Kastle MX83: holy cow! - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainy512Day 

So based on this thread and stellar reviews I was eager to demo the mx83 this past weekend. I am 5'4" 160lbs, my daily driver is a 177cm Cochise, but given the mx83 has no rocker I was looking at the head high 163. At my local shop there was a 163 on sale but the only demo was a 173. So I figured I would demo that and at least get a feel for the ski. Also the Kastle website product finder came up with a 173 recommendation. Well it was full on spring skiing on Mt Hood the conditions ranged from corn in the sun to firm in the shade. First lift up I decided to take an easy run and it was good that I did. Disaster! I couldn't get the edge of the ski to bite. I tried tip initiation, different amounts of angulation, it was like the ski was going to skid out from under me. I took 4 runs on mx83 trying all sorts of adjustment, nothing worked. So I went back to the car got out my Cochises and went back up determined to find out if it was me and mx83 or me and the snow. Sure enough once on the Cochise I was able to easily get an edge and had a great time the rest of the day. So it was me and the mx83. The ski was waxed before it went out and the edged seemed sharp to the touch. I tend to ski forward shins pressuring the tongue and legs tucked back ( hard to describe). Anyway any insights would be appreciated. Guess I saved myself a grand.

I haven't skied the MX83, but own several other Kastles and the Cochise. IMO you chose the correct length. Also, I seriously doubt that the MX83 is an inferior carver to the Cochise. Which is good for a 108 mm ski, but not in the same league even as the MX88. And reviewers have been talking about what an ice skate the 83 is. So I'd think about the following issues: 1) Are you certain the tune was right? A casual finger test may not be very informative. Also, recent Kastles are set to 1/2, while all Blizzards are 1/3, including the Cochise (verified by my shop and a rep here.) So the Cochise may have simply had sharper edges.

Second, and don't take this personally, if you ski by leaning into your boots, hips back - which I used to too - you're unlikely to achieve very high edge angles. That requires early lateral movement and projection down the slope. The Cochise's flipcore seems to be fine with low edge angles IME. Which makes sense for any ski of that width; there's a lot of slarving going on. But no Kastle I've ever skied, from the RX12 through various MX's to the BMX108, really thrives on low angles. They'll tolerate them, but not shine. The feeling is actually as if the edges are dull, in fact. The BMX series, with some early rise, seems most tolerant, but they don't sing unless you get 'em over. The MX's, not even a starter, really. 

So I bet it's either the tune or your style. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainy512Day 

So based on this thread and stellar reviews I was eager to demo the mx83 this past weekend. I am 5'4" 160lbs, my daily driver is a 177cm Cochise, but given the mx83 has no rocker I was looking at the head high 163. At my local shop there was a 163 on sale but the only demo was a 173. So I figured I would demo that and at least get a feel for the ski. Also the Kastle website product finder came up with a 173 recommendation. Well it was full on spring skiing on Mt Hood the conditions ranged from corn in the sun to firm in the shade. First lift up I decided to take an easy run and it was good that I did. Disaster! I couldn't get the edge of the ski to bite. I tried tip initiation, different amounts of angulation, it was like the ski was going to skid out from under me. I took 4 runs on mx83 trying all sorts of adjustment, nothing worked. So I went back to the car got out my Cochises and went back up determined to find out if it was me and mx83 or me and the snow. Sure enough once on the Cochise I was able to easily get an edge and had a great time the rest of the day. So it was me and the mx83. The ski was waxed before it went out and the edged seemed sharp to the touch. I tend to ski forward shins pressuring the tongue and legs tucked back ( hard to describe). Anyway any insights would be appreciated. Guess I saved myself a grand.

I haven't skied the MX83, but own several other Kastles and the Cochise. IMO you chose the correct length. Also, I seriously doubt that the MX83 is an inferior carver to the Cochise. Which is good for a 108 mm ski, but not in the same league even as the MX88. And reviewers have been talking about what an ice skate the 83 is. So I'd think about the following issues: 1) Are you certain the tune was right? A casual finger test may not be very informative. Also, recent Kastles are set to 1/2, while all Blizzards are 1/3, including the Cochise (verified by my shop and a rep here.) So the Cochise may have simply had sharper edges.

 

Second, and don't take this personally, if you ski by leaning into your boots, hips back - which I used to too - you're unlikely to achieve very high edge angles. That requires early lateral movement and projection down the slope. The Cochise's flipcore seems to be fine with low edge angles IME. Which makes sense for any ski of that width; there's a lot of slarving going on. But no Kastle I've ever skied, from the RX12 through various MX's to the BMX108, really thrives on low angles. They'll tolerate them, but not shine. The feeling is actually as if the edges are dull, in fact. The BMX series, with some early rise, seems most tolerant, but they don't sing unless you get 'em over. The MX's, not even a starter, really. 

 

So I bet it's either the tune or your style. 

Okay, so why do you think that the 173 is the right length for him? (Rainy, sorry to talk about you in the third person here.) The 177 is the second-shortest in the four-ski size range for the Cochise. The 163 is the second-shortest in the four-ski size range for the MX 83. 10cm is a good size jump. I am 3" taller than the OP - although almost 30lbs lighter - and a full-camber 173 carving ski typically feels pretty long to me unless I'm really moving. Yes, I know how to get the angles.   And yes, longer lengths in more soft-snow-oriented skis feel great to me - e.g., the 173 Samba / Kabookie I tried last week.

I have twice had an experience like Rainy describes - both on carvers that were at the long end of their size range, even though they weren't, from a "common sense" point of view, too long for me. One time was on the Progressor 8 170cm. This is a relatively short-radius ski that is known for skiing easily. The 170, strangely, was the LONGEST ski in that model's size range. Couldn't make it do anything for me. Practically put me to sleep. This from a guy who skied for a couple years on the Fischer RC cheater ski at the exact same 170cm length with no problem. THAT ski was the SHORTEST ski in the size range. And then just last week I got on a Head Titan 170. Again, I could not buy a turn. Strange (I tried skied the close sibling Head Magnum in a 163 and liked it, a few years ago.) I suppose it could have been the tune or my horoscope or something, but ... there definitely seems to be a pattern here. Again, I am very familiar with how to ski a high-performance groomer-oriented ski that needs to be driven, so that is not the issue, I'm confident. I really think it's some kind of height / leverage thing that applies with certain skis, and that the makers know this and tailor their size ranges accordingly.