or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Replacement for Kastle BMX 98 168s
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Replacement for Kastle BMX 98 168s

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 

Help!  After spending days of demoing skis a few years ago, I found and have loved -- to death -- my Kastle BMX98s (168; I'm 5'5" and 160).  For me, they've been wonderful in every kind of condition and situation.  But, now, Kastle has changed its line. So, my question is:  what would be the closest Kastle equivalent in the 2016 line to my old skis?  

post #2 of 8

FX 95 (the one without the titanal layers)......

post #3 of 8

If you luv your BMX98, you can still buy the previous models new.

I often see previous models pop up on the discount ski/gear sites, though I don't see any listed currently.

 

A quick Google shows a new set at Wyoming's Craigslist ( no affiliation to me )  :

http://wyoming.craigslist.org/spo/5347739734.html

 

~ Andy

post #4 of 8
The MX is a much more precise and powerful charger.
It's all I want to ski.
184, 5'7"@180.
post #5 of 8
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the responses which are interesting. I had thought the response would be the new BMX 105 at 173 (not the HP version).  A bit longer and a bit wider but the description seems to be similar to the older model 98s.  Or is the new FX 95 pretty much the same as the old BMX 98? The MX is always a possibility but I did demo them when I got the BMXs and I found the BMX more enjoyable a ride, perhaps less charging but easier for me to carve, as odd as that may sound. And I had seen the Craigslist older pair and am looking into that.   Probably fine gradations, here, I know......

post #6 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRLSkier View Post
 

Thanks for the responses which are interesting. I had thought the response would be the new BMX 105 at 173 (not the HP version).  A bit longer and a bit wider but the description seems to be similar to the older model 98s.  Or is the new FX 95 pretty much the same as the old BMX 98? The MX is always a possibility but I did demo them when I got the BMXs and I found the BMX more enjoyable a ride, perhaps less charging but easier for me to carve, as odd as that may sound. And I had seen the Craigslist older pair and am looking into that.   Probably fine gradations, here, I know......

I demoed both the BMX 105 HP and the FX 95 HP on an old snow day with groomers and bumps, no powder or chop.  The BMX 105 HP felt like a chop/soft snow ski - really great for that.  On groomers and hard off piste bumps not so much; it lacked edgehold and a strong carve in old snow conditions.  A soft snow only ski, to me.   (PS, I'm 5'10", 150 lbs, for reference.)

 

The FX 95 HP, on the other hand, skied remarkably on that day, and felt like it could be a good all mountain ski, great for all but 6"+ unbroken powder: great carving groomers and hard bumps both, very balanced and well designed ski that really worked for me.  Great carve, great edge.  It's a favorite 94-98 ski.

 

 They have softened up the flex of the FX 95 and the FX 85, compared to the most recent FX 94 and FX 84 skis they replaced.   So you might be surprised that both the HP and non-HP versions might work well for you (with the non-HP probably being closest your skis, but not sure).

post #7 of 8
post #8 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski otter View Post
 

I demoed both the BMX 105 HP and the FX 95 HP on an old snow day with groomers and bumps, no powder or chop.  The BMX 105 HP felt like a chop/soft snow ski - really great for that.  On groomers and hard off piste bumps not so much; it lacked edgehold and a strong carve in old snow conditions.  A soft snow only ski, to me.   (PS, I'm 5'10", 150 lbs, for reference.)

 

The FX 95 HP, on the other hand, skied remarkably on that day, and felt like it could be a good all mountain ski, great for all but 6"+ unbroken powder: great carving groomers and hard bumps both, very balanced and well designed ski that really worked for me.  Great carve, great edge.  It's a favorite 94-98 ski.

 

 They have softened up the flex of the FX 95 and the FX 85, compared to the most recent FX 94 and FX 84 skis they replaced.   So you might be surprised that both the HP and non-HP versions might work well for you (with the non-HP probably being closest your skis, but not sure).

I guess it's all perspective.  Coming from the '10 MX78 (176cm), the '16 FX95 HP (189cm) felt like cheating when skiing virtually bottomless a few weeks ago!  I found that they were easy to put exactly where I wanted, even in steep, tight trees.  Bumps weren't a challenge for the ski, as the conditions were so soft, but I did note that the FX95 HP could dig trenches in groomers with really high edge angles and no hint of wobble, even above 40mph.  Very light, very playful skis, and much easier in powder/chop than the MX78s, which pretty much try to drown me in anything more than about 6" of new.  6'1"/200lbs fwiw.

 

Now I really wish I had a chance to demo the BMX 105 HP!

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 › Replacement for Kastle BMX 98 168s