or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Review: 2016 Kastle FX95 HP 181cm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Review: 2016 Kastle FX95 HP 181cm - Page 4

post #91 of 99
.
Quote:
Does the non-HP come across as a "light ski", in terms of overall mass and deflection in heavy snow ?
The HP isn't exactly a heavy ski. Nor is it real damp in the traditional sense. Never tried the non. I'd pretty much agree with dawg's review. It's not a crud blaster. Kind of goes over or gets tossed. It was good in large powder topped bumps. The ski seems to be pre shaped to them and goes right up and over. Pretty fun.
I'd also agree it's no power carver. It is however quite fun if you're just tooling around with kids or teaching since it acts a bit like a short carver. I tried the 180.

It is also very quick in boot top powder. You can turn it with almost no platform angle (edge). So I agree it would be good in trees unless your Candide Thovex and doing 40 mph through a BC forest.

Personally, i did not like it's snow feel and I love the 1st generation FX84 feel. This HP 95 justs has a hard, lite brittle feel. Noisy in crud with ice chunks in it. I could probably get to be ok with it, but I would not call it "damp" at all.

One should really try this ski. Snow feel is something that can't be quantified and is subjective.
Edited by Tog - 1/18/16 at 4:07pm
post #92 of 99

I too love the feel of the older (a few years ago) FX 84 in bumps - better than the current FX 85 all around. I was surprised.  

 

But there is something about the way the new FX 95 HP fits together, rocker to flex, etc., that really works well for me - very smooth, you might say.  It got a "wow" from me, albeit on a day with no new snow.  

I'm surprised it gets tossed a bit in crud.

 

Man, there sure is no substitute for demoing these skis yourself.   

post #93 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
 

Hi guys,

 

I've been getting time on and used to my FX84's, in a 176cm. While not "difficult" to ski, these things really come alive at speed, and smooth out snow imperfections amazingly well. At high speeds, it's like having quicksilver on your feet: it feels like a kite board/windsurfer planing at higher speeds, things just get smoother and smoother.

However, at lower, more normal speeds for most people, the ski is a bit stiff and pushes back on you a bit. I wasn't sure for a while how much I liked it - it definitely takes more work to intuitively snake them through bumps than my former ski, and that was a nice ski (Crimson Ti, 88mm). Frankly, I don't want to ski at these things upper limit all the time, it wouldn't be safe, but I'm liking them more and more. And when the snow is hard or junky and I want to keep cranking, fantastic.

What's my point? I think many skiers, if they are realistic about their ability level and speeds they actually ski, might be better served on a softer, less aggressive ski. Sierra Jim used to make that point well: the high speed crushers aren't actually the best skis for most people most of the time: versatility, ease of use, etc. are also very important. What are those skis right now? I honestly don't know, but I think reviewers would be good to point them out.

 

A carving note:, while they carve very well, for me they don't aggressively pull you into the turn: this is a bit of a downside in some instances, but probably helps their versatility and off-piste chops.

 

Pray for snow in Tahoe!

post #94 of 99

I think body weight factors in here. Tog, as I recall, you're a decent sized guy, yes? Perhaps not surprising that the HP feels like it's getting tossed around a bit. It's a softer ski for you.

 

I have not tried it yet, have owned a couple of the former FX's (both versions), don't think they're supremely damp, have always found them fairly straightforward in bumps (stiffish but predictable, tend to cut through rather float over), but squawbomber is right that they don't turn for you, you have to tell them what you want.

 

Have a hunch the new versions (which after all have more metal, not less, and seem otherwise to be made the same way with the same core woods and design) may be affected most by the tail rocker and elliptical side cut. That is, they're quicker to come in or out of the turn, less planted at the end, the rocker may make them feel more reactive. If the FX94 came in a 180, I'd buy up the remaining U.S. stock; as it is, I'm caught between loving everything it does, but wishing it were a touch longer and had a touch more front rocker to come up in the pow. 

post #95 of 99
Your last sentence is how I feel about the FX94 -> add a few centimeters and just a bit more early rise, but not too much. I believe Dawg has voiced similar sentiments. I'll probably order the FX95-HP 181 at end of season. In my search for a travel-ski for trips out west or Europe , I thought 105 would be the waist size to go with. Having done 2 trips with BMX105-HP and DPS 106F, my new thinking is that 93-100 is the waist to chase, along with suitable shape for snow versatility.
Edited by ARL67 - 2/28/16 at 1:50am
post #96 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by squawbomber View Post
 

Hi guys,

 

I've been getting time on and used to my FX84's, in a 176cm. While not "difficult" to ski, these things really come alive at speed, and smooth out snow imperfections amazingly well. At high speeds, it's like having quicksilver on your feet: it feels like a kite board/windsurfer planing at higher speeds, things just get smoother and smoother.

However, at lower, more normal speeds for most people, the ski is a bit stiff and pushes back on you a bit. I wasn't sure for a while how much I liked it - it definitely takes more work to intuitively snake them through bumps than my former ski, and that was a nice ski (Crimson Ti, 88mm). Frankly, I don't want to ski at these things upper limit all the time, it wouldn't be safe, but I'm liking them more and more. And when the snow is hard or junky and I want to keep cranking, fantastic.

What's my point? I think many skiers, if they are realistic about their ability level and speeds they actually ski, might be better served on a softer, less aggressive ski. Sierra Jim used to make that point well: the high speed crushers aren't actually the best skis for most people most of the time: versatility, ease of use, etc. are also very important. What are those skis right now? I honestly don't know, but I think reviewers would be good to point them out.

 

A carving note:, while they carve very well, for me they don't aggressively pull you into the turn: this is a bit of a downside in some instances, but probably helps their versatility and off-piste chops.

 

Pray for snow in Tahoe!

 

 

Those 7/10ths skis:

 

Rossi Exp. 88

Dynastar Powertrack 89

Fischer Motive 86/95

Kastle FX85/95/105 (non-HP)

Stockli Scale series

Nordica nrgy90

Line Supernatural 92

post #97 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARL67 View Post

Your last sentence is how I feel about the FX94 -> add a few centimeters and just a bit more early rise, but not too much. I believe Dawg has voiced similar sentiments. I'll probably order the FX95-HP 181 at end of season. In my search for a travel-ski for trips out west or Europe , I thought 105 would be the waist size to go with. Having done 2 trips with BMX105-HP and DPS 106F, my new thinking is that 93-100 is the waist to chase, along with suitable shape for snow versatility.

 

That 95 width is probably the most versatile for me too. I just ordered a Stockli SR95 183cm with the same thought.  

 

If you still are in the market, give me a shout, hopefully we have some left. The 181cm 95HP was the most popular from Kastle this year and they sold out early, I think we have 2 left.  If not, they are a 2-year product cycle ski, so will be available next fall. 

post #98 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

I think body weight factors in here. Tog, as I recall, you're a decent sized guy, yes? Perhaps not surprising that the HP feels like it's getting tossed around a bit. It's a softer ski for you.

 

I have not tried it yet, have owned a couple of the former FX's (both versions), don't think they're supremely damp, have always found them fairly straightforward in bumps (stiffish but predictable, tend to cut through rather float over), but squawbomber is right that they don't turn for you, you have to tell them what you want.

 

Have a hunch the new versions (which after all have more metal, not less, and seem otherwise to be made the same way with the same core woods and design) may be affected most by the tail rocker and elliptical side cut. That is, they're quicker to come in or out of the turn, less planted at the end, the rocker may make them feel more reactive. If the FX94 came in a 180, I'd buy up the remaining U.S. stock; as it is, I'm caught between loving everything it does, but wishing it were a touch longer and had a touch more front rocker to come up in the pow. 

 

Yeah, they needed that FX94 in 180cm. Would have been an amazing tool.  A blend between the current FX and the MX; perfect ski for how I ski, perfect for a blend of unpredictable snow conditions. 

post #99 of 99
Edit: moved my post to the FX95 / BMX105 thread here:
http://www.epicski.com/t/145031/kastle-shootout-fx95hp-vs-bmx105-vs-bmx105hp-in-depth-review#post_1990064
Edited by ARL67 - 3/28/16 at 2:16pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Review: 2016 Kastle FX95 HP 181cm