis generally (with the exception of the 2.0s). I haven't skied the new Candide 3.0 shape, afaik there are only a couple of them knocking about at the moment as Faction did a total redesign on that ski super late. Only a few people have tried them.

The ARV 116 is a great ski too, they are the softest and surfiest of the bunch but I'd say they lose out on versatility as a result. I'll defer to Luke's greater experience on them because I've only skied them at ski tests rather than long-term, but they seemed almost too loose to me occasionally, whereas the Prodigies had more support on landings and did better in crud.

Yep, I also only spent a bit of time on the ARV 116 and agree — the Prodigy 4.0 seems like the more versatile ski in terms of being playful and stable, while the ARV makes more sense if maximum playfulness is what you're after.

 

[Crispy.]

Sending it on the 186 Prodigy 4.0s. Thank you so so so much everyone, didn't realize gear talk was still this active and I would get so much good feedback.

 

[skidemon22]

Sending it on the 186 Prodigy 4.0s. Thank you so so so much everyone, didn't realize gear talk was still this active and I would get so much good feedback.

great choice

they are plenty playful, you won't be upset!

 

[TheWeaz]

Do the new Candide 3.0! it's made at an all-new factory for us, and its super well made. We've been testing the crap out of it to make sure it won't have the quality assurance issues of the older models

The CT 4.0 is super fun, and in its final year, so if you want something a bit wider, I highly recommend it

JW, but Why not the CT 5.0? I ski that as my everyday ski haha

Do you really ski the ct5.0 every day at sunday river? Seems like a horrible choise of ski to me, but sunday river was also basically a block of ice every time I skied it.

if the new 3.0 is similar to the original black/ brown 112mm 3.0 then its a sick ski, I had both the 175 and 183 one season on the east coast when I was slightly smaller and it was a really fun ski but had durability issues that it sounds like they fixed. I skied that thing everywhere from park at stowe to tight woods at mad river to steep terrain at tucks. If the new one is based of that design but built better it could definitely be a winner for an every day all around ski.

 

[skidemon22]

Do you really ski the ct5.0 every day at sunday river? Seems like a horrible choise of ski to me, but sunday river was also basically a block of ice every time I skied it.

if the new 3.0 is similar to the original black/ brown 112mm 3.0 then its a sick ski, I had both the 175 and 183 one season on the east coast when I was slightly smaller and it was a really fun ski but had durability issues that it sounds like they fixed. I skied that thing everywhere from park at stowe to tight woods at mad river to steep terrain at tucks. If the new one is based of that design but built better it could definitely be a winner for an every day all around ski.

I ski it wherever I'm skiing on that day! I have a pair of 2.0s for days I might try sliding a rail haha, but the 5.0 is fun on ice too, they lay over pretty nice

the new 3.0 is going to be nice! its not going be exactly the same as the older version, but we took some of that DNA and applied it to this design

 

[Youngchap]

its a slightly dated design, the new 3.0 is based on the 5.0, though 112, not 122, and with a little camber (5.0 is flat camber). don't get me wrong, the 4.0 is a great ski

but with the traditoanl-ish side cut, you'll find the 19/20 prodigy 4.0 more playful

What is it about the 4.0s design that makes it dated?

 

[animator]

What is it about the 4.0s design that makes it dated?

It’s fairly traditional, traditional in the sense that there’s a lack of taper. Modern skis take advantage of taper by enabling the ski to float well but still be quick edge to edge (read: pivoty). I personally love skis like that, the CT 4.0 is a fantastic ski. All of the Prodigy’s and Candides are for that matter, I have a CT 1, 2, 3, and a prodigy 2.0 and that’s my whole quiver. Demon was referring to the shape, since when it came out it was considered traditional, but nowadays most if not all skis have some sort of taper. Candide likes his skis fast!

 

[Youngchap]

It’s fairly traditional, traditional in the sense that there’s a lack of taper. Modern skis take advantage of taper by enabling the ski to float well but still be quick edge to edge (read: pivoty). I personally love skis like that, the CT 4.0 is a fantastic ski. All of the Prodigy’s and Candides are for that matter, I have a CT 1, 2, 3, and a prodigy 2.0 and that’s my whole quiver. Demon was referring to the shape, since when it came out it was considered traditional, but nowadays most if not all skis have some sort of taper. Candide likes his skis fast!

OK forgive my lack of ski design knowledge but as far as I can tell the 5.0 has almost the same type of taper and the 3.0 has very similar taper. Is it just the flat camber that causes the 5.0 to be more pivoty?I’m just not sure why the 4.0 is considered MORE traditional and dated than the 3.0 or 5.0

also, why does lack of taper make them faster?

 

[animator]

OK forgive my lack of ski design knowledge but as far as I can tell the 5.0 has almost the same type of taper and the 3.0 has very similar taper. Is it just the flat camber that causes the 5.0 to be more pivoty?I’m just not sure why the 4.0 is considered MORE traditional and dated than the 3.0 or 5.0

also, why does lack of taper make them faster?

The 3.0 and 5.0 are flat camber, so they are more pivoty! The lack of taper means there’s more ski in the tip and tail and therefore they are deflected less in variable conditions. Tapered skis have better float and lower weight but less effective edge

 

[skidemon22]

The 3.0 and 5.0 are flat camber, so they are more pivoty! The lack of taper means there’s more ski in the tip and tail and therefore they are deflected less in variable conditions. Tapered skis have better float and lower weight but less effective edge

The CT 3.0 does have camber, with tip and tail rocker. And that is correct, the CT series does not have any taper, instead uses a much more traditional sidecut.

 

[Youngchap]

The CT 3.0 does have camber, with tip and tail rocker. And that is correct, the CT series does not have any taper, instead uses a much more traditional sidecut.

ok that makes sense. But that answer kinda brings back question. If the 3.0 still has camber, and they all have the same taper, what made you say earlier that the 4.0 had a more dated design than the others?

 

[skidemon22]

ok that makes sense. But that answer kinda brings back question. If the 3.0 still has camber, and they all have the same taper, what made you say earlier that the 4.0 had a more dated design than the others?

The core material we were using, as well as the actual manufacturer that is building the ski. We’ve update the new 3.0 has a stronger core, especially for next year. And it was the first CT to get moved to the manufacturer we are using for that series (CT 1 and 2 follow for 20/21)

 

[lion.pappa]

have you considered catamarans?