Originally Posted by afterburn
I ski this in 184 (6'2" 200lbs). The problem with the LX series is its taken on the reputation of a "women's" ski. I just don't get that. It may be softer than an MX88 (I've never skied this one), but can't be by a huge margin. It is no softer than an FX. Probably a little stiffer in the tail. Yet its ridiculously light. I think the reason that Dawg got a little knocked around in crud at high speed is his weight. Put 70 more pounds on top of the ski and add 10cm of length (or maybe add 30-50 lbs on the 174) and it blasts through west coast (Sugar Bowl) crud without the driver noticing. It skis fairly long compared to say a Blizzard or the like. Its a pity Kastle stopped making these. Get it while you can. LOVE this ski. NOTE: Unless you are a true expert skier, heed the common advice to push those bindings 1cm forward of the marked boot sole center. You'll love this ski even more. Curious if you ski them forward qcanoe?
Originally Posted by radiobb
I ski these at Sugar Bowl also and they work great. 155lbs on the 174 mounted at the mark.
Loving all the unsolicited support for this ski.
afterburn, your comments are totally on the money from my point of view.
They do ski all of their nominal length. I suppose that is "long" if your baseline is a ski with some meaningful rise, which at this width is generally the case nowadays. Usually the LX is mentioned in an unintentionally backhanded way in the context of Kastle MXs: "Oh yeah, she's pretty nice, too. Did you know she was Frank's sister?
So the "full height" nature of the ski goes unnoticed and unmentioned. Agree they are not notably soft flexing. I'd say they are medium. For example, the Head Rev 85 I tried last month was softer, I thought. (Although it was also it was also bit shorter, which tends to make a ski feel easier, so this is especially anecdotal "info.")
Adding more weight to the ski's cargo is something that I am profoundly unqualified to do, unfortunately. Someone a bit taller or heavier than I am is probably a better fit, size-wise, for this model in this length. (168 - 170 seems to be the sweet spot for me in this type of ski.)
As for the forward mount, I have tried them at +1 and like them better that way on firm surfaces, but think I prefer them on the line in softer snow, which is where I want to be skiing these. Happily the binding system makes this pretty easy, though not something to be readily done on-slope.
Now what we need is a bidding war. Several Bears sniffing and swimming away. Don't get the sense that pricing is the main issue. More like haven't found quite the right audience of string quartet listeners or something.