or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Kastle MX83: holy cow!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kastle MX83: holy cow! - Page 5

post #121 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
 
 

 

... For the MX's I have found they are plenty stable and at about 176-178 perform best overall for stability and agility for me...

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
 

...  length : your choices are the 173 or the jump to 183. Hmm, Would I like it longer? yes, would I have preferred a 183? no.  A length of 176 would be ideal for me. I can see that others who ski faster and on more open terrain may want this as a 180.  I like the ability to make easier SR turns on the groomed since its so much fun to ski so I really don't want this in a longer length than 178. I don't feel its too short though. Its stable enough and doesn't beg to make turns  (at 173 it's the perfect 18m tr)  . Its pretty happy to go where you point it.  ...

 

 

Finndog,  what is your size -- how tall & what weight?

post #122 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
 

Finndog,  what is your size -- how tall & what weight?

I recall from an earlier post (#77) that he's 6', 170#.

post #123 of 148

These sound like a lot of fun.  I will see if I can arrange a demo sometime this season.  :)

post #124 of 148

its partly subjective to be honest. if you are a tailgunner or forward race type your experience will vary. If you ski big open spaces vs tight narrow runs your opinion will vary. If you mount these incorrectly, you will REALLY have a different opinion (never, ever mount a kastle behind the suggested line :D

 

I will say this:

 

I liked my 176 mx 78's perfection 

 

I liked my 178 mx88's (but could have skied them shorter)

 

I like my 173 MX 83's  (but could ski them a touch longer)

post #125 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
 

its partly subjective to be honest. if you are a tailgunner or forward race type your experience will vary. If you ski big open spaces vs tight narrow runs your opinion will vary.....

 

I will say this:

 

I liked my 176 mx 78's perfection 

 

I liked my 178 mx88's (but could have skied them shorter)

 

I like my 173 MX 83's  (but could ski them a touch longer)

Thanks again, Finndog.  After reading your post I found the following earlier review by Dawgcatching (http://www.dawgcatching.com/blog/ski/kastle-2013-ski-overview), whose findings are consistent with yours: comparing within the MX series, the sizes alone pretty much determine how long they feel.  [And this is likewise consistent with Philplug's general comment in post#15, "With the MX83's coming in 163/173/183 and the MX88 in 158/168/178/188 It is as much what length you want as to what width you want."]  

 

So if I find my 168 MX88's feel about the right length, it seems I'd probably also like the length of the 168 MX78's; or if I find them too short, then I'd probably prefer the 173 MX83:  

 

"MX78/MX83/MX88 comparisons: These skis all very comparable, it really comes down more to length. I was on the 176/173/178. Predictably, the 178cm MX88 felt the longest and was the best crudbuster. The 176cm MX78 still on the longer side, GS in feel, more nimble though in bumps and tight spots. 173cm MX83 was the quickest, more of a hybrid slalom/GS feel, very powerful, stronger end of turn release, best bump and tight space ski of the 3. Honestly, I really didn't even notice too much difference in the width. Perhaps between the MX78 and MX88, but the 83 could have been confused for the 78 or 88 in terms of width; it just wasn't too significant. Length makes all the difference here. I would say these all ski 2-4cm longer than the typical ski in this segment."

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
If you mount these incorrectly, you will REALLY have a different opinion (never, ever mount a kastle behind the suggested line :D

 

One of the nice things about the used MX88's I just bought is that they have demo bindings, which means (a) no remount and (b) I can dial in my position.

 

In skiing the three skis, have you found they balance out for you at the same point (relative to the mount line)?


Edited by chemist - 10/29/13 at 8:30pm
post #126 of 148

I think it all depends on the size of your cojones...

Bigger balls require longer boards..

No?

post #127 of 148

no, not the case, bigger skis don't make you bolder. Ski's that are too big mean you bought the wrong ski length. you should buy the ski based on what works best for you and your skiing.  Big open terrain= longer, tighter locations, short radius turns, more bumps = Shorter. 

 

Demo bindings or in the case of my MX83's I have a head/kastle PRD12 binding. I use demo's now on almost every other ski for that reason.

 

 

I do end up liking Kastles at +.5.  

post #128 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
 

I do end up liking Kastles at +.5.  

Cool -- so it seems that once you've dialed in your length and mount point on any one of the MX's, you can apply that across the series.

post #129 of 148

i liked the 88's at +1

post #130 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
 

i liked the 88's at +1

So +1 for the 88's and +0.5 for the 83's and 78's?

 

I wonder if Kastle puts the factory mark at the same point (relative to the running surface) on all three models.

post #131 of 148

yes but I can't stress that this is what works for me, You may not like these points. I would say that the majority of people are very happy with the line, 

post #132 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
 

yes but I can't stress that this is what works for me, You may not like these points. I would say that the majority of people are very happy with the line, 

Understood, Finndog (and thanks again for the info.), but note that I wasn't seeking after specific points, but rather wanted to know if whatever point you find stays constant across the MX series.    Indeed, I know that different people, because of different body types, have different balance points, and that my absolute points could thus be different from yours. However, in principle, if all three MX's balance at about the same point for you, then they should likewise do about the same for me, even if my absolute point is different from yours.

post #133 of 148

molehills into mountains? IMHO, manufacture's mounting centers are there because that's how the ski was design, including the on hill testing of prototypes. For a vast majority of the population doing directional skiing, they work absolutely fine. The mounting point of an E-98 is much further forward than a Kastle MX 88... and it's a very different ski design. Neither are broke and neither need fixing. :)

post #134 of 148

I'll agree and have stated they are fine for most but I don't agree they were designed or deemed as the perfect location. I would say its the "manufacturers suggested point" is that; I think its more like  this is pretty good for most skiers with a X length boot, for a X level skier, Skiing at X speed, at X weight and X height.  etc. 

 

just look at the number of threads here and on TGR alone by people asking about the best place to mount ski's that all have suggested points. 


Edited by Finndog - 11/1/13 at 1:55pm
post #135 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post
 

molehills into mountains? IMHO, manufacture's mounting centers are there because that's how the ski was design, including the on hill testing of prototypes. For a vast majority of the population doing directional skiing, they work absolutely fine. The mounting point of an E-98 is much further forward than a Kastle MX 88... and it's a very different ski design. Neither are broke and neither need fixing. :)

 

To add to what Finndog said, you'll often see reviews with sentences like: "I initially didn't like the ski, but then tried moving the binding forward +1 and wow, what a difference."  And beyond the anecdotal reports, there's at least one study (which I referenced earlier in this thread: http://www.skisport.fi/@Bin/5120/Binding+position+Benno.pdf) that showed some racers became significantly faster when their bindings were moved away from the factory line (some were faster forward, some rearward; complicating matters was that this was leg-specific!). 

 

Those of us that pay attention to binding position generally have a lot of respect for what the manufacturers do to determine the center mark -- as evidenced by the fact that we will typically use this as our default starting point.  But, as with bevel angles, binding delta, canting, boot board ramp angle, and so on, dialing-in your set-up for optimum performance often requires departing from the factory settings.  As Finndog alluded, this is not surprising, given that we all have somewhat different stances and body geometries. The manufacturers themselves recognize this, which is why many put the mount points on women's skis a centimeter or so forward of what they do for the men.

 

I've often wondered if, everything else being, equal, you'd want a ski that feels best at the manufacturer's mark -- that way what works best for you and your stance aligns directly with the design and sidecut of the ski.


Edited by chemist - 11/1/13 at 5:40pm
post #136 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist View Post
 

 

To add to what Finndog said, you'll often see reviews with sentences like: "I initially didn't like the ski, but then tried moving the binding forward +1 and wow, what a difference." 

 

Over the past few years, four pairs of Stockli skis (Laser SC, Laser SX, Stormrider XL and Stormrider XXL) and the Kastle BMX108 in my quiver have all ended up, either directly from the wrapper or after initial binding mount being mounted with Vist Speedlock plates to allow me to fine tune the binding position for me.  For the way I ski, that tends to average at +1cm (forward) of the manufactures mark.  I clearly remember the first time I skied the Laser SX and then after a couple of runs bumping the binding forward; for me it took the ski from obviously powerful, kick your arse if you dont bring your A game to WOW the most fun you can have on hard snow with your cloths on.  It really can make that much difference.

post #137 of 148

Agree about mounting position on high performance carvers. Why spend the $$ on a specialized ski if you can't fine tune them? Other options, of course, include most plates out there, and/or the Tyrolia/Head systems, and unclear (again) why someone would mount a ice killer flat anyway...

 

OTOH, you and I may be in the (10%? 20%?) who mount fat skis with plates. Good arguments both ways on that one. 

post #138 of 148

Of course the other thing I like about the Vist Speedlock system is travelling with multiple sets of skis but one set of bindings.

post #139 of 148
Thread Starter 

I totally agree that anyone should play around with binding position if they have the opportunity.  I stick with "the line" around 80% of the time. 2 instances I didn't; both were Dynastars. The first was the Huge Trouble: I ran that 2.5cm back, and it skied really well. On the line, it was way too little tip and liked to dive for such a wide ski.  2nd was the Outland 87: that ski was a great ski when pushed really far back (I think 4cm) but on the line, it was really far forward and always wanted to turn.  Even the -4cm line was still probably 2-3cm above a similar length Kastle.  Another well-known example is the Elan 888/Apex. For some reason, they put the mount line pretty far forward on that ski: bump it back 1.5cm, and stability just came alive, great balance. On the line, was fun, but turny and not as good at speed.

Full selection of 2015 skis available right now from Dawgcatching.com.  PM for current deals and discount codes: save up to 25% on mid-season deals. 

Reply
post #140 of 148

My Elan xti 88 is also very foward (but on the line)...It carves very well but feel a little strange in bumps...If I had bought it with the binding system, I could have verify if it could still carve well but be less strange in bumps because of the foward position...

post #141 of 148

This has been an interesting thread to read through due to the fact that I have nearly pulled the trigger on some used Kastle's more than once but have always been a little baffled by the sizing.  I'm on the lighter side (5'11 140) so the LX's appealed to me, but I could see getting the MX's as well.  Basically I'm looking for a ski to complement my Patron's (177's) on the days when there hasn't been snow in while and I feel like ripping around the groomers and doing bump runs.

 

I'm probably in between sizes or something.. though the Kastle "ski selector" seemed to think skis the 170 range were the right ones.

I've also always been tempted by (and nearly bought) a pair of Bushwackers.


Edited by river-z - 11/29/13 at 8:24pm
post #142 of 148
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by river-z View Post
 

This has been an interesting thread to read through due to the fact that I have nearly pulled the trigger on some used Kastle's more than once but have always been a little baffled by the sizing.  I'm on the lighter side (5'11 140) so the LX's appealed to me, but I could see getting the MX's as well.  Basically I'm looking for a ski to complement my Patron's (177's) on the days when there hasn't been snow in while and I feel like ripping around the groomers and doing bump runs.

 

I'm probably in between sizes or something.. though the Kastle "ski selector" seemed to think skis the 170 range were the right ones.

I've also always been tempted by (and nearly bought) a pair of Bushwackers.

Keep in mind that the narrower MX skis do ski very "long".  Running length on the MX83 173 is identical to the running length on the FX94 176, for example. As the skis get narrower in the MX line, the tail rise gets progressively shorter, and the tip rise gets shorter-steeper as well.  If you measure, you will see that an MX78 168cm has only 3.5cm less running length than an MX83 173cm, even though it is 5cm shorter.  That is one of the cool things about Kastle: they do the details well, varying things like the tip and tail rise and run between similar skis, as necessary, and it shows up when you ski them. 

 

The difference is even more pronounced if you compare an MX83 173cm to, say a Blizzard Flipcore Magnum 8.5 174cm.  The 8.5 will feel MUCH shorter on firm surfaces.  

Full selection of 2015 skis available right now from Dawgcatching.com.  PM for current deals and discount codes: save up to 25% on mid-season deals. 

Reply
post #143 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by river-z View Post
 

This has been an interesting thread to read through due to the fact that I have nearly pulled the trigger on some used Kastle's more than once but have always been a little baffled by the sizing.  I'm on the lighter side (5'11 140) so the LX's appealed to me, but I could see getting the MX's as well.  Basically I'm looking for a ski to complement my Patron's (177's) on the days when there hasn't been snow in while and I feel like ripping around the groomers and doing bump runs.

 

I'm probably in between sizes or something.. though the Kastle "ski selector" seemed to think skis the 170 range were the right ones.

I've also always been tempted by (and nearly bought) a pair of Bushwackers.

Both the LX's and the MX's are great skis, period. If the "ripping around groomers" is the main thing, then I bet you'd prefer the MX83's. The 173 is about right for you. If the "doing bump runs" is more significant, then I'd give a slight nod to the LX's. If you truly want to balance both about equally, then the FX84 would be your ride, IMO. But in truth, any of these three would absolutely change your world in terms of sensation, precision, stability. The differences are there, but not overwhelming. 

 

Bushwackers are nice skis. Didn't find them quite in the same league, or really for the same purposes, as the Kastles you mention. If I wanted to literally bushwack, meaning bang around off-piste, fling my skis over, around, and through stuff, wiggle the bumps, get well away from lift served, maybe put an AT rig on, then these are the best. But those same tendencies mean while they may be more forgiving than any of the three Kastles, they don't quite achieve that odd combination of snowfeel and smoothness at any rational speed of the Kastles. Given that they're considerably less expensive, I wouldn't expect them to. 

post #144 of 148

^^ I would suggest the FX94 here as well. If you are going to look at a 88mm wide ski, then going to the FX94 may be the ticket. This way you add the feel and performance of the Kastle to the added versatility of the FX series. Another consideration is a LX92; although they have been discontinued, you can still find them around and its a lighter weight MX/FX (for lack of a better term).  Then, to make matters even more complicated, there's always the Stockli 95......  ;)

post #145 of 148

So now I gotta laugh because there are seriously two pairs of LX92's on ebay - one a 164 an one a 174.  I think I'll have to keep an eye on those 174's and pull the trigger if the deal is too good to pass up.

post #146 of 148

check Seirra Trading post  

 

http://www.sierratradingpost.com/kastle-lx-92-alpine-skis-all-mountain~p~4725f/?filterString=skis~d~207%2FKastle~b~3546%2F&colorFamily=99

 

Use a coupon and you should be able to find them for about 500 shipped.  Otherwise, go for the FX84/94 You won't be sorry. 

post #147 of 148

I'm curious - can anyone compare the MX to a BMX?

post #148 of 148

^^^^^ Suggest a search. Dawg has done meticulous reviews/comparos on all these. I've compared various combinations, including MX's with BMX's. Lotsa stuff. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Kastle MX83: holy cow!