EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › FX94 length - Vermont and Utah
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FX94 length - Vermont and Utah

post #1 of 6
Thread Starter 

I'm picking up a pair of FX94's for skiing in No. Vermont and the occasional trip out to Utah.  I'm not sure what length to get and am hoping for some advice.  I currently have MX88's in 168cm, which I love 95% of the time but want something a bit softer flexing for the trees, bumps and powder out west.  I've read enough that I know I want the FX94 (either 2014 or 2015 model) but don't know if I should move up to the 176cm.  I think for most situations I'd prefer the shorter ski but not if it would be a bad decision for trips out west, or if I'd easily turn it into a banana.  I tend to ski with a fair amount of power.  Any thoughts?


Stats: 46 y.o., 5'-4", 175-180 lbs, advanced east coast skier.



post #2 of 6

176 may be a touch long. I ski mostly N. Vermont as well. I'm 5 inches taller and weigh 25-35lbs more than you. My quiver consists of skis from 178-181, all with some degree of rocker. 

post #3 of 6

Be happy to share my experience with the FX94 regarding length.  Purchased new at the beginning of last season and skied them most of the year (approx 30 days) in the Tahoe area.  I’m older than you, about 185 lbs. and 5’’-7”, probably about a level 7 skier. 

I purchased the 176 since the ski I’d been on the previous 3 or 4 years is also a 176. Specifically  the Dynastar ‘Big Trouble’, twin tip with a 93m waist.  Really liked that ski but it’s wearing out and wanted something a little more ‘substantial’.  Well I really had some trouble with, and 2nd thoughts about, the FX94s.  (I had previously demoed it for a couple runs in the next size down (168?) and liked it a lot but felt I wanted a longer ski.).

First thing I noticed after having the bindings mounted was there is a whole lot more ski in front of the bindings than with the Dynastars.  2nd startling revelation was the effective running surface of the Kastles is 5 or 6’ longer than the Dynastars – even though they’re both the same length and neither has any rocker.  Mostly it all boiled down to the turned up tail on the twin tips vs. flat tails on the Kastles. 

First time out the Kastles were a handful and I was afraid I’d made a mistake.  After the first few days though I’d figured them out and they (I?) continued to improve thru the season.  While they will never be the slow to moderate speed sports car the twin tips are they excel in everything else.

So, in summary, I would like them to be a bit shorter, (but not 168cm, which is the next size down).   As always with Kastles, length can be an issue if your requirements fall between the relatively spaced out length offerings.

In the OP’s situation – while the obvious answer is to demo both sizes - given your desire for a ski that’s better in trees, bumps and powder I’d say go with the 168 – that way you accomplish 2 out of 3 of your goals (the trees and the bumps) and probably just fine for east coast ‘powder’.  As of the end of last season I found myself avoiding the tighter trees and even the moderate bumps  - both of which I loved on the Dynastars.  Hoping I get back there next season with the Kastles  -  and plan to demo the FX95s (HP and non HP) to see if the rocker might help without detracting too much from the charge anywhere and hang on to anything feeling that comes from the FX94s.  (Though in my case, my one concession to age as I get older is to ‘attempt’ to ski slower.  The FX94 is not facilitating that goal. :D)

post #4 of 6
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the replies.  Based on my research and thinking about it I've been leaning towards the 166.  Seems like that's the right choice.

post #5 of 6
Yep. Own the 176, 6' tall, 168. About right unless I'm really cranking.
post #6 of 6
Thread Starter 

Found a great deal on a pair of new 2015 FX94's with bindings!  Is it ski season yet!!!!!!



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 › FX94 length - Vermont and Utah