• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

The Never-Ending Faction Discussion

R2-Ski2

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Dec 27, 2021
Posts
14
Location
New York
Finally got to put my new CT1.0s on some snow this past MLK weekend, mounted -1.5cm from factory as per Gregs recommendation, and they were a blast! Sat and Sunday were icy, granular, hardpack conditions at Mount Snow. I really like how well the edges grab and carve, as well as how the stiffness of the ski provides some serious stability at high speeds, but they don't feel heavy at all. took them into the parks and the fun continued! Super playful on jumps and rails, and riding switch is a dream.

Monday saw about 7-8 inches of fresh snow in the Catskills, so I wandered over to my home mountain for that. In untouched snow at that depth, they did pretty well! As the day went on and the terrain got chopped up more, the trails were less powder and more compacted mounds of snow, which was crappy but ripping over the mounds in the CTs was very comfortable. They do a good job at dampening a lot of bounce and impact while allowing me to carve and move around easily.

Overall, my first impressions of this ski were phenomenal! thank you all who helped steer me in the right direction with this one!
 
Thread Starter
TS
GregK

GregK

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
4,018
Location
Ontario, Canada
Finally got to put my new CT1.0s on some snow this past MLK weekend, mounted -1.5cm from factory as per Gregs recommendation, and they were a blast! Sat and Sunday were icy, granular, hardpack conditions at Mount Snow. I really like how well the edges grab and carve, as well as how the stiffness of the ski provides some serious stability at high speeds, but they don't feel heavy at all. took them into the parks and the fun continued! Super playful on jumps and rails, and riding switch is a dream.

Monday saw about 7-8 inches of fresh snow in the Catskills, so I wandered over to my home mountain for that. In untouched snow at that depth, they did pretty well! As the day went on and the terrain got chopped up more, the trails were less powder and more compacted mounds of snow, which was crappy but ripping over the mounds in the CTs was very comfortable. They do a good job at dampening a lot of bounce and impact while allowing me to carve and move around easily.

Overall, my first impressions of this ski were phenomenal! thank you all who helped steer me in the right direction with this one!
Very happy to hear you’re liking them as much as myself and other 21 CT cult members!

Had my CT 1.0 out this morning with a few inches of fresh over groomed snow. Amazing grip and carving power at high speeds and very quick edge to edge. Feels like a narrower ski when carving yet when things got rough around lunch, they charge like a wider, heavier one. Much better than the Kendo 88 I had last year in the afternoons.

The CT 2.0 came out for the last few hours of today to compare again. The CT 2.0 are a bit heavier and softer flexing so they absorb the crud even better and are a little slower edge to edge as expected. Very similar feel and would be happy on either most days.
 

4shaw

In the parking lot (formerly "At the base lodge")
Skier
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Posts
7
Great thread. Was thinking of giving these a go as I was looking for an all mountain twin with some backbone. Mostly for all mountain but like to mess around switch and jumps.

Do these run short due to the twin tip or true to size? Was between the 178 and 183.

For reference, I owned the Nordica Soul Rider in a 177. Fun ski and overall good all mountain, but felt a little short and sketchy at speed.

Thanks
 
Thread Starter
TS
GregK

GregK

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
4,018
Location
Ontario, Canada
Great thread. Was thinking of giving these a go as I was looking for an all mountain twin with some backbone. Mostly for all mountain but like to mess around switch and jumps.

Do these run short due to the twin tip or true to size? Was between the 178 and 183.

For reference, I owned the Nordica Soul Rider in a 177. Fun ski and overall good all mountain, but felt a little short and sketchy at speed.

Thanks
You had the original Soul Rider/Soul Rider 97 then? It’s not very tapered but more has sidecut than the longer radius CT 1.0 or 2.0 which will be more stable at speed than a Soul Rider.

What’s your size and is float important so a length and ski recommendation could be perfect. Leaning 183cm on either ski by the sounds of it.
 
Thread Starter
TS
GregK

GregK

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
4,018
Location
Ontario, Canada
But CT skis aren’t light noodles most often used by terminal intermediates though…………:duck:

Wouldn’t be surprised if something has been lined up for awhile now. Heard Rossignol being mentioned which I could maybe see.
 

4shaw

In the parking lot (formerly "At the base lodge")
Skier
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Posts
7
You had the original Soul Rider/Soul Rider 97 then? It’s not very tapered but more has sidecut than the longer radius CT 1.0 or 2.0 which will be more stable at speed than a Soul Rider.

What’s your size and is float important so a length and ski recommendation could be perfect. Leaning 183cm on either ski by the sounds of it.

You had the original Soul Rider/Soul Rider 97 then? It’s not very tapered but more has sidecut than the longer radius CT 1.0 or 2.0 which will be more stable at speed than a Soul Rider.

What’s your size and is float important so a length and ski recommendation could be perfect. Leaning 183cm on either ski by the sounds of it.
Soul Rider 97. I'm not a big guy at 5'11" and 165#, but I did like to ski on the faster side. Advanced/Expert skier on the west coast. This would be my fun low tide ski so don't need much float as I have other skis for that. Would like it be maneuverable and fun, but also more stable than the Soul Riders at speed.

Appreciate the help.
 
Thread Starter
TS
GregK

GregK

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
4,018
Location
Ontario, Canada
Soul Rider 97. I'm not a big guy at 5'11" and 165#, but I did like to ski on the faster side. Advanced/Expert skier on the west coast. This would be my fun low tide ski so don't need much float as I have other skis for that. Would like it be maneuverable and fun, but also more stable than the Soul Riders at speed.

Appreciate the help.
Then go 183cm on the CT 1.0 and mount on the CT line if you’re skiing switch and in the park often.

If you’re in Canada, here’s the link to the best deal on them-https://en.boutiqueadrenaline.com/products/65786-faction-candide-10-183

Skis.com was the best place to get them in the States but I guess they went out of business and now The-House.com has their old stock so try them. Were around $439 US before discounts at Skis.com but on Boxing Day they were down to around $340 iirc.
 

chinochulo

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Posts
33
Location
Seattle, WA
I am watching this thread with interest as I like the Faction skis (my 11yo has the CT 145). Would the CT 2.0 173 be just right for me if I used to have a Rustler 10 172 last year (now sold)? I am 5'8" 200#. This is my second year of skiing as I converted from snowboarding, and I had sold the Rustlers to get 165 slaloms (67 underfoot) in order to learn to turn correctly. I had been smearing my turns before, but now that I can actually carve on race skis, I figure its time to get back on some wider skis I can ride some side hits on. Its either the CT 2.0 173 or CT 3.0 178. Not sure what I would really do with the CT 3.0 as I can just snowboard with deep pow.
 

ski otter 2

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
2,920
Location
Front Range, Colorado
Soul Rider 97. I'm not a big guy at 5'11" and 165#, but I did like to ski on the faster side. Advanced/Expert skier on the west coast. This would be my fun low tide ski so don't need much float as I have other skis for that. Would like it be maneuverable and fun, but also more stable than the Soul Riders at speed.

Appreciate the help.
Those were/are one of my favorite playful skis. Just memorable, a blast. They are really fun on groomers, bumps and some soft, even for a more directional skier. Just so much character, that going a bit slower/creative is well worth it on that ski. I still have thoughts of getting a pair of those, now and again; and have been doing so while thinking of these CT, more playful skis.
 
Thread Starter
TS
GregK

GregK

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
4,018
Location
Ontario, Canada
I am watching this thread with interest as I like the Faction skis (my 11yo has the CT 145). Would the CT 2.0 173 be just right for me if I used to have a Rustler 10 172 last year (now sold)? I am 5'8" 200#. This is my second year of skiing as I converted from snowboarding, and I had sold the Rustlers to get 165 slaloms (67 underfoot) in order to learn to turn correctly. I had been smearing my turns before, but now that I can actually carve on race skis, I figure its time to get back on some wider skis I can ride some side hits on. Its either the CT 2.0 173 or CT 3.0 178. Not sure what I would really do with the CT 3.0 as I can just snowboard with deep pow.
The 21 173cm CT 2.0 would be more stable, have more edge grip and more damp than even the latest 172cm Rustler 10 that got stiffer and heavier a few years back. Can still skid and pivot easily but a much better carver. More like a really playful Bonafide 97.

If float isn’t a concern, the 172cm 21 CT 1.0 is even quicker edge to edge with even better edge grip. Still does well in afternoon crud and very similar feel to the CT 2.0 as it’s the exact same construction, just narrower.

The-House.com now has all the Skis.com 21 CT 1.0 stock but don’t have it listed on their website yet. I’m sure it would be another great deal similar to the Sierra deals on the CT 2.0 and CT 3.0x.
 
Thread Starter
TS
GregK

GregK

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
4,018
Location
Ontario, Canada
Remember when I said “I bet they will just rename the 22 CT line and carry on with it except the CT 5.0”


E5FB12C4-E50C-4313-9163-F94C0F268EC2.png
 

Tony Storaro

Glorified Tobogganer
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Posts
7,806
Location
Europe
Not in love with the graphics, I have to admit.

1642711057922.png


And these topsheets look glossy to me.

Black...glossy topsheets...what could possibly go wrong really?
 

chinochulo

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Posts
33
Location
Seattle, WA
The 21 173cm CT 2.0 would be more stable, have more edge grip and more damp than even the latest 172cm Rustler 10 that got stiffer and heavier a few years back. Can still skid and pivot easily but a much better carver. More like a really playful Bonafide 97.

If float isn’t a concern, the 172cm 21 CT 1.0 is even quicker edge to edge with even better edge grip. Still does well in afternoon crud and very similar feel to the CT 2.0 as it’s the exact same construction, just narrower.
I bought 173 CT 2.0x and Attack2 with 110 brakes. Now thinking about getting the 178 CT 3.0x as well. Would 110 brakes also fit the 3.0x? The other question is should I get yellow or green bindings lol? I didn't think the green would look good until I saw the photos on this thread...
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top