Thoughts on Sizing
For those (myself included) who were kind of thinking that, given the low weight of the 3.0, they might want to bump up to a bigger size … well, you might want to do that, but I’m here to say that the 3.0 is not a wimpy ski in the 186 length. It is simply a light ski. So I would not automatically recommend sizing these up. The 186 3.0 feels / skis like a legit 186. To name a slew of skis, you would not size up to a 192 cm CT 3.0 to get to an apples-to-apples comparison to, say, a 185 cm Blizzard Cochise, or 187 cm Moment Meridian, or 188 cm Salomon QST 106, etc. So this is definitely something I was wrong about in my First Look. I think this is a ski that you should buy in your go-to length. And man, for those looking for a lighter weight ski that you can push quite hard, here you go.
For the entirely of my testing, I’ve skied the 3.0s about 0.5 cm in front of the all-mountain line (i.e., about 6.5 cm behind center). For directional, all-mountain use, the ski felt good there, and I was never tempted to move forward or back. In sum, as an all-mountain ski, I like the “All-Mountain” line / just in front of the All-Mountain line). More jibby skiers will likely prefer the more-forward “Candide” line.
After twelve days of hard skiing — and admittedly, pretty good snow coverage in general — I’ve been very pleased with the performance of these skis. But I have some friends who have done damage skiing the 3.0s in sub-par, rocky conditions.
I’m told that Faction has been good with warranties, but here’ where I’m currently at with this ski: the 3.0 is not merely some touring ski that is posing as an inbounds ski. Rather, it’s a legit, lightweight inbounds ski that can be pushed hard inbounds … but it’s a ski that you would be wise to not subject to numerous rock hits. This really is just common sense, folks.
Who’s It For?
I think advanced and expert skiers will get along best with the 186 cm Candide 3.0. At slower speeds — perhaps in part to its quite-fat tails— the ski is not that tolerant of lazy, backseat skiing. In fact, I’d say that the heavier, metal-having Nordica Enforcer 100 is more tolerant of that.
The other thing is that advanced / expert skiers who have a dynamic skiing style will be able to make quick, strong moves to mitigate a bit the low weight of the ski when you encounter variable conditions. The 3.0 is too light to bulldoze its way through chop and random moguled-up sections, but by staying light and fast on your feet, I very rarely felt like I needed to slow down. Pretty cool.
Just to be clear, my entire review has approached the Candide 3.0 as a directional, all-mountain ski. And there will be a number of skiers who will still want to know how the 3.0 performs as a trickable all-mountain ski. We’re hoping to get the 3.0 on the feet of another Blister reviewer this spring, so we’ll see if we can make that happen. But as an all-mountain directional ski…
I don’t believe that I’ve been on an all-mountain ski that is this light and that can be pushed this hard. Those looking for pure, heavier chargers should look elsewhere. But for those who want a lighter ski that can be pushed hard, this is a really good option.
And if you’re an advanced or expert skier looking for an all-mountain ski that is light enough to tour on, this could be a really, really good option.
NEXT: Rocker Profile Pics