The Never-Ending Faction Discussion

[ski otter 2]

Was wondering if you got out on the CT 2.0 when I first saw my name mentioned in your post. You should love it too as it’s a bit more stable and a bit better suspension with its extra weight.

Love my CT 1.0 too and always put a smile on my face when I ski them! Anxious to try out my newer set of CT 2.0 too as they feel more substantial than my original set. The original set I got from the Faction rep early Summer of 2020, so might have been a pre-production set.

Hi again!
I took out the CT 2.0 183s this morning, on what I'd hoped would be a soft snow day. Yikes.
No such luck. Not soft snow. Not much to report.

I got these CT 2.0s as used demo skis too late to try them out last season, and was told they had been tuned - at Powder 7.
Over the summer I apparently forgot what ski length I bought, even though I sharpened the edges myself and waxed them.
It was a CT 2.0 183, not longer, as I'd somehow forgotten. (Same length as my fantastic 1.0s)

I think this was the longest version in '21, but not sure.
(Previously a few years, there was a 188, but that was a lighter, softer ski, as I understand it.
Correct me if I got this wrong.)

Supposedly 2" of fresh had fallen, and I thought that might make things soft enough to finally try out the 2.0. Nope.
(The area had groomed the actual 1 1/2" fresh into corduroy, and that had re-frozen overnight.
Not the greatest for most 102 skis, the opposite of soft snow.)

Man, the first runs and I knew I had some work to do, shucks.
These particular demo skis may be damaged, spent, or just in need of TLC - I hope.
These skis need flattening and re-setting the edge, not just a mild sharpening/tuning.
They were not good carvers, on such hard, old snow - lots of slight slarving/slipping.

I'll have to work on them, and then get them out on an actual soft snow day.

So I have very little to report on how these skis will perform, in their right conditions, once set right.
As is, they seemed to feel too short, to ski shorter than the 1.0s feel. And that's not what you all described, I think.
They had so much slip on the re-frozen that at first they mostly half slarved, until I got used to them "as is."
I found myself wishing they were longer.

In the right snow, worked on some, they might be great. I just can't tell yet. Sorry.

 

[ScottB]

Everything you describe is what I experienced with the bad factory tune. Get them redone and they will transform. It's amazing what having edges that work properly does for these skis. My 190 CT 3.0 felt short too until the tune was fixed. Now they feel perfect for their length.

 

[ScottB]

So I have a pair of 2021 CT 5.0s incoming, and I just got these on black friday sale so what are all you ski geeks opinion on mount point?

I would recommend demo bindings. On the CT line the ski will pivot effortlessly which sounds good but has downsides. Candide is small and light, not a big guy. On my 190 CT 3.0 on the line the carving was poor on firm Snow. I am a big guy. At -2.5 from the CT line carving was great, but pivoting was not as good. So as Greg suggested -1.5 is a good compromise. For a big guy it leans towards the pivot side. I have mine at -2.0 which leans towards the carve side. Since you mention trees over big mtn I would mount -1.5 per Greg

 

[GregK]

Hi again!
I took out the CT 2.0 183s this morning, on what I'd hoped would be a soft snow day. Yikes.
No such luck. Not soft snow. Not much to report.

I got these CT 2.0s as used demo skis too late to try them out last season, and was told they had been tuned - at Powder 7.
Over the summer I apparently forgot what ski length I bought, even though I sharpened the edges myself and waxed them.
It was a CT 2.0 183, not longer, as I'd somehow forgotten. (Same length as my fantastic 1.0s)

I think this was the longest version in '21, but not sure.
(Previously a few years, there was a 188, but that was a lighter, softer ski, as I understand it.
Correct me if I got this wrong.)

Supposedly 2" of fresh had fallen, and I thought that might make things soft enough to finally try out the 2.0. Nope.
(The area had groomed the actual 1 1/2" fresh into corduroy, and that had re-frozen overnight.
Not the greatest for most 102 skis, the opposite of soft snow.)

Man, the first runs and I knew I had some work to do, shucks.
These particular demo skis may be damaged, spent, or just in need of TLC - I hope.
These skis need flattening and re-setting the edge, not just a mild sharpening/tuning.
They were not good carvers, on such hard, old snow - lots of slight slarving/slipping.

I'll have to work on them, and then get them out on an actual soft snow day.

So I have very little to report on how these skis will perform, in their right conditions, once set right.
As is, they seemed to feel too short, to ski shorter than the 1.0s feel. And that's not what you all described, I think.
They had so much slip on the re-frozen that at first they mostly half slarved, until I got used to them "as is."
I found myself wishing they were longer.

In the right snow, worked on some, they might be great. I just can't tell yet. Sorry.

Definitely sounds like a base high ski and/or the base bevel is currently set much higher than 1 degree by your description. Would ski shorter and feel like it has no edge grip even if the edges were sharp.
Blanking/Race grind and then you set the edges by hand and you should have a different ski.

I’d also check to see where the mount is currently at as the CT 2.0 is just SLIGHTLY more directional(2mm), so the CT mark should be -3.5cm from center vs the -2cm of the CT 1.0. I then went back -1.5cm from there on my original set and it was perfect so my latest set is there too. IIRC you were around -2cm on your CT 1.0 like me so start around the -1.5cm on the CT 2.0 and adjust if desired.

As I mentioned before, the CT 1.0 and CT 2.0 are the EXACT SAME builds with the CT 2.0 just being wider and a tiny bit more directional. So both skis at their -1.5cm mounts, the CT 2.0 should be a touch more damp with its extra 100gr mass, a bit more stable but a bit slower edge to edge and a touch looser off piste as the CT 2.0 has just a little bit more rocker and splay. Sidecut length is almost identical, so edge grip should again be identical.

They did make a 188cm 21 CT 2.0 which I owned as well but at almost 2400gr a ski and a noticeable stiffer flex than the 183cm it wasn’t the most playful ski unless you were larger. They were incredible crud destroyers and insanely stable but not as fun as the 183cm for my size. Sold them last year to a larger guy on TGR and he was floored by how great they are. Sent me multiple text after the sale raving about them.
My latest 183cm CT 2.0 are stiffer in flex and are up 50gr in weight over my original ones so I think the step up over the 183cm CT 1.0 in things like crud performance should be more noticeable in this set.

 

[GregK]

Day 1 for the season today with firmer conditions in most areas to start but softening up quickly and bumpy crud before noon.
Started on my 180cm Blizzard Firebird WRC which were great to start the day but when things got rough by 11am, out came the Factions. Switched to the 183cm 21 CT 1.0 and then tried my newer, backup set of 183cm 21 CT 2.0.

The CT 1.0 felt looser when flat or slightly tipped but as soon as you committed to rolling them over they gripped the remaining firm spots with ease. Still surprisingly how well they hold an edge and the difference in crud performance and stability were on another level vs the Firebirds.

Switched to the CT 2.0 a few hours later and like my older set, the suspension and stability went up another step but on this heavier and stiffer pair, the gap between the CT 1.0 was larger still. Just slightly slower edge to edge but once up to even reasonable speeds, it wasn’t super noticeable.
Maybe a hair looser when flat compared to the CT 1.0 but it was very close as was the great edge grip.
Very happy with the new set and fell in love with the CT 1.0 again.

@ski otter 2 Was thinking of you when I stepped into my CT 2.0 and it instantly feeling like home for a CT 1.0 user. Something is definitely up with your set and I’m sure you’ll love them after full tune up!

 

[Mendieta]

the suspension and stability went up

The suspension is the thing I love the most on my CT's 1.0; I absolutely love straightlining over natural snow, say spring suncupped mild bowls, and bouncing off the tops, Candide style, feet together, it's such a heavenly feeling. They basically turn crud into powder

 

[chasinghorizons]

I would love to sell my CT 1.0 length 165. They're too long for me in Tahoe - really should've gone with the 158.

 

[ScottB]

What year are they?

 

[SpeedyKevin]

What year are they?

they are the beloved 2021 heavy model

 

[ski otter 2]

"O ye of little faith....."

Every day on my 1.0/183 CT 1.0s is Heaven. I like most the incredible way the bit stiffer tips and tails secure the carve,
make it bombproof at any speed. And playful the way CT skis it.

That said, with the used demo pair of 2.0/183s, I had 7 days with Powder 7 to return for full credit in exchange for something else,
or commit to a possible slog getting the 2.0s right. They seemed played out, to me, quite possibly. A long way to go, maybe. Beat up.
With the CT 3.0s, for me, those never did come far enough back, relative to other skis I have, seemingly. And this was on my mind also.

It's relative, since, in addition, my skis in that width: V-Werks Mantra, M5 Mantra, Bonafide, Mindbender 99, Peak 104/184, K2 Shreditor 102,
Peak 98/184, and I may get the Augment/Van Deer AM 98 at some point also - said to be top dog at this width by many at skitalk.

So I bailed. The full credit paid for a very different ski that would have been gone shortly, and when the snow is good enough to not risk messing up the bases with that ski,
I'll take them out. Shucks. Apologies.

 

[Rdputnam515]

"O ye of little faith....."

Every day on my 1.0/183 CT 1.0s is Heaven. I like most the incredible way the bit stiffer tips and tails secure the carve,
make it bombproof at any speed. And playful the way CT skis it.

That said, with the used demo pair of 2.0/183s, I had 7 days with Powder 7 to return for full credit in exchange for something else,
or commit to a possible slog getting the 2.0s right. They seemed played out, to me, quite possibly. A long way to go, maybe. Beat up.
With the CT 3.0s, for me, those never did come far enough back, relative to other skis I have, seemingly. And this was on my mind also.

It's relative, since, in addition, my skis in that width: V-Werks Mantra, M5 Mantra, Bonafide, Mindbender 99, Peak 104/184, K2 Shreditor 102,
Peak 98/184, and I may get the Augment/Van Deer AM 98 at some point also - said to be top dog at this width by many at skitalk.

So I bailed. The full credit paid for a very different ski that would have been gone shortly, and when the snow is good enough to not risk messing up the bases with that ski,
I'll take them out. Shucks. Apologies.

I love my 21’ Bonafide 97s. I can see why you would not really be looking too hard for something in that category. I wonder if the 2.0 would be a better bumper though. My Bones seems really stiff for bumps, but I have to admit they are not as bad as I thought they would be.

I do however wish I snapped up the 1.0s Greg gave me a link to last year. Heard nothing but good things about them and I do not have a great 88 in my quiver

 

[GregK]

"O ye of little faith....."

Every day on my 1.0/183 CT 1.0s is Heaven. I like most the incredible way the bit stiffer tips and tails secure the carve,
make it bombproof at any speed. And playful the way CT skis it.

That said, with the used demo pair of 2.0/183s, I had 7 days with Powder 7 to return for full credit in exchange for something else,
or commit to a possible slog getting the 2.0s right. They seemed played out, to me, quite possibly. A long way to go, maybe. Beat up.
With the CT 3.0s, for me, those never did come far enough back, relative to other skis I have, seemingly. And this was on my mind also.

It's relative, since, in addition, my skis in that width: V-Werks Mantra, M5 Mantra, Bonafide, Mindbender 99, Peak 104/184, K2 Shreditor 102,
Peak 98/184, and I may get the Augment/Van Deer AM 98 at some point also - said to be top dog at this width by many at skitalk.

So I bailed. The full credit paid for a very different ski that would have been gone shortly, and when the snow is good enough to not risk messing up the bases with that ski,
I'll take them out. Shucks. Apologies.

That’s too bad that they didn’t work out for you but if you can get out of owning a ski that you don’t love, then move on.
Something must be up with that pair but you might be right that a tune might not save them if the demo pair was abused before you got them.
Absolutely LOVING my newest pair as I was out today again on them.

 

[GregK]

I love my 21’ Bonafide 97s. I can see why you would not really be looking too hard for something in that category. I wonder if the 2.0 would be a better bumper though. My Bones seems really stiff for bumps, but I have to admit they are not as bad as I thought they would be.

I do however wish I snapped up the 1.0s Greg gave me a link to last year. Heard nothing but good things about them and I do not have a great 88 in my quiver

The CT 2.0 have a very similar weight, flex and sidecut to the Bonafide with the big difference being the mount point and tail splay. Would be easier in bumps but the narrower CT 1.0 is even lighter on its feet.

 

[GregK]

Day 2 for the year and I cut out the middleman and started out with the CT 1.0 and swapped to the CT 2.0 “just because” for the last hour.
The CT 1.0 killed it as always and REALLY liking the backup set CT 2.0 in afternoon crud even more than the previous set. The CT 2.0 are gripping so well it makes me want to get fresh grinds to reset the base bevels on the CT 1.0 and my Firebirds.

Hope to try out the 184cm Sender Free 110 next week depending on conditions as I’m dying to test those

 

[Mendieta]

Day 2 for the year and I cut out the middleman and started out with the CT 1.0 and swapped to the CT 2.0 “just because” for the last hour.
The CT 1.0 killed it as always and REALLY liking the backup set CT 2.0 in afternoon crud even more than the previous set. The CT 2.0 are gripping so well it makes me want to get fresh grinds to reset the base bevels on the CT 1.0 and my Firebirds.

Hope to try out the 184cm Sender Free 110 next week depending on conditions as I’m dying to test those

Damnnit Greg. Damn it. But I am going to have to ask. No no. Not asking.

Damnnit , I have to ask. How do the 2021 2.0 compare with the Enforcer 100? And ... Is there any current ski using the same construction?

Asking for a friend

Damnit!


Thanks much in advance, as always.

 

[GregK]

Damnnit Greg. Damn it. But I am going to have to ask. No no. Not asking.

Damnnit , I have to ask. How do the 2021 2.0 compare with the Enforcer 100? And ... Is there any current ski using the same construction?

Asking for a friend

Damnit!


Thanks much in advance, as always.

The 21 CT 2.0 is the exact same construction and feel to the 21 CT 1.0, just 10mm wider with a bit more directional shape(tail 2mm narrower) and the mount moved back a bit(CT mark at -3.5cm vs -2cm of the CT 1.0).
It’s about 100gr heavier than the same length CT 1.0 so it feels a bit more damp and feels a bit more stable with a slightly longer turn radius.

So like an Enforcer 88 vs the CT 1.0 will be similar to the Enforcer 100 vs CT 2.0. The CT skis will have a longer turn radius so they are more stable at speed, with more effective edge and less taper for better grip yet are more playful with their twin tail and more Centered mount point.
I had the 186cm Enforcer 104 before and the 183cm CT 2.0 grips better, is quieter on the snow and more stable at speed. The Enforcer 104 has better float though, it’s more forgiving with its softer tips/tails and more fun at lower speeds.

The Unleashed 98 is somewhat similar to the low taper shape of the 21 CT 2.0 but it’s not as loose when flat, lacks the mass, has a shorter turn radius and has no rubber damping so not as quiet.
The Blackops 98 has a bit more directional shape so its mount is a bit further back and again lacks the mass of the 21 CT 2.0 but very close otherwise.
Has a long effective edge, rubber tip/tail, single sheet of metal underfoot and a bit softer flex tip/tail but solid underfoot. If it had the second metal layer above the base and had some heavier beech wood added into the poplar wood core I bet they would be similar weight wise too.
Have flexed the latest versions of the 182cm BO 98 often when wasting time at Corbett’s and thought it would make an awesome West Coast daily driver. It’s been around for years so lots of deals on it and of course every Spring can be had for 40% off everywhere. Pondered getting myself a set and putting some heavier bindings on them for one of my travel skis.

 

[ski otter 2]

So, I've skied the Black Ops 98 a number of times at demos, including several that were industry demos or Rossi industry demos,
both for the industry folk only.

And I've talked to the Rossi reps about the ski several times, before and after demoing the things, and compared that with them
to my own experiences on the skis. What I experienced fit what they were saying, and, conversely, what I experienced was confirmed
by them as what was aimed at with that ski - at least for someone who doesn't do park or tricks.

That ski is made/aimed to be close to a freestyle and off piste friendly ski, versatile, good for a lot of loose playfulness, tricks,
and for doing some duty in the park. It is not meant to be a good carver; more of a good slaver/pivoter - but to carve some,
and have lots of stability all around, and at speed.

When I ski it, I get the same experience: it is a bit looser, if one tries to carve it on groomers. (But it still will carve if it's a bit soft.)
It is not the best for firm groomers or re-freeze. But if you like a feel of some looseness (of edges) instead of a great carve, you are set.
It starts to shine when there are bumps and unevenness, or off piste conditions. It is a cheater ski at pivoting/playing in bumps,
just so easy and at home there. And it handles this terrain and this skiing style in some soft snow also.
It's easy to see a lot of skiers using this ski as a daily driver.

 

[GregK]

“The new skis are AMAZING!!! Thank you!!”

Text I just received from my buddy who took my old 183cm CT 2.0 to leave in Canmore as his daily driver for Sunshine Village and Lake Louise. He’s about -2cm back from CT on them with his boots and coming off his 2019 Line SFB that got a nasty core shot/edge hit. Like the SFB but wanted something more stable with better edge grip. Now he has it!

Will start tomorrow on my CT 2.0 as it’s above freezing with snow during the day. Might get on the Sender Free 110 in the afternoon if not Wednesday for sure. Might even get the Blackops 118 out Wednesday afternoon if it snows as much as they say.

 

[GregK]

Started the day yesterday on the CT 2.0 and met a person in line who I recommended a set of CT 1.0 a couple years ago after he was asking about them on the lift. Told him of a place in Quebec that had a few pairs of 183cm on sale and he I guess he got a set when I saw him a few months later on the hill again.
Still loving them and was skiing well on them yesterday.

 

[GregK]

Accumulated snow on top of my Attacks/CT 2.0 after a quick washroom break so it was puking! Skied them for a bit and then brought out the Sender Free 110 after.

Meet up with my CT 1.0 buddy again later and yes, he knows they are on the wrong feet but he’s trying to evenly wear the edges. Told him he needs to tune his skis more often instead! Lol