Almost two years ago, one of the greatest skiers of all time, Candide Thovex, announced that he was leaving Faction Skis after a decade-long partnership with the company. And ever since, we’ve been wondering what sort of skis he would be using as he continued to blow everyone’s minds in terms of what’s possible on snow.
Today, we have an answer: Candide Skis.
For anyone who’s kept tabs on Candide’s deliberately mysterious social accounts, you know he’s been testing unlabeled skis following his departure from Faction. And given that he also launched his own clothing brand, Candide Co, it’s not that big of a surprise that he’d do the same for hardgoods. But now, we finally have some details.
The 23/24 Candide Skis collection consists of three models: the Resort 101, BC 111, and AK 121. Each model’s name indicates its waist width underfoot and (I’m assuming) its intended use.
Looking at the Candide Skis’ specs, shapes, and rocker profiles, they (unsurprisingly) look quite similar to the Faction Candide (and now Mana) skis that Mr. Thovex had a hand in creating and fine-tuning. The Candide Skis models don’t feature a ton of early tapering at the tips or tails, they’re pretty light for their respective sizes, they’re fairly symmetrical, and they have pretty deep but low-slung rocker lines. While Candide’s signature skis at Faction saw various changes over the years, these same general design principles tended to stay pretty consistent over the years, and (at least on paper) that trend seems to be holding true with the new Candide Skis collection.
All three Candide Skis models feature similar core constructions in terms of materials. Some highlights include FSC-certified poplar / paulownia wood, bio-based epoxy, a fiberglass / carbon laminate blend, “chip-resistant Corund top sheets,” and sintered P-tex 4000 bases. They’re all made in the European Union.
Similar to past skis with his name on them, the new Candide Skis feature two recommended mount points: the “Candide” line and the “Regular” one. The Candide Skis website doesn’t specify the difference, but based on past examples, I’d wager that the Candide line is pretty close to the center of the ski.
One notable design element is the reported use of a 3-radius sidecut for “quick turn initiation, stability at speed, and mounting versatility.” Based on the graphic on their site, it seems that this translates to a longer radius underfoot and tighter radii at the extremities, but we’ll try to fully confirm the details in the future. If my suspicions are correct, this would be similar to Faction’s “Elliptical Sidecut,” and in contrast to Volkl’s “3D Radius” implementation, the latter of which features longer radii at the extremities and a shorter radius underfoot.
We’re hoping to get on the new Candide Skis models this winter, but in the meantime, here are the main specs for the three skis. You can find more info at candideskis.co.
Candide Skis Resort 101
Available sizes (cm): 167, 173, 179, 184
Stated Dimensions (mm): 129-101-125
Stated Rocker Profile (tip rocker depth / camber height / tail rocker depth): 440 mm / 2 mm / 440 mm
Stated Weight: 1800 g @ 184 cm
Candide Skis BC 111
Available sizes (cm): 175, 181, 186
Stated Dimensions (mm): 138-111-134
Stated Rocker Profile (tip rocker depth / camber height / tail rocker depth): 505 mm / 1 mm / 485 mm
Stated Weight: 1900 g @ 186 cm
Candide Skis AK 121
Available sizes (cm): 179, 184, 190
Stated Dimensions (mm): 149-121-141
Stated Rocker Profile (tip rocker depth / camber height / tail rocker depth): 515 mm / Flat Camber / 485 mm
Stated Weight: 2000 g @ 184 cm
“it seems that this translates to a longer radius underfoot and tighter radii at the extremities” – other way around
It is correct as is. Tighter radii at the extremities so when you push forward into the ski and lay it on edge it makes tighter turns
I emailed Candide Skis with a few questions, radii being one of them. This is the reply I got:
“They all share a similar concept though / for example the RESORT 101 in a 184 is about 18m through the tip, about 20m through the tail and then we add a larger -30m radius through the middle section.
This means the turn initiation is quick and the more you move weight forward or lay it over the tighter it turns, but the larger radius through the ski and the tail radius means you don’t notice the difference between the radii.
It’s just smooth.
The BC is about 3m larger radius across all dimensions if you see what I mean.
21m / 34m / 24m”
It’s the same as Faction’s Elliptical Sidecut, opposite from Volkl 3D Radius for instance (short in the middle and long at the tips).
Good catch, got Volkl’s approach mixed up; just updated.
For such a colorful skier, Candide’s ski graphics are disappointingly the exact opposite.
True, but I feel it suits his illusive persona. They are like blank slates to put your own style on. I kind of like the solid colors. His Faction line weren’t flashy either.
Will these skis be at the Blister Summit?
Some further observations:
– the longest mid-width option (111) is 186cm, versus the CT3.0 and Mana3 are 190. Big difference there.
– the Resort and BC have slightly shallower sidecuts compared the Faction counter parts.
– there appears to be increased tip and tail taper across compared to Mana series. It’s subtle but not that subtle, at least in the wide model.
– the Resort (101) option has a lot less camber and deeper rocker than the Mana 2.
I love the plain top sheets personally. And simple bases. Classy. I’m also a CT and Mana owner, and convinced this is a really great ethos to ski design.
Nothing suggests to me that this new lineup is any more progressive in design than previous. And for a serious ski brand to not state mount points on the website is just goofy as ever. Same with missing weights of all the lengths. And missing profile photo of the skis to show the rocker lines. I’ll also question maintaining the same width dimensions (and maybe flex construction) across all lengths. Not sure how that “lifetime of research” can be harnessed in a un-compromised product when the ratios and sidecut change with each length. But what do I know. Would have been cool to see a lauded new brand make even a minor dent in the stale status-quo of industry shortcomings. Just saying :)
Too light. Go back to the 21′ ct construction.
So we don’t know mount points on any of the skis? And nobody sells them? I’ve searched everywhere online & locally, I can’t find anywhere to buy a pair.