or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Kastle FX94 or Nordica Hell & Back
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kastle FX94 or Nordica Hell & Back

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
I am 53yo and ski mostly groomers, crud and some bumps; avoid deep powder but get into 4-6 inches. I am advanced intermediate but avoid bumps due to an ACL injury. My Nordica Jetfuels (84 underfoot) got old on me. BMX 88 at 176cm were not as aggressive.
I tried the Kastle FX 94 186 cm and loved them. Billzard Brahma was great but not as secure. I was told I should try the Nordica H&B Steadfast prior to buying the Kastle.
Any thoughts? I am 6'1" and 205lbs. The chart said I needed a 178cm; worried they maybe too short.
post #2 of 12

If you loved the Kastle and are willing to pay for it, why not just get it? 

 

Are you talking about the Hell & Back ski or the Steadfast?  I've skied the Steadfast.  It's a good ski on groomers and pretty good in crud.  It's metal-free so not very damp feeling.  That's my only knock on it.  I wished it were a little more damp.  I haven't skied the FX 94 but it's got metal in it, so I think the Nordicas will probably feel pretty different. 

 

At your size and if you liked the 186 FX 94, I'd size up in the Nordicas if you do decide to check them out (the 185 range).

post #3 of 12
Thread Starter 
I am about; at their price tag I wanted more insight. The Kastle FX 94 seemed to dampen the crud and cut through really well while keeping edge and direction. In the Kastle the demo store folks recommended the 178cm others suggested the 186cm. Big jump. They did not have them in the 178cm to try. As I understand it the Steadfast do not dampen as well.
post #4 of 12

I absolutely LOVE the H&B's.  My favorite ski out of all of the 98's.  Super versatile, great grip, and good energy out of the tail.  An absolute blast to ski.

post #5 of 12

If you try the H&B's, take them in 185. By no means too much ski.

post #6 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuiverSkier View Post

I am 53yo and ski mostly groomers, crud and some bumps; avoid deep powder but get into 4-6 inches. I am advanced intermediate but avoid bumps due to an ACL injury. My Nordica Jetfuels (84 underfoot) got old on me. BMX 88 at 176cm were not as aggressive.
I tried the Kastle FX 94 186 cm and loved them. Billzard Brahma was great but not as secure. I was told I should try the Nordica H&B Steadfast prior to buying the Kastle.
Any thoughts? I am 6'1" and 205lbs. The chart said I needed a 178cm; worried they maybe too short.

 

I like the Hell & Back: very solid, capable ski.  I do find the FX94 to be more nuanced; more glued to the snow, more quiet and a touch more stable.  In my mind, it is a more refined ski, which it should be, at $400 over the Hell & Back.   The Hell & Back will have a snow feel somewhat similar to the Brahma as well, but different tip and tail profile.  

 

Maybe also test the Head REV 98?  A bit more like the Kastle in overall feel.   

post #7 of 12

If this is your single quiver ski for Michigan I would not recommend the FX 94s.  As part of a 2 or 3 ski quiver, or for western use, go for it, they are awesome.

post #8 of 12

I ski the 178 Steadfast for 210 pounds and its ok but feel that the 186 should be nicer because of the rocker. Nice ski that do nicely in crud for a light ski ( no metal but very stiff)

 

 

 

Elan Amphibio 88: much better carver than the Steadfast and probably better carver  than the fx94 too. If I had to buy a 1 ski quiver, it would be it...

post #9 of 12

The Kastle is going to have a smoother feel than the Helen Bach because of construction, the Hollow Tech in the tip (and tail of the 2014) and the metal in the construction and well, they are Kastles. For a 94, they are very nimble and could be a one ski option for the midwest, kastle does a remarkable job belying dimensions, on firm snow they feel narrower and soft snow, wider. It must the be pixie dust and unicorn tears they use in the laminating process.

post #10 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by hirustler View Post

If this is your single quiver ski for Michigan I would not recommend the FX 94s.  As part of a 2 or 3 ski quiver, or for western use, go for it, they are awesome.


 



I agree, 94 waist is to much for your home state.

My current thinking is, 84-88mm waist for a everyday ski, if you want a powder ski, go big.

In VT my DD is 88mm under foot, Volkl Kendo, For powder I have a 106 waist Volkl Gotama. If I buy another powder ski it will be 112 waist or wider.

Where do you do most of your skiing ?


It is true, one ski can't do it all.


There are better tools for the different depth of snow.

IMO any decent all mountain skier is on a 84-88 waisted ski here in the east. They are quick edge to edge and fun to ski. Volkls have great edge hold.
post #11 of 12
For MI, I'd go with the Steadfast. The Hell and Back would be a great ski if you re doing trips out west as well. I love the FX 94, but the FX 84 would again be a better MI ski.

Smooth, damp mid radius... Kastle
More rebound, energy, and zippy short to mid radius turns, the Steadfast.
post #12 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogsie View Post
 

I ski the 178 Steadfast for 210 pounds and its ok but feel that the 186 should be nicer because of the rocker. Nice ski that do nicely in crud for a light ski ( no metal but very stiff)

 

 

 

Elan Amphibio 88: much better carver than the Steadfast and probably better carver  than the fx94 too. If I had to buy a 1 ski quiver, it would be it...

 

Yeah, the Amphibio series should not be overlooked. We aren't carrying Elan this year (they were the epitome of a great product that nobody knew about), glad to see people are still talking about these skis.  The 82 and 88 do have a very powerful feel to them, yet mid-range flex, making them a good bet off-piste.  We did a shootout between the Kastle MX83 and Amphibio 88xti and my friend thought the Kastle was a bit more refined and had a larger sweet spot. Performance wise, there wasn't much of a difference though.

 

I would say the 88xti is more comparable to the MX series; the FX series doesn't ski with as much effective sidecut and as powerful of a tip. 

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 FX94 or Nordica Hell & Back