or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Anybody ski both the 2013 and 2014 FX94? If so how do they compare?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anybody ski both the 2013 and 2014 FX94? If so how do they compare?

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 

I own the 2013 FX94 and it is a killer ski.  However since they changed it a bit for 2014 just wondering if anyone out there has had the chance to ski both and if the changes have made it ski differently?  If so how so?  I know the changes are at the tail, early rise and the metal sheets are a tad thicker.  I love my FX94 but thought it could be little floatier in powder.  Not that it is super important because I also own the Cochise and Atomic Automatic for deep days.  However thinking that the early rise might help in crud and in the bumps as well.  With the blowout sales going on wondering if I should buy the 2014.  Any help would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

Chuck

post #2 of 23

I owned the 2012 FX94, just bought (but haven't mounted) the 2014. My hunch is that the early rise will help them a bit in crud and chop, but cannot directly comment. And it's a very modest rise, and there's more metal, so a touch heavier and no tail cutout; these aren't suddenly powder skis. Suggest a search on "FX94" Several detailed comparative threads here and in Gear Review Forums. If you still have questions, PM Dawgcatching. 

post #3 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

I owned the 2012 FX94, just bought (but haven't mounted) the 2014. So know your point, but cannot directly comment. Do a search on "FX94" Several detailed comparative threads here and in Gear Review Forums. If you still have questions, PM Dawgcatching. 

 

I did I didn't see any specific threads asking my question of comparing '13 to '14 FX94's.  I have seen threads comparing the FX's to other skis just not to each other.

post #4 of 23
post #5 of 23
Thread Starter 

 

Thanks.  I did read that before posting my question.  However the only thing I saw that mentioned comparing the '13 to the '14 FX94 was when Phil said he liked the '14 a tad more.  There wasn't any elaboration on it.  Most likely will just keep skiing my 2013 FX94 but am curious how different the '14 is.

post #6 of 23

Last spring, when Dawg did his reviews of upcoming 2014 models, he talked more about the point by point comparisons. Do a search, sift though the threads like we all do, pick out the nuggets. 

post #7 of 23

This came up as the top item in a search for "FX94." Has the comparisons you ask for. :rolleyes http://www.epicski.com/t/119164/2014-kastle-fx94-video-review

post #8 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by procos View Post
 

 

Thanks.  I did read that before posting my question.  However the only thing I saw that mentioned comparing the '13 to the '14 FX94 was when Phil said he liked the '14 a tad more.  There wasn't any elaboration on it.  Most likely will just keep skiing my 2013 FX94 but am curious how different the '14 is.

 

I like the bit more solid feel through the turn that the non-Hollowtech tail delivers, I didn't notice the addition of (minimal) early rise. Is it better? Yeah, a tad. Enough to toss your current FX to the curb or relegate them to rock ski status? No. 

post #9 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

This came up as the top item in a search for "FX94." Has the comparisons you ask for. :rolleyes http://www.epicski.com/t/119164/2014-kastle-fx94-video-review

 

You know what dude just stay out of my posts.  You always come in and act like a jerk.  I did a search and didn't find anything.  You really think you know everything and you don't.  So how about this.  Next time I post something just avoid my post.  I really don't need your smart ass comments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

I like the bit more solid feel through the turn that the non-Hollowtech tail delivers, I didn't notice the addition of (minimal) early rise. Is it better? Yeah, a tad. Enough to toss your current FX to the curb or relegate them to rock ski status? No. 

Thanks Phil for the response without being a jerk like beyond. I truly appreciate the reply.
post #10 of 23
I was also considering getting a pair of this year's and retiring '11-12's. After some reading, I decided not to make a hasty decision until I get a chance to demo them.

What I'm gathering is:
1. 2014 is less (or different) of a carver as the tip rocker is a bit vague to initiate; but better maneuverability on all mountain overall.
2. stiffer/heavier so worse on soft snow than before: more stable through imperfect and hard snow.

Check out these two threads. On the first thread, there are Q&A comparing old and new. Read the second thread for the OP's review on the old.
http://www.epicski.com/t/119164/2014-kastle-fx94-video-review/30

http://www.epicski.com/t/114618/kastle-2013-ski-line-overview-and-reviews
post #11 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nochaser View Post

I was also considering getting a pair of this year's and retiring '11-12's. After some reading, I decided not to make a hasty decision until I get a chance to demo them.

What I'm gathering is:
1. 2014 is less (or different) of a carver as the tip rocker is a bit vague to initiate; but better maneuverability on all mountain overall.
2. stiffer/heavier so worse on soft snow than before: more stable through imperfect and hard snow.

Check out these two threads. On the first thread, there are Q&A comparing old and new. Read the second thread for the OP's review on the old.
http://www.epicski.com/t/119164/2014-kastle-fx94-video-review/30

http://www.epicski.com/t/114618/kastle-2013-ski-line-overview-and-reviews

Thanks a lot that was very helpful. Have decided to forget buying the new FX's and enjoy mine. Sitting in the airport getting ready for a plane to take me to Park City. Can't wait. 3 days at PC, 1 at Snowbird and 1 at Alta.
post #12 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by nochaser View Post

I was also considering getting a pair of this year's and retiring '11-12's. After some reading, I decided not to make a hasty decision until I get a chance to demo them.

What I'm gathering is:
1. 2014 is less (or different) of a carver as the tip rocker is a bit vague to initiate; but better maneuverability on all mountain overall.
2. stiffer/heavier so worse on soft snow than before: more stable through imperfect and hard snow.

Check out these two threads. On the first thread, there are Q&A comparing old and new. Read the second thread for the OP's review on the old.
http://www.epicski.com/t/119164/2014-kastle-fx94-video-review/30

http://www.epicski.com/t/114618/kastle-2013-ski-line-overview-and-reviews

Didn't find any vagueness initiating at all and the thing can rip some pretty good arcs in softish groomers. Didn't have it on solid groomers.

It maybe a little different than the old initiating since those have camber to the ends of the earth.

There is definitely more power in the tail of the new.

 

Bottom line is the old has a unique feeling which imo has been lost somewhat in the new, but the new is a better overall performer for what most people do. If you love the old, you should not just switch blindly to the new but demo it and see how much of the feel of the old you want to hang onto.

post #13 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by procos View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

This came up as the top item in a search for "FX94." Has the comparisons you ask for. :rolleyes http://www.epicski.com/t/119164/2014-kastle-fx94-video-review

 

You know what dude just stay out of my posts.  You always come in and act like a jerk.  I did a search and didn't find anything.  You really think you know everything and you don't.  So how about this.  Next time I post something just avoid my post.  I really don't need your smart ass comments.


Thanks Phil for the response without being a jerk like beyond. I truly appreciate the reply.

Wasn't aware it was being a jerk to suggest a search, or point out a very simple search produced a hit that answered your questions. We do that routinely to new posters. But you're not so new, thus the emoticon was meant to suggest that we are not your humble librarians, our time is worth something too, and there's virtue to digging out stuff yourself. But for sure, happy to stay out of your posts. Oh, and suggest you avoid other sites like TGR, where the suggestions would have been a lot more graphic...;)

post #14 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by procos View Post

Thanks a lot that was very helpful. Have decided to forget buying the new FX's and enjoy mine. Sitting in the airport getting ready for a plane to take me to Park City. Can't wait. 3 days at PC, 1 at Snowbird and 1 at Alta.
You may get very tempted when you see a pair in person. I did when I saw a demo pair in Alta. I may get a used or demo pair at the end of the season. My old FX is already beat up pretty bad with some bad gouges, edge damages, etc.--glad it was a demo pair. Otherwise, it would've been heart breaking to see brand new skis taking so much punishment.... Have fun in SLC/PC.

@tog
Maybe vague wasn't the right word..."different initiation" perhaps. I haven't skied them yet so it's all speculation based on others opinion at this point...therefore should be taken with a grain of salt.
post #15 of 23

The early rise is so subtle on the second generation that I would't even call it a FX 2.0 but more a FX1.2. I noticed more change from the tail than the tip or even the slight change in the metal laminate. 

post #16 of 23

I have skied both - demoed the '13 last March at Alta, bought the '14 last December. That's a bit of a time gap to do a direct comparison, but what I can recall is that you do feel the heft of the thicker metal layer in the new model. It's a bit more of a crudbuster than it was, which is what I was looking for. No real improvement in powder, high speed stability has improved. I don't really feel like turn initiation is any worse with the early rise, though in fairness I am much more used to my '14s after a season on them than my one demo on the '13s.

 

Given that you are looking mainly for more float, I think you are making a good choice sticking with what you have. The early rise is a helpful addition but doesn't work miracles in that area. They are both excellent, incredibly versatile skis and while I think the new one is an improvement, it's not so great to warrant an upgrade if you have the older one.

post #17 of 23

In a nutshell:

 

2014 is a bit more stable and damp.  The extra metal definitely adds to the fun factor at speed. It also tracks better in rough snow: not the equivalent of the MX series, but quite good.

 

The flatter tail completes the turn better.  It adds something to the feel of the ski. 

 

The new tip seems to get onto edge easier than the old model; turning and maneuvering is much easier, the ski can be arced into tighter spaces. The new ski seems slightly more technical. I didn't notice much of a difference in float: it is more ease of use in crud. 

 

Overall, the changes are significant. With that said, the older model was a great ski too.  Is the current model 15% better?  Probably, for how I ski.  The former model was one of the top 8 all-mountain skis on the market though, definitely not chopped liver. 

post #18 of 23
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all the replies. This thread has really given me a sense of the differences between the two models. I have my Automatics for deep stuff, my Cochise for crud busting and hard charging and I use my current FX 94's for 2-4" of new snow or no new snow days. I also love my FX's for bumps and steeps. So I really don't need the 2014 FX94's. However you know how it goes when you see a new pair of skis you start lusting. Maybe I can find a pair of '14's to demo while at the Bird or Alta. If so that would be cool. Again thanks to everyone for all the info it is appreciated.
post #19 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by procos View Post

Thanks for all the replies. This thread has really given me a sense of the differences between the two models. I have my Automatics for deep stuff, my Cochise for crud busting and hard charging and I use my current FX 94's for 2-4" of new snow or no new snow days. I also love my FX's for bumps and steeps. So I really don't need the 2014 FX94's. However you know how it goes when you see a new pair of skis you start lusting. Maybe I can find a pair of '14's to demo while at the Bird or Alta. If so that would be cool. Again thanks to everyone for all the info it is appreciated.

Nope.

You might however need the 2014 FX 104's.....:)

That's two birds with one stone. Filling in the gaps in the quiver and going for the new layup. Double the savings.

post #20 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

Nope.
You might however need the 2014 FX 104's.....smile.gif
That's two birds with one stone. Filling in the gaps in the quiver and going for the new layup. Double the savings.

One of my best friends was Chris Davenports roomate in college at CU in the early. '90's and they are still really close friends. He just got the 104's and loves them. My buddy is an incredible skier. He does all his skiing at Alta. I skied with him in February but he isn't sure he can get off work Friday to meet. But if he does I can try his 104's. He just got them last week. He has skied the Bodacious the past 2 years and just told me yesterday that he loves the 104's. Hopefully he can ski Friday and I can demo them.
post #21 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

Nope.
You might however need the 2014 FX 104's.....smile.gif
That's two birds with one stone. Filling in the gaps in the quiver and going for the new layup. Double the savings.

However after reading reviews on the FX104 I think I have that ski covered with my Cochise. I love the way the Cochise blast through the crud and it pivots so easy through bumps, steeps and trees. Only issue I have with it is it can be a tad heavy. Not sure if the FX104 in 174 is lighter or not. My Cochise is the 177. I think my Autos are heavier than my Cochise but they seem lighter for some reason. If the Autos just worked a tad better on the groomers getting back to the chairlift it would be the only ski I'd ever need out west. It is my most confident inspiring ski I own. Just not the most fun on cruiser which I ski 20% of the time that I am on the hill.

Nope just checked according to Kastle website FX104 in 174 weighs 2140 grams and according to Dawgcatching site a 177 Cochise weighs 2125. So the FX104 is heavier. Pretty surprising.
post #22 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by procos View Post


However after reading reviews on the FX104 I think I have that ski covered with my Cochise. I love the way the Cochise blast through the crud and it pivots so easy through bumps, steeps and trees. Only issue I have with it is it can be a tad heavy. Not sure if the FX104 in 174 is lighter or not. My Cochise is the 177. I think my Autos are heavier than my Cochise but they seem lighter for some reason. If the Autos just worked a tad better on the groomers getting back to the chairlift it would be the only ski I'd ever need out west. It is my most confident inspiring ski I own. Just not the most fun on cruiser which I ski 20% of the time that I am on the hill.

Nope just checked according to Kastle website FX104 in 174 weighs 2140 grams and according to Dawgcatching site a 177 Cochise weighs 2125. So the FX104 is heavier. Pretty surprising.

 

The Cochise is floatier than the 104; it seems to have a smaller sweet spot and be a bit more wide open. The 104 feels quicker than the Cochise for sure.  If skiing a big open bowl and I could ski as fast as I wanted, the Cochise would be the better ski; it really works when you have space to let it run (at least comparing 185 Cochise to 184 FX104). For dicey areas and lots of typical skied out resort conditions, the 104 is the ticket, it is easier and more nimble. 

 

I can weigh the 104 Thursday. Having picked up many pair, as well as the Cochise, the Cochise feels like a pretty heavy ski in comparison.  

 

The FX104 has the potential to be the ultimate 1SQ for western skiers who roam mostly off-piste, only if the sizing didn't have that huge gap.  It would be sweet if it came in 180. 

post #23 of 23
Thread Starter 
After reading your response Dawg the FX104 is 1 of 2 skis I am thinking of adding next year. The other being the Atomic Automatic 109. I love my 117 Auto and think the 109 might be a perfect fit. The flex on the Auto's is perfect for how I like to ski. Just seems a tad to fat for a everyday driver. Hoping to demo both at some point next year. Or maybe on this trip.
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 › Anybody ski both the 2013 and 2014 FX94? If so how do they compare?