New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bonafide vs FX 94

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 

Been looking at these 2 skis for a one ski quiver for western resorts.  Aggressive skiier, level 7/8.  Ski all over, prioritize soft snow/bump performance ahead of groomers.  Did get to demo the FXs and liked them.  Can anyone compare performance of the 2 skis and where they shine relative to each other?

 

Thanks.

post #2 of 14

There are so many posts about each. Epic may have skied both, prolly Phil. My sense (owning the FX) is that while they're both fine skis, if you really like one you won't really like the other. Very different flex, sidecut, construction, camber curve, tip design, uh have I left anything out? Oh, yeah, skill set. The FX is a ski that will do just what you tell it, no more, no less, wants some tip pressure, and will be unhappy with a pilot who expects to ride the rail or get backseat. The Bone, from all I hear, is more forgiving, more neutral stance, more willing to initiate easily into the turn. Not to mention beefier, etc. 

post #3 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

There are so many posts about each. Epic may have skied both, prolly Phil. My sense (owning the FX) is that while they're both fine skis, if you really like one you won't really like the other. Very different flex, sidecut, construction, camber curve, tip design, uh have I left anything out? Oh, yeah, skill set. The FX is a ski that will do just what you tell it, no more, no less, wants some tip pressure, and will be unhappy with a pilot who expects to ride the rail or get backseat. The Bone, from all I hear, is more forgiving, more neutral stance, more willing to initiate easily into the turn. Not to mention beefier, etc. 



What about me?  I own both  biggrin.gif

 

Skiing them back to back in new snow over frozen surface, icy groomers, new snow, and some heavier crud over the past 2 months, they are much different.  FX94 is quicker, a far superior hard snow and groomer ski, more energy in the tail, lighter, and more responsive both side to side and in bumps.  Bonafide is surfier in soft snow, more stable at big turns in chunky snow, has a tip that gets out of the way better, and is better in new snow as well; as the tip gives you a lot more float. As for forgiveness: the tail of the Bonafide has rocker, so it releases differently than the FX. FX is softer in the tail, but more pop. Bonafide quite stiff and punchy when loaded, but if not loaded, won't give as much back.  I was skiing the FX94 in bulletproof groomers early in the year, when it was all we had. It was really a fun ski; probably the best hard snow carver north of 90mm I have been on. Bonafide was sub-par. It held well, but was too damp and had no energy.  Just a big lazy GS ski, which really wasn't what I was looking for.  I like something with some pop and sizzle on the groomers.  When skiing them back to back last spring in softer new snow, the Bonafide allowed me to ski much faster. That is partially due to the profile, and partially due to the length.

 

Bottom line for me: If I was looking for a softer snow ski; crud and new snow, and leaning toward GS turns, I would get the Bonafide.  Great at that kind of skiing. For a daily driver with everything (which would be bumps, groomers, off-piste when it hasn't snowed much), the FX is significantly better in the majority of conditions.  It just doesn't have the soft snow ease of the Bonafide.  I feel I could have a really good day skiing zipper-line bumps on it, crusty tree skiing, and firm groomers, as well as soft snow. Bonafide would give me an even better time in soft snow conditions, but is too much work in that other stuff.  I took a demo Bonafide into a steep icy bump run the other day at our local 2013 demo and boy; not a bump ski.  In comparison, I could ski them very aggressively zipper line on the Outland 87.  If you aren't a heavy guy, the Bonafide gives you tons of float, and you won't need a wider ski for really anything. I skied up to 18" of new and didn't need a wider ski on my pair.  The FX94 is good up till about 8-10" of new, in comparison, then it becomes more work.  

 

I hope this helps.  Both are great skis, but not really comparable as they were designed for different conditions. The BMX98 and Bonafide are the 2 that are in the same performance range and geared toward the same snow conditions.    

post #4 of 14

So Scott...If I interpreted the last part of your post below correctly, you just answered a question I asked in the thread that included your video review of the BMX98. Namely, if you were skiing the sort of rough snow conditions in that video, but added bumps underneath the snow to that mix, you would prefer the FX94 to the MX98...correct?

 

If your answer is "yes" then my next question is: At over 200lb. would you suggest going to the 186 for mostly trees and bumps or should the 176 be sufficient if no really high speeds and open spaces are involved?

 

Thanks!
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post



What about me?  I own both  biggrin.gif

 

Skiing them back to back in new snow over frozen surface, icy groomers, new snow, and some heavier crud over the past 2 months, they are much different.  FX94 is quicker, a far superior hard snow and groomer ski, more energy in the tail, lighter, and more responsive both side to side and in bumps.  Bonafide is surfier in soft snow, more stable at big turns in chunky snow, has a tip that gets out of the way better, and is better in new snow as well; as the tip gives you a lot more float. As for forgiveness: the tail of the Bonafide has rocker, so it releases differently than the FX. FX is softer in the tail, but more pop. Bonafide quite stiff and punchy when loaded, but if not loaded, won't give as much back.  I was skiing the FX94 in bulletproof groomers early in the year, when it was all we had. It was really a fun ski; probably the best hard snow carver north of 90mm I have been on. Bonafide was sub-par. It held well, but was too damp and had no energy.  Just a big lazy GS ski, which really wasn't what I was looking for.  I like something with some pop and sizzle on the groomers.  When skiing them back to back last spring in softer new snow, the Bonafide allowed me to ski much faster. That is partially due to the profile, and partially due to the length.

 

Bottom line for me: If I was looking for a softer snow ski; crud and new snow, and leaning toward GS turns, I would get the Bonafide.  Great at that kind of skiing. For a daily driver with everything (which would be bumps, groomers, off-piste when it hasn't snowed much), the FX is significantly better in the majority of conditions.  It just doesn't have the soft snow ease of the Bonafide.  I feel I could have a really good day skiing zipper-line bumps on it, crusty tree skiing, and firm groomers, as well as soft snow. Bonafide would give me an even better time in soft snow conditions, but is too much work in that other stuff.  I took a demo Bonafide into a steep icy bump run the other day at our local 2013 demo and boy; not a bump ski.  In comparison, I could ski them very aggressively zipper line on the Outland 87.  If you aren't a heavy guy, the Bonafide gives you tons of float, and you won't need a wider ski for really anything. I skied up to 18" of new and didn't need a wider ski on my pair.  The FX94 is good up till about 8-10" of new, in comparison, then it becomes more work.  

 

I hope this helps.  Both are great skis, but not really comparable as they were designed for different conditions. The BMX98 and Bonafide are the 2 that are in the same performance range and geared toward the same snow conditions.    



 


Edited by allan o'neil - 2/9/12 at 11:16pm
post #5 of 14

FWIW, I'm 165 and own the 176; Dawg is 150-something, ditto. (May have lost a few pounds from hauling around all those amazing skis he reviews in bunches.) So at your size, could not imagine the 176 unless it is strictly for trees and bumps. OTOH, a 186 on anyone is gonna feel a bit long in the trees. That's one complaint I have with Kastle, the giant increments. When they make me CEO, I will ordain the FX comes in 167, 174, 181, 188, with a little early rise. And then complain because the 176 is about right for me...biggrin.gif

post #6 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan o'neil View Post

So Scott...If I interpreted the last part of your post below correctly, you just answered a question I asked in the thread that included your video review of the BMX98. Namely, if you were skiing the sort of rough snow conditions in that video, but added bumps underneath the snow to that mix, you would prefer the FX94 to the MX98...correct?

 

If your answer is "yes" then my next question is: At over 200lb. would you suggest going to the 186 for mostly trees and bumps or should the 176 be sufficient if no really high speeds and open spaces are involved?

 

Thanks!
 



 


How tall are you? In that video, in those rough snow conditions, either the Bonafide or BMX98 would be better in the windpack, as the tip is rockered and gets out of the snow better. If it was more firm junky snow (like off-piste re-freeze of crud, we were skiing a ton of that at the recent demo that I have yet to post reviews on) then the FX94 w/o a doubt.  Grip is much more vice-like on that ski.  This ski doesn't ski exceptionally long: I feel as if the 176 is kind of short for bigger speeds, but the sweet spot for bumps/trees.  Weight-wise, you might overpower the 176, although it is not a soft ski.  Not sure if it is on your radar, but you may be better suited to an MX88. It is just as good everywhere, but stiffer, a little longer in 178, and has probably an additional 2cm over listed height in terms of running length over the FX (flatter tail, lower rise tip) which makes it the equivalent of a 180cm.  That MX88 is just like an FX94 in terms of performance, just a bit more solid feeling at speed and better for bigger guys. Float won't be great in lots of soft snow, but if it isn't real deep, and mixed conditions/firm underneath, there is no better ski on the market.  

 

post #7 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

FWIW, I'm 165 and own the 176; Dawg is 150-something, ditto. (May have lost a few pounds from hauling around all those amazing skis he reviews in bunches.) So at your size, could not imagine the 176 unless it is strictly for trees and bumps. OTOH, a 186 on anyone is gonna feel a bit long in the trees. That's one complaint I have with Kastle, the giant increments. When they make me CEO, I will ordain the FX comes in 167, 174, 181, 188, with a little early rise. And then complain because the 176 is about right for me...biggrin.gif



Might be up to 160lbs now!  Been riding my bike a ton (probably 300 miles last week) so my legs are bulking up again, but I won't lose that 5lbs of winter fat until the weather warms up. Around here, that is July or so.  I agree on the giant size leaps between skis; it makes some skis not quite suitable.  Love the FX104, but 174cm is pretty short for off-piste skiing, and 184cm on a stiff ski like that is a lot of work.  It does cost more to add a 4th size into the lineup, but I think they could do it at the expense of re-focusing the line a bit.

post #8 of 14
Thread Starter 

Many thanks for the opinions and comps.  I have a soft snow bias, so that favors the Bonafide.  But I also like bumps (soft, not much when icy and hard) which seems to favor the FX 94.  I apologize for sounding like Vizzini from "the Princess Bride."  I have to travel to ski, so I can't choose which conditions I get--I can only hope for good timing.  Then we get into what I prefer to ski vs. what do I actually get to ski, which is an entirely different discussion.

 

Thanks again--appreciate everyone's time and expertise.

post #9 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan o'neil View Post

So Scott...If I interpreted the last part of your post below correctly, you just answered a question I asked in the thread that included your video review of the BMX98. Namely, if you were skiing the sort of rough snow conditions in that video, but added bumps underneath the snow to that mix, you would prefer the FX94 to the MX98...correct?

 

If your answer is "yes" then my next question is: At over 200lb. would you suggest going to the 186 for mostly trees and bumps or should the 176 be sufficient if no really high speeds and open spaces are involved?

 

Thanks!



I skied the 186 for about a week last year (extended demo Thanks Whiteroom ;) ), but ended up going with the 176. I'm 200 lbs and never feel like I need more ski, though it would be fun to have both. I've only skied the Cochise, never the Bone or the Wacker, so I don't have an opinion about that part of the thread.

post #10 of 14


Thanks! I had pretty well written off that ski because the 186 seemed much too long for the terrain I would use it in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post



I skied the 186 for about a week last year (extended demo Thanks Whiteroom ;) ), but ended up going with the 176. I'm 200 lbs and never feel like I need more ski, though it would be fun to have both. I've only skied the Cochise, never the Bone or the Wacker, so I don't have an opinion about that part of the thread.



 

post #11 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowbaby View Post
 I apologize for sounding like Vizzini from "the Princess Bride."  


You're forgiven just for the nice reference. 

 

FWIW, a lot of us have to travel for serious skiing, and like you, have to bring a ski that can deal with whatever the ski gods give us. 

 

post #12 of 14

Dawg, how would you compare the BMX 98 to the FX 94?  Is one more suitable for soft vs hardpack?  Off piste vs groomers?  Lighter guy vs heavier guy?

post #13 of 14

The FX94 is better on firmer snow and in funky re-frozen type conditions, the metal layers and traditional camber keep the ski planted. the BMX98 has more float and is a little quicker in ungroomed terrain due to the early rise and dual hollow tech (the FX also has dual hollow tech).

 

I'd call the FX94 a more 'technical' ski, it is precise, and the BMX98 a better fresh snow ski, it's looser and floaty-er.

post #14 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnerbob View Post

Dawg, how would you compare the BMX 98 to the FX 94?  Is one more suitable for soft vs hardpack?  Off piste vs groomers?  Lighter guy vs heavier guy?



What Whiteroom said.  BMX98 is much better in tough windpack. If you need edge hold, bump performance, groomer performance, the FX94 is the ski I would like to be on.  Great technical wide ski, very powerful, as good as anything around in this width.  You can even generate decent power and feel out of it on hard groomers. Soft snow is more fun on the 98, especially if it is tough snow, although certainly workable on the 94.  the 94 is such a well-balanced ski, but if I were going for a primarily new snow ski, I would be on the 98. For firm off-piste, and do-everything, the 94 is better. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews