A recent online mag review that was unenthusiastic about Kastle FX84's and 94's (but really liked the MX line) was similar enough to Dawgcatching's review, and the recently deceased Ski World Press's take, that it's gotten me to wondering. There seem to be two schools of thought about the FX models. 1) They are the greatest ski since, umm, the MX's, and they are an Elan to the MX's 911 (to plagiarize Phil). Surgical on groomers. This is not just Phil, Trekchick, and SJ, but various other online sources outside Epic such as Real Skier. The new one ski to rule them all.
Or 2) They are the greatest serious backcountry/climbing/hiking ski ever made, but pretty much suck on hardpack, stiff crud, or ice. Weak grip and too light to be stabile. Only think about them if you plan real AT. Davenport posers will be exposed.
So I'm curious why the strength of polarization.
It isn't about weight; Dawgcatching is 155 lbs and many who love the FX94 are, ah, more amply sized. It isn't about thinking Kastle's are overrated. Many sources who thought the FX's were highly specialized thought the MX88's, for instance, were divine intervention.
And it's unlikely to be about style of skiing, since I see both power and finesse represented at each pole.
Ideas? (I'm thinking demonic possession, but will listen to other arguments.)