or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Kastle LX 92 - Tasting the White Kool-Aid
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kastle LX 92 - Tasting the White Kool-Aid

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 

Ski

2012-13 Kastle LX 92
Length Tested: 174cm (top-of-head for me ... but only if I stand on tip-toe)
Dimensions/Turn Radius: 133-92-116 / 18m @174cm 
Camber: Traditional
Binding: K12 CTI (re-branded Marker demo with "Royals" style toe; older style heel with the patented Kastle "auto-discolor" feature)
Mount point: +1cm

 

Environment & Conditions
Location of Test: Sunday River & Mt. Abram, Maine
Number of Runs: couple of dozen over 4 days
Snow Conditions: Man-made refrozen WROD-style early-season marble, fresh knee-deep medium-density "powder", later-in-the-day deep chop, skied-out but still un-transformed western-style snow several days after a minor storm, ditto groomed into soft corduroy.
Terrain encountered in test: easy groomers, moderate groomers with short steeper pitches, mild bumps, moderate bumps, shrubs, long grass, stumps, rock ledge, short convoluted off-piste steeps and drop-offs. No meaningful trees or sustained steep terrain of any kind so far.
Demo or Own: own
 
Tester Info
Username: qcanoe
Age: 51
Height/Weight: 5' 7", 135lbs.
Ski Days/Season: 30 - 40
Years Skiing: 46
Aggressiveness: Moderate(Finesse), level 8, beer leaguer
Current Quiver: 11-12 Rossi FIS GS 175cm, 08-09 Blizzard Supersonic 167cm, 11-12 Armada TST 174cm
Home Area: Saddleback, Maine
Preferred Terrain: firm groomers, soft easy bumps, trees

 

Pliant, traditional-feeling ski that likes a light, patient touch and a skier whose nose points downhill. I don't see this as being an ideal ski for Clydesdales. It's also probably not for over-rotating flailers, since its charms emerge more readily with a disciplined stance. (Oh yes, at times I absolutely tested them with flailing. Someone had to.) Attentive middle-aged folks who have put some skills in the bank over the years but who are smaller (like me) or are fading a bit in the power department (also like me) should appreciate this ski. It favors soft groomers, packed-out (but not icy) bumps, medium and long turns. Seductive snow-feel is married to a reassuring quiet demeanor at a variety of speeds. (Often in my experience, you either get snow feel or dampness, but not both.) Dawg used the phrase "terrain smoothing" in his review, which is right on the money. Under my feet, at least, this ski is not great in substantial 3D snow, nor on rock-hard eastern man-made. It's a little dive-y and stiff-feeling in knee-deep pow. On real hardpack it is, of course, slow edge-to-edge. And while edge grip is excellent even tuned at a conventional 1 / 2, the the ski feels slightly insubstantial and not quite planted on this surface, especially at lower speeds and angles.

 

Upside: In its preferred habitat, this is probably the sweetest, most gently rewarding ski I've ever been on. It has a certain "unbearable lightness of being." Energy level is superficially moderate or even low, but the ski pushes back magically with exactly the right level of pop based on what I put in, as though the flex had been custom-matched exactly to my size and strength. 

 

Downside: This ski suffers from borderline personality disorder. The clearly off-piste-oriented width can seem at odds with a stubborn insistence on keeping its nose down on the grindstone. For the LX 82 this direction might arguably make sense, given that model's primary mission on groomers. But for the 92, a modicum of early rise would seem to be in order, to help duffers like me cope with the thick stuff more easily. Heck, even my GS skis have early rise now. (No doubt this explains the recent addition of some tip rocker on the FX 94 and elimination of the LX 92 from the lineup.)

 

Conclusion: The net effect of all this is a ski that is utterly brilliant for a person of my size and ability, but only in a somewhat narrow range of conditions by east coast standards. I have never been to Sun Valley, but I imagine that the typically soft but not necessarily deep snow, combined with the numerous wide-open groomers and bump runs, would make that resort the perfect home for the LX 92 and its sunny disposition.

 

[I have more detail written up on my experiences with this ski in specific conditions, but will only bore you with it if you PM me or otherwise clamor.]

 

 

NEXT DAY EDIT: 

 

A friend saw my review and said, in effect, "Wow, you really didn't like those skis, huh?" Actually I do like the skis. So I re-read my post from last night and can see that it comes across as more negative than I intended. 

 

The 92 is a great ski, maybe just not the very best choice for me, in the particular niche I need it to fill. This reflects a flaw in my ski selection process, not in the ski. I.e., I should probably be on something a bit narrower, as I had originally intended to do before I made this impulse purchase. I did not want to fill up the review with a long story about how I ended up on this model, and by omitting that story I took away some of the relevant context.

 

As an east coast skier, it's good to have an all-mountain ski that that is happy on really hard snow. If I'm going to sacrifice the key hard-snow parameter, as I've done with the LX, then in compensation the ski had better be awfully darn good in a wide variety of soft conditions, including heavier crud and pow. Rare is the day we don't see significant hard snow on a good part of the hill in these parts, and on those rare days I'm likely to be in the trees on my quick and (relatively) fat skis with rocker, not on what for me is a long-skiing full-camber all-mountain. We just don't get a lot of days where the whole mountain is soft but packed. Too many thaws and rainstorms for that. By contrast, if I lived in the Rockies, I would not be placing the same weight on hard-snow performance, and would probably be totally infatuated (as opposed to merely pleased) with this ski as a daily driver, since I would be using it in its preferred conditions more of the time.

 

Finally, it's still early days for me with the LX 92. I continue to find things I like about it, and am adjusting my skiing a bit to capitalize on those things. I think that's fine to do, personally, as long as I feel like the adjustments are basically good for my skiing, which in this case I do. It's part of pleasant ongoing discovery. And if I don't love it at the end of the season, some obliging Bear will surely take it off my hands for me. 


Edited by qcanoe - 1/10/14 at 7:43am

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2 of 29
Thread Starter 

See "Next Day Edit" above for updated thoughts, based on feedback received on other channels.

post #3 of 29
I like the LX92 a lot. I wish the conditions I ski on were more often those that this ski thrives on! For me it is a great soft snow ski (think fresh or not yet refrozen) that is wonderful up to around boot deep, then other skis work better for me. Handles the tracked out well enough and even works decent on soft spring corn.
I'm happy to have it available in the quiver! (about 15 hours on snow time)
post #4 of 29

nice report, do they slice thru the grass and shrubs or more of a buzz saw attack thing, you didn't really address the stump and rock ledge factor are they indestructible in that environment?

Sorry to be teasing I just found the your encountered terrain to be the stuff that makes me the happiest to ski. My favorite trails always have the same name at every mountain THIN COVER.

I need to get up to Saddleback sometime.

post #5 of 29

Totally classic line!

Quote:

I don't see this as being an ideal ski for Clydesdales. It's also probably not for over-rotating flailers, since its charms emerge more readily with a disciplined stance.

Might it's "Diving" characteristics be lessened by mounting on the line? You were at +1 right?

 

So....you're merely pleased as opposed to infatuated?

post #6 of 29

Hey Tog, I was gonna ask that question!  

post #7 of 29
Thread Starter 
Good point about the mount location. (I changed it after the wrod day.) Or it could just have to do with the fact that I'm not the greatest powder skier.

@Rossi Smash, right on the money. Very validating to hear someone else say what I was thinking.

Snowbowler, need to get on a real keyboard to respond to your question. Later.
post #8 of 29

About the title...wouldn't the LX series be Kool-Aid Light?

You don't like them enough to be a daily driver when it's snowing? (or sleeting)

post #9 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowbowler View Post
 

nice report, do they slice thru the grass and shrubs or more of a buzz saw attack thing, you didn't really address the stump and rock ledge factor are they indestructible in that environment?

Sorry to be teasing I just found the your encountered terrain to be the stuff that makes me the happiest to ski. My favorite trails always have the same name at every mountain THIN COVER.

I need to get up to Saddleback sometime.

 

Actually I had a humorous (in retrospect) incident on that one deep pow day, when the tips burrowed into a clump of dried meadow grass under the snow and I did a Superman move, ejecting instantly out of both heel pieces. Took a few minutes even to find one of the skis. Was not expecting that much snow, and never occurred to me to bring powder ribbons, since I've never actually needed them outside of REM sleep. 

 

Unfortunately I haven't been up to Saddleback yet this year - first time in many seasons that I didn't at least get up there for a day during the Christmas break, if not before. I'm sorry to report that they are off to a slow start, due to a combination of Mother Nature and Father Budget, it would appear. And this weekend's (additional) rain is probably not going to help. They desperately need a bit sticky dump.

 

No, the shrubberies were at Mt. Abram, on the "Fearless Leader" run. All the trails there are named after characters in the Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoon. Yes, really. Skiing in Maine has its shortcomings, for sure, but a sense of humor is not one of them. I am with you on the thin cover thing. A week later we skied the same run several days after a different storm had come through. The snow was more packed out, but there were still an awful lot of white crusty bits from a freeze ten days earlier, as well brown and gray bits. The Kastles handed that pretty well, all things considered.

post #10 of 29

I've had some of those falls at the Bowl a few times . It's amazing how far a ski will travel under deep pow from where you actually lose it and I hate mucking up the snow for others while trying to find my ski. Can't really fill in your divots with powder. That was a great trip report you showed from Mt. Abrams best I've seen on east coast this year.

post #11 of 29

I've only demoed the 92, but my sense of it was MX88 lite in a very good way; a better iteration for lighter skiers, nearly as planted. Better in bumps and tight places. And yep, agree about the uncanny combo of smoothness and snowfeel. Those Austrian sorcerers at it again. 

 

The tip thing I can relate to also, but I think it's an acquired taste: 

 

As far as I can glean, Kastle thinks that rocker is a very specialized item, only for skis that are meant to be used for certain particular tasks like approaching 14er's or doing 360's. Not a universal panacea for all skis over a certain width. And I have found that what they claim is true - the cutouts do facilitate turns in soft snow differently but nearly as well. So didn't get to ski the 92's in softer snow, but extrapolating from my 88's and pre-rocker 94's, I'd say that you may/may not get used to the tips riding down in the snow, rather than coming up. But if you get used to it, they turn pretty well even at moderate speeds. I never experienced tip dive, just that sense of planing along in the snow, then boom, the turn is easier than expected. 

 

But it still requires more input than actual rocker, so I suspect Kastle designers figure that's the tradeoff for superior on-piste performance. (Topic for another thread but I see the move to rockered GS skis more about longer radii and the rebirth of stivot turns than about rocker being just as effective for carving. Ain't. Close but no ceegar.) Anyway, Kastle designers seem more spiritually related to Stockli's designers than Head's, IMO, regardless of shared factory. Traditional, emphasis on design execution and quality rather than updating, pretty much loathe to hop on any particular bandwagon. Which is why I was surprised to see Stockli with rocker down to 78 mm, and Kastle coming out with the MX98 with early rise. 

 

In all honesty, I sold my older FX94's and longed on these pages for the same with rocker and a bit more dampness. Got my wish, so those in my future as my BMX98's age out. But they will be my soft snow ski. If I wanted more of a do-all with a slight frontside bias, I'd own a pair of LX92's myself. 


Edited by beyond - 1/13/14 at 10:42am
post #12 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

As far as I can glean, Kastle thinks that rocker is a very specialized item, only for skis that are meant to be used for certain particular tasks like approaching 14er's or doing 360's. Not a universal panacea for all skis over a certain width. And I have found that what they claim is true - the cutouts do facilitate turns in soft snow differently but nearly as well. So didn't get to ski the 92's in softer snow, but extrapolating from my 88's and pre-rocker 94's, I'd say that you may/may not get used to the tips riding down in the snow, rather than coming up. But if you get used to it, they turn pretty well even at moderate speeds. I never experienced tip dive, just that sense of planing along in the snow, then boom, the turn is easier than expected. 

 

 

Very interesting! I did not know that Kastle's position was that the tip / tail cutout somehow answers some of the same needs as rocker. How is that supposed to work? My question reflects curiosity, not contention, btw.

 

I probably agree with your comment that the tip doesn't dive so much as fail to rise. Neutral buoyancy, you might say. I confess that on the day I had it in a bunch of new snow, I didn't really want neutral buoyancy. I wanted something closer to a Type I offshore PFD. :D  And yes, turning is part of that picture, as is being discussed in some other thread whose title I can't remember right now. One of the things you get used to with a ski with tip rocker is that tipping DOES cause an immediate turn initiation in deep snow - not because of the sidecut, but because of the tip shape. In the case of a full-camber ski like the LX, cutout or no cutout, it seems to  me like that shape must ultimately come from bending the forebody of the ski, and that must take a little bit of pressure ... and that must take a little bit of speed. I think that's where my problem may have been, in part, on that powder day a couple weeks ago: The snow was just heavy enough and just deep enough that it was pretty darn slow, even on the trails with the most pitch. So I may not have been working up quite enough speed to get the bend-and-snap going properly. Plus, um, the skill thing.

 

Next time I know I'm going to have the skis in more than a few inches of new snow - not just SOFT snow, where they're already totally awesome, as I experienced again in the tiny bit of corn I got to ski yesterday - I'll make sure to put the binding back on the line, per Tog's comment in the thread, to see if that helps with my complaint. Meanwhile, these skis are encouraging me on all surfaces to take a more slow-twitch approach to my turns in a way that doesn't come naturally, but that I'm definitely enjoying, independent from the other concerns.
 
Quote: beyond
 If I wanted more of a do-all with a slight frontside bias, I'd own a pair of LX92's myself. 

 

Yeah. But I'm wondering if you agree with me that this begs the question, "frontside of what?" Even though the tip is down on the snow, it doesn't exactly make a strong statement. I.e., it doesn't respond assertively like a carving ski when you tip it on hardpack. As Dawg and others have pointed out about certain skis, you need to be directive with it. This is fine, and is probably good for my skiing, but to me it's still a behavior that seems more suited to Beaver Creek than Waterville Valley. That's not a slam. I have skied a day at Beaver Creek ... and enjoyed it ... a lot!   

 
Quote: beyond
 (Topic for another thread but I see the move to rockered GS skis more about longer radii and the rebirth of stivot turns than about rocker being just as effective for carving. Ain't. Close but no ceegar.)

Don't know about that one way or another. I'm not doing any intentional stivots to earn my beer, that's for sure! :o But I can feel the rocker on my GS skis very clearly. It bugs me sometimes when I just want to say "engage," in my best Patrick Stewart imperative. But other times I suspect that same lack of immediacy is actually  helping me be "soft" - and therefore presumably fast - with the ski, when I need to be focused on gliding or on modulating in and out of edge lock. I'm not getting yanked into mini-turns at low angles by every little surface inconsistency, even when the skis are not perfectly flat. That's my early subjective report anyway. Have you been on a race ski with this design?

post #13 of 29

Can we have a sound video of you doing your Patrick Stewart imitation?

 

Meanwhile in no real order, yep I suspect that stivots are faster because you can take a more aggressive line. And yep, the non-rockered single radius Kastles require more management. I found the old FX94 more demanding than the MX88, not because of stiffness or tip but because the former has one radius, the latter two or three. And yep, something with a big wide tip like an E88 will pull into a turn more forcefully than the LX92. Of course it'll also have more of mind of its own in chop. 

 

At the end of the day, it's more about the buoyancy thing for me. Can't decide if I prefer the tip staying in the snow. Or more accurately, if that's worth putting up with for other tradeoffs. 

post #14 of 29
How about tip flap or flutter at speed on firm snow?
post #15 of 29

Naw. Never had any Kastle flap at me, LX or MX or FX or BMX. The cutout makes the tip lighter, but I'm pretty sure the metal extends around it completely. So not a soft tip, at least in terms of what's needed to confront snow. 

 

Caveat: I seldom travel in a straight line at speed. So tip is usually partly or completely engaged. 

post #16 of 29
Every Kastle I've ever skied has flutter. Including my FX84 non rockered. I'm talking in turns. It may be a perceptual thing but I'd love to do video to see.
post #17 of 29

Yeah, it may just be perceptual. Or attentional. I don't tend to watch my tips much. High speed photos of racers show the entire ski undulating, tips going crazy. In fact, only time I've ever noticed tips bouncing was actually on a WC GS ski I was introducing to some bad lines through ruts at fairly high speeds. They were moving around so much that I had to notice. :eek

post #18 of 29

You feel them man, you feel them. Staring at them can be dangerous. I do glance though. May just be me though I'd love to research it with video.

The Head SS Magnums 170 at speed in soft snow - now those were full on floppers but those things were extremely soft.

However, was talking to a college racer about downhill who was saying in pure tuck mode he's looking at the ground because it's faster. :eek 

post #19 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

Can we have a sound video of you doing your Patrick Stewart imitation?

 

Unfortunately I know from experience that both visually and aurally I resemble an aging version of Barry Livingston, as Ernie on My Three Sons, much more than I resemble Patrick Stewart. :rolleyes So the answer to your question is "no."

post #20 of 29

Hi, qcanoe! Nice review!

Funny thing, I just got off a mostly bluebird day on my Kastle LX 92s in 174, here at Copper Mt., CO, where it's mostly either soft snow of some sort or corduroy lately. (Today was 2" light new on top of 8" yesterday, 6" the day before, and so on most of the past week.)

 

Man, I lived in New Hampshire for 8 years and never got truly used to skiing on the icy hardpan there. But the people who did, boy, could they ski!

 

So far, the LX 92 has been, for me--another older, light weight guy--a wonderful ski, just wonderful, for what I want it for, at least: a Western all mountain bump ski.

To complement an all mountain frontside (fast gs carving) ski and

an all mountain powder ski. 

I don't think it would be my first choice as a one quiver ski, but....

 

I think my reactions to the ski are complementary to what you and others have said, but different too: it's great on packed snow, light powder, bumps and to a lesser extent frontside, in up to a foot maybe, including chop and soft crud. For me, it seems to initiate as fast, and better in bumps, than the rockered skis I have. dunno. Maybe because it seems to be a slalom-type ski compared to my others. But it sure can do bomb proof, fast gs turns on the frontside also (if slightly twitchy at times if it's steep and  icy? not sure.) 

 

It doesn't seem to be as good an Eastern as a Western ski, seems like. 

But maybe also my wild like of this ski just shows my ignorance of Western-biased bump skis for normal folks with some skills. Are there really better skis than this out there for Western bumps? Please tell me if there are! (Besides something like Hart F-17s, which I couldn't ski anyway.)

Maybe the new Kastle FX 94?

post #21 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski otter View Post
 

Funny thing, I just got off a mostly bluebird day on my Kastle LX 92s in 174, here at Copper Mt., CO, where it's mostly either soft snow of some sort or corduroy lately. (Today was 2" light new on top of 8" yesterday, 6" the day before, and so on most of the past week.)

 

Man, I lived in New Hampshire for 8 years and never got truly used to skiing on the icy hardpan there. But the people who did, boy, could they ski!

 

So far, the LX 92 has been, for me--another older, light weight guy--a wonderful ski, just wonderful, for what I want it for, at least: a Western all mountain bump ski.

To complement an all mountain frontside (fast gs carving) ski and

an all mountain powder ski. 

I don't think it would be my first choice as a one quiver ski, but....

 

I think my reactions to the ski are complementary to what you and others have said, but different too: it's great on packed snow, light powder, bumps and to a lesser extent frontside, in up to a foot maybe, including chop and soft crud. For me, it seems to initiate as fast, and better in bumps, than the rockered skis I have. dunno. Maybe because it seems to be a slalom-type ski compared to my others. But it sure can do bomb proof, fast gs turns on the frontside also (if slightly twitchy at times if it's steep and  icy? not sure.) 

 

It doesn't seem to be as good an Eastern as a Western ski, seems like. 

But maybe also my wild like of this ski just shows my ignorance of Western-biased bump skis for normal folks with some skills. Are there really better skis than this out there for Western bumps? Please tell me if there are! (Besides something like Hart F-17s, which I couldn't ski anyway.)

Maybe the new Kastle FX 94?

 

Hey Ski Otter. Yes, we clearly are in agreement about this ski's behaviors, just coming at it from different perspectives. 

 

For context, last night I was at the local area with the usual Wednesday night gang. The good news was that there was still a slippery light-colored frozen substance covering the hill. Since it's been in the 30 - 45 degree range for days now, we were figuring it would be slushy or at least corn-y. Therefore I put the LXs in the roof box. They never saw starlight. In the event, the mountain was more like a tilted cinder block that someone had sprayed with a garden hose, then thrown in the freezer, then passed over lightly with a stiff tooth brush. With this current state of affairs in mind, your casual account from Copper of

 

Quote:

mostly either soft snow of some sort or corduroy lately. (Today was 2" light new on top of 8" yesterday, 6" the day before, and so on most of the past week.)

 

is falling on ears that are inclined to respond crustily, "that's very nice for you". Of course that grouchiness reflects my deep envy.

 

Anyway, I totally agree that the LX 92 has a flex that is really, really sweet in the bumps - at least in the easy-to-moderate bumps that I have had them in so far. Can't wait to experience more soft snow days on these boards.

 

Also makes sense to me that you emphasize their capability in "light powder" (your words and emphasis). The pow I struggled in slightly with them was deeper than a foot (by a bit) and was not notably light by west coast standards.

post #22 of 29
Quote:
  In the event, the mountain was more like a tilted cinder block that someone had sprayed with a garden hose, then thrown in the freezer, then passed over lightly with a stiff tooth brush.

my God! :) 

 

One of the only times I was in Maine was in mud season, total melt off, raining day after day, seemed like acres and acres of chocolate pudding used as a wet planting medium in an operation that had gotten very messy. Very gooey. Heading for Augusta. Ha!

 

The snow conditions here are unusual, almost dream-like, even for CO. Especially this early in the season. Normally it doesn't snow in January much, only gets colder and wind blown. 

post #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski otter View Post
 

 

The snow conditions here are unusual, almost dream-like, even for CO. Especially this early in the season. Normally it doesn't snow in January much, only gets colder and wind blown.

 

Rub it in a bit! (ha) You can thank the jet stream express for delivering our snow from the Northwest to you in Co. You're welcome, meh. Send some back our way! It's getting ugly out here.

post #24 of 29

Can an expert 250 pound skier enjoy the LX 92? or will I need more ski?

 

Looking for a Colorado ski for when the snow is not great and for bumps.

 

I have a pair of bigger skis for powder

post #25 of 29

You will likely need more ski. Think about the FX94 in the longest length. 

post #26 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
 

With this current state of affairs in mind, your casual account from Copper of

 

is falling on ears that are inclined to respond crustily, "that's very nice for you". 

This is actually a very reserved way of putting it. Wars have started over terms like "dream-like," when applied to natural resources not shared. 

post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Kid View Post
 

Can an expert 250 pound skier enjoy the LX 92? or will I need more ski?

 

Looking for a Colorado ski for when the snow is not great and for bumps.

 

I have a pair of bigger skis for powder

 More ski: that is one of the softer Kastles.  Great for lightweights though.  I would say MX98 in 184cm or FX94 in 186. MX88 in 188cm might be the best choice of all, especially if you have wider skis.  Even the MX83 in 183cm may be just the ticket; that ski really gets to a point where it grips about 85-90% well as a full-on carver, but is much more versatile. 

post #28 of 29
Quote:
 This is actually a very reserved way of putting it. Wars have started over terms like "dream-like," when applied to natural resources not shared. 

Man, I wish I could. I was hoping all that arctic weather hitting the East Coast would send some good snow your way!

 

Quote:
 

Can an expert 250 pound skier enjoy the LX 92? or will I need more ski?

 

Looking for a Colorado ski for when the snow is not great and for bumps.

 

I have a pair of bigger skis for powder

 From what I understand, the LX was designed as a lightweight trekking and mountaineering ski, but it also works for others, mostly of lighter weight; including the manager of Podium Sports, retail, tune and demo Shop in Frisco, near Copper.  

 

Also, the LX 92 has apparently been discontinued. Only remnants are still available here and there as "on sale" last year's skis and for demo, including at Podium (probably in shorter lengths). 

Quote:
 More ski: that is one of the softer Kastles.  Great for lightweights though.  I would say MX98 in 184cm or FX94 in 186. MX88 in 188cm might be the best choice of all, especially if you have wider skis.  Even the MX83 in 183cm may be just the ticket; that ski really gets to a point where it grips about 85-90% well as a full-on carver, but is much more versatile. 

 

Dawgcatching would have a much better selection of Kastle models that would work for you--and me--than Podium has. I wish his shop were located nearby in Colorado!

 

Unfortunately, Podium has only a limited selection of the Kastle line. But they definitely have the FX 94 for demo, in some lengths. 

 

I'm not sure where you are, but for the front range and Summit County, the two most convenient nearby places that I've found that demo a part of the Kastle line are Podium Sports and Bent Gate in Golden, which I haven't been to yet, only phoned. 

Bent Gate is having a demo day at Loveland on Feb. 9th, I believe. They told me $40 for lift ticket plus as many demos as you can fit in. They are back country oriented, so the bindings on their skis work for both alpine and trekking boots. 

I don't know what if any Kastles they might have for demo this year. 

 

If someone knows of another nearby place to demo Kastles, please let me know. 

(Besides Aspen, Steamboat and Telluride. :))

 

 

post #29 of 29
Thread Starter 
Update: Spent the last two days skiing hard on these boards at Snowbasin and Snowbird with the Gathering. Lots of lightweght steep crud, with a few bumps, trees, and groomers thrown in. They are really confidence inspiring in these conditions. You have to drive them, though; no cruise control. Quite a few Bears can attest to the size of my grin today on multiple occasions. Not that the ski was a primary factor ... but it didn't hurt.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews

Gear mentioned in this thread:

EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Kastle LX 92 - Tasting the White Kool-Aid