EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Kastle LX92 ski length?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kastle LX92 ski length?

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 

Not that I needed another pair of skis, but I just couldn't pass up these skis for $519 on STP.

 

I ski the MX78 in a 176 and Cochise 185.  I was leaning towards the 174 but based on one of Dawg's reviews I went with the 184.  I'm having second thoughts that it may be too long.

 

5'10" 185 lbs. Level 7/8?

post #2 of 12

You bought the 184 already? Then the 184 is the right length. This is another ski that Kastle has to drop to 7-8cm increments in the next generation. 

post #3 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

You bought the 184 already? Then the 184 is the right length. This is another ski that Kastle has to drop to 7-8cm increments in the next generation. 

 I ordered the 184 since it was about to sell out. It's now sold out so reselling it would be no problem.  They still have plenty of 174's left so I can still get a pair if that would be the better size.  With no snow in my near distant future I can worry about this rather than just mounting them up and checking for myself.

post #4 of 12

i probably know the answer to this question but.....I am 5'11", 225 pounds and plan to use the LX92 as my do everything ski in the East. Everything but snow over 6 inches that is. But I will use the ski in allot of bumps and trees. Is 184cm the obvious answer? Should I even consider the 174?

post #5 of 12

The Kastle ski finder allows you enter your personal data (weight, strength, aggressiveness) and your skiing preferences (ascent vs descent, groomed vs powder, etc.) and will spit out the skis and lengths that they (the ski designer/mfr) recommends for you.

post #6 of 12

So did you keep em? How are they?

I skied the 174's in Whistler. Level 7 185lbs, 6'1" Def would buy the 184's. Loved the 174's super smooth, nimble and quick, extremely versatile but for me more beef and high speed stability would have made them perfect. My other skis are 176 MX78 and 188 BMX 108. 

 

Still trying to decide between FX94 186 or the LX92 184... 

post #7 of 12

I'm 5'10" 175lbs, call myself a 7+ on the whatever ski scale, with goal of improving.

I am on LX92 174cm -> Luv 'em and find them very versatile & confidence inspiring.

For me, I wouldn't consider the 184cm length.

I also have DPS 112RP in 184 though the rocker makes them naturally much shorter.

 

I'm off to Whistler next week and will rent some MX83 for fun, and see which one I might like as daily driver for groomers.

 

- Andy

post #8 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisCrash View Post

So did you keep em? How are they?
I skied the 174's in Whistler. Level 7 185lbs, 6'1" Def would buy the 184's. Loved the 174's super smooth, nimble and quick, extremely versatile but for me more beef and high speed stability would have made them perfect. My other skis are 176 MX78 and 188 BMX 108. 

Still trying to decide between FX94 186 or the LX92 184... 

I'm mostly bumping this hoping for an answer. As you know, I went up from 172 to 180 in the LX82 this season. I'm 6'2" 170 and I have only found advantages in the longer ski.

By inference, the 92 in a 184 becomes all the more appealing, but damn near impossible still to get any real feedback. FX94 seems truly between sizes for my skill level....
post #9 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


I'm mostly bumping this hoping for an answer. ... I'm 6'2" 170 and I have only found advantages in the longer ski.

By inference, the 92 in a 184 becomes all the more appealing, but damn near impossible still to get any real feedback. ....

 I am 5'9" and 225 lbs; I have the LX 92 in 184 and love it; I would not go longer.  I have the 2011 Volkl Mantra in 191 cm; the Volkl skis great in most conditions (least well in moguls) but the 184 LX 92 skis better in all conditions, especially moguls and moguls in small tree glades off piste.  I have the Rossi S7 in 188 cm and I love it; of course it does better than either the Mantra of the LX 92 in deep snow but not as well, but still pretty good, in firm snow; it also helps when micro-terrain (runnels, gulleys, chopped up snow, etc.) is challenging, including where penetrable crust is present (the other day I hucked a small drop and my LX92 dove thru the crust, ending up vertical and me ending up prone, hanging from one ski LOL).  If it wasn't so heavy, I'd buy a pair of 184 LX92s for AT in the backcountry; but my 182 Dynafit Stokes (105 mm waist) do as well in crud despite a much lighter weight and my 197 Manaslus are a dream in almost all conditions, but still outshone by the Stokes in crud.

post #10 of 12
The LX92's longest length is 184, so that's the limit. Thanks for the feedback, very helpful. Still not hearing any negatives here at the longer length for bumps and tight-ish spaces vs. the too short (for me) 174....although I think this is the first feedback I've seen for the 184 biggrin.gif.
post #11 of 12
Thread Starter 

I kept the 184's.  I've only had them out a few times, but in no way do they feel too long, My 185lbs might be 190 right now, which might explain how easy they seem to ski.  Or it could be that I grew up skiing 203's and everything has seemed short since then.

 

I do feel they need some soft snow to come alive,  On the hardest of days my MX78's rail where the LX92's are skiable, but just not as much fun.

post #12 of 12
I think it may be the cap (vs. sidewall) construction. I don't think you need a lot of weight to drive the LX series (you have 20 lbs on me).
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 › Kastle LX92 ski length?