or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Rev 85, Experience 88, Brahma or maybe.... a Rev 80???????
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rev 85, Experience 88, Brahma or maybe.... a Rev 80??????? - Page 4

post #91 of 104

New to posting here but have been a long time lurker.  I can't say that I have ever really paid too much attention to the ski size selectors.  I am 57, 205 lbs. 5'9" tall, east coast skier (Wildcat, Cannon, Attitash Sunday River for the most part), skiing since my mid 20's and am somewhat advanced although I would not consider an expert by any means. 

 

I found this whole height versus weight thread to be fascinating. I am currently shopping for a mid fat to add to my collection (which is how I found this thread). Depending on the rocker I'll be looking for something 175 to 180'sh in length that will have a little more float than what I have now.  Currently I am skiing on a pair on a pair of of Atomic Crimson Ti's 164's and a pair of Salomon Tornado Ti's that are 173's (my main ski). The Atomics are fun to play with because they are so short and have such a short radius; I use them mostly in bumps and in the glades. As you can imagine they get pretty squirrely when I let them run. I love the Salomons on hard pack...  They are fast edge to edge but are still stable at full speed. When I demo'd the Salomons I tried both the 173 and the 180. For me they felt very different.. the shorter ski felt snappier and more playful, more of what I was looking for at the time. It was an eye opener for me. Point is I think the ski length depends on what you are looking for... the length in the charts are only a starting point. Height & weight both come into play but what matters most is what you like. I am probably going to end up with 3 different skis with 3 lengths.. and I am ok with that.

post #92 of 104

What gets me about the Kästle finder is the experience selector.  It's a big jump from intermediate to expert.

post #93 of 104
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

Edit (no longer on phone UI): To put this in context with an example, the LX 72 170cm is the LONGEST SIZE in that model. It's designed to be skied short, by smaller, less aggressive skiers, on groomers. So their wizard is actually sizing you UP on that model, even though its absolute length is shorter than the others. In other words, you're probably too big for it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

Suggest you check the length of the available models within each line before declaring Kastle's confusing.

 

It's been an education.  I understand what you guys are saying.  It makes more sense when you consider what you guys point out.  

 

What seems odd, is that they suggest a 170 cm LX72 and a 178cm MX78 in the same breath, so to speak.  Now, I know very little about Kastle skis, but nearly every review I've read suggest that the whole LX line is for lightweight skiers or women.  At 205 lbs, I wouldn't consider myself lightweight.  So I guess the product finder decided that my experience level trumped my weight... no?  The 178 MX78 seems more in line with a suggestion I might get on here from members.  I just think if they're going to suggest a 170 cm LX72, then a more comparable ski to that in the MX78 line would be the 168 cm ski.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

But I think you should shoot the president of Kastle an email about this. ;) 

 

Hahahaha!  Will let you know what they say.

post #94 of 104
Thread Starter 

Email I sent to Kastle USA and their home office ....

 

"I’ve used the product finder on the Kastle site and would like some clarification.

 

I’m an intermediate skier, 6’ tall and 205 lbs., looking for an all mountain ski. I notice your product selector uses both height and weight. Most of the other manufacturers use just height.

 

Why do you guys use both? Is it more accurate?"

 

---

 

Response from Kastle USA... still waiting for a response from the Austrian folks.

 

It's from a sales and marketing guy, so... I don't know if this would be their official stance.

 

---

 

"We use weight to help determine how stiff of model you should select.  The simplest way to break it down, all of our stuff skis the whole mountain well.

 

MX all mountain front, mid radius, camber, MX88 178

 

FX all mountain, metal, early rise, short radius, FX94 176

 

BMX all mountain, no metal, early rise, long radius, BMX108 178

 

Also have LX which is a lighter version of MX.

 

All ski great, let me know if you have any more questions."

post #95 of 104
Thread Starter 

From Austria... (same email as sent to kastle usa)

 

 

"Hello Jon,

 

thank you for your e-mail and your interest in our products! KÄSTLE uses height in combination with weight to give a better recommendation to our consumers. We offer different constructions (and different wood cores) which directly have an impact to the stability of the ski. KÄSTLE does not offer Men and Women Ski models because we are thinking about skis for light weight to heavy skiers. A light weight skier (most of the time women) has other requests on a ski than heavy weight skiers.

 

Due to your short explanation I would recommend you models of the MX or FX line. These constructions are made for powerful and sporty riders. Concerning sidecut I would recommend e.g. MX88 or FX94.

 

Hope we could welcome you soon in the KÄSTLE Family!

 

Kind regards,

 

Your KÄSTLE Team"

post #96 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtViking View Post
 

 

 

"We use weight to help determine how stiff of model you should select.  ....

 

I do like this.

 

Although, I finally skied Kästle this week (I have been studiously avoiding them for some years, as I don't need to buy more skis, even though I do anyway), a 176 MX78 and a 178 FX94. I wouldn't have wanted either any shorter, although the product finder did recommend one or even two sizes down for me! blech. 

post #97 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post
 
Although, I finally skied Kästle this week ... a 176 MX78 and a 178 FX94

 

So, you bothered to find an umlaut but couldn't be troubled to share your impressions of the actual skis? Waiting for a personal invitation? Just because we've all heard what Thing 1 and Thing 2 (and 3 and 4) have to say doesn't mean we don't care what you thought. You've been on a lot of skis. Not looking for a novel. Curious, is all.

post #98 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
 

 

So, you bothered to find an umlaut but couldn't be troubled to share your impressions of the actual skis? Waiting for a personal invitation? Just because we've all heard what Thing 1 and Thing 2 (and 3 and 4) have to say doesn't mean we don't care what you thought. You've been on a lot of skis. Not looking for a novel. Curious, is all.

:)  Umlaut is way easier, just hold down the "a" key for a few seconds.

 

I liked the skis a lot. Trying to forget about them now. I was in Aspen, but I'm not anymore. ;)

post #99 of 104
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post
 

 

I do like this.

 

Although, I finally skied Kästle this week (I have been studiously avoiding them for some years, as I don't need to buy more skis, even though I do anyway), a 176 MX78 and a 178 FX94. I wouldn't have wanted either any shorter, although the product finder did recommend one or even two sizes down for me! blech. 

 

From Austria... post #95 follow-up.  Merely asked them what length they suggest.

 

"Dear Jon,

 

I would suggest length MX88 178 or FX94 176.

 

Kind regards Your KÄSTLE Team"

 

They suggest longer (and possibly more advanced) skis when I asked them about length in an email, as compared to their product finder.  I didn't provide many details... 6', 205, intermediate.  Anyway, thought you might find that interesting.

 

I'll compile a post that has the manufacturers suggested skis and lengths.  Might help someone out as they sometimes don't jive with the online tools. 

post #100 of 104

I demoed the Rossi Exp 88 in both 170 and 178 lengths and preferred the 178. That size is pretty hard to find at a good price but I went ahead and purchased them for $449. Rossi recommends their Axium 120 L bindings for that ski. The fellow I was dealing with over the phone says that using their bindings doubles the warranty.

 

I'm  a 6'-0" and 165 lbs intermediate skier but I have ambitions to get a whole lot better next year with 30 plus days to play with. What makes me nervous is that me and Dirt Viking are the same height but 40 lbs apart and we both decided on 178's.

post #101 of 104
Fuller, you should be absolutely fine
post #102 of 104

What's done is done..thanks for making me feel better!  :beercheer:

post #103 of 104

I'm exactly your weight and height, prefer skis that width in 175-180; if you plan to improve your mechanics you'll be a lot happier on these than the 170's. All good. 

post #104 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuller View Post

What makes me nervous is that me and Dirt Viking are the same height but 40 lbs apart and we both decided on 178's.

That's because you are the same height wink.gif.

The only thing to be nervous about is whether you are using a ski with flex and shape not ideally suited for you.
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 › Rev 85, Experience 88, Brahma or maybe.... a Rev 80???????