or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should I get new skis?

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 

I've been skiing Head IC160's, length 164, for the past 11 years.  I get out 5-6 times a year, hoping to go more this next year.  I mostly ski at a local hill in Oregon.  Rarely make it over to Mt Bachelor.  I like to ski off-piste and bumps whenever possible.  Bumps are a rare treat.  More often I'm in thicker, heavier snow.  I still spend a fair amount of time on the groomers keeping my wife company ;).  I like to think I am a strong intermediate skier.  I'm 5' 4", 130# and 49 yrs young.

 

Been reading a lot, especially Dawgcatching's reviews.  The Kastle FX94 sounds like a great western ski.  With my size I was wondering if the FX84 might be a better choice.  I've been told that due to my size a narrower ski would be like a wider ski on an average sized person.  Also I'm not sure what length to try.  I haven't had any chance to demo skis.  I've enjoyed my current skis but the lure of new skis has me.  Has technology improved enough that I would notice a difference?  I think my skis do well on groomed slopes.  It is rougher in choppy snow. 

 

Another thought, I can find the FX94 size 166 in a demo for about 1/2 the price of the FX84.  Maybe that would be the way to go.

 

Any ideas would be appreciated.

post #2 of 23
The 94s will be a revelation.

Absolutely get new skis.
post #3 of 23

Welcome to EpicSki.  I'm about 5'8" and 150 pounds and rarely ski anything other than 170cm Nordica Steadfast(90mm) or 174cm Atomic Ritual(103mm).  I ski pretty much exclusively in the Rocky Mountains so my snow is a bit different from yours.  If it were me and I was in your boots, I don't know that I would go as wide as 94mm for an everyday ski  I have skied my Steadfasts in 20+" of Rocky Mountain powder.  It was more work than I really care to do so I bought the Atomic Rituals for the deep stuff.  At your size you ought to be pretty happy with something around 90mm, like the Steadfast, Kastle MX88 , Elan Amphibio 88 XTi or several other skis.

post #4 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post

Welcome to EpicSki.  I'm about 5'8" and 150 pounds and rarely ski anything other than 170cm Nordica Steadfast(90mm) or 174cm Atomic Ritual(103mm).  I ski pretty much exclusively in the Rocky Mountains so my snow is a bit different from yours.  If it were me and I was in your boots, I don't know that I would go as wide as 94mm for an everyday ski  I have skied my Steadfasts in 20+" of Rocky Mountain powder.  It was more work than I really care to do so I bought the Atomic Rituals for the deep stuff.  At your size you ought to be pretty happy with something around 90mm, like the Steadfast, Kastle MX88 , Elan Amphibio 88 XTi or several other skis.


 



I'm kind of thinking along the same lines as this ^

I'm 5'11" 195lbs my everyday skis is 88mm waist. I have buddies on wider skis everyday, but I'm not convinced...I have fat skis for those day's but not everyday.
Edited by Max Capacity - 5/20/14 at 9:30am
post #5 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
 

Welcome to EpicSki.  I'm about 5'8" and 150 pounds and rarely ski anything other than 170cm Nordica Steadfast(90mm) or 174cm Atomic Ritual(103mm).  I ski pretty much exclusively in the Rocky Mountains so my snow is a bit different from yours.  If it were me and I was in your boots, I don't know that I would go as wide as 94mm for an everyday ski  I have skied my Steadfasts in 20+" of Rocky Mountain powder.  It was more work than I really care to do so I bought the Atomic Rituals for the deep stuff.  At your size you ought to be pretty happy with something around 90mm, like the Steadfast, Kastle MX88 , Elan Amphibio 88 XTi or several other skis.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
 

Welcome to EpicSki.  I'm about 5'8" and 150 pounds and rarely ski anything other than 170cm Nordica Steadfast(90mm) or 174cm Atomic Ritual(103mm).  I ski pretty much exclusively in the Rocky Mountains so my snow is a bit different from yours.  If it were me and I was in your boots, I don't know that I would go as wide as 94mm for an everyday ski  I have skied my Steadfasts in 20+" of Rocky Mountain powder.  It was more work than I really care to do so I bought the Atomic Rituals for the deep stuff.  At your size you ought to be pretty happy with something around 90mm, like the Steadfast, Kastle MX88 , Elan Amphibio 88 XTi or several other skis.

 



I'm kind of thinking along the smae lnes ae this ^

I'm 5'11" 195lbs my everyday skis is 88mm waist. I have buddies on wider skis everyday, but I'm not convinced...I have fat skis for those day's but not everyday.


Thank you both for the responses and the welcome.  I was thinking the FX84 would be a better width than the 94.  What length would you guys suggest, 160 or 168?  Also any binding recommendations?

post #6 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

The 94s will be a revelation.

Absolutely get new skis.


I like revelations.  I think new skis are in order.  I'm thinking I'll surprise my wife with new skis also.  Thanks for the response.

post #7 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tweetsman View Post
 

Thank you both for the responses and the welcome.  I was thinking the FX84 would be a better width than the 94.  What length would you guys suggest, 160 or 168?  Also any binding recommendations?

According to the Kastle website, the FX84 is available in these lengths:
160, 168, 176, 184

 

Think of it this way.  Smallest person ordering will get 160.  Heaviest person ordering will get 184.  People in between wqill get 168 or 176.  But it still depends.

I'm 135 lbs, female, and am very happy with the 168.  People tell me they are too long for me, but they are wrong.  That's because of how I ski.  At 168, a little longer than what would be suggested for me at my age and weight, the FX84s are better because they are more stable at speed and in heavy glop than they would be at 160.  I like speed and glop.

 

You're light weight at 130 lbs.  If you're a hard charger, get 168.  If not, get 160.

post #8 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post
 
 I like speed and glop.

 

Considering whether this is my new signature...

 

... Meanwhile (as I consider), what is "glop" at Cannon? Is that like soft-serve ice cream at the South Pole? Is it like the Jell-O "salad" my mother-in-law makes, with mini-marshmallows and some mysterious dark-colored objects in it, that "accidentally" got left in the car all day on Christmas until it was time for dinner ... six hours later ... when it was thirteen degrees out? Just curious. It is the off-season now, right? Thread drift runs rampant. 


Edited by qcanoe - 5/19/14 at 4:39pm
post #9 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
 

 

Considering whether this is my new signature...

 

... Meanwhile (as I consider), what is "glop" at Cannon? Is that like soft-serve ice cream at the South Pole? Is it like the Jell-O "salad" my mother-in-law makes, with mini-marshmallows and some mysterious dark-colored objects in it, that "accidentally" got left in the car all day on Christmas until it was time for dinner ... six hours later ... when it is thirteen degrees out? Just curious. It is the off-season now, right? Thread drift runs rampant. 

 

... and you're no stranger!

post #10 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
....

... Meanwhile (as I consider), what is "glop" at Cannon? Is that like soft-serve ice cream at the South Pole? Is it like the Jell-O "salad" my mother-in-law makes, with mini-marshmallows and some mysterious dark-colored objects in it, that "accidentally" got left in the car all day on Christmas until it was time for dinner ... six hours later ... when it was thirteen degrees out? Just curious. It is the off-season now, right? Thread drift runs rampant. Yes.  

 

 

I'm going with soft-serve.  With marshmallows.  

post #11 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post
 

According to the Kastle website, the FX84 is available in these lengths:
160, 168, 176, 184

 

Think of it this way.  Smallest person ordering will get 160.  Heaviest person ordering will get 184.  People in between wqill get 168 or 176.  But it still depends.

I'm 135 lbs, female, and am very happy with the 168.  People tell me they are too long for me, but they are wrong.  That's because of how I ski.  At 168, a little longer than what would be suggested for me at my age and weight, the FX84s are better because they are more stable at speed and in heavy glop than they would be at 160.  I like speed and glop.

 

You're light weight at 130 lbs.  If you're a hard charger, get 168.  If not, get 160.


Thanks for the response.  My current skis are 164.  I'm not sure how these would compare.  Does height play into what length to use?  I would assume if you are taller you get more leverage.  If you don't mind my asking, how tall are you?  Are you happy with your skis?

post #12 of 23

I think you'll be happier on 160cm. Your pretty light.

 

I'm 195lbs, 5'11" and ski a 177cm Volkl Kendo as my everyday ski. I'm pretty aggressive.

post #13 of 23

I think you are on the right track with the FX84 ir even the LX82 if you must have a Kastle, the low 160-165cm range is where you should be. Other contenders as options for you...

 

Some other ideas...

Blizzard 8.0Ca- The little bit of rise in the tip and tail will be great in the bumps

Blizzard Bushwacker- a bit wider at 88 underfoot but soft flexing

Head Rev80/85- they just work well

Nordica Burner- On the stiffer side but a blems @269.00

 

Upcoming for 2015..

Nordica NRGy80- great free ride shape with compliant flex

Blizzard Cheyenne- 77mm but you might want a bit wider and slightly less demanding

 

Oh and yeah...bindings are recommended. 

post #14 of 23

If you are trying to decide between the FX84 and 94 for Oregon, with its denser snow, the 84 will give you about as much surface area as a low 90's for a typical sized guy, while the 94 would come out comparable to the low 100's. But keep in mind that surface area, width, and float are mainly relevant to enough snow where the whole ski can sink. Whether powder or heavy crud. If you predominately ski groomers, and like bumps, the 84 makes more sense and retains the ability to go off-piste when you can. The 94 makes more sense as a 50/50 (half groomed/half ungroomed) ski, where your default is to go off-piste if you can, otherwise you settle for groomed. So something to think about in terms of how often you ski those conditions, and why. (IMO, the majority of us overestimate the amount of time we actually spend on ungroomed terrain, but that's just my .02) In either ski, the 168/166 lengths respectively. 

 

And if your quest is not limited to Kastles, the Blizzard Bushwacker is a nice ski for 50/50, has a lively feel that suits lighter skiers. The Head REV85 is also a good fit for you, but a damper, calmer feel and a bit more analogous to the FX 84's in mission. Both have lower price points than Kastles and are on sale right now. 

post #15 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tweetsman View Post
 

Thanks for the response.  My current skis are 164.  I'm not sure how these would compare.  Does height play into what length to use?  I would assume if you are taller you get more leverage.  If you don't mind my asking, how tall are you?  Are you happy with your skis?

 

I am very happy with these skis.  They are quite light, and I put the lightest alpine bindings I could find on them.  For hiking any distance with them, this is great.

If you switch from 164 to 168 you won't notice the difference.  

 

But what really matters is the way they ski.  The blend of longitudinal flex (somewhat flexible but by no mean a noodle) and torsional firmness (very) is different from any ski I've been on.  They hold a carve on ice for me very well while being happy to bend into a short radius turn.  Plus they follow orders eagerly on bumps.  Just what I wanted.  

 

I don't think height matters; short people can get forward if they know how, and tall folks can stay over the middle of the ski if they choose.

post #16 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post

 

I don't think height matters; short people can get forward if they know how, and tall folks can stay over the middle of the ski if they choose.

Interesting point. I champion thinking about height because it impacts how hard or easy it is to pressure the tips. But yep, if you spend some $$ on lessons, it also buys you more room to play around with lengths. 

post #17 of 23

So can a short person get taller?  Yes, I guess so, with plates.

post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post
 

So can a short person get taller?  Yes, I guess so, with plates.

You may not be tall in stature but you are towering in spirit, that alone allows you the option of upsizing. 

post #19 of 23
Thread Starter 

I am leaning towards getting 160's.  Anyone with suggestions where I might find a pair with a summer discount price?  I realize they aren't changing for next year so I don't expect to find them at a big discount.

 

Thank everyone for your two cents.  Much appreciated. 

 

@Philpug thanks for the binding suggestion.  I will get some!

post #20 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tweetsman View Post
 

I am leaning towards getting 160's.  Anyone with suggestions where I might find a pair with a summer discount price?  I realize they aren't changing for next year so I don't expect to find them at a big discount.

 

Thank everyone for your two cents.  Much appreciated. 

 

@Philpug thanks for the binding suggestion.  I will get some!

Which ski in the 160's? 

post #21 of 23
Thread Starter 

I guess I didn't make that clear.  I am looking for the Kastle FX84 in 160.

post #22 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tweetsman View Post

I guess I didn't make that clear.  I am looking for the Kastle FX84 in 160.
Good call, but do not dismiss a LX 82 in 164 of one pops up, a great alternative.
post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

Good call, but do not dismiss a LX 82 in 164 of one pops up, a great alternative.

I have a set of LX82's 164cm in excellent condition with the KTi 12 binding. Great ski...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion