or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Review of Salomon Q90, Outland 87, Head Rev 85, K2 Rictor 90, Kastle FX84, Kastle MX83, Kastle MX88
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Review of Salomon Q90, Outland 87, Head Rev 85, K2 Rictor 90, Kastle FX84, Kastle MX83, Kastle MX88

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 

Hi All, I have just returned from 2 weeks skiing 2 of the 3 Valleys (Val Thorens and Meribel) and Verbier. Lots of piste skiing but also a fairly decent selection of powder days after about 6 days of 6-8 inches overnight snow.

 

Height 172cm (5'7 2/3"), Weight 80.5kg (177.5 pounds).

Age 40. Been skiing for 32 years. Probably a 8.5/10 level. Bindings set to 7.

 

I have traditionally skied 90% on/off piste but I am moving to skiing about 60/40 on off piste in the last year.

 

Over the last 2 weeks I have hired quite a few skis to try.

I have a Kastle MX78 however I am looking to build up a 3 ski quiver:

1. For onpiste when theres not a lot of snow. This is quite common in France where I normally ski. I will either keep the MX78 or chop it in for the RX12 which I am hearing good things about here.

2. An All purpose/everyday ski when I can only take 1 ski away for the weekend. (as living in London I have to take it to work on the Underground (Subway) and then onto the Airport. This is what I was primarily trying to get out of this trip.

3. A wider ski (approx 87-92) for when its snows but I can also ski a bit on piste. I'm not really into the 100mm wide skis

 

The below reviews concern parts 2 and 3 above of my desired Quiver.

What I tried to do is compare the skis dimensions and I was particularly interested in weight.

As a side note I have a Vist plate (with movable Vist 311 bindings) on the MX78 and was considering doing the same on the other 2 skis.

 

Part 2 of proposed Quiver:

a) Kastle MX83. 168cm 125/83/109 R17  1890 grams per ski

- Felt a lot longer than it was. Very good on groomers flat out. Able to make big sweeping GS type turns. Very stiff. But I had trouble making quick/short turns on it on steep slopes, maybe due to my weight. I also didnt like it in the powder as it was too heavy for me.

- On a side note a mate who is 5'9.5" and about 190# (20pounds heavier than me) really liked it and was working it well. I suspect as he had the weight to get more out of it

b) Kastle MX88. 168cm 128/88/113 R17.5  1920g.

- Gets rave reviews here and I was secretly hoping this would be the one I'd go for..

- However again I found it very heavy and similar to the MX83. Great on groomers for moving fast but not that great/float on powder. Out of interest I was talking to the skishop guy and he said he would use these as a piste ski

- I was tho wondering  if the weight was due to because it had a heavy rental binding. I think I am going to have a hunt for last seasons ski on ebay and maybe try a lightweight binding (any recommendations?) on them

c) Head Rev  Pro 85 170cm 131/85/113 R14.7

- Only got 1/2 a day on these but again felt heavy. It would be interesting to find out their weight but the Head website is just awful. Great on piste but heavy/no float in powder. Will try them again longer next time

d) Kastle FX84. 168cm 122/84/110 R16  1820g.

- Another well regarded ski here on Epicski. (the phrase light and stiff gets mentioned) And I'm pleased to say they didnt disappoint. Not quite as good/stiff  onpiste as the mx83 or mx88 but still 90% as good. I could still rip groomers on them quite quickly. But what really pleased me is I could ski knee height powder quite easily as they were so light/had good float. I also took them into the snowboard park and was pulling some decent jumps on them due to their lightness.

- All in all an awesome ski, pricey but I think worth it. So I'm going to treat myself to a pair of these (woohoo!). Again I just need to decide if I put the a Vist plate on them so I can share bindings (or will that make them too heavy) or put a decent quality/high end binding on them

 

So in conclusion I will have a hunt for some last season MX88's and will compare them to the to be purchased FX84's.

 

Part 3 of proposed Quiver:

This was a little trickier to determine..

a) Salomon Q90 169cm 130/88/116  1776 or 1510g (see below)

- A very very light ski. On their website it says the 177cm weighs 1860g. So to determine the approx weight of the 169cm I went (169/177) x 1860 to give an approx weight of  1776g. I then emailed the Salomon rep on the US website and she replied back saying the 169cm actually weighed only 1510g (!). I'm not sure if this is right but no wonder they felt light

- On powder they were ok but on the piste just hopeless, I couldnt get them on edge and they felt so unstable. I might be being a bit harsh but I cannot see the point of these skis. Maybe for someone quite light who wants a powder ski?

b) K2 Rictor 90 170cm 132/90/115 R16

- Again another light ski. I have emailed K2 but havent heard anything back from them.

- Good in powder but again almost identical to the Q90 above, not great on piste at all and again I'm not sure of the point of this ski. It may just be me being set in my ways and being used to stiffer skis but this was all over the show on piste.

c) Dynastar Outland 87 172cm 132/87/114  2261g (!!)

- I bought this based on its rave reviews here. I got it cheap from Itailan ebay brand new from a shop going out of business ($280 for the skis and bindings). I printed out Dawg's email re getting them ground/tuned properly and took it to the skishop. I gave them to the guy there, he picked them up and went "boy thats a heavy ski". Anyway he read Scotts article and ended up grinding them 3 times to get them level

- Anyway how did it ski, this thing weighed a tonne. Good on piste but I really couldnt get it to work off piste. Maybe a heavier/better skier could but for me it was just way too heavy. I will be selling them

 

- So nothing decided in this category yet. One of the things I have worked out is I dont really like skis over 170cm. So if I can find something around that length thats light (but still works a bit onpiste) I will be happy.

- Actually speaking of length, now I know its sad but as an accountant I'm into details so I spent a lot of the time looking at peoples skis over the last 2 weeks, and very few had skis over head height.

Yes I noticed a distinct preference for wider skis being more prevalent than they used to be, but these were only the 80-90mm width.

I believe its a European thing here, most people have traditionally skied onpiste and therefore had slalom skis or all mountain skis.

As this is mostly an American forum it appears you US guys just seem to prefer longer skis.

A mate even hired a guide one day and we hired some Seth/approx 115mm wide skis to try. Really didnt like them even on powder (seemed heavy) but the thing I noticed is our guide was skiing thigh deep powder beautifully on only some appox 95 wide skis (I didnt get a chance to look at make/model) so were really wide skis necessary.

 

Others I will be trying out next trip:

a) Volkl Kendo 170cm 127/88/109 R20.5 (big radius?)

b) Elan 88 xti 170cm 136/88/116 R15.5

c) Head Rev 90 170cm 136/91/117 (just came out top in a ski mag review here)

d) Blizzard Brahma and Bushwacker 125/88/110 R18  1925g.

(both models seem to be exactly the same dimensions?).  But at 173cm might be too long. Also at 1925 they seem to be on the heavy side

e) Cham 87 172cm (along with the 97 getting a bigger following here)

 

Would be grateful for any thoughts/recommendations

 

Cheers,

BJ

post #2 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by beejay View Post
 

.... One of the things I have worked out is I dont really like skis over 170cm. So if I can find something around that length thats light (but still works a bit onpiste) I will be happy.

 

Was sort of wondering why you are skiing such consistently short skis.  I'm only 3-4kgs heavier than you (though 185cm tall) and all of my skis are 178-188cm (bar one pair).

 

The Vist Speedlock plates are a great set up for multiple sets of skis and for travelling. I have 4 pairs of alpine skis with the Speedlock TT plate, which is light and free flexing so has little impact on the flexing qualities of the ski.

 

If I were you I'd be looking to keep things simple and have a 2 ski quiver; something 85mm to 95mm as an everyday ski and then something phatter for off piste & powder days.  In my quiver I already have the Kastle BMX108 (@188cm) which still carves on hard snow, just not short turns as it has a 32m radius.  My everyday in-bounds ski is currently a Stockli Stormrider XXL (80mm / 178cm / 19m radius) which will probably be replaced by the Stormrider 95 or something similar in due course (at 6 years old is almost on its last legs).  I already have two dedicated hard snow skis (Stockli Laser SC and Laser SX) which only get used when I get conned into racing from time to time.

 

And don't be embarrassed about being an accountant, I got over it eventually.


Edited by Taxman - 1/6/14 at 3:03pm
post #3 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by beejay View Post
 

Hi All, I have just returned from 2 weeks skiing 2 of the 3 Valleys (Val Thorens and Meribel) and Verbier. Lots of piste skiing but also a fairly decent selection of powder days after about 6 days of 6-8 inches overnight snow.

 

Height 172cm (5'7 2/3"), Weight 80.5kg (177.5 pounds).

Age 40. Been skiing for 32 years. Probably a 8.5/10 level. Bindings set to 7.

 

I have traditionally skied 90% on/off piste but I am moving to skiing about 60/40 on off piste in the last year.

 

Over the last 2 weeks I have hired quite a few skis to try.

I have a Kastle MX78 however I am looking to build up a 3 ski quiver:

1. For onpiste when theres not a lot of snow. This is quite common in France where I normally ski. I will either keep the MX78 or chop it in for the RX12 which I am hearing good things about here.

2. An All purpose/everyday ski when I can only take 1 ski away for the weekend. (as living in London I have to take it to work on the Underground (Subway) and then onto the Airport. This is what I was primarily trying to get out of this trip.

3. A wider ski (approx 87-92) for when its snows but I can also ski a bit on piste. I'm not really into the 100mm wide skis

 

The below reviews concern parts 2 and 3 above of my desired Quiver.

What I tried to do is compare the skis dimensions and I was particularly interested in weight.

As a side note I have a Vist plate (with movable Vist 311 bindings) on the MX78 and was considering doing the same on the other 2 skis.

 

Part 2 of proposed Quiver:

a) Kastle MX83. 168cm 125/83/109 R17  1890 grams per ski

- Felt a lot longer than it was. Very good on groomers flat out. Able to make big sweeping GS type turns. Very stiff. But I had trouble making quick/short turns on it on steep slopes, maybe due to my weight. I also didnt like it in the powder as it was too heavy for me.

- On a side note a mate who is 5'9.5" and about 190# (20pounds heavier than me) really liked it and was working it well. I suspect as he had the weight to get more out of it

b) Kastle MX88. 168cm 128/88/113 R17.5  1920g.

- Gets rave reviews here and I was secretly hoping this would be the one I'd go for..

- However again I found it very heavy and similar to the MX83. Great on groomers for moving fast but not that great/float on powder. Out of interest I was talking to the skishop guy and he said he would use these as a piste ski

- I was tho wondering  if the weight was due to because it had a heavy rental binding. I think I am going to have a hunt for last seasons ski on ebay and maybe try a lightweight binding (any recommendations?) on them

c) Head Rev  Pro 85 170cm 131/85/113 R14.7

- Only got 1/2 a day on these but again felt heavy. It would be interesting to find out their weight but the Head website is just awful. Great on piste but heavy/no float in powder. Will try them again longer next time

d) Kastle FX84. 168cm 122/84/110 R16  1820g.

- Another well regarded ski here on Epicski. (the phrase light and stiff gets mentioned) And I'm pleased to say they didnt disappoint. Not quite as good/stiff  onpiste as the mx83 or mx88 but still 90% as good. I could still rip groomers on them quite quickly. But what really pleased me is I could ski knee height powder quite easily as they were so light/had good float. I also took them into the snowboard park and was pulling some decent jumps on them due to their lightness.

- All in all an awesome ski, pricey but I think worth it. So I'm going to treat myself to a pair of these (woohoo!). Again I just need to decide if I put the a Vist plate on them so I can share bindings (or will that make them too heavy) or put a decent quality/high end binding on them

 

So in conclusion I will have a hunt for some last season MX88's and will compare them to the to be purchased FX84's.

 

Part 3 of proposed Quiver:

This was a little trickier to determine..

a) Salomon Q90 169cm 130/88/116  1776 or 1510g (see below)

- A very very light ski. On their website it says the 177cm weighs 1860g. So to determine the approx weight of the 169cm I went (169/177) x 1860 to give an approx weight of  1776g. I then emailed the Salomon rep on the US website and she replied back saying the 169cm actually weighed only 1510g (!). I'm not sure if this is right but no wonder they felt light

- On powder they were ok but on the piste just hopeless, I couldnt get them on edge and they felt so unstable. I might be being a bit harsh but I cannot see the point of these skis. Maybe for someone quite light who wants a powder ski?

b) K2 Rictor 90 170cm 132/90/115 R16

- Again another light ski. I have emailed K2 but havent heard anything back from them.

- Good in powder but again almost identical to the Q90 above, not great on piste at all and again I'm not sure of the point of this ski. It may just be me being set in my ways and being used to stiffer skis but this was all over the show on piste.

c) Dynastar Outland 87 172cm 132/87/114  2261g (!!)

- I bought this based on its rave reviews here. I got it cheap from Itailan ebay brand new from a shop going out of business ($280 for the skis and bindings). I printed out Dawg's email re getting them ground/tuned properly and took it to the skishop. I gave them to the guy there, he picked them up and went "boy thats a heavy ski". Anyway he read Scotts article and ended up grinding them 3 times to get them level

- Anyway how did it ski, this thing weighed a tonne. Good on piste but I really couldnt get it to work off piste. Maybe a heavier/better skier could but for me it was just way too heavy. I will be selling them

 

- So nothing decided in this category yet. One of the things I have worked out is I dont really like skis over 170cm. So if I can find something around that length thats light (but still works a bit onpiste) I will be happy.

- Actually speaking of length, now I know its sad but as an accountant I'm into details so I spent a lot of the time looking at peoples skis over the last 2 weeks, and very few had skis over head height.

Yes I noticed a distinct preference for wider skis being more prevalent than they used to be, but these were only the 80-90mm width.

I believe its a European thing here, most people have traditionally skied onpiste and therefore had slalom skis or all mountain skis.

As this is mostly an American forum it appears you US guys just seem to prefer longer skis.

A mate even hired a guide one day and we hired some Seth/approx 115mm wide skis to try. Really didnt like them even on powder (seemed heavy) but the thing I noticed is our guide was skiing thigh deep powder beautifully on only some appox 95 wide skis (I didnt get a chance to look at make/model) so were really wide skis necessary.

 

Others I will be trying out next trip:

a) Volkl Kendo 170cm 127/88/109 R20.5 (big radius?)

b) Elan 88 xti 170cm 136/88/116 R15.5

c) Head Rev 90 170cm 136/91/117 (just came out top in a ski mag review here)

d) Blizzard Brahma and Bushwacker 125/88/110 R18  1925g.

(both models seem to be exactly the same dimensions?).  But at 173cm might be too long. Also at 1925 they seem to be on the heavy side

e) Cham 87 172cm (along with the 97 getting a bigger following here)

 

Would be grateful for any thoughts/recommendations

 

Cheers,

BJ

Rictor 90xti is 1799gm in 177. 

post #4 of 18

Seems to be a theme here, which is that you find a lot of these skis heavy and unwieldy, and the rest light and unstable. Hmmm. Two ideas: 1) The apparent weight and maneuverability of a ski is only partly a function of its actual weight. And of the various skis you tried, Kastles are not particularly heavy, more like middleweights. While K2's are not particularly light; would guess the two are within a few hundred gms of each other. You may be reacting to other attributes, like shape, stiffness, or rocker profile. 2) Your quoted weight for the Blizzards is not heavy at all for skis of that width. Blizzies in general are on the slightly light side of average. 3) Basic physics says that the mass of a ski will impact its perceived stability. So everything's a tradeoff; lighter may be able to dance through tight spaces but it'll get more perturbed by crud and be more nervous at speed. When manufacturers try to play with this, they tend to change stiffness. But the outcome cam be something like the DPS skis, that are relatively stiff, very light, and not really fun on firm surfaces. 4) Skis for softer snow tend to be more enjoyable in longer lengths, to prevent dive and allow you to get a bit off balance and recover. So as a rule of thumb, softer and longer beats shorter and stiffer. For your #3, I'd tend to go for something in the middle-high 170's at least. That may mean rethinking models, not sure. 

post #5 of 18

Quote:

d) Blizzard Brahma and Bushwacker 125/88/110 R18  1925g.

(both models seem to be exactly the same dimensions?).  But at 173cm might be too long. Also at 1925 they seem to be on the heavy side

 

The Brahma has metal; the Bushwacker does not.  They are not the same weight.  When considering the length of these, or any ski, you may want to consider whether they have tip or tail rocker; if they do, they may ski shorter than their length.

post #6 of 18

+1 on beyond's comments about "perceived weight".  In my 45yrs. of skiing I've rarely found the actual weight of skis to have much bearing with how "lightly" they ski (i.e., quick turning, maneuverable).  Just think of how heavy a wide (i.e., 110mm+ underfoot), rockered powder ski can be vs. how well they float and maneuver in 3D snow...that is if you've tried something in this category. 

 

+1 also on beyond's length comment.  And this is coming from someone who is also often told to "go longer" because I tend to prefer my on-piste skis to be in the mid-160's.  HOWEVER, I weigh 130lbs. (and am probably an 8/10 skier).  So I am hard pressed to think that a 177lbs. 8.5 level skier wouldn't benefit from some longer skis (especially with some rocker and intended for softer snow like your "Part 3" ski's).

 

I don't have anything to add about the specific skis in your test (I'm following this thread since I am in the process of changing my "hard pack" and mixed condition Dynastar Sultan 85's to something in the 88-90mm width range and with some rocker...like the Bushwackers, Cham 87, Outland's, Rictors, Q90's...).  So, my "Part 1" ski (for Colorado) is what you have listed as your "Part 3" skis!  THEREFORE, I have to question your "Part 3" choices given that you like the FX-84's for "Part 2".  To me there's not enough difference in snow-condition capability between the FX-84's and any other good (i.e., reasonably powerful) 87-90mm ski with slight/moderate rocker.  You really should be looking at something wider and/or more rockered (i.e., 100mm+ underfoot which is a category with many, many good choices and with many rocker/sidecut variations for you to try).

post #7 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by beejay View Post
 

 

Part 3 of proposed Quiver:

This was a little trickier to determine..

a) Salomon Q90 169cm 130/88/116  1776 or 1510g (see below)

- A very very light ski. On their website it says the 177cm weighs 1860g. So to determine the approx weight of the 169cm I went (169/177) x 1860 to give an approx weight of  1776g. I then emailed the Salomon rep on the US website and she replied back saying the 169cm actually weighed only 1510g (!). I'm not sure if this is right but no wonder they felt light

- On powder they were ok but on the piste just hopeless, I couldnt get them on edge and they felt so unstable. I might be being a bit harsh but I cannot see the point of these skis. Maybe for someone quite light who wants a powder ski?

 

Cheers,

BJ

 

I spent some time on the Q90 yesterday, and, came away with some very different conclusions. I skied the 185 Q90 on 4 inches of new snow over hard, refrozen eastern USA snow. There were large clumps of new snow followed by extended sections were good edge was needed. I found the ski to be very playful in soft snow and providing good edge hold on the harder stuff. It took some time to get used to the 185 length, although the ski does ski shorter than expected. My first impression were that edge holding was far better than expected from a soft snow ski and it took a little time to get used to how the edges engaged then released.. They are not stiff and easy to turn quickly.  I'm 25 lbs heavier than you; my thinking is you skied much too short at 169..

 

We are all different, but, I found it a far better ski than you describe. Don't get me wrong, if I'm going to ski hard snow groomed snow, my daily diriver, which is very close to the MX 78, would be my first selection.

post #8 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Living Proof View Post
 

 

I spent some time on the Q90 yesterday, and, came away with some very different conclusions. I skied the 185 Q90 on 4 inches of new snow over hard, refrozen eastern USA snow. There were large clumps of new snow followed by extended sections were good edge was needed. I found the ski to be very playful in soft snow and providing good edge hold on the harder stuff. It took some time to get used to the 185 length, although the ski does ski shorter than expected. My first impression were that edge holding was far better than expected from a soft snow ski and it took a little time to get used to how the edges engaged then released.. They are not stiff and easy to turn quickly.  I'm 25 lbs heavier than you; my thinking is you skied much too short at 169..

 

We are all different, but, I found it a far better ski than you describe. Don't get me wrong, if I'm going to ski hard snow groomed snow, my daily diriver, which is very close to the MX 78, would be my first selection.

Hi LP, another Philly Guy here, lol, i was at Elk yesterday too. 

Didn't find time to try the Q90, already own a 88mm ski so not a high priority. Short of snowing when skiing "fill in days", yesterdays conditions were more what us constrained storm chasers end up with, was interested in getting a feel for how wider skis do there. Managed four runs on the Q98, 172. I'm about a half inch shorter and 35lbs lighter then the OP. The 172/96 waist Q98 skied allot like my early rise shovel 168cm skis. Smilar experience as you noted on the Q90. Felt more like being on my 88's then a 96, only somewhat better float thru the untouched 5" deep patches, although as expected not even close to the float of the Rossignol Soul 7 i tried. Then again for my first run of the the Soul 7 i intentionally hit the hard pack icy patches to find out how it'll handle those conditions and while it held a edge better then expected, going from edge to edge was allot of work. I felt more comfortable on the Q98, so much so that if i didn't already have a 88, good probability i would've went with the Q98 had it been available at the time.

The Q98 is definitely worth demoing, imo, especially where the OP skis. I'd guess it's not such a jump from the K2 Rictor 90 on the list. As always, YMMV.

post #9 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post
 

Hi LP, another Philly Guy here, lol, i was at Elk yesterday too. 

Didn't find time to try the Q90, already own a 88mm ski so not a high priority. Short of snowing when skiing "fill in days", yesterdays conditions were more what us constrained storm chasers end up with, was interested in getting a feel for how wider skis do there. Managed four runs on the Q98, 172. I'm about a half inch shorter and 35lbs lighter then the OP. The 172/96 waist Q98 skied allot like my early rise shovel 168cm skis. Smilar experience as you noted on the Q90. Felt more like being on my 88's then a 96, only somewhat better float thru the untouched 5" deep patches, although as expected not even close to the float of the Rossignol Soul 7 i tried. Then again for my first run of the the Soul 7 i intentionally hit the hard pack icy patches to find out how it'll handle those conditions and while it held a edge better then expected, going from edge to edge was allot of work. I felt more comfortable on the Q98, so much so that if i didn't already have a 88, good probability i would've went with the Q98 had it been available at the time.

The Q98 is definitely worth demoing, imo, especially where the OP skis. I'd guess it's not such a jump from the K2 Rictor 90 on the list. As always, YMMV.

 

Small world! Elk Demo days are a yearly trip and always a fun day. I spent some time on the Q98 in 180 just prior to Q90. I hope to do a separate review of that ski. I was so  impressed with the 98'm that I'm in discussion with Philpug to purchase for the Utah Gathering.

 

Note to self: Next year, open trip planning thread about this demo day for eastern Pa. locals. 

post #10 of 18
Thread Starter 

Hi guys,

 

Many thanks for all the helpful comments and apologies for the delay, 1st week back at work last week was a nightmare. Definitely appreciate the comments (both positive and negative), my normal ski buddies dont appear to appreciate the discussion analysis of comparing/contrasting different skis. :)

 

There appears to be a common theme of I need to go to a longer ski length. Its just quite weird when for the last 15 years that accepted norm (coming from New Zealand and now in Europe) is to ski on less than head height.

 

I'm also guessing maybe thats why the softer skis I tried (Q90 and Rictor90) felt unstable (to me), possibly also as the effective edge (due to the rocker) was less than a piste ski that length. So to get a decent edge length I need to go longer.

So I think I might have to man up and start trying skis around the 173-175cm length and see how they feel, at least in the first instance (baby steps).

 

I want to try the Bushwacker and the Brahmas but at 88mm they will probably be too close to my FX84's. Same maybe for the Stedfast's at 90mm but they seem to be getting some very positive reviews here so are tempting to try.

So I will go probably go wider (94-98mm) and try the Bonafides (that everyone seems to be raving about) along with the Sin 7 and Q98's.

 

Many thanks

post #11 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by beejay View Post
 

Hi guys,

 

Many thanks for all the helpful comments and apologies for the delay, 1st week back at work last week was a nightmare. Definitely appreciate the comments (both positive and negative), my normal ski buddies dont appear to appreciate the discussion analysis of comparing/contrasting different skis. :)

 

There appears to be a common theme of I need to go to a longer ski length. Its just quite weird when for the last 15 years that accepted norm (coming from New Zealand and now in Europe) is to ski on less than head height.

 

I'm also guessing maybe thats why the softer skis I tried (Q90 and Rictor90) felt unstable (to me), possibly also as the effective edge (due to the rocker) was less than a piste ski that length. So to get a decent edge length I need to go longer.

So I think I might have to man up and start trying skis around the 173-175cm length and see how they feel, at least in the first instance (baby steps).

 

I want to try the Bushwacker and the Brahmas but at 88mm they will probably be too close to my FX84's. Same maybe for the Stedfast's at 90mm but they seem to be getting some very positive reviews here so are tempting to try.

So I will go probably go wider (94-98mm) and try the Bonafides (that everyone seems to be raving about) along with the Sin 7 and Q98's.

 

Many thanks


Now yer talkin', though I'd skip the Steadfast and jump up to the Hell & Back's (which, at 98mm, is to the Steadfast like the Bonafides are to the Brahma, the Q98's to Q90...).  Go wider in addition to longer!

post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by beejay View Post
 

 

Part 2 of proposed Quiver:

a) Kastle MX83. 168cm 125/83/109 R17  1890 grams per ski...

 

Cheers,

BJ

 

Are you sure the MX83 was 168cm?   I thought they came in 163cm and 173cm, but not 168.  The MX83 comes in 168 for sure.

 

http://www.kaestle-ski.com/en/products/mx/mx83-20/

post #13 of 18
IMHO, the Head Rev 90 mounted +1 is one of the most under rated skis in NA. Not as fun and playful as the Salomon's (which are also under rated... Matter of fact, I'd bet that a number of 173 Bonafide skiers would like the Q98 better)... More on the smooth side at less than half the price of an FX.
post #14 of 18

FWIW, Real Skiers gave it two A+'s, better than any other Head...

post #15 of 18

I also like the REV 90. Great ski, for smooth, quick, agile, and especially bump performance. One of the best all-mountain bumpers you can purchase. Check out the FX104. It will surprise you with it's nimble feel, and it's do-everything prowess.  Also, it gives you the float you are looking for, in a still versatile package.  If I could draw up a potential one-ski quiver for my use, I think it would be an FX104 in 179/180.  That would have basically anything and everything I would want in versatile ski: easy to initiate tip, good soft snow float, nice softer tip combined with stiffer flex underfoot, flat tail for more exciting turn finish, good do-everything functional radius, balanced flex.  

post #16 of 18

I'm a big fan of the FX 104 as well. Looking forward to seeing/skiing Nordica's 100m new ski... sounds like the love child of the Enforcer and  the Wildfire/Vagabond....  

post #17 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post

 

Are you sure the MX83 was 168cm?   I thought they came in 163cm and 173cm, but not 168.  The MX83 comes in 168 for sure.

 

http://www.kaestle-ski.com/en/products/mx/mx83-20/

 


Yep well spoted, it was a copy and paste typo, should ahve read 173cm
post #18 of 18

Beejay you sound like my long lost twin. I have been skiing the MX78 for a few years, I just added the FX94 to the quiver but have been eyeing the RX12 or even RXSL for the other end. (yes I do regularly demo other brands!) I have been wondering about the MX83 as compared to the MX78, not so much for a purchase but just out of curiosity. How would you compare there performance and overall feeling?

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 › Review of Salomon Q90, Outland 87, Head Rev 85, K2 Rictor 90, Kastle FX84, Kastle MX83, Kastle MX88