The Never-Ending Faction Discussion

[GregK]

Gen X here as the younger park skiers found the 21 CT line too stiff and too heavy for park skiing vs the earlier versions. Perfect ski for playful chargers Dads though. Lol

Honestly, the CT 3.0 or any of the CT line are shockingly good carvers. They love speed and seem to improve the faster and more aggressive you ski them. They aren’t a punishing ski to ski but noticed last year they love being driven and really come alive when you do.
Skied my 184cm CT 3.0 on a Spring day in March this year in Mont Tremblant where it went from VERY firm in the morning to heavy crud by noon. Skied 54k vert in 7 hours averaging 40-45mph all day with them after hitting mid 50s on empty runs in the morning.

 

[ski otter 2]

Greg beat me to it, but welcome to the cult.

I have (2021) 190cm CT 3.0 and 183 CT 1.0 skis now. Still mounting the 1.0's, so they weren't ready to ski today for my first day of the year. Went to Loon Mtn in NH for a bluebird day with temps right around 40 deg ( 4.4 C) for you metric cult members (you know who you are). Expected softish snow, got boiler plate everywhere. Even with no clouds, all their trails but one where shaded by trees and never softened up. The one which got full sun was piles of sugar snow and really fun. 100% man made snow. I took the CT 3.0 with me just to see what I thought of them. Spent the day on my 187cm Brahma's which were really sharp and skied well. The best trail had lots of death cookies, but the Brahma's did well regardless. It really is a good all around ski. Decided to try the CT 3.0 at the end of the day for 2 runs before quitting.

They definitely ski different than the Brahmas. Edge grip was not as good, although not terrible either. I actually was hoping for better grip, but it was really firm conditions. I could get them on edge fairly easily, especially for such a wide ski, but they weren't going to bite real hard no matter what I did. It really wasn't a fair test in those conditions and on the positive side I didn't want to immediately get off them. I skied a DPS Wailer (112mm) in those conditions and couldn't wait to get off them.

At the bottom of the run there was about 500 ft of sugar snow (the sun was hitting it) and once I hit that, the skis transformed. They became carvy, felt much lighter, and were really fun. Basically the tip began contributing to the turn and the ski came alive. I could make them do whatever I wanted. Really nice. They are a wide ski biased towards softer snow and I just learned their not horrible on boiler plate, but not great either. Now I have higher expectations for the CT 1.0's on boiler plate, but we will see soon I hope. (should have been on those today)

I think I have the 3.0's mounted at -2.0 from the candide line, whatever Greg told me to do. I am a Clyde. I have them on adjustable bindings and will try them at other settings once we get some decent snow. My first run I did think I was kind of forward, but they felt fine there, it was more of a mental thing after being on the Brahmas which are about -10cm from true center. By the second run they seemed normal and felt fine. They are definitely a more forward mount ski, but they are designed for that, so I plan to just adjust to it and see how I like it. They are very stable and feel very good. I compare them to my son's Moment Bibby in my mind (as that was the other ski choice I was considering). I never skied the Bibby in these type of conditions, so not much to say yet. I can tell I will like these skis, but need some better conditions to really find out what they can do.

Thanks, @ScottB. The 3.0 190 was the ski I'm guessing I'd have rather gotten, even if I am just 150/5' 10" or so. But I felt in between the two lengths, the c. 184 and 190. Part of my indecision that cost me a chance at these skis. Yes, in soft bumps&uneven the 183/184 would have been perfect, but I only do that about 20 to 25% of the time at most, in the right conditions, where at least the older versions of these were cheater skis at soft snow bumps (from demoing them). But the 190 would have been fine, versatile, at a wider range of soft snow charging, in my case, seems like, most likely.

If that 3.0 ever surfaces somewhere as an option, I'll probably go for it. I'm a sucker for SG/GS charger skis. The Dynastar 19x M Pro 105 (or whatever it is) and the Rossi Sender Squad 19x were also on my list to maybe get ( in addition to such skis I already have).

That longer length has been good to me as long as there is any soft snow, not old snow, with wider soft snow skis. (Real chargers are a different matter: some of these in 19x just kill old snow carving well, at least in the Rockies, whatever their width, and they add about 10+ to 20 mph to the comfort zone charging.)

 

[Rdputnam515]

O

Curious to see if everyone in this thread is Gen X?

I know I’ve seen a total revolution in ski design in my lifetime. Raced on Equipe 9000s, got into more off pist stuff with my F9s, moved on to Volkl G30s on to G3s, Rossi Exp etc.

now onto a totally different concept. Crazy evolution in my time. From Scott Schmidt and Glen Plake, The Evans to Candide Thovex, and Sam Kuch

wild ride

that was supposed to say Egans Not Evans

 

[anders_nor]

Skied the CT 1.0 183 today

we had a nice mix of corn with ice under, and variable conditions (+7c day and -2 night) and you ended up with that candide style skiiing through piles/bumpswhere it might have looked like you were out of control, but you were in control.

It's a jibby carver or a carver thats jibby, hard to tell, it's probably the best short skied I've skied in ages thats not a racing ski, this thing should be stupid fun in trees and narrow runs? I did some switch skiiing and hit some bumps makeing jumps out of them (the best I can with my current knee state, cant hit the park/rails) but legit this is my favorite twintip and what I would use for parkjumps.

I have it mounted with 2022 jesters (grey on grey) which makes it a fairly heavy ski to carry, but it skies / changes direction light, but doesnt get deflected, so its kinda weird.

It straight up kills the Enforcer 88 on *everything*

Its a fun ski! I will only deduct points for beeing avail in a 183 not a 188 or 190 like older CT 1.0s! my GF skied a 177 today, I skied a 183... and the 183 isnt much of a 183 reallife, her 177 is closer, so it looked like we had the same size ski :p I'm about 20cm taller and twice the weight.

no idea on gen X and boomer this, I'm in my 30s though

my ranking on the 2021 lineup would be CT 3.0 190 cm > CT 1.0 183cm > CT 2.0 188 (need to mount the other pair further back and see what happens) I got no idea how this superawesome lineup of skis has been slept on so bad, even blister hasnt even tried them. CT 3.0 kills the 110mm and most of the 100m segment for pretty much everything imho.

 

[GregK]

Got a buddy out in Vancouver who skis Whistler Blackcomb every week to outfit his whole family in new Faction skis including a set of 21 CT 3.0 for himself. He’s about 165lbs and not too aggressive a skier so has the 178cm mounted -3cm for skiing tight trees.

Received a few texts the last few weeks from him as they’ve had a few storms the last few weekends and last night and today another one is going through.
“These are WAY better than my Rustlers!”(180cm Rustler 10) and today got another “These are so fun plowing through everything!” Text from him. He’s son is loving his CT 2.0 Youth skis and his petite wife enjoys powder much more on her Agent 3.0 vs her Head Kore 97 daily drivers.

Teased him they someone recorded him tree skiing with his new skis the other weekend and he replied that “it wasn’t him as he skis faster than that!” with a laughing emoji.

 

[Rdputnam515]

Skied the CT 1.0 183 today

we had a nice mix of corn with ice under, and variable conditions (+7c day and -2 night) and you ended up with that candide style skiiing through piles/bumpswhere it might have looked like you were out of control, but you were in control.

It's a jibby carver or a carver thats jibby, hard to tell, it's probably the best short skied I've skied in ages thats not a racing ski, this thing should be stupid fun in trees and narrow runs? I did some switch skiiing and hit some bumps makeing jumps out of them (the best I can with my current knee state, cant hit the park/rails) but legit this is my favorite twintip and what I would use for parkjumps.

I have it mounted with 2022 jesters (grey on grey) which makes it a fairly heavy ski to carry, but it skies / changes direction light, but doesnt get deflected, so its kinda weird.

It straight up kills the Enforcer 88 on *everything*

Its a fun ski! I will only deduct points for beeing avail in a 183 not a 188 or 190 like older CT 1.0s! my GF skied a 177 today, I skied a 183... and the 183 isnt much of a 183 reallife, her 177 is closer, so it looked like we had the same size ski :p I'm about 20cm taller and twice the weight.

no idea on gen X and boomer this, I'm in my 30s though

my ranking on the 2021 lineup would be CT 3.0 190 cm > CT 1.0 183cm > CT 2.0 188 (need to mount the other pair further back and see what happens) I got no idea how this superawesome lineup of skis has been slept on so bad, even blister hasnt even tried them. CT 3.0 kills the 110mm and most of the 100m segment for pretty much everything imho.

The Gen X thing was more of a question based on lots of people seem to be old enough to resist or question the design of these kind of skis (grew up on fully directional, skiing, small side cut long like 207cm-210cm skis) but young enough to be willing to get on them. Seems like even ex racers and guys who like GS skis are willing to pick these up lol.

 

[GregK]

Glad to hear you’re liking the CT 1.0 @anders_nor as I knew you would! Thought of you when I was flipping between my 184cm eTitan with a -13cm mount and the 183cm CT 2.0 with it’s -4cm total(CT line -2cm) mount and how short the CT 1.0 looks in front of the binding. You make one turn and it no longer feels short though!
The Jesters aren’t too much heavier than a Griffon or Attack 13/14 GW and agree you only notice their weight while carrying them. Skating to the lift line, the much lighter(250gr) eTitan feel heavier with their more traditional mount.
Funny how one of the most stable, damp and confidence inspiring skis made in the 90mm range is a twin tip made by Faction.

I would agree that you need to just remount your 188cm CT 2.0 back a cm or so and you’ll like them more. Will be on them again next week but found they are a VERY stable ski with an amazing suspension. Definitely the most damp ski of the CT line.
Has the feel of a Sender Squad/189cm Bonafide 97 type of ski that eats up the terrain at high speeds with ease but more fun than those at speeds below 40-45mph or off piste. Has a weight approaching 2400gr, lots of rubber dampening, a solid but not demanding flex and a tail that’s easy to release.
Still think @ski otter 2 would really like this ski in 188cm for crud and rough groomer destroying. A perfect “day or two after a storm” type of ski. More serious than the softer and more playful 183cm version which I find is like a more stable 186cmEnforcer 104.

The CT 3.0 has a lighter swing weight and not quite as damp as it lacks the rubber dampening and 2nd titanal sheet underfoot but has a more lively feel to it. I got the 184cm first as I was kinda in-between sizes on the MFree 108 but found I prefer the CT 3.0 for it’s higher stability, edge grip and better carving performance. Will get more time on the 190cm CT 3.0 soon but it takes stability up a notch up over the 184cm as expected.

 

[ski otter 2]

Hi, @GregK,
On me getting the 2.0, even the 188:
I just have too many great skis that handle that 97 to 102 directional ski slot (of the Candide 2.0, for me), and more I've tried but gotten rid of.

(I currently use the V-Werks Mantra - two pairs with different turn radii, the Bonafide 180 and the MindBender 99/186, for this, but might use the Cochise for this as well if I had a pair. I only use that slot/width range for days with just a bit of soft snow anyway. Over 2"-3" and I'm on to a number of other skis, that give a float feeling in that little powder, but charge as well or better than race skis. A list of those. I won't give up the float/play/charge feeling I can get in as little as 3" of powder/crud with a fatter ski - bottom line. (The 3.0 was to me different, since it is wider, with more float, and its unique feel and behavior carves out its own slot in a quiver using that great turn-on-its-radius CT effect, and with its ability to not get tossed, like the previous and subsequent CTs were prone to be, in my demo experience. (But then, I'm not CT.)

 

[anders_nor]

I sold my jskis hotshot 189 and m-free 108 192 after getting on the CT 3.0 190....

 

[GregK]

(I currently use the V-Werks Mantra - two pairs with different turn radii, the Bonafide 180 and the MindBender 99/186, for this, but might use the Cochise for this as well if I had a pair

The V-Werks is a unique ski but the Bonafide and Mindbender are more similar to the CT 2.0 and then you’d have even more overlap unless you swapped out something.
The new heavier Bonafide 97 is exactly like a a flat tailed, traditional mount 21 CT 2.0 with the same weight, similar flex(CT a hair stiffer tip/tail and slightly softer underfoot), similar sidecut and taper and they are both black and red even! Haha

It will be interesting to see if either Faction or Candide’s new line for 23 makes a CT 2.5 like ski in between the 102mm and 112mm widths that’s still 2200gr plus in the 184cm width(and makes a 190cm plus version too of course).
Would buy that ski in a heartbeat!

 

[GregK]

I sold my jskis hotshot 189 and m-free 108 192 after getting on the CT 3.0 190....

As soon as I saw the turning radius and flex pattern of the Hotshot I wasn’t interested as it was too soft tip/tail with too short of a turning radius for that type of ski. Wasn’t surprised with the Blister review or that you didn’t like it either.
The Salomon Blank is a very similar ski in that regard for me.
I really like the MFree 108 but also prefer the CT 3.0.

 

[ScottB]

FWIW, I did some mount measurements on my skis today. I am comparing my 183 CT 1.0, 190 CT 3.0, and 187 Brahma 88. I just happened to ski that my first and only day so far, so that's in the comparison.

CT 1.0 (183) -3 from CT line, -5 from True Center
CT 3.0 (190) -2 from CT line, -7 from True Center
BR 88 (187) +0.5 from line, -10.5 from True Center

Interestingly enough, the boot center to tip length is almost equal between the Brahma and CT 3.0, BR = 103mm and the CT 3.0 = 101mm. To my eye, the Ct's looked shorter, but they skied well at -2. The AFD pad is also about 1.5mm further back on the CT's, which probably makes some difference. The real difference is the tail of the CT is about 5mm longer and I can visually see that, but on smooth groomers didn't really feel it. I might notice in tight moguls. Here is a picture of the skis with the bindings aligned. Brahma's have Griffons and CT's have Attack2 demo's.

I think the Brahma might have a longer effective edge because of the tail and less rocker in the tip. Ski Otter2 mentioned the CT's seem to turn on their own radius in an early post. I described them as very turney once I hit some soft snow. I think we are commenting on the same thing. Basically it is very easy to make a short radius turn on these skis, surprising for such a long, wide ski. I have a full camber Ski Logik Charriot twin tip ski in 178cm and it doesn't turn as tight as the CT. The Charriot has a 15m radius too. The Charriot carves its turns, the CT carves but with a automatic pivot built in. Its not just easy to pivot the ski (meaning bases flat), its easy to pivot while rolling on edge as well. Maybe that is what is meant when a ski is called "balanced"

 

[GregK]

I think the Brahma might have a longer effective edge because of the tail and less rocker in the tip

The effective edge/sidecut lengths between the 187cm Brahma 88 and 190cm CT 3.0 is fairly close because of the low amount of tip/tail taper on the CT line.
The difference you’re experiencing when skidding tighter turns between a full camber ski, a very flat rocker ski like the Brahma and a low rise with twin tail ski like the CT line is how much/little you have to tip the ski to access the full length of that effective edge.

The full camber ski like the Ski Logik will have a longer running length touching the snow vs the shorter running lengths of skis with rocker making it easier to pivot while the ski is flat. A slight tip of a Brahma though and you start to access the long effective edge vs the higher splayed rocker of the CT which allow for more feathering of the edge before you access it’s full effective edge.

In variable conditions, off piste and in soft snow, a ski with more tip/tail splay will act like a shorter ski and be easier to pivot until you fully tip the ski on edge. Adding more taper will make the ski less catchy and easier to release the edge but you sacrifice hard snow bite.

 

[GregK]

@ScottB Thought of you today as I skied my 188cm CT 2.0 today after skiing the 184cm eTitan all day yesterday. The first run today on the CT 2.0 felt like they had far less edge grip when I casually skied them. When going up the lift, I thought “you know better than that Greg, you have a more aggressive base bevel on the eTitans and the CT 2.0 are twins that need higher edge angles to engage the whole effective edge”. Run 2 I trusted the skis and drove them harder putting them more on edge and there was their signature grip again. Those skis absolutely HAUL on open groomers!

Switched to the 183cm CT 1.0 later and they feel much lighter and shorter but they have great grip for their length. Got 2 separate comments today from some younger skiers that “Those skis are fucking awesome! I tried them last year”. So they have street cred I guess….lol
Also sold a person on a pair for his out West daily driver and wrote on a business card the length and mount specs for him. He started the lift ride asking if “Aren’t those Faction skis the ones that amazing skier uses who skis right into Audi Quattro cars?”
Told him these are his line of skis and he was happy to learn he could mount them back but his teen kid would still think he’s cool skiing them. Haha

 

[anders_nor]

I need to land on a binding for my other pair of CT 2.0 now I used my red 2020 jesters... and move zem a bit back

enjoy a pair of fresh ground fresh waxed bases of 2.0

 

[Tony Storaro]

Also sold a person on a pair for his out West daily driver

You don't say! I don't believe for one second you did that!

 

[grandshervee]

Also sold a person on a pair for his out West daily driver

Were you speaking about me?

 

[Rdputnam515]

Jealous, Greg wouldn’t sell me a pair and I ended up the the X version lol

 

[ScottB]

Curious to see if everyone in this thread is Gen X?

I know I’ve seen a total revolution in ski design in my lifetime. Raced on Equipe 9000s, got into more off pist stuff with my F9s, moved on to Volkl G30s on to G3s, Rossi Exp etc.

now onto a totally different concept. Crazy evolution in my time. From Scott Schmidt and Glen Plake, The Evans to Candide Thovex, and Sam Kuch

wild ride

Had to look up what constitutes Gen X. Here is what I found on the web

The breakdown by age looks like this:

• Baby Boomers: Baby boomers were born between 1946 and 1964. They're currently between 57-75 years old (71.6 million in the U.S.)
• Gen X: Gen X was born between 1965 and 1979/80 and is currently between 41-56 years old (65.2 million people in the U.S.)
• Gen Y: Gen Y, or Millennials, were born between 1981 and 1994/6. They are currently between 25 and 40 years old (72.1 million in the U.S.)
  • Gen Y.1 = 25-29 years old (around 31 million people in the U.S.)
  • Gen Y.2 = 29-39 (around 42 million people in the U.S.)
• Gen Z: Gen Z is the newest generation, born between 1997 and 2012. They are currently between 9 and 24 years old (nearly 68 million in the U.S.)
• Gen A: Generation Alpha starts with children born in 2012 and will continue at least through 2025, maybe later (approximately 48 million people in the U.S.)

I am a late model boomer, sorry to mess up your theory. All I can say is Stat That!

 

[GregK]

I’m not selling my own personal pair(although he asked!), I told him where to buy a new set for himself in Canada.

He even showed me a video of his son dropping a 20’ cliff in Revelstoke which is the son who he thinks will be impressed with his new CT 1.0 skis. Haha

I’ll either use my 183cm CT 1.0 for my West Coast daily driver unless there’s more soft snow around and in that case I’ll take the 183cm CT 2.0 along with a powder ski.