EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Eastern Mid Fat Comparison Kastle, MX88 and 83, Head Monster 88 and 83.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Eastern Mid Fat Comparison Kastle, MX88 and 83, Head Monster 88 and 83. - Page 3

post #61 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

On that note, I spent much of the day on next season's Monster 88 and played around with the binding position. It ended up in the identical position to my Rev 85... Roughly +1.5 from the marked line on the ski. I'm probably a bit on the front edge of things for WIW. I skied Blizzard WRC's in the AM which are a good bit further aft than either of the other skis mentioned. The WRC's are mounted on the mark and feel spot on. Go figure.

You never know.  Sometimes you just gotta experiment to see.   

post #62 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by levy1 View Post

Thanks to all of you for your help especially Tog who gave me a tip on buying the kastle for one half off.
Northen ski works Killington
8024229675 mx 88 177 with adjustable
Binding 750.
Still left head rally tighten volkl 81 86 stokli and many others

 I'll be very interested in your reactions to the MX88 177 as a replacement for your Kendos.  

 

I've been thinking of getting a Kastle (or a Stockli), or one of the Monsters, for a more narrow, better edge, versatile all mountain charger ski.

 

For me, still, the ski that works best for that I've ever owned is a 08/09 Stockli Stormrider XXL 80, 178, r ~18.  That sucker is pretty old now, but it keeps my standards high, I'd guess.  

post #63 of 114
Thread Starter 
It's going to be a while but I'll post up as soon as I get on them.
post #64 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

On that note, I spent much of the day on next season's Monster 88 and played around with the binding position. It ended up in the identical position to my Rev 85... Roughly +1.5 from the marked line on the ski. I'm probably a bit on the front edge of things for WIW. I skied Blizzard WRC's in the AM which are a good bit further aft than either of the other skis mentioned. The WRC's are mounted on the mark and feel spot on. Go figure.


However you play around with the binding position of the worst ski from Head, it's all the same.

post #65 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogatyr View Post


However you play around with the binding position of the worst ski from Head, it's all the same.
Monster 88, worst ski from head?!?!
post #66 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by smileguy1 View Post

Monster 88, worst ski from head?!?!
The whole Monster line to be exact. No need to change the glasses , you read it right !
post #67 of 114
Bogzy, indeed, if I were in your part of the world, I wouldn't ski the monsters as a daily driver, but for our part, the 88 is a lovely all around get it done ski in pretty much any terrain and condition. For the east, I'd stick with a Supershape, a Rebels iSpeed, or an RD SL.

I'd own the 88 out east for a powder day though. Anyhow... smile.gif
post #68 of 114
I think the some of problems with the MX 83 people have had is due to tunes. It's one thing to not like it, it's another to be planky, heavy, or not engage. I've seen some very bad things done to more than one pair. I actually owned one for awhile that required extensive rehab. It's a long story, but it did go back after discovering the extent of the dulling of tips and tails. Just too much to recover. Nevertheless, it was skied several days at Jackson Hole and a day at Mad River. It's a superb ski. Not hard to engage at all.

. I know of one shop that dulled tips and tails- seriously not just less sharp, to a bunch for awhile. If you seriously dull the tip it's not going to hook up right away. That's what I realized at Jackson when trying to do shorter turns and then checked the ski. Despite a grind and edge sets of .75/3 the tips were dull beyond recovery. I'm talking a couple inches back from contact. Yet despite all that it was a load of fun and clearly a great ski. I' ve since been on it at Snowmass and Sunlight. At Snowmass it was carving highspeed arcs that were loads of fun.

The 173 is a 173. It may be an actual 173, whatever that means, it is not somehow magically the equivalent of a ski 5cm longer. It's short. Too short for me at over 200 but still great and pretty good for the east. But Kastle should have made all the MX's in 5cm increments. It's their flagship line. Instead they make tons of different models. Park skis, touring skis, carbon skis. Geez, just eliminate a couple of models in the stable. Instead, we get if you want a 178 you buy an Mx78 or 88. Want a 183cm MX 88? Well buy a 183cm Mx83. Just moronic. Sheer pigheadedness on Kastle's part. They've been told this for years. So what do they do for next year? Go to 8cm steps. I guess it's progress.
post #69 of 114
Thread Starter 
Thanks Tog, in all my itunes I never asked a shop if they were going to tips just assumed if they didn't ask me they were not
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

I think the some of problems with the MX 83 people have had is due to tunes. It's one thing to not like it, it's another to be planky, heavy, or not engage. I've seen some very bad things done to more than one pair. I actually owned one for awhile that required extensive rehab. It's a long story, but it did go back after discovering the extent of the dulling of tips and tails. Just too much to recover. Nevertheless, it was skied several days at Jackson Hole and a day at Mad River. It's a superb ski. Not hard to engage at all.

. I know of one shop that dulled tips and tails- seriously not just less sharp, to a bunch for awhile. If you seriously dull the tip it's not going to hook up right away. That's what I realized at Jackson when trying to do shorter turns and then checked the ski. Despite a grind and edge sets of .75/3 the tips were dull beyond recovery. I'm talking a couple inches back from contact. Yet despite all that it was a load of fun and clearly a great ski. I' ve since been on it at Snowmass and Sunlight. At Snowmass it was carving highspeed arcs that were loads of fun.

The 173 is a 173. It may be an actual 173, whatever that means, it is not somehow magically the equivalent of a ski 5cm longer. It's short. Too short for me at over 200 but still great and pretty good for the east. But Kastle should have made all the MX's in 5cm increments. It's their flagship line. Instead they make tons of different models. Park skis, touring skis, carbon skis. Geez, just eliminate a couple of models in the stable. Instead, we get if you want a 178 you buy an Mx78 or 88. Want a 183cm MX 88? Well buy a 183cm Mx83. Just moronic. Sheer pigheadedness on Kastle's part. They've been told this for years. So what do they do for next year? Go to 8cm steps. I guess it's progress.

I am glad you brought up the subject. I assume my skis are left sharp tip to tail when I have them tuned. Thats the only way I liked my Volkls. I have never looked or had problems but I want to make sure all my new skis are that way. Heads and Kastle.
post #70 of 114
I never assume anything anymore. I had this discussion with the Kastle rep at the demo tent last year. They dulled the tips on theMx's and most skis. It is way more common than you think. It is often used to by a shop where the customer says the ski is "catchy" or "hooky".

It's depressing actually how poor tuning can be. Even with machines costing north of $350k it comes down to the operator inspecting skis before, knowing the steps and what they do after. Never get your skis ground during Christmas week or busy holiday times. Unless it's a specialty shop you have faith in.
Always discuss that they shall not detune tips and tails. And by that we mean contact point and back. Functional edge - that whichbmakes you turn, not the curved up part - the very front should be round if no tip protector. Some skis with blunt tips run functional edge into the curved up part so you want it sharp beyond flat on ground contact point. New complicated tip shapes require discussion with the tuner.

Discuss these things with your tuner. If they poo poo it or think your ocd, then leave. Good tuning shops are happy to discuss the craft. Again, go at a non busy time if possible. Ship the skis if you must to a reliable shop that can do a proper stone grind. In grneral you want a shop that does a lot of race skis even if your ski is fat.

On a side note, some people get so enamored with their new expensive as a house machines that they loose their minds a bit. I was just in a shop where one of the guys was so excited about the coming robotic stone grinder. Able to do the pattern of chevrons or thumb prints in middle of the base and smooth on the edges. Well he started telling me how it was going to make tbe junior racers "who had trouble releasing able to release". Lol, structures may shave a little time but do not solve technique isses lets get real.
Edited by Tog - 4/10/16 at 9:54am
post #71 of 114
At 5ft 10, 180 lbs I ski the mx83 in a 173 and I absolutely love it. No speed limit, charges absolutely anything I put in front of it. I was initially thinking it would be a tad short but I would buy the exact same ski again. I just demoted the 95HP last weekend in the 181 and really enjoyed the ski but with the conditions i still prefered my 83,s in the 173.

FWIW I will try to buy some 95HP's. Pretty darn good hard snow performance but they should absolutely rip with soft snow.
post #72 of 114
Thread Starter 
That's amazing 180 pounds on a 173 I never would have thought. Where do you primarily ski?
post #73 of 114

@levy1 , I have over a week on a 173 MX83 and weigh over 200. It's fantastic. Some of the best arcs ever on that thing. It was also skied mostly in the west on everything including non groomed. But...one wants a little more and going all the way to 183cm is a bit much. I never got to try it because it was out.

 

Don't become too obsessed over a particular model/length. If you love the ski you push it into places and speeds it's not really meant for.( FIS slaloms are the king of that btw. Go watch crudology -Bob is often on an fis slalom. He skied the whole week at Big Sky on it including powder) You want crud busting, the 88 is much better. Just learn to ski it. It doesn't really punish bad inputs just sort of yawns like a disinterested cat. Good technical skiing is rewarded and the ski in general is very controllable due to the tip/front end shape. It's a bit neutral which is good for crud and it's a little soft which lets you bend it if wanted for shorter turns/moguls. It's been a bench mark since it came out. There's also not a lot of non rockered 88's at this point if any. Gotta love that flat tail too for stomping on out of the turn. Of course some complain it's "hooky". That's what killed the Mantra and they turned it into a Franken ski. :) ( though some love the non cambered one)

 

I did ski the MX88 again this year in Verbier for my last day there. Not good visibility up top and wanted just a basic decent ski for cruddy stuff. I was going to try the Factions at their demo but decided to not waste time and get more acquainted with the 88. I definitely found out that if you really drive it, it will perform much better. In cruddy cut up, sun dampened powder that refroze in the afternoon, really getting the skis tipped early and getting inside the turn it just blew through it. Basically, groomer committed into the turn technique. Really woke the ski up from being a bit more relaxed. That was fun.

post #74 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post
You want crud busting, the 88 is much better. Just learn to ski it. It doesn't really punish bad inputs just sort of yawns like a disinterested cat. Good technical skiing is rewarded and the ski in general is very controllable due to the tip/front end shape. It's a bit neutral which is good for crud and it's a little soft which lets you bend it if wanted for shorter turns/moguls. It's been a bench mark since it came out. There's also not a lot of non rockered 88's at this point if any. Gotta love that flat tail too for stomping on out of the turn. Of course some complain it's "hooky". That's what killed the Mantra and they turned it into a Franken ski. :) ( though some love the non cambered one)

 

Of course the model that replaces the 88 is the 89.  There are a few differences, but it's a great ski, too.

post #75 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakespapa View Post

 

Of course the model that replaces the 88 is the 89.  There are a few differences, but it's a great ski, too.

Can't wait to try that one. But he's already purchased the 88 at half off.

post #76 of 114
The nice thing about buying at the end of the model run is the great deal you can get. The not so great thing is that you don't get the next reference standard, which the 89 might just be. (On the other other hand, who complains about the 88?) (Other than the obvious whos.)
post #77 of 114
Thread Starter 
I called Head about the model change. Construction is the same, they've added graphene to the skis and little bit different turn shape. I play Head tennis racquets and they've added graphene to the new ones this year which I have can't tell the difference but it's a nice touch I guess
post #78 of 114

I have a pair of 15/16 Monster 88's in 170cm and I weigh 170lbs. I had them mounted 1cm forward because that is the way I like all of my carving skis except my SL skis. I love these skis on firm and corn snow, which is what I got them for. I had a tough time deciding which size to get and had decided to get the 177cm size but a couple of guys that weighs 190lbs said they prefer that ski in 170cm. They convinced me to get 170's. After I bought them but before I tried them I realized that the turn radius of the 170's is 16M (vs 17.4m for the 177cm) and that made me nervous but once I skied them I was glad I got 170's and that I mounted them 1cm forward. I like the option to carve fall line on black groomers  and these skis are great for that and any turn radius that I like to make. 

 

A well respected ski reviewer reviewed the 177cm's and said they weren't good groomer carvers but they are good bump skis. Maybe the 177cm were to stiff for that reviewer to carve at reasonable speeds. That is just a guess. I think they are excellent groomer carvers. I prefer narrower skis when the snow is firm all day and I have three pairs of wider skis for powder days but I love these for firm to soft snow. If the corn is clumpy and deep I prefer my Salomon Sentinels @ 177cm with a 94mm waist. The Monster 88's feel a little stiff for me for deeper corn but they work surprisingly well. Maybe the token tip rocker can be thanked for that.

 

Based on a couple of hours of research I did on graphene, I believe it is pure BS marketing as far as Head Skis are concerned. Still, I like my Monster 88's and the graphene influenced graphics too.

 

I've always been a real fan of Head and now I'm a fan of Head Skis too. Today I skied my Head Cyclics in about 7" of heavy wet fresh snow and they were a blast. Most other skiers and snowboarders were straight lining off piste because they couldn't turn in the goo. I suspect most of them were spooked because they couldn't skid their tails. I couldn't skid the Cyclics but they were spunky and easy to turn. 


Edited by dtraub1 - 4/10/16 at 5:15pm
post #79 of 114
We ended up skiing 50 days this year with 40 at our local hill (Mt Spokane) where my boy races and the other 10 are a split between Batchelor, Schweitzer, and Red Mountain.

Here is a sweet clip of my boy at red Mountain about a month ago (he is 6):
http://youtu.be/XWVwVMKa4Ok

I know it's hard to believe that the 173 would work at my size but I am telling you it rips. I turn GS gates with my boy with these and they are absolutely unbelievable. (I am picky about my tune and I tune these at 1 and 3 on my own.) Also, the other skis I ski are a 186 Gotama and it's really hard to go back to this lifeless ski after I ski my 83's.
post #80 of 114

Sorry for bringing the topic back to life, but I figured it was better than creating a new one.

 

I've found great deals for used 2014 MX83's (eur160). They're rental equipment, now for sale. Is it worth it? (I know that price is a steal for a Kästle, but don't know how much "worse" can they get after a couple years being rented)

 

Plus, are they too difficult for a very eager intermediate/beginner skier trying hard to level up, or should I be fine with them? I'm 1,85m (6'1") and 81kg (180lbs), and have skied for about 40 days and had about 25h of lessons so far in total (not to mention the countless hours on forums, books and youtube...).

 

Thanks a lot in advance!

post #81 of 114

Another option could be a new pair of 172cm TX82's for eur454 (or more, if I upgrade the bindings): http://www.ekosport.nl/kastle-tx82-16-tyrolia-ambition-10-head-brake-85-17-p-M00036871.html

post #82 of 114
Hi Gustavo,

Re: the MX83, what counts is how many days the skis have seen and also what kind of skier skied them. You may be able to find out the former, but it'll be hard to discover the latter. A ski that's spent many days (say, 150) under the feet of a reasonably strong skier is likely on its last legs -- not much liveliness left.

The MXs reward excellent technique. They're medium flex, so not planks, and your 180 lbs. will likely bend them, but at your level you may find it difficult to understand why people love those skis. On the other hand, if you're getting up on your edges and really carving (with counter), and the ski isn't dead, you may have a blast. You've had a lot of lessons; that may be the case. You don't mention a length for the MX.

I don't know the TXs at all, so I can't advise you.
post #83 of 114

@lakespapa,

 

Thanks a lot for the quick feedback! Very helpful!

 

Sorry, I forgot to mention, but both the 173 and 183cm are for sale (same price). I just sent the seller a question about the conditions of the ski, hope it helps.

 

I do take lessons quite often indeed, and this Easter I'm taking a 5-day intensive course (Warren Smith), so I'm expecting to improve even more... and I figured it'd make sense to improve on a higher level ski, hence why I'm on the look for a new pair. Always skiing on an "easy/forgiving" pair may not be ideal to level up.

Also, I just wanna come home everyday and stare in love at my ski's.

 

My current pair is a Völkl AC Vol Sensor 161cm (I know, no clue why I got them that short).

I'm thinking the 173cm would be more suitable for me (based on the "ski length chart", and on the fact that I expect it to be better for shorter turns and lighter - I spend more time on groomers and bumps than off piste or at the park), but not really sure.

I'm planning to do a "ski test day" at an indoor hall in a week, but they don't have Kästle's there. So I'm kinda lost at the moment, hehe. I've found good deals for quite a few other good ski's (Nordica NRGy 80, Elan Amphibio 80 XTi, Amphibio 14 Ti, Monster 83, Supershape's, etc), but a Kästle for that price cannot simply be ignored.

 

 

 

Has anyone tried or heard of the TX82? They say it was made lighter (which is good for me) so that it's easier to climb up the mountain, so I don't know if they somehow "compromised" on downhill performance.

 

 

Thanks a lot!

post #84 of 114
The TX are the alpine touring line. Unnecessary for you at this point. The 173 MX would be a nice fit.
post #85 of 114

Great to hear it, thanks!

I'm about saying "f*** it" and buying it, for that price it shouldn't be that hard to resell it. We'll see.

post #86 of 114

The TX is a touring ski, made for backcountry touring using skins and AT or tech bindings (the kind that allow you to release the heel, sort of like cross country or telemark bindings, except that you can lock the heel down again so that they act like regular alpine bindings). You can put a regular alpine binding on them, and they'll do pretty well for lift-served skiing. (I wouldn't recommend that you mount AT or tech bindings on them until you're ready to tour: such bindings don't release the way alpine bindings do, though some are closer than others.)

 

I've read glowing reviews of the TX from AT skiers, but AT is a sport in which lightness is balanced against downhill prowess. The ski gives up one or the other to whatever degree. The TX will not perform as well as an MX or an FX (HP) going downhill, but uphill it will beat the pants off those two skis. From what I can tell, the TX compares very favorably to other lightweight touring skis when going downhill (and it's a little heavier going uphill).

 

If you can find a pair, you might consider the FX84 — you may even be able to find a new pair at a great price, since the FX84 is discontinued (replaced by the FX85 / FX85 HP). The 84 shares many characteristics with the MX, but it's more compliant, and it's a bit more off-piste oriented (not as much as the newer models).

 

You might also look at LX models (anything prior to next year's models) — these are also light and compliant, but they have both excellent edge grip and Kästle smoothness.  You should be able to find these on significant discount as ex-demo skis.

 

Good luck! New skis are a blast!

post #87 of 114

Dear lakespapa,

 

How much do I owe you for the lesson?

Hahah can't thank you enough for the tips! I'll look into all these models.

 

The 2014 173cm MX83 I had seen was just sold a couple hours ago (wonder if that was a spy here from Epicski...). Now they only have 2014's 183cm or 2013's 173cm available...

 

Thanks a lot!

post #88 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by GustavoTheGaper View Post
 

Dear lakespapa,

 

How much do I owe you for the lesson?

Hahah can't thank you enough for the tips! I'll look into all these models.

 

The 2014 173cm MX83 I had seen was just sold a couple hours ago (wonder if that was a spy here from Epicski...). Now they only have 2014's 183cm or 2013's 173cm available...

 

Thanks a lot!

:)

post #89 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakespapa View Post
 

:)


Hey! Sorry for disturbing, but I've made some further research and have a few doubts left, heheh.

 

Unfortunately I couldn't find the FX 84. Currently the Kästles I have at sight are:

 

MX83 2014(?) 173cm (eur155, former rental ski)

MX88 2015 168cm (eur205, former rental ski)

FX85 HP 2016 173cm (eur205, former rental ski)

LX72 170cm (eur150, not sure how used)

 

XX90 (freestyle), RX12 (slalom), TX82 (AT) - all 3 discarded

 

 

MX83

I know they're a legend, but the guy has 2 different types and advertises both as "2014". I've done some research and I'm quite sure the first one is the 2013-14 model, but can you tell which year the other one (with the green "X") is? (That makes a big difference, considering they're probably less used...)

 

 

FX85 HP

You said these skis are more off-piste oriented. But do they still perform similarly to the MX83 on piste, or would you recommend the MX83 (considering it's probably older too, and slightly cheaper)?

Same thing for the MX88.

 

LX72

I couldn't find much about these skis. I know they're piste oriented, but are they slalom skis? Would you also recommend these?

I read reviews about the LX82 and they sound tailor-made for me. Just couldn't find nice deals on it yet...

 

 

 

Once again, sorry for abusing, heheh, and thanks a lot for the help!

post #90 of 114
I would just buy the MX83 that's in the best condition.
I think the green X is the older model.
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 › Eastern Mid Fat Comparison Kastle, MX88 and 83, Head Monster 88 and 83.