or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Kastle FX 94 or FX 104?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kastle FX 94 or FX 104? - Page 2

post #31 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post
 

 

 

Haven't skied the 108. Honestly, I just felt at home on the 184 104, but I'm bigger than Dawg by 40 odd lbs I'm guessing, so it doesn't feel quite so 'big mountain'y'. It's certainly not a noodle either, and not particularly heavy for a metal laminent ski. Felt like a versatile tip to tail skiing ski... great in crud for sure. Of all the skis I tested last year, it was the one I'd probably buy. An MX 83 and an FX 104 would be a pretty dynamic duo. Looking forward to giving the MX98 and the TX97 a whirl here in the next couple of months.

 

I was thinking maybe a dynamic trio?  :D

 

Short list seems like:

 

FX104

MX98 (january)

Stockli 107

 

But if going to 107, now you have to add an el capo?  Smalls, do these ski's offer the tree performance you are looking for or do they provide "enough" given their performance elsewhere? 

post #32 of 40
The 183 PM Gear Bro is a nice ski. 99mm waist.
post #33 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino View Post

The 183 PM Gear Bro is a nice ski. 99mm waist.


As is the lasa pow.
post #34 of 40
Finn- that does appear to be the short list! As far as a tree ski, I can't really say that I would anticipate any being at the top of the list, frankly. But my priority is hard snow and crud performance, and so long as they are suitable in trees that's fine. As much as flip core is not my thing, the Bone or Cochise are hard to beat in trees. Which brings me to the El Capo. If it is a Cochise with camber count me in. It is definitely on my list but I hope to actually ski it before considering/buying so I didn't really bring it up in the discussion. I anticipate being able to demo it (as opposed to the kastle)
post #35 of 40

Good people. The FX94 is the ski for me. I like speed and carving wide turns. Steeps. The 94mm waist might be a little thin for powder, but overall this sounds like a great ski. Anyone have a pair of 176s you'd like to sell? 

post #36 of 40

if you like the 94 but want more float, go to the 104. Its pretty much the same but actually a little more compliant (less demanding and more forgiving). You will lose a little carvability but gain on the off piste for sure.  Very nimble in trees too.    

post #37 of 40
Given the ease and comfort, would you go with the 184mm in the 104? I'm a fairly aggressive, athletic skier.
post #38 of 40
Good question and likley depends on your size and weight. Ive skied both fx94 and 104 in 186 and 184 but am 6'1" 185 and ski pretty fast and aggressively. As Finn states the fx104 is a bit softer and more compliant especially in the tip for a given size. At my size for skiing fast I find the fx94 is more ski but that could make the jump to a 104 in 184 the perfect choice for someone a bit lighter.
The 104 is so versitile it would make a great western one ski solution.
The 94 also great and more nimble it just lacks a bit in deeper snow float.
Hope that helps.
post #39 of 40
Thanks, Chris and Finn. This seems exactly right. I ski a bit on the east coast, but not a lot. Maybe I'll just see what's available. They both sound terrific!
post #40 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisCrash View Post

Good question and likley depends on your size and weight. Ive skied both fx94 and 104 in 186 and 184 but am 6'1" 185 and ski pretty fast and aggressively. As Finn states the fx104 is a bit softer and more compliant especially in the tip for a given size. At my size for skiing fast I find the fx94 is more ski but that could make the jump to a 104 in 184 the perfect choice for someone a bit lighter.
The 104 is so versitile it would make a great western one ski solution.
The 94 also great and more nimble it just lacks a bit in deeper snow float.
Hope that helps.

good post; well said.  I am 6' 170 but ski tighter stuff here; no real open bowls and I'm not really using the 104 for groomers so the 174 skied centered  (mounted +5mm) is fine for me. If I were using this for more open terrain, I would go 184.  Its the whole Kastle sizing conundrum (which I understand is going to change) but the 104 in a 176-180 would be perfect.  It's still plenty stable at 174 due to the running length; the ski is in contact much longer in the tail over a comparable ski.  there is no real rise or turn up.  

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 FX 94 or FX 104?