EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Ski review - Stockli Laser SC, Stockli Laser SX, Kastle MX78
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski review - Stockli Laser SC, Stockli Laser SX, Kastle MX78

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 

I have found the reviews and advice here very helpful so I thought I’d try and give something back. I now own the above 3 skis so I thought I’d note down my thoughts.

 

Me = Im 38, 5'8", 81kg, 178pounds, been skiing 30 yrs, 20days a yr, ability 8.5-9/10.

 

 

Laser SX

162cm  162/70//99 14.1 degree radius

- I run a Vist Superlight plate (15mm?) with a Free 312 binding. Thus I only need 1 set of bindings for 3 skis.

- I mount them +1cm

- Nothing can touch them, they absolutely scream down the mountain.  You could ski a Super G or Downhill course on them.

- On normal groomed slopes they fly. They are so quick to do short turns, yet if you really lean on the edge you can do big sweeping fast gs turns

- From my skitracks app I managed to hit 60mph on these. I ran out of balls before the ski did, they could have handled me going faster.

- In powder they’re not great as they don’t float

- They are also a rather stiff ski so you can get tired but I love them

- If you like to just ski groomed slopes I don’t think theres a better ski out there than these but a polite note they are demanding and aren’t for the faint of heart. I don’t think these are a one quiver ski but instead something awesome to pull out if it hasn’t snowed for a while

 

MX78.

160cm  121/78/105  14.5 degree radius

- I bought these blind based on the reviews here. I choose them over the Blizzard 8.1 IQ Max.  I bought them blind as living in the UK and skiing in Europe its difficult to demo skis properly

- When I first got on them they felt a bit slow compared to the SX. I also found them slower to turn (both quick short and longer faster turns)

- After a couple of days they came into their own. They didn’t turn as fast or as sharp as the SX but I did find them more stable than the SX’s

- Mind you I could go from hard pack groomed run, off the edge of the run and straight into knee deep powder easily.

- I’m average when it comes to skiing powder but these made life a lot easier. I now want to try some even wider skis as they have given me a hunger for powder.

- As I said I could find the speed limit of these. I bought the 160cm which I think might have been a bit short. My SX’s are 162cm and they say to ski those Stocklis short as they’re stiff. So I’m thinking I should have got the MX78 in the 168cm size (but then they might have been harder to do short quick turns and not as good in bumps?). I might hire some 168cm next year if I can find them.. 

- I also mount these 1cm forward but I’m not sure if that’s right. I might have a bit of a play with the normal/standard place setting

- One thing I did notice though is I skied the MX78 as hard as I did the SX’s but I wasn’t as knackered at the end of the day with the MX78’s. The SX do demand a lot more but they deliver.

- I can see why people say these are a great choice for a one-quiver ski and I’d definitely recommend them

 

SC ,

163cm  63mm underfoot

- I bought these first then the SX’s

- They are brilliant on icey, hard packed groomers but then so are the SX’s

- They seem to turn even quicker than the SX’s but the 2 seem so close I don’t think I can justify keeping them both, thus I think I will sell them

- I have noticed tho is that mine are 2011’s which are 63mm wide underfoot but the current 2013 are now 72mm underfoot. In fact the 2013 SC model is now slightly wider the whole length of the ski than the SX

 

Cheers,

BJ

 

post #2 of 21

Appreciate the reviews. One comment confused me. You say that the MX78's were more stable than the SX's, but then you also say that the SX's essentially had no speed limit. While you could find a speed limit with the MX's. Or are you measuring stability differently than speed limits? Does dampness or something else factor in here? 

 

 

post #3 of 21
Just wondering if anyone else recommends mounting bindings 1cm forward on the MX 78s. I would also think the 168s would be a better match.
post #4 of 21
Thread Starter 

Beyond - Re the stability good point. In my laymans terms, on the SX’s if I’m flat on the skis going a reasonable speed they felt quite edgy, ie I felt like they could catch an edge quite easily. But if your doing big fast sweeping gs type turns they just felt stable. People say you need to be on top of your game to ski them and I would agree with this.

 

The MX78’s at low–medium speeds when you’re flat on the skis, well they felt more stable, ie that they would catch not an edge or turn on any imperfection, probably because they are wider. But once you really started to push on in them speedwise they didn’t feel that stable.

 

These been a few car analogies used her so I might try and use one, its like the difference between a 911 (the mx78) and a 911 GT3RS/race car (the sx), the road car is nice and stable at normal to quick speeds and doesn’t tire you out. The race car is a bit edgy, it turns on any imperfection in the road surface at normal speeds  but once you really start to push it it hankers down and flys around a racetrack.  

 

 

Skinnydog – re the +1cm, its probably a bit sad but I was on hear reading reviews for about a year before I pulled the trigger and got some new skis, mainly on the experienced reviewers advice. You probably know but theres some seasoned reviewers here (eg Dawgcatching) and some other people (taxman, and others..) that also recommended moving the binding fwd 1cm on the SX.  I tried it on the std and +1 settings and I do actually think I could notice the difference slightly, maybe they were slightly easier to control.

 

Ideally I’d have some kind of hybrid between the 2  ie the highspeed stability and the turn-ability (both short quick turns and longer gs turns) of the SX with the low-medium speed stability and float of the MX78.  Maybe the 168cm MX78 would do that as it should be faster/more stable at higher speeds than my 160cm, but I still think it wont turn as quickly as the SX. In fact I might also see what else there is in the Stockli range that’s 75-80 wide but still reasonably stiff..


Edited by beejay - 4/17/12 at 1:31pm
post #5 of 21

beejay,  I wonder if you are skiing these skis too short.  I'm not that much heavier than you - 88kg ATM (down from 95kg), but I ski the Laser SC (63mm version) @ 170cm and think that it is short and the Laser SX at 178cm and find it awsome.

 

On the +1cm issue, generally I have all of my Stockli skis mounted at +1 cm forward, but I now have Vist Speedlock plates on all of my alpine skis so I can find my sweet spot on the ski.

post #6 of 21
Thread Starter 

Yep I was thinking that, especially for the MX78’s. May I ask how tall you are?

 

I think the SX’s are ok in the 162cm length for me as I’m a bit of a short arse at 5’8” (just). They do fly down the mountain and are very easy to turn. But as noted I am tired at the end of the day skiing them.

I’m sure I’ve read on here that the Laser series of the Stockli should be skied slightly shorter than average as they’re stiff?

I’ll try the 170cm but I think they will be too long/harder to turn/more tiring?

 

Re the MX78’s yep I think I should have got 168cm. A trend I have noticed in Europe is that they tend to err on the short side when choosing skis. In the last 3 mths I have been fortunate enough to ski in Italy, Austria, France and Switzerland and have been looking at peoples ski lengths in the lift queues. Even on guys 6 ft tall you still only seem to see max of 170cm, weird.

However our American friends seem to choose longer lengths, this seems to be a mostly US site/forum and people seem to have no problems regularly choosing skis in the 170’s

I guess I need to try and find a skihire shop in one of the bigger European resorts that rents Kastles or try and find a cheap pair end of season of the 168cm

 

To complicate things further I have just seen the Stormrider 78’s on Stockli’s website, they seem to have pretty much the exact dimensions as the MX78 but are 2cm shorter (166cm). Decisions, decisions..

post #7 of 21

beejay, my stats are 185cm / 88kg.  Re ski length; I got back into skiing aroung 12 years ago after a long hiatus (children, school fees, mortgages, divorce etc).  Initially I was skiing skis around 170cm but soon enough found that for on-piste skiing a ski length of 178-184cm and for off piste 184-188cm suited me better.  And binding mounting position can make a big difference to the way a ski feels.

post #8 of 21
Thread Starter 

many thanks, thats quite useful cheers. I've put my 163cm SC's on ebay and will keep the 162cm SX's (the SC's are great but they're quite close to the SX's). I'll man up and try the MX78's in a 168cm.

 

Many thanks

post #9 of 21

I'm 5'8" but only about 60 kg and I ski the SX in 170 cm.

 

I also have Stöckli Spirit Globe in 164 cm as my "easy ski" and Stöckli Stormrider 95 (166 cm) that can handle anything smile.gif If there was a law that said you can only own one pair of skis I would choose these Stormriders.

post #10 of 21

beeyjay, demo some longer length skis before committing to the purchase, IMO you are still going too short.  Despite a lot of hype a few years ago, these are not hero skis, but well made skis with a nice progressive flex; i.e. they are not that hard to ski.

post #11 of 21

I agree with Taxman, and think you may be skiing your skis a little short. I'm 5' 10" 172 pounds and ski the Stockli Laser SX in 178cm, and just love them for groomed slopes. Maybe that instability (edge catchiness) you felt is the smaller sweetspot of a shorter ski, or could possibly be your bottom edge bevel is too twitchy (I like 1 degree and find 0.5 degree too twitchy).

post #12 of 21

I definitely think your skis are too short. I am a woman, 5'5'' and 115 lbs., and have GS skis in 170, Kastle FX 94 in 166 and Dynastar slaloms in 155. In other words, all of my skis except the slalom are longer than your longest. I think you have essentially turned you SX into a slalom type ski with the slalom drawbacks - twitchy, small sweet spot, lots of work. That is OK as you also get the slalom performance advantages. However, it is not the right ski to go 60 mph on. The twitchy characteristics could be bad at that speed. Your Kastles are IMO way too short. You should get them (or something like them) in a mid to high 170s so that you can get similar high performance in GS type turns and at higher speeds. The right tool for each job is the idea of a quiver, so you want to avoid overlap.

post #13 of 21

There's some confusion here about length and weight. The flex will be determined by the cross sectional area of the ski's sections, not its length. Length is more correlated to your ability to produce tip pressure. Stocklis are beefy skis, and your SX and SC are each in the middle of the range for that ski, so they'll have some SL-ish qualities that you may be picking up on, but they're reasonable for a 5'8" person. Incidentally, the plate will make the center of the ski even stiffer, y'know. If you want a ski that will run straighter at speed without wanting to turn, suggest a cheater GS with a larger radius and a softer plate. 

 

OTOH your Kastles are silly short, and keep in mind that they're a moderate flex ski to begin with, not like Stocklis.  I'm 10 lbs lighter than you, 6' tall, and like the 176 in the MX78. You'd be happier on the 168 IMO.

 

Did you scoop these up because they were at good prices? That can happen with skis that are shorter or longer than most people want. Right now I doubt you could find a 170 or 177 SX anywhere at a discount, but several discounted 162 SX's on the web. Ditto for the MX78.  

post #14 of 21

How does the current Laser SC (72mm waist) compare with the previous 63mm model? Anyone tested both of them?

 

post #15 of 21
Thread Starter 

Right so now theres girls skiing longer skis than me, this is getting embarrassing J

 

Thankyou for the useful feedback, seems I picked the right skis but the wrong lengths.  So I’m definitely keen on the 168ck MX78’s but now I’m coming around to the idea my SX’s are also too short and I should get the 170cm, bugger, this could be expensive.

I’ll keep a look out in ebay etc for any 2nd hand ones.

 

Being in London I had to order the SX’s from the UK Stockli importer as theres no stores in the UK that stock them. There is one chain here that stock the Kastles which I went to but as per my above post UK stores seem to recommend skis on the short side.

post #16 of 21

You seem to love the SX. One thing I know as an absolute: if you love a ski, don't change it.

 

The short SX serves as a slalom ski which is an excellent component of a good quiver. I'd keep that ski. I'd forget the 168 MX and go 1 size up to the 176 so that you get a good GS-type component and create a clear performance difference between the Kastle and the Stocklis. Every weekend I don't race I do one day on SL skis and one day on GS to balance my training/practice.

 

What I would NOT recommend is that you go from having 3 short skis that are kind of similar to having 3 mid-length skis that are kind of similar. Have a quiver that gives a good range: SX optimized for short turns (sports car), MX for cruising and bigger turns (and when you want to go 60 more safely) (BMW 7 series), and something later for off piste/bumps/deep snow/crud whatever you like and need (Land Rover)

post #17 of 21

^^^^ Truth. Except for folks with congenital inabilities to stop buying skis, or racers, one narrow carver is enough. Not even sure the MX78 is worthwhile if you have a 70 mm that can cover the whole frontside. Still seems like too much overlap IMO. I'd think about the new MX83, or something like a current Blizzard 8.1, which can be had cheap and is a great ski for lighter folks who still want some stiffness. Then a softer ski in the high 90's for off-piste. 

post #18 of 21
Thread Starter 

Aaarrrggghhh! This is so frustrating, I want the MX78 but you’re both right re overlap . Thankyou

 

The 168cm MX78 is close to a 170cm SX. Maybe a 170cm SX and a 173 MX83 would work well together as described.

I would love the 168 MX78 though, I think I will have to find either a demo day or a skishop in Europe that hires them and make a trip out for a wkend at the start of next season..

post #19 of 21

Keep the SXs in the current length (162). After all YOU said "nothing can touch them." Don't replace a ski you love out of some notion that it should be longer.  Get the MX 83 in 173.  No serious overlap, 2 good skis.

post #20 of 21

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beejay View Post

Right so now theres girls skiing longer skis than me, this is getting embarrassing J

 

Thankyou for the useful feedback, seems I picked the right skis but the wrong lengths.  So I’m definitely keen on the 168ck MX78’s but now I’m coming around to the idea my SX’s are also too short and I should get the 170cm, bugger, this could be expensive.

I’ll keep a look out in ebay etc for any 2nd hand ones.

 

Being in London I had to order the SX’s from the UK Stockli importer as theres no stores in the UK that stock them. There is one chain here that stock the Kastles which I went to but as per my above post UK stores seem to recommend skis on the short side.

 

"beejay", you can get Stocklis from Telemark-Pyrenees in France or Mountain Black in Jersey. I got mine from Telemark-Pyrenees, very good service.

post #21 of 21
I am 5'8" and 190. I ski Sx in 170. It is perfect, awesome length. Go up on it.
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 › Ski review - Stockli Laser SC, Stockli Laser SX, Kastle MX78