or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › ski buying help kastle lx92
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ski buying help kastle lx92

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 

I found a great deal on Kastle lx92 skis but don't know what length to buy, 174 or 184. I'm an intermediate level skier, (mostly groomers, just getting comfortable with black runs) 5'11" and 192 lbs, and fit for my age - 57. Have chronic knee problems and wonder if it would be wise to get the shorter skis. Any advice.

post #2 of 10
The Clymb, right?

I'm 5' 7" 135 and ski the 174. Slightly long in the bumps, maybe, for a full camber ski. Otherwise about right. Not a particularly stiff ski. Maybe that will help. If you still want the 174, ping me.
post #3 of 10

It looks to me like you would be right between those two lengths. As an intermediate, my opinion would be for you to pick the 174s. Unless you ski imprudently fast on the groomers, the additional stability offered by the additional length would be less useful to you than the "playfulness" factor and additional maneuverability of the shorter length. For reference, a friend of mine, who is an advanced skier at about 6'0" and about 200# was very happy on a 174 cm pair of Kastles from The Boot Doctor in Telluride's rental fleet. He at first had misgivings at that length recommended by the tech, but after his first run never gave it another thought for the week.

 

BTW, qcanoe forgot to mention that he is an advanced skier.;) 

post #4 of 10
The 184 is too long in my opinion. I vacillated a long time on those two lengths and ultimately decided I was squarely in the middle. Hence the reason I own a 180cm LX82.

Are you planning to migrate more off piste? Where and what kind of terrain? Buying a short(ish) ski of any type may not fit that goal (unless it is just bumps and tight spaces) just as buying a long fully cambered ski probably doesn't fit that goal, either (even with the light nature of the LX series, 184cm of fully cambered, metal layered ski is not something you see that many people choosing).

So yea, get the 174 if you want this ski.
post #5 of 10

I am 5'9" 175 lbs and happily skied the LX92 174cm for a couple seasons.

I took them out west and to Europe on a couple trips, and never felt they were too short.

 

I assume your deal is at The Clymb where they are currently only $299 for 174 / 184

Tough to pass on that price !

 

- Andy

post #6 of 10
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the feedback! ~~The other reason I was thinking of going shorter is I have chronic knee (and ankle) issues. I thought a shorter ski might be easier on the joints, but I don’t really know if that is true. I'm in pretty good shape for my age but my knees aren't getting any younger. That said, I've never owned skis shorter than 180, and some irrational part of my mind tells me I'd be "wimping out" to go shorter. After all your comments, I feel better about the 174s.

Yes, I'm talking about the Clymb deal.

qcanoe, I don't know what ping me means.

Greg

post #7 of 10

I'm about your weight and would recommend the 174 given  your stated ski ability. Unless you love high speed cruising, the shorter lengths turn easier and are easier to ski. With respect to knee pain, my experience is that stiffer skis cause my knees to ache more, the LX 92 is not a stiff ski. Also, your ski technique plays a big factor, if you are always back in you stance, the knees absorb a lot of stress. Still, wider skis should be more demanding to put on edge than a narrower ski, if knee pain is major factor, I'd consider going to something around 80 waist.

 

I think @Qcanoe is telling you that he has a pair of LX 92 in 174 and that he is interested in selling them. Ping means to send him a Personal Message via Epic. He does take very good care of his equipment, I stayed with him during a week in Utah this season, and, each night his skis got love and attention.

post #8 of 10
Thanks, @Living Proof. The OP and I continued the conversation off channel. Maybe YOU want to buy my skis. smile.gif


Meanwhile PM me with your snail mail address because I still owe you a little money.
post #9 of 10

5'11" and 165 here.  59 y/o, very fit for age, and been skiing for 50 years.  Ski the LX92 in a 174 and never felt it to be too short.

post #10 of 10
Thread Starter 

Thanks guys. I took your advice and ordered the 174s. Qcanoe, my bindings are still good to go, so I'll have to pass on your offer, but thank you. All this feedback has been enormously helpful!

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 › ski buying help kastle lx92