EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › How suitable a Kastle FX 84 for East coast all Mt. ski?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How suitable a Kastle FX 84 for East coast all Mt. ski? - Page 2

post #31 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post

You can't make this stuff up......it IS him, screen or not. It's pretty easy to see what his grasp is.

 


Hmmm. Well, I couldn't ever make this ^^^^ stuff up, anyway. ROTF.gif

 

post #32 of 51


And could we perhaps get back to skis, now? So we're in agreement, OP wink.gif: Something like a FX84 for all around, or if you want to focus on the softer stuff/trees a bit more, the Bushwacker, or if you want smooth and versatile, I think the FX94 or MX98 are nice all purpose drivers for the east. Get them short, and find an old pair of demo race carvers in the sale rack at a local shop for really icy days. 

post #33 of 51

a big mountain in big conditions reveals the person within the skierdevil.gif. the internet, not so muchwords.gif. to know a skier, ski with him/her. otherwise, you don't know each otherduel.gif.

 

With Kaestle, it's like BMW, someone says: I like BMW's. someone answers: what's not to like?  Of course it's a good east coast ski. basically there's nothing wrong with it.


Edited by davluri - 4/25/11 at 10:21am
post #34 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

With Kaestle, it's like BMW, someone says: I like BMW's. someone answers: what's not to like?  Of course it's a good east coast ski. basically there's nothing wrong with it.

Yep. IMO there are a bunch of skis in the 80-100 range now that are so good, it's more about taste and feel, like preferring a BMW M5 to a Porsche 911. And what's a bigger surprise is the speed with which narrow carvers are not necessary as daily drivers back east anymore; you still need one, but as the fall-back ski for training, really scratchy days, waiting for snow in November. This past season a G-Power was my go-to. This season it'll be the fallback. Things change...
 

 

post #35 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Yep. IMO there are a bunch of skis in the 80-100 range now that are so good, it's more about taste and feel, like preferring a BMW M5 to a Porsche 911. And what's a bigger surprise is the speed with which narrow carvers are not necessary as daily drivers back east anymore; you still need one, but as the fall-back ski for training, really scratchy days, waiting for snow in November. This past season a G-Power was my go-to. This season it'll be the fallback. Things change...
 



I couldn't use anything bigger than my 8.1's for daily drivers, and even then I'd go narrower on a lot of days in New England. ymmv

 

post #36 of 51

I'm here to post in this degenerating thread. btw, Fx84's have nice color in the tips.

Fwiw, not much, Rossi does own more "modern" skis than I've ever even had.

 

Hugz? Cactus

http://www.snorgtees.com/all-shirts

 

So, come on:

 

Pi Be Rational 

 

 

Hedgehogs Can't Share 

 

 

Easter Egg You Look Like A Hussy

 

 

Mexican Standoff 

 

 

Milk, I am your father 

 

 

post #37 of 51

I don't get how beyond can compare an M5 with a 911 and say it's all about taste and feel, both great rides but completely difference missions.

 

I did not ski without a helmet last week.

 

Didn't ski with one either tho.

 

Carry on.

post #38 of 51

Ignoring all the duel.gif....

 

 

They didn't really eliminate it, instead they gave it its own line-up called the TX (touring) series.  
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeC View Post

Maybe that's why Kastle has eliminated the FX74 for next season?  I haven't heard much of anything good about the FX74.  Just too much of a tweener ski.
 



 



 

post #39 of 51


Actually I think the FX74 does go away, but the TX77 will be a similar ski.  Not the exact same ski though.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaceDude View Post

 

They didn't really eliminate it, instead they gave it its own line-up called the TX (touring) series.  
 



 



 

post #40 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy View Post

I don't get how beyond can compare an M5 with a 911 and say it's all about taste and feel, both great rides but completely difference missions.

 


Blame Phil. He started the car analogies. biggrin.gif Yeah, technically each model for each brand has a different mission, and a MX98 has a different mission envelope than the MX78 and so on and so on. But at the end of the day, having decided on what mission we're after, and selected a group of skis that fit it, we notice that most of the high performance cars, er skis, are so enjoyable, so good at what they do, that we are attracted to their brand characteristics, their nuances of feel. In fact, some of us will pick feel and precision over perfect fit to mission. Others will say, nope, not narrow enough. Or not fat enough. Or the topsheets clash with my parka. That's my point... I think. 

 

post #41 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post

I'm not sure about the length. The Kastle web site recommends from 168 - 176 for my height, weight and experience. I gravitate toward the longer 176 for stability at higher speeds but never skied them. If they ski short i certainly wouldn't want a 168, conversely i don't want to end up having to work a 176 all day to ski it.



 

I have the FX84 in 168.

I'm 5'6" 130 lbs.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post

...that would be a problem. For me chatter isn't worth the weight trade off and i'd be disappointed when i finally get them on the snow. If the FX84 is just as prone to chatter as the FX74 then i'd think the blizzard bushwacker ought a be something to anticipate.


Chatter is not a problem with the FX84, at least I haven't experienced it.

 

 

post #42 of 51

True, although I believe it's almost the exact same ski just slightly wider.  FX series got the rap of being a "touring ski" line-up, so I'm glad they decided to make a real touring set.  Now all they need to do is get rid of the LX's and I'll be one happy camper.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeC View Post


Actually I think the FX74 does go away, but the TX77 will be a similar ski.  Not the exact same ski though.

 



 


Edit: Rid, not ride haha

 


Edited by RaceDude - 4/26/11 at 1:26pm
post #43 of 51

Wow!

 

Lots has gone on while I was away!

 

So first off what is a GOM??????????

 

 

Second....for the record.  My daily driver is a MX88.  Unlike Bush, I have enough experience to not simply rant about what works for me, but can also suggest other options.  Fat skis work better for soft snow conditions, narrow skis work better for hard snow conditions.  Both will work in the other...ie despite the BS on this site you wont explode if you take a 170 SL Race ski in 6 inches of powder.

 

So which is better?  Well yes, it is amazing how well a MX88 carves on the hardpack.  Arc to arc pencil lines is no problem.  BUT they DO put more torque on your knees then a narrow ski to get the same level of performance.  That is a drawback and a reason why one might consider a narrower ski.  Further, a given person of a set skill will get cleaner qucker turns from a narrower ski then a wide one, hnece if you care about hard snow performance this is another reason to consider a narrower ski.

 

But fat skis have benefits too, namely they provide a more stable platform for off-piste conditions and provide more "float" allowing you to actually ski slower in tight trees...which means less need stop...which in effect makes you actually quicker.....  Further fat skis definatley allow you to ski big mountain open bowls much quicker then narrow skis as you can make big sweeping GS arcs without a whole lot of trouble.

 

So which is better?  Well both have pros and cons.

 

But for the east....I find it hard to understand how one would be able to enjoy the benefits of the fat skis to make up for their cons.  No big bowls to speak of....so what if you are 5% quicker in the "tight" trees...besides Bushwacker...no one is impressed...for that you get less hardpack performance, and sore knees on hard days, which in the east is most of them.

 

The only BS advice is the "fat skis fat skis fat skis" for all people all the time rant that wannebes like Bush rant over and and over.  Different skis, for different people for different styles for different conditons. 

 

 

 

 

 

So

post #44 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

But for the east....I find it hard to understand how one would be able to enjoy the benefits of the fat skis to make up for their cons.  No big bowls to speak of....so what if you are 5% quicker in the "tight" trees...besides Bushwacker...no one is impressed...for that you get less hardpack performance, and sore knees on hard days, which in the east is most of them.


I think this line just goes to show that the East isn't just one big ski area, there are different areas with different conditions. You have Blue Mountain (PA, or Ontario, take your pick), then you have the Stowe's and Sugarloafs, not the same thing. So of course, you have to make a tradeoff. If you love arcing on hardpack go narrow. If you are going to spend all of your time searching for powder go bigger. As Skidude said, and MX88 is really good on hardpack... if you don't know any better. If you never skied an RX, you'd think the 88 is as good as it gets. If you never skied a Racestock GS, you'd think the RX is unbeatable.

 

For the OP, are you a guy that itches to go out and make carves on ice? Are you watching the groomer lay down corduroy and thinking "oh baby, I wanna go hit that", or is it something that is in your way to get where you want to go?

post #45 of 51

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

But for the east....I find it hard to understand how one would be able to enjoy the benefits of the fat skis to make up for their cons.  No big bowls to speak of....so what if you are 5% quicker in the "tight" trees...besides Bushwacker...no one is impressed...for that you get less hardpack performance, and sore knees on hard days, which in the east is most of them.

 

I think this line just goes to show that the East isn't just one big ski area, there are different areas with different conditions. You have Blue Mountain (PA, or Ontario, take your pick), then you have the Stowe's and Sugarloafs, not the same thing. So of course, you have to make a tradeoff. If you love arcing on hardpack go narrow. If you are going to spend all of your time searching for powder go bigger. As Skidude said, and MX88 is really good on hardpack... if you don't know any better. If you never skied an RX, you'd think the 88 is as good as it gets. If you never skied a Racestock GS, you'd think the RX is unbeatable.

 

For the OP, are you a guy that itches to go out and make carves on ice? Are you watching the groomer lay down corduroy and thinking "oh baby, I wanna go hit that", or is it something that is in your way to get where you want to go?

 

This is essentially the crux of the matter. If you're trying to ski trees in eastern woods, particularly with variable snow, fatter with rocker will have you actually making turns. Slalom - well there isn't enough room usually to get those things around slowly since they get stuck in soft wet snow. Spring in eastern woods on slalom - not very fun. Technique of getting them around is not pretty at times.  It's not like you've got gobs of space between the trees. Most woods are unmanicured and have all sorts of saplings between the bigger trees.

 

It's not about being 5% quicker, it really is about actually being able to enjoy it as opposed to struggling for you life at times as the tree rapidly approaches. Slowing down will not make turning easier - harder actually, but the tree comes more quickly.

post #46 of 51

Let's simplify as much as possible here.

 

If you are a Intermediate (skills that is........not that you "get down" blue square marked terrain) or stronger you need two pairs minimum these days.  Something with a waist in the 75 range (my opinion)  that holds and likes to carve for the hard snow days/ firm groomers and something that is in the 88 plus category that's a bit softer for New England's nicer days and perhaps powder days and days you just want to go out and play. 

 

Now if you only ski the east and want to make the jump to the 100 plus underfoot range and you are a weekend warrior / recreational skier just understand you may get out on them one or two days a season. If you live next to the ski area and can take the time to get out when it snows, probably several more days on an average season.

 

Personally I am considering adding the FX 84 to my quiver, but I only ski west these days and sense (having flexed it and looking at it's dimensions, size and radius) it would be exactly what I'm after for my daily driver where I ski.   I skied the MX 88 in some powder (16" - unable to contact the bottom) my last day out this season and had that ski in both trees and bumps and having flexed it I think it would be a far better choice for eastern conditions, though it handled itself very well out west.

post #47 of 51

I wouldn't dismiss the LX82, it is a bit more playful than the FX and has some more edgebite on harder snow.

post #48 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

I wouldn't dismiss the LX82, it is a bit more playful than the FX and has some more edgebite on harder snow.



Not to highjack this thread...but I have noticed hints in other threads that the LX92 might be a real sleeper in the Kastle lineup...not much detail but hints. Could someone who has skied them provide more detail?

post #49 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan o'neil View Post

Not to highjack this thread...but I have noticed hints in other threads that the LX92 might be a real sleeper in the Kastle lineup...not much detail but hints. Could someone who has skied them provide more detail?

Whaat? y'all want to introduce two more skis into this thread? God help us.

Kastle has caught a case of the Volkls. They are making way too many models of skis.

The next thing you know they'll start making cap...oh...check that one. The next thing you know they'l start putting stripes and graphics on their skis. I mean how many shades of white can you make?

Oh...that's right and black.

Prediction: Kastle will go into Orange and Grey in the future.

At least not Stainless steel. Unless they start selling coke to keep the company afloat....wait...white, really expensive, lots of people want it,....hmmm...something's fishy here...

 

 

post #50 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post


Whaat? y'all want to introduce two more skis into this thread? God help us.

Kastle has caught a case of the Volkls. They are making way too many models of skis.

The next thing you know they'll start making cap...oh...check that one. The next thing you know they'l start putting stripes and graphics on their skis. I mean how many shades of white can you make?

Oh...that's right and black.

Prediction: Kastle will go into Orange and Grey in the future.

At least not Stainless steel. Unless they start selling coke to keep the company afloat....wait...white, really expensive, lots of people want it,....hmmm...something's fishy here...

 

 


I do not disagree with you, there is overlap in Kastle's line. As far as the LX92..it skis great. The LX line is suffering from "middle child syndrome" in their product line, it is a shame, they ski fantastic. 

 

post #51 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan o'neil View Post

Not to highjack this thread...but I have noticed hints in other threads that the LX92 might be a real sleeper in the Kastle lineup...not much detail but hints. Could someone who has skied them provide more detail?

Some other folks I skied with on demo day tried them. Strong female skiers, liked them a lot, emphasized how easy they were to maneuver for that level of stability. One guy wanted to try them, cannot recall if he did. My wife skied the LX82, said it was easy going, smooth, not impressed with other aspects, but wrong length and anyway she owns MX88's, thinks they're G.O.A.T. Have a feeling that folks who like LX's will be less enamored of MX's, and vice versa. 
 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › How suitable a Kastle FX 84 for East coast all Mt. ski?