EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › REVIEW REQUEST: 2014 FX94 vs. 2014 Stockli 95
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

REVIEW REQUEST: 2014 FX94 vs. 2014 Stockli 95

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 

For those who have skied both, this seems like the showdown of the year......  anyone have the info?  

post #2 of 10

Damn!!! It's like we're identical, telepathic twins!  I was leaning towards acquiring both, since there appears to be significant (??)  non-overlap, but I would  love to hear of any first hand comparisons. 

post #3 of 10

Pocket book's going to incur some damage, that's for sure.

post #4 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

Pocket book's going to incur some damage, that's for sure.


 Yep, either way, both are expensive tastes.

post #5 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Lutes View Post

Damn!!! It's like we're identical, telepathic twins!  I was leaning towards acquiring both, since there appears to be significant (??)  non-overlap, but I would  love to hear of any first hand comparisons. 

Paul, I'd sure love to know what that non-overlap is. . . and if you can articulate it convincingly, I bet there are a ton of folks on this site ready to engage your services to help convince their respective spouses on the wisdom of their aspirational quiver.beercheer.gif

 

Seriously, aren't we talking about two mid-90s, all-mountain skis, both metal laminate, full sidewall construction, both somewhat traditional in shape, both somewhat moderate in the early rise dept., both with strong carving/on-piste capability for the width class, both made by niche boutique euro producers charging over $1K flat for their goodness?  Are these really different tools in any meaningful way? 

 

I've ridden the FX 94, not the Stormrider 95, so I don't know for sure.  The FX 94 is a very nice ski.  But based on what I have read, I have a hard time imagining the ski day where one would say, "today looks like a perfect day for the FX 94 . . . . not so much for the SR 95" or vice-versa.

 

Nothing wrong with quiver overlap if that's what you are into and can afford it. . . . but I am struggling to come up with a duo closer in target application and target customer than the FX 94 and the SR 95.

 

You must have been kidding or I am missing something significant.

post #6 of 10

Missed the ????, didja? wink.gif

 

Seriously,  since I've only skied the Kastle MX series, and never been on any Stocklis,  the only basis I have for that statement is the historical differences of the two companies.  Given the rapid rate of ski evolution these days, that's probably very foolish on my part. I'm assuming the Stocklis are a little more firm snow oriented/stiffer than the FXs (the FXs have two layers of metal but only 0.3 mm each - I'm guessing the Stocklis have more, but could easily be mistaken). Regardless, the internal design is not the same, so I can continue to dream!

 

The whole reason for participating in this thread is to gather enough info to make an educated decision - buying both is hopefully my last, desperate option.

post #7 of 10

In case you all missed it, Dawgcatching has skied and produced small reviews of both these for us, and in the thread has made head to head comparisons. He's all about training for bike racing season right now, so may/may not see this new question.  

post #8 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Lutes View Post

Missed the ????, didja? wink.gif

 

The whole reason for participating in this thread is to gather enough info to make an educated decision - buying both is hopefully my last, desperate option.

Gotcha.  Wasn't sure if there was a missing smiley - I was willing to take "????" seriously.  I've seen more arcane distinctions than the relative performance bands of FX 94 v. the SR 95 seriously debated on this board.  smile.gif 

 

If Dawgcatching's comparison fails to satisfy, by all means get both. . . and do the beta testing and review for us as a community service.  I'm sure that any number of us would be willing to take the loser off your hands at used prices.

 

Anyway, the FX 94 is a very nice ski.  I liked it.  It doesn't necessarily cause angles to sing spontaneously while you are schussing down the hill, but it is a very nice, well made ski that will appeal to skiers who favor a stiff, all-mountain damp ride (the Blizzi/Nordica/Volkl crowd) and value precise carving performance in their off-piste workhorse.  It is clearly Kastle's riff on the sub 100 all-mountain ride - and a good one.  Off piste, it skis big, in a good way, and it still rails with on groomers.  For our mix of conditions around here, I'd happily ski it often.  But I wasn't breathlessly rushing to pre-order it post-demo.  Just not sure that it is 2x the ski of (pick your favorite:  Bone, Mantra, E98, Hell, Enforcer). 

 

I'd love to demo the SR to see what that fuss is about.  It would be cool if they'd show up at demo days - Kastle probably won some customers at Crystal a couple of weeks ago.

post #9 of 10

It's only money; revel in the thrill of spending your children's inheritance.  I know I am.  biggrin.gif

post #10 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewyM View Post

....

 

If Dawgcatching's comparison fails to satisfy, by all means get both. . . and do the beta testing and review for us as a community service.  I'm sure that any number of us would be willing to take the loser off your hands at used prices.

 

....

 

It was Dawg's brief review of both (not quite head-to-head, but close enough) that lead me to conclude that there was divergence, primarily as I already stated along the soft-firm snow axis.

 

Bottom line: we need more data points!  I've never been a fan of pre-ordering, so I'm quite happy to wait until next season. 

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 › REVIEW REQUEST: 2014 FX94 vs. 2014 Stockli 95