Kastle MX or FX?

The FX94 is the better choice for you for sure. The length is a bit subjective, the 166cm will be quick in bumps and trees, the 176cm would be better in soft snow. 

The MX98 may be a great choice also in the 168 length.

Forget all about the MX88, where you like to ski and how you ski are NOT what it's all about.

 What is it all about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoWestSkier 

 What is it all about?

Less than 8" new.  A nice bump ski.  But if you are seeking new snow, the 94 or MX98, as said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowbaby 

Looking for opinions.  I travel with just 1 pair of skis to various resorts in CO, UT and MT.  I've narrowed the search to Kastle MX 88 and FX 94.

 

5'9", 160 lbs., solid advanced skiier, not expert.  Prefer bumps, soft snow, trees and powder, rarely ski groomers.  More athletic than technical in terms of ability.  46 yrs. old, ski semi-aggressively, but not petal to the metal.

 

Not sure of pros and cons of these 2 skis.  Any opinions on which model, and the appropriate length are appreciated.

 I own both pairs mentioned. I'm similar to what you have described above.

 Use the 94s (in 176) for freshly fallen snow days and I use the 88s (in 178) for everything else.......

 I have absolutely no complaints of either ski I own.

  You might try a demo on the 98 Dawg has suggested. They have changed that ski ( I think twice)  from when I skied it.  He knows Kastles much better than me.

 For that matter I suggest you demo first any ski before you purchase them.  It's very foolish not to when spending your money at that level. 

 Be Forewarned : These skis are top shelf and are very capable in the ability to sell themselves.

I'm about your size and weight and the same ability or slightly better.  (5'10", 175, Age 59)  I swear by the 166 FX94 in all conditions but the lightest champagne powder and Sierra concrete.  The control of the turning radius beats everything I have tried.  Control equals confidence and confidence equals better skiing.  You may fall in love with tree skiing! 

I hope PhilPug and SierraJim weight in.  They are expert in your swing zone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncan Waldrop 

I'm about your size and weight and the same ability or slightly better.  (5'10", 175, Age 59)  I swear by the 166 FX94 in all conditions but the lightest champagne powder and Sierra concrete.  The control of the turning radius beats everything I have tried.  Control equals confidence and confidence equals better skiing.  You may fall in love with tree skiing! 

 

I hope PhilPug and SierraJim weight in.  They are expert in your swing zone.

Here. I think it has been answered. I would also add the 94 to my top choice list. 
 

I'm in about the same weight and height class on the 176cm FX94s. I was concerned the 176's were too short and was on the fence. They're fine in the trees and OK in the bumps. I supposed that on some days I'd like the the 166s for the bumps, but that's not the priority for these skis for me.

In soft snow and crud, all I can say is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whiteroom 

 

The FX94 is the better choice for you for sure. The length is a bit subjective, the 166cm will be quick in bumps and trees, the 176cm would be better in soft snow. 

 

The MX98 may be a great choice also in the 168 length.

 

Forget all about the MX88, where you like to ski and how you ski are NOT what it's all about.

Know both skis, weigh 165. ^^^^ Truth. 
 

I hope someone is still listening to this one! I am torn between these two also but for slightly different reasons.

I live in MI and get maybe 10 days out West a year. I need a single pair of skis that can do it all on big mountains like Utah, Tahoe, and JHole. I fear this is impossible: I'll either get a ski that leans toward "carver cruiser" or one that leans toward "powder ski", OR I'll end up with something in the middle that is merely "good", but not great, in all conditions. So do I I have to sacrifice one or the other? Can I get just one ski that does it all?

I'm 5'4", 140#, 38y.o., very aggressive skier, like to carve and GS on groomers/hardpack, love to bounce and play in freshies, and can handle just about any condition on all but the steepest slopes (and my legs can still handle it though we'll see how long that lasts). In my annual 10 days out West, I cherish every day so I take whatever comes to me; i.e. I tend to ski everything. On those days when the locals stay in bed, I'm up early.

I lean towards the MX98 because they seem to be able to do it all, but can they really hold an edge going 50mph on groomers?

And I lean towards the FX94 mostly because of my weight. Is 140 lbs enough to control the MX98? Sounds like they might eat me up. Every review says that they are a demanding ski (98) and needs an aggressive rider to control them.

Hope this is logical and not too long (for my first post). Thanks for any feedback.

Quote:

Originally Posted by omeriah 

And I lean towards the FX94 mostly because of my weight. Is 140 lbs enough to control the MX98? Sounds like they might eat me up. Every review says that they are a demanding ski (98) and needs an aggressive rider to control them.

 

I think that the reviews saying the MX98 is really demanding probably are in reference to the old MX98. The new one is a much different ski. I think the biggest difference between MX and FX in general is the tip. On the MX skis, the tip is pretty aggressive and pulls you into the turns (though the 98 being rockered pulls less than the 88 which is not). On the FX, the sidecut starts behind the tip so there is always a little more steering involved. That can be good or bad depending on the situation.

I had the same questions, but I'm 6' and 185lbs.  Bought a pair of FX94 in 176cm and liked them.  

Then got to ski a pair of MX88s in 188cm and loved them though they are a bit too long for me.

Moral of the story is that I bought a pair of 178cm MX88s.  The FX94s will shortly be for sale here in the Gear Swap.  Can't justify both in my quiver.

For you I would agree with the recommendations above.  If I was lighter the FX94 would be perfect, but the MX88 is a better fit at my size and for skiing here in the East.

Mike 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeC 
 If I was lighter the FX94 would be perfect, but the MX88 is a better fit at my size and for skiing here in the East.

I'm considering the FX and MX too. I'm a east coast skier, 135lbs 5'7", curious which current or '11/'12 Kastle's you'd suggest?

So you know, i can ski anywhere on the Mt., like black diamond runs and am not into moguls or short slalom turns except if tree skiing. Been thinking 172 - 178 length for stability at speed, don't want to go smaller than 168.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by epic 
I think that the reviews saying the MX98 is really demanding probably are in reference to the old MX98. The new one is a much different ski. I think the biggest difference between MX and FX in general is the tip. On the MX skis, the tip is pretty aggressive and pulls you into the turns (though the 98 being rockered pulls less than the 88 which is not). On the FX, the sidecut starts behind the tip so there is always a little more steering involved. That can be good or bad depending on the situation.

This is a nice breakdown. IMO the FX takes more active management, feels more "neutral" in its responses than the MX98. Which in its new incarnation wants to help get into things. 176 works well for me in the FX94, even in bumps and trees. 178 in the MX98 felt perfect in the trees, a touch short in bowls, but have a feeling 188 would make it into more of a bombs-away ski. Wish Kastle would consent to smaller increments...

neonorchid:

It really depends where you are typically skiing?  East or West?

If for out west then the FX94 or possibly the new LX92 or BMX88 or 98.  If in the east and on harder snow then the LX82 or BMX78.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by neonorchid 

Quote:

 

 

...mostly East and thanks for the recommendations.