The Never-Ending Faction Discussion

[FactionEnthusiast]

Saw these ct 5.0's 21/22 on some german site for cheap but I've never ever seen that colourway. Does anyone know this model?

 

[GregK]

Saw these ct 5.0's 21/22 on some german site for cheap but I've never ever seen that colourway. Does anyone know this model?

Those are the standard Atomic built 22 CT 5.0 but just with different graphics. Heard they did a few different colours that year for some reason. Last year of that model as it’s now discontinued and replaced by the similar Mana 4 in 23.

 

[FactionEnthusiast]

Those are the standard Atomic built 22 CT 5.0 but just with different graphics. Heard they did a few different colours that year for some reason. Last year of that model as it’s now discontinued and replaced by the similar Mana 4 in 23.

I saw some guy on newschoolers talking about that on this little text it says that this one has 5mm less tail rocker and instead of "made in europa" it says "made in austria" not a big difference i guess but did they make another rocker profile on these although i don't think so?

 

[GregK]

I saw some guy on newschoolers talking about that on this little text it says that this one has 5mm less tail rocker and instead of "made in europa" it says "made in austria" not a big difference i guess but did they make another rocker profile on these although i don't think so?

The previous few years, all Factions said “made in Europe” as they were sometimes made in Ukraine or Austrian plants but in 22, they moved to the Amer/Atomic plant which is in Austria so now they just say Austria usually.
Think the specs WERE going to be changed on the CT 5.0 slightly from the previous 21 versions but they decided not too. “New specs” got on some skis but they actually were still the existing specs carried forward. The 21 wood cores were a bit heavier on that model like the other 21 CT but back down to similar weights as the 20 versions in the 22 ones. So if you can find a 21 CT 5.0, even better as it’s about 150gr or so heavier than the 22.

Candide’s own line(when it’s released) features a 121mm ski too that looks very similar to the CT 5.0 too.

 

[GregK]

Another great day on the CT 2.0 killing bumps, glades after ripping groomers to start the day. So cold the snow was sticky but got better as it warmed up.
Bringing out the Blackops 118 the next few days as Revelstoke has more snow coming and I’m sure it will be an easy transition to them tomorrow.

 

[Yoak]

Hi everyone. I wonder if anyone has any input. I got a pair of Candide 3.0 2019 for cheap, but they are mounted at the Candid line. I'm an old ex racer and freerider, and normally like my skis at the all mountain line. I can ski them fine as they are now, even in ankle deep snow, but I'm worried they will dive more when it gets a bit deeper. I also think they will behave quite different all over the mountain as well. I skied the old 4.0 122mm quite a bit a few years back and really liked that with a traditional mount. Should I re-mount the bindings? I can't make up my mind

 

[anders_nor]

the 2019 3.0 is actually surpriingly decent at the candide line, evn when used to more rear mounts

the 2019 is a very soft & fun version, if Im getting it correctly and its red/white

 

[GregK]

Hi everyone. I wonder if anyone has any input. I got a pair of Candide 3.0 2019 for cheap, but they are mounted at the Candid line. I'm an old ex racer and freerider, and normally like my skis at the all mountain line. I can ski them fine as they are now, even in ankle deep snow, but I'm worried they will dive more when it gets a bit deeper. I also think they will behave quite different all over the mountain as well. I skied the old 4.0 122mm quite a bit a few years back and really liked that with a traditional mount. Should I re-mount the bindings? I can't make up my mind

Agree with @anders_nor that those skis were pretty comfortable at or close to the CT line even for those used to more traditional mounts. The year before that ski had a -4cm “traditional” mount and it definitely wasn’t as fun or playful there. Faction now has a max range of 3cm between mounts as I think they learned that it wasn’t as fun that far back.

Blister reviewed this ski and they all skied it on the line with no issues but Luke did eventually try it at -3cm too. You could drive it a bit more, float improved a hair but not as stable in the air or as playful like you’d expect.
I’d give it a few more days as is to see if you do get used to it there. If not, I’d go back maybe 1.5cm to 2cm to Factions current “progressive mount” area that still retains good playfulness but allows you to drive it more.
The CT 4.0 or even more current 112mm CT 3.0 is always going to float better than the 108mm wide one regardless of mount.

 

[Yoak]

Thanks for the input guys. I've only skied them twice so far. Once after lunch on a powder day (starting out on my Moment Governor 116mm), and the other day at my local hill with my son in 15cm of snow. They seemed ok, but just look "short" as I'm used to more ski in front of me. After your input, I´ll think I start out with just a new tune of the base and edges to really get a feel how they ski. I don't spinn much anymore do to knee injury a few years back, but I do like to pop of natural features and hit the odd big jump.

 

[Mendieta]

Thanks for the input guys. I've only skied them twice so far. Once after lunch on a powder day (starting out on my Moment Governor 116mm), and the other day at my local hill with my son in 15cm of snow. They seemed ok, but just look "short" as I'm used to more ski in front of me. After your input, I´ll think I start out with just a new tune of the base and edges to really get a feel how they ski. I don't spinn much anymore do to knee injury a few years back, but I do like to pop of natural features and hit the odd big jump.

Yeah, FWIW, and I'm not a good skier, I tried my 2022 Candide 1.0 mounted with demos on several points over a few days, and I eventually found the "optimal spot", and when I got home, I measured it, and, guess what, it was exactly at the CT point! Of course, different ski and different skier, but there is that. A home tune did help (mine were new and the factory tune was ... no good!).

Edit: also, it did take me a while to get used to how these skis like to be skied. Unlike my Nordica Enforcer 100 which seemed natural from day one. Not that the E100 are better, just. more conventional.

 

[Yoak]

I've been looking into the Enforcer series as well, as I like quite directional skis (Katana was my go to ski for years). BUT I want playful as well for a bit of change. I used to tour on the old CT 122mm, but realising I usually don't ski super light snow I found myself a bit bored with been too much "on top of" the snow with 122mm skis.

 

[chasinghorizons]

Just thought I'd throw it out here that I'm really enjoying my CT 3.0 in powder. Have used it several days this season including in the glades at Northstar. I'm constantly surprised by how nimble and maneuverable it is considering it's huge for me and weighs a ton in my hands. Also a shockingly good carver for the width.

 

[GregK]

Was still kinda wishing I brought my 184 CT 3.0 out for the Revelstoke tree skiing. Lighter on their feet Vs the Blackops118.
Looks like I’ll be on my 183cm CT 2.0 the next few weeks in Lake Louise/Sunshine and Kicking Horse which is more than fine as I’ve rediscovered how awesome they!

 

[Mendieta]

Yesterday I skied the 2022 Factions 1.0 @ 179cm in rather challenging conditions, back to back with the previous generation Enforcer 100 @ 186cm. Conditions report here. In short, dust on crust, off-piste, inbounds.

I started on the Enforcers, and I hated my life. This is also the first time I ski them after they did the base grinding in a big-box store (I know, my fault), and there is a chance that they screwed the tune (I don't know how). But in any case, I took a couple runs and told @oldfashoned that I was going to the car to change skis. I came back and took the same runs that I had hated on the Enforcers, and had a much better time on the Factions. Nothing was easy yesterday, but everything, except of patches of cruddy, bottomless, heavy soft snow, where the E100 do better (better float, and burlier).

I pretty much think my Factions will be my daily drivers for the foreseeable future, with the Enforcers relegated to really deep days (including surfy slush in late Spring), the Rallies relegated to hard snow on groomers whenever the off-piste is not accessible, or I want to work on technique.

One more picture of the conditions, kind of a close up of the snow texture, on the same chute as in the report I mentioned above (Scott's at Alpine Meadows).

 

[GregK]

I started on the Enforcers, and I hated my life.

Lol at this line.

 

[EG-NJ]

Whoa…hold on here, let’s not get carried away shall we:much as I love my CTs they are no match for a true skinny stiff carving ski on hard snow.

Whoa…hold on here, let’s not get carried away shall we:much as I love my CTs they are no match for a true skinny stiff carving ski on hard snow.

Over the past couple weeks I skied the 1.0 for 10 days at 9 different northeast mountains in pretty much every type of condition. They excelled in all, with the biggest surprise being how well they handled 14+ inches of fresh and chopped pow at Sugarloaf and Sunday River. No float or stability issues whatsoever despite the -1.5 mount and 172 length.

The weakest link is true ice (you know, the greyish white stuff) but even then I didn't find them to be worse than other skis I've owned (including slalom). They easily made it down White Lighting at Sunday River (allegedly one of the steepest double d's in the Northeast) despite patches of boilerplate underneath scraped off corduroy. On steeps I feel more comfortable getting over the tips but maybe that's just a psychological thing since they aren't unstable at any stance or speed.

Since several of you mention the WRTs I happened to notice them at a base lodge ski shop and burst out laughing at how narrow, shaped and stiff they are. No doubt they cut like a Samurai sword on ice but if the conditions are that nasty I'd rather take the day off. Icy terrain makes up less than 10% of my typical day so I'm fine just feathering my edges on those brief patches until I hit the inevitable soft stuff that follows.

They were great in the bumps and trees regardless of the surface type, and held up well against the errant rocks and branch debris. Small jumps were a blast as well. They are effortless at most everything, except lugging them to and from the car. That's the only reason I'm glad I don't own the 2.0 or 3.0 as well.

 

[Tony Storaro]

Since several of you mention the WRTs I happened to notice them at a base lodge ski shop and burst out laughing at how narrow, shaped and stiff they are.

This is how a proper good piste ski looks and feels like.

 

[ScottB]

I got my two pair of 2021 CT's back from SKIMD tune shop and what a difference a good tune makes. I have the 1.0 and 3.0. Was on 5 different skis for the day at Loon NH on Friday in packed powder with some firm stuff underneath. All the superlatives they have been getting now apply to my skis. I am a Clyde, so I actually liked the 190 cm CT 3.0 the best. It handles my 240 lbs with ease and carves really well for such a wide ski, even on groomers. (not race skis carve, but for its class of ski). Felt really good in what crud I could find. A little heavy to pivot, but I had my bindings at -2.8cm back from CT line. I have moved them forward 1 cm for next outing. The CT 1.0's were an interesting ski for that particular day. I spent half the day on it and got it in ungroomed moguls as well as groomers. The tips now pull me into a turn (as they should) reasonably well and I can now make use of the entire edge grip on the ski. They are the longest length, 184cm, which for my size is border line short and actually makes them feel like I can toss them around with ease. They do feel like a park ski now. I have them mounted at -2.5cm from CT line. I also added a shim under my toe binding so I have zero binding delta. I wanted to get weight off the tips since they are about as short as I would want to go on that ski. They felt to me like a very good all mtn ski that could do anything I asked it to do. Its strengths are stability, good grip, a nice solid all around ski. About the only negative is at my weight, the narrow tips and tails don't provide much float and I did find in cut up chop they were "in the snow" and got more hung up pivoting them than the 3.0 skis.

Very happy with them now and look forward to skiing them a lot more.

 

[GregK]

Over the past couple weeks I skied the 1.0 for 10 days at 9 different northeast mountains in pretty much every type of condition. They excelled in all, with the biggest surprise being how well they handled 14+ inches of fresh and chopped pow at Sugarloaf and Sunday River. No float or stability issues whatsoever despite the -1.5 mount and 172 length.

The weakest link is true ice (you know, the greyish white stuff) but even then I didn't find them to be worse than other skis I've owned (including slalom). They easily made it down White Lighting at Sunday River (allegedly one of the steepest double d's in the Northeast) despite patches of boilerplate underneath scraped off corduroy. On steeps I feel more comfortable getting over the tips but maybe that's just a psychological thing since they aren't unstable at any stance or speed.

Since several of you mention the WRTs I happened to notice them at a base lodge ski shop and burst out laughing at how narrow, shaped and stiff they are. No doubt they cut like a Samurai sword on ice but if the conditions are that nasty I'd rather take the day off. Icy terrain makes up less than 10% of my typical day so I'm fine just feathering my edges on those brief patches until I hit the inevitable soft stuff that follows.

They were great in the bumps and trees regardless of the surface type, and held up well against the errant rocks and branch debris. Small jumps were a blast as well. They are effortless at most everything, except lugging them to and from the car. That's the only reason I'm glad I don't own the 2.0 or 3.0 as well.

Nice to see you’re finally getting some skiing in this year on those skis!
Put them at 1/3 and they will grip that nasty ice stuff even better.

So you don’t want the wider CT because they are harder to carry? Lol
CT 2.0 is just a hair heavier and the CT 3.0 is about the same weight or lighter so you have no excuses!

 

[EG-NJ]

This is how a proper good piste ski looks and feels like.

How do they respond to terrain variables like jumps, bumps, whoop-de-doos, crud, etc.? Typically conditions change throughout the day or even during a single top to bottom run so I assume they must have some versatility. And do they carve on ice as if it's hardpack or do you still have to finesse those turns to keep the edges from slipping?

To me the best thing about the 1.0 is that they smooth out terrain variables to provide a consistent ride no matter what. They kept luring me into crud and chop even when there were perfectly good groomers nearby because they were so much fun in there even at decent speeds.