The Never-Ending Faction Discussion

[EG-NJ]

There are recent skis that have tried to split the difference here, and have "just a tad more beef" - and precision - "than non-metal options,"
while specifically going for a more lightweight construction.

The Salomon Stance line, the Nordica Unleashed line, and the Line Blade Optics line are three that come to mind.

Overall, these are just too lightweight for me, in the models I've demoed. But they do succeed on some level, for some skiers.
There are so many of them in each line that I've not been able to ski nearly all of them, so some of them may be better skis than
I am aware of: the Line Blade Optic 104 and especially 114 may be candidates for this, I'm told.
But so far I have not found one of them that I like all that much.
(To me, the Brahmas, Bonafide and Kendos are just dead easy to ski already - not demanding in their current versions,
in most conditions and terrain - just so dialed in; so I'm not the one, I guess.)

I probably would like the Brahma, Bonafide and Kendo if sized down like I did with the 1.0. But the added length/width of my SFB help compensate for their softer (and livelier) tips and tails, which don't chatter even in the worst conditions. Whereas the 1.0 shovels meet tough terrain head-on, the SFB pop up and surf over it. Both work well and are fun in their own way. But I'd be exhausted fighting a wide head-height uber-stiff ski, especially in tight spaces at slower speeds. So the Optic 104 likely would be as beefy as I could handle before it all became joyless.

 

[EG-NJ]

See, that’s how I know you haven’t seen their potential yet as the CT 1.0 is not as good as the CT 2.0 and the CT 3.0 is better still when things get soft in the Spring. The long, low rise tip rocker(similar to the SR 95 but much stiffer flex) of the CT 3.0 allows it to more easily pass over things along with its increased stability make it awesome in soft snow. And more fun at lower speeds than our Wildcats while gripping the odd refrozen sections better too.

Find the whole point of quivers is have the appropriate ski for the conditions and not have to change your style of skiing. I’m carving my wide skis in soft snow like I carve my narrower skis in firmer snow. So a person who likes to carve narrower skis should care how well the CT 3.0 can carve in softer snow as they do it better much better than most skis much narrower.

Will start my day tomorrow ripping on the CT 1.0 and by lunchtime when it’s getting warm and really bumpy, I’ll swap to the even easier CT 3.0 and continue skiing at the same pace and style.

The main problem with quivers is... travel. This month friends and I were on two separate road trips with barely enough car space for one set of skis each. And worsening airline baggage rules/costs are making it more unappealing to use a double ski bag. So when lugging an entire trip's worth of stuff, I'm glad that either pair in my quiver are versatile and fun enough for any conditions over a week or two.

During that trip I stayed with two different sets of friends who had season passes at their respective local mountains so I ended up skiing both Wachusett in MA and Pats Peak in NH. A few days later each resort reported an on-slope death which were their first in many years. Kind of freaky since neither mountain is considered treacherous and I'm probably one of a small handful of persons (if not the only one) who skied both resorts over the past couple weeks since they're not very close to each other nor share a mega-pass. So it's a somber reminder to us all to stay safe out there.

 

[ski otter 2]

Well, since I finally "got it" that the '21 Faction CT 2.0 183 may be more like the 1.0 183(?), and less like the 3.0 183(?), except with the greater light powder/crud ability of a 102 ski, I got a pair of used demo '21 183 Faction CT 2.0s. *Sigh.*

I'll use them over the 1.0s in shallow fresh snow up to maybe 2-3", and in places where chop/crud stashes might be found, in not-so-tight trees, some un-uniform moguls, some un-groomed soft snow terrain, in addition to on-piste.

I hope they have the stability, carve and feel closer to the 1.0s than the 3.0s, at that length.
Man, I've almost become a fanboy. And at my age.

 

[Tony Storaro]

Well, since I finally "got it" that the '21 Faction CT 2.0 183 may be more like the 1.0 183(?), and less like the 3.0 183(?), except with the greater light powder/crud ability of a 102 ski, I got a pair of used demo 183 Faction CT 2.0s. *Sigh.*

I'll use them over the 1.0s in shallow fresh snow up to maybe 2-3", and in places where chop/crud stashes might be found, in not-so-tight trees, some un-uniform moguls, some un-groomed soft snow terrain, in addition to on-piste.

I hope they have the stability, carve and feel closer to the 1.0s than the 3.0s, at that length.
Man, I've almost become a fanboy. And at my age.

I cant wait to get again on the 3.0 and ski them Candide style-feet together, fast AF. No carving whatsoever. Very little turning. YUGE fun.

But this will wait as the temps here dropped to -10 on the mountain, we have like 10 cm of fresh snow which tomorrow will be groomed and firm. In other words WRT 180 comes out and IT’S ON!!!

Edges shall be shaken, records shall be splintered,
a carve day, a red day, ere the Sun rises!!!

Forth Wannabe Racers!!

 

[SpeedyKevin]

Well, since I finally "got it" that the '21 Faction CT 2.0 183 may be more like the 1.0 183(?), and less like the 3.0 183(?), except with the greater light powder/crud ability of a 102 ski, I got a pair of used demo '21 183 Faction CT 2.0s. *Sigh.*

I'll use them over the 1.0s in shallow fresh snow up to maybe 2-3", and in places where chop/crud stashes might be found, in not-so-tight trees, some un-uniform moguls, some un-groomed soft snow terrain, in addition to on-piste.

I hope they have the stability, carve and feel closer to the 1.0s than the 3.0s, at that length.
Man, I've almost become a fanboy. And at my age.

I have a feeling you and I were looking at the same ski haha. I passed on it since our roof finally failed/leaked so thats going to cost a bunch. Look forward to hearing your thoughts on the skis!

Fanboy wise...I know the feeling. Most of my quiver is Faction (CT1.0 / CT3.0 / Dancer 2 / Dictator 3)

 

[cantunamunch]

Man, I've almost become a fanboy. And at my age.

I thort you were a Crosson type there for a bit...

 

[ski otter 2]

I thort you were a Crosson type there for a bit...

Yeah, I am still: more committed to that Dissenter 78, more days on it over time, among other skis (though FIS race skis even more so).
But it ain't a soft snow ski, so much. Lots of skis to like.

'Speaking of Bode skis, I had the Peak 104 out for the first time yesterday, and at least for now, it's likely to be a winner also.
And maybe complementary competition for the CT 2.0 102, though each is distinctly different but good, I am hoping.

Up to now, I've been mostly using Blizzard Bonafide and K2 Mindbender 99 for "a few inches plus a bit" on soft snow days.

But I've gotten sick of how the MB99 is prone to chatter, for me, once the slope is older and harder;
and even though I'm likely to jump to the Black Ops 118 in any 4" plus powder,
it will be nice to have the Peak 104 and now maybe the CT 2.0 102 for that "shallow soft snow" slot - a bit more variety possible.

I get something like 35 to 45 soft snow days a season, on average, maybe around 15 to 20 of them shallow enough; so lots of days to tinker.

(Each of these skis is distinctly different, like favorite people somewhat.)

 

[EG-NJ]

Yeah, I am still: more committed to that Dissenter 78, more days on it over time, among other skis (though FIS race skis even more so).
But it ain't a soft snow ski, so much. Lots of skis to like.

'Speaking of Bode skis, I had the Peak 104 out for the first time yesterday, and at least for now, it's likely to be a winner also.
And maybe complementary competition for the CT 2.0 102, though each is distinctly different but good, I am hoping.

Up to now, I've been mostly using Blizzard Bonafide and K2 Mindbender 99 for "a few inches plus a bit" on soft snow days.

But I've gotten sick of how the MB99 is prone to chatter, for me, once the slope is older and harder;
and even though I'm likely to jump to the Black Ops 118 in any 4" plus powder,
it will be nice to have the Peak 104 and now maybe the CT 2.0 102 for that "shallow soft snow" slot - a bit more variety possible.

I get something like 35 to 45 soft snow days a season, on average, maybe around 15 to 20 of them shallow enough; so lots of days to tinker.

(Each of these skis is distinctly different, like favorite people somewhat.)

Does the 1.0 not work well for you on shallow snow days?

 

[ski otter 2]

Does the 1.0 not work well for you on shallow snow days?

Well, it works in the sense an FIS SL or GS ski works, probably: the ski is well designed and just keeps doing its thing, irrespective of a little snow.

But at some point, a wider ski adds to that extra experience, taking advantage of soft snow to do that.

 

[GregK]

The main problem with quivers is... travel. This month friends and I were on two separate road trips with barely enough car space for one set of skis each. And worsening airline baggage rules/costs are making it more unappealing to use a double ski bag. So when lugging an entire trip's worth of stuff, I'm glad that either pair in my quiver are versatile and fun enough for any conditions over a week or two.

Agree that having versatility in a ski is a huge deal that’s why I love wide skis that can still carve and aren’t “one trick ponies” that are only good in really soft snow.

Went to a double bag with wheels years ago and most airlines only care if the bag is under 50lbs total which mine always is. I’ve gotten pretty good at moving a 40lb checked suitcase with wheels on one hand, the ski bag in the other and boot bag over my shoulder. Have to walk 700m sometimes between the hotels and where some of the shuttle buses pick up with all that gear and don’t find it to be too big of an issue. Take a daily driver(usually CT 2.0 for out West) and a powder ski with me.

 

[GregK]

Well, since I finally "got it" that the '21 Faction CT 2.0 183 may be more like the 1.0 183(?),

No idea where you heard that as the 21 CT 2.0 is more of less demanding, less grippy, higher tip deflection Soul 7 built with a foam core for easier lifting with a longer Air Tip that extends to under the bindings………..

Not a similar build to the CT 1.0, it’s the EXACT SAME build on the CT 2.0 with 2mm more directional shape that’s 10mm wider. Just a bit more rocker and maybe a cm or two less effective edge so a little easier off piste but very similar edge grip. Find it a touch more stable and a hair better in crud with its slightly increased splay, width and weight.

Started the day today on the CT 2.0 and then switched to the CT 3.0 after lunch. Stayed fairly firm for the first hour or so and the CT 2.0 gripped well and were quiet on the firm snow. The CT 3.0 handled the roughed snow even better after lunch with its increased tip splay. Still think the CT 3.0 would be even better with just a hair softer tip/tails and rubber damping tip/tail and underfoot like the narrower 21 CT skis.

What bindings did the used CT 2.0 come with? Have mine mounted -1.5cm from the -3.5 back from Center CT mark and like it there.

 

[ski otter 2]

They come with Salomon Warden MNC 11 demo bindings, which I know little about, except they are adjustable fore-aft.
I will probably start with your setting @ -1.5, maybe less at 1.0 at first, since I'm shorter and lighter than you (5'10"/150 lbs).

 

[EG-NJ]

Yeah, I am still: more committed to that Dissenter 78, more days on it over time, among other skis (though FIS race skis even more so).
But it ain't a soft snow ski, so much. Lots of skis to like.

'Speaking of Bode skis, I had the Peak 104 out for the first time yesterday, and at least for now, it's likely to be a winner also.
And maybe complementary competition for the CT 2.0 102, though each is distinctly different but good, I am hoping.

Up to now, I've been mostly using Blizzard Bonafide and K2 Mindbender 99 for "a few inches plus a bit" on soft snow days.

But I've gotten sick of how the MB99 is prone to chatter, for me, once the slope is older and harder;
and even though I'm likely to jump to the Black Ops 118 in any 4" plus powder,
it will be nice to have the Peak 104 and now maybe the CT 2.0 102 for that "shallow soft snow" slot - a bit more variety possible.

I get something like 35 to 45 soft snow days a season, on average, maybe around 15 to 20 of them shallow enough; so lots of days to tinker.

(Each of these skis is distinctly different, like favorite people somewhat.)

Does the 1.0 not work well for you on shallow snow days?

Agree that having versatility in a ski is a huge deal that’s why I love wide skis that can still carve and aren’t “one trick ponies” that are only good in really soft snow.

Went to a double bag with wheels years ago and most airlines only care if the bag is under 50lbs total which mine always is. I’ve gotten pretty good at moving a 40lb checked suitcase with wheels on one hand, the ski bag in the other and boot bag over my shoulder. Have to walk 700m sometimes between the hotels and where some of the shuttle buses pick up with all that gear and don’t find it to be too big of an issue. Take a daily driver(usually CT 2.0 for out West) and a powder ski with me.

Only once have I been hassled about the ski bag. Usually it's the boot bag, which together with the ski bag must not exceed 50 lbs. But the boot bag is only supposed to contain boots and a helmet, and I've had sticklers at check-in make me remove stuff from it even though total weight is under 50, which sucks since it's so last-minute and random. I once had to layer until I looked like the Michelin Man and then once on the plane took it all off and stowed it wherever.

I typically don't check my boots, but sometimes it becomes necessary. And I try to layer some clothes as protective padding in both the ski and boot bags since the gorillas in baggage claim can find a way to damage bindings, buckles, etc. when they're not losing the bag altogether. At the counter when asked if the ski bag only contains skis, I just reply "yes but the bag is padded" and hope they don't check.

 

[EG-NJ]

They come with Salomon Warden MNC 11 demo bindings, which I know little about, except they are adjustable fore-aft.
I will probably start with your setting @ -1.5, maybe less at 1.0 at first, since I'm shorter and lighter than you (5'10"/150 lbs).

When buying bindings I looked into the Warden 11. They will accept GripWalk plus most touring boot norms, but the toe piece height must be manually adjusted to properly fit your boot. The overall DIN and heel construction aren't as beefy as the higher models, but should be fine given your lighter weight.

 

[GregK]

Skied the morning on my 180cm Firebird WRC carvers in the refrozen spring snow and the Faction CT 1.0 in the softer afternoon snow. Haven’t skied either in almost 2 months as I’ve been skiing out west and both are still perfect for their intended use. The WRC bites the firm snow with ease and a nice turn radius for my needs.

Swapped to the CT 1.0 when things got bumpy and had a grin from the first turn. Hard to believe going from 68mm to 92mm is so easy and always seems like so much less! CT 1.0 eat up the variable snow with ease and so much more damp and stable than the Firebirds. The grip never fails to surprise too especially when just coming off the Firebirds.

Like always, I fall in love again with any CT ski that I haven’t been on in a bit. Such a perfect one ski quiver for the East.

 

[EP4O]

I probably would like the Brahma, Bonafide and Kendo if sized down like I did with the 1.0. But the added length/width of my SFB help compensate for their softer (and livelier) tips and tails, which don't chatter even in the worst conditions. Whereas the 1.0 shovels meet tough terrain head-on, the SFB pop up and surf over it. Both work well and are fun in their own way. But I'd be exhausted fighting a wide head-height uber-stiff ski, especially in tight spaces at slower speeds. So the Optic 104 likely would be as beefy as I could handle before it all became joyless.

I am picking up a 2024 Optic 104. I've always loved Line skis, especially the ones with metal, and this one is right up my alley.

 

[EG-NJ]

I am picking up a 2024 Optic 104. I've always loved Line skis, especially the ones with metal, and this one is right up my alley.

That's great. Please share your impressions when you're ready. Since it's a potential replacement for the discontinued CT 2.0, I bet others on this forum also would be interested to hear how they stack up.

 

[EP4O]

That's great. Please share your impressions when you're ready. Since it's a potential replacement for the discontinued CT 2.0, I bet others on this forum also would be interested to hear how they stack up.

Will do but I expect it is quite a different ski than the CT.

 

[chasinghorizons]

I am picking up a 2024 Optic 104. I've always loved Line skis, especially the ones with metal, and this one is right up my alley.

I was interested in the Optic after reading the Blister review. Wish they came in smaller sizes :/

 

[GregK]

Blade Optic are very different skis than the 21 CT because of their increased rocker, slightly lower turn radius and increased taper, more traditional mounts and MUCH softer tips/tails.
The soft tips/tails of the whole Optic line is the biggest difference between them.

The 21 CT will have increased grip, feel more planted and more composed at speed while the Optics will feel looser and even more willing to slash. One is a charger that’s playful and the other is a playful ski that’s still got some backbone.

The closest comparison to the Optic 104 would probably be the outgoing Rustler 10 in flex, sidecut and feel. Another partial metal ski that’s solid underfoot with soft tips/tails.

Saw this comparison of the Optic 104 to the Enforcer 104 Free on TGR.

“Any comparisons to the Nordica 104 free yet?
I skied a couple runs on a friend's Optic 104s. The tips felt substantially softer and flappier than my 104 frees. They felt easier in the turn initiation and a little bit more intuitive carvers. The tails were not quite as supportive, so all in all not the type of ski I get along with. However I can see someone getting along with them who wants something that is easy to turn, is a little substantial with the metal, and can handle most conditions reasonably well.”