or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Advice on adding second set of skis to the quiver: Kastle or RMU?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Advice on adding second set of skis to the quiver: Kastle or RMU?

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 

I currently ski on a set of Kastle MX83s, which I love for most conditions. However, I’m thinking of adding a wider ski for soft snow, powder and spring slush. Since I like the MX83s I am considering FX94s or FX104. As I have 83mm waist I’m wondering if the 94 will a big enough difference or should I jump to the 104?

 

I am also considering Rocky Mountain Underground CRM (101mm waist), SCRM (100mm) or possibly the P802 (96mm). I’m thinking of the RMUs because I rented a pair  a couple years ago and really liked them. Any comments or advice on each model or how they compare to Kastle would be appreciated.

 

About me: male, age 56, 5’ 7”, 150 lbs, advanced skier. Like skiing everything: groomers, trees,  bumps, powder when I can find it (which is rare), even ice and slush for their own challenges. Mostly ski out west: Colorado mainly, but also Utah, Jackson Hole and Whistler with an occasional trip to the Alps.

 

I’d like to stick with these two manufacturers as I’m already suffering paralysis of analysis and don’t need any more choices. Will be buying clearance or demos. Thanks in advance.

post #2 of 14

One of the long time ski buddies brings out his FX110 at Okemo for those soft snow conditions. He has been on them a couple weekends this warmer March.

post #3 of 14

I missed demoing the 94 and the 104, but I hear good things.  Here's dawgcatching's review of the FX94 (compared with others in the 90-ish bracket): http://www.epicski.com/t/130875/all-mountain-spotlight-review-2015-kastle-fx94-kastle-mx98-fischer-motive-95-ti-stockli-stormrider-95. (Scott is about your size.)

 

Here's the Blister review of the FX104: http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2012-2013-kastle-fx104  It's an older review, so I'm not sure the construction details are right.  It seems to me that last year's model had .4 mm titanal rather than .3.  Realskier mentions that the 2014 / 15 has a bit of early rise, and that the contact point has moved back a bit to reduce hookiness, and that the tail won't hang, either.  (Similar characteristics in the FX84, which I own.)

 

These skis are gone after this season, I believe.  Last weekend I demoed the new FX95 HP, which reminded me of a smoother Enforcer. I remember thinking that, for the right skier, it would make an excellent Western OSQ.  From what I understand, the FX95 is more aggressively rockered — I think I skied it in a 181, which is usually more ski than I'm comfortable with. I found it super smooth and turny, with excellent edge grip.  I really liked that ski.

post #4 of 14

As a longtime FX94 owner, I don't think it will give you much of a different experience to your MX83's.

 

Consider the newer/current FX95 or FX95-HP,  as it has a much different shape than previous FX's.

Dawgcatching/Scott is the resident Kastle sage , and he did some superb reviews on them here:

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/132534/review-2016-kastle-fx95-hp-181cm

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/145803/in-depth-review-kastle-fx95-vs-fx95hp

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/145031/kastle-shootout-fx95hp-vs-bmx105-vs-bmx105hp-in-depth-review

 

~ Andy

post #5 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity View Post

One of the long time ski buddies brings out his FX110 at Okemo for those soft snow conditions. He has been on them a couple weekends this warmer March.

Not sure I've seen an FX 110, if it's a symmetrical twin tip - it's the XX 110

I ski the FX104 and have an extra pair in plastic - they are that good. Very slight tip rocker, slightly up turned tail. Metal and 184. Skied them this week in CO in knee to waist deep blower, chopped up off piste, and soft groomers. It's a pretty nice OSQ if you travel. Jack of all trades. My only niggle is that the top sheets seem a bit fragile, but I didn't round them off and don't worry if I bang my skis together in bumped up terrain.

BTW - I have the new Nordica Enforcers too - I like these better.
post #6 of 14
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the link - good review!

post #7 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARL67 View Post
 

As a longtime FX94 owner, I don't think it will give you much of a different experience to your MX83's.

 

 

 

 

~ Andy

That's what I was thinking also. Thanks for confirmation.

post #8 of 14

You're a lighter guy, as am I. FX94's are great. But 10 mm more than your 83's doesn't seem like a big gain for the $$, float wise. Have a hunch FX95HP's would be even better for off-piste if that's what you're after, but again, not a lot more float. Perhaps you'd like the FX104 better for the mission. 20 mm more float, apparently great in charging powder. Wrong length increments for me, but 174 looks about right for you. 

post #9 of 14
I have both the MX 83 and FX 94's. I go to my MX 83's most of the time. I think a 20 mm difference would be ideal for a two ski quiver.
post #10 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by givethepigeye View Post


Not sure I've seen an FX 110, if it's a symmetrical twin tip - it's the XX 110

I ski the FX104 and have an extra pair in plastic - they are that good. Very slight tip rocker, slightly up turned tail. Metal and 184. Skied them this week in CO in knee to waist deep blower, chopped up off piste, and soft groomers. It's a pretty nice OSQ if you travel. Jack of all trades. My only niggle is that the top sheets seem a bit fragile, but I didn't round them off and don't worry if I bang my skis together in bumped up terrain.

BTW - I have the new Nordica Enforcers too - I like these better.


Yes it's a twin tip, 110mm waist and bright green. He's had them for a couple years, only skis them a few times a season. Can't ski behind him, they throw up a pretty good roost. Most be the XX like you say, I'll have to put my glasses on next time he brings them out.

post #11 of 14

I had thought often of buying the XX110 on am whim , especially the previous black/red/blue topsheets as they went on fire-sale at some discount sites last year.

It got pretty good reviews over at Blister Gear.

http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2012-2013-kastle-west-xx110

http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2nd-look-2013-2014-kastle-xx110-west

 

It is a true symmetric ski ( construction:  midpoint to tip = midpoint to tail ), so its ski feel, or how it looks underfoot, may take some getting used to.

 

FYI:  Dawgcatching just listed some FX95-HP in Gear-swap

 

~ Andy

post #12 of 14
Thread Starter 

Someone is going to get a great deal on Dawgcatching's FX95, but not me. Just ordered a pair of RMU BLS, 110mm underfoot. Will be trying them out next week at Beaver Creek.

post #13 of 14

Hi whumpf,

 

Any verdict on the RMU BLS? Thinking about picking up a pair myself

post #14 of 14
Thread Starter 

I skied them two days in Beaver Creek at the end of March. Pretty typical spring skiing, although we did have 8-12" one night, which is when I broke them out. I don't have a lot if experience with a lot of different skis but I really liked these. Handled the pow excellently, as expected, but were also supple in the moguls and responsive on the trees. Looking forward to more use this winter.

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 › Advice on adding second set of skis to the quiver: Kastle or RMU?