I purchased a pair of Kastle MX78 back in 2012. I love these skis - buttery smooth, stable at higher speeds and just enjoyable to ski and use.
I am wondering if I would see much difference if I were to upgrade to a pair of new Kastle MX83's? Ski Bartlett have a pair of MX83 (2016 model) at a discounted price.
My current ski length is 168cm and the newer ski would be 173cm. They would be a little more underfoot being 83mm.
Do you think I would notice any increased stability at higher speeds? And which would be better at dealing with on-piste Spring conditions which we are now heading into?
Thanks guys for your views!
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Yes, yes and yes. Go for it. Everyone needs new skis! And Kaestle make fabulous skis
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Thu 29-03-18 19:47; edited 1 time in total
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Tough call. I ski on MX83 and they are magnificent but when I bought them I tested them back to back with the MX88. I skied far better on the MX83 even though it was longer 183cm vs 178cm. The tech in the shop recommended them in the longer length. What are your stats? I'm 179cm tall and 90+kg. I do know that the MX83 generally got better reviews than the replacement MX84 so it's probably your last chance to buy a world class ski.
The only review site that I trust is realskiers.com and I managed to find the comparison review here: http://archives.realskiers.com/MEMBERS/LEGACY/2013-kastle-ski-reviews.html You'll see that MX78 and MX83 get identical scores but the comments on the MX83 are more favourable. The following two years the comments got even better. When they introduced a wider scorecard out of 100, its scores were the highest every year by several points.
I think which is better for you will depend on your skiing style. If you like hammering down stuff in medium wide turns the MX83 will be better. If you prefer slower, tighter, pretty turns the MX78 will be better.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Very interesting reply. My stats are 1.77m tall and around 88kg.
I've not come across that review site before - again, very useful.
In terms of type of skiing, I like both of the types you describe. On anything more than a steep/ish blue I aim for tighter, neat turns to keep my speed under control. However, when there is less of a gradient and I feel in control, I like the speed from carving fast, wide turns.
I have two main concerns. The first is whether I would notice an improvement in higher speed stability from going for the slightly the longer 173cm ski (vs the current 168cm). And most importantly, which ski would be best when the snow becomes mashed up, afternoon Spring condition type snow. The current MX78's are pretty good at dealing with this (and to be honest any deficiency could well be my technique rather than the skis). But I was wondering whether the slightly wider underfoot ski might help in bashing through it.
I have two main concerns. The first is whether I would notice an improvement in higher speed stability from going for the slightly the longer 173cm ski (vs the current 168cm). And most importantly, which ski would be best when the snow becomes mashed up, afternoon Spring condition type snow. The current MX78's are pretty good at dealing with this (and to be honest any deficiency could well be my technique rather than the skis). But I was wondering whether the slightly wider underfoot ski might help in bashing through it.
Yes, the MX83 will be better as long as your turn shape/line gives you sufficient speed to utilise the extra surface area.
My gut feeling though is that you are skiing too short and that your idea of hammering down stuff is not mine (no offence!). You should be on something in the mid/high 170's. The MX83 in a 183cm could be right but if you've never skied that length it could be a handful. An MX83 will do anything but I suspect that you would only get minimal benefits from changing to a 173cm MX83 from a 168cm MX78.
My advice would be to save a bit more and buy the MX84 in a 176cm, maybe in an end-of-season sale. That would give you a sufficiently different ski to what you have now and is far more suited to your stats. It always surprised me that Kastle had 10cm gaps between their skis but they've changed it in the current range to 8cm which is more sensible. The MX84 still gets excellent reviews (it's "only" a superb ski compared to the utterly outstanding MX83) and IIRC it has a slightly softer tip that makes it more accessible to different skill levels and even friendlier than the MX83. A perfect upgrade.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Glide n Slide have got a couple in stock at 176 for £660.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Raceplate wrote:
My gut feeling though is that you are skiing too short and that your idea of hammering down stuff is not mine (no offence!). You should be on something in the mid/high 170's. The MX83 in a 183cm could be right but if you've never skied that length it could be a handful. An MX83 will do anything but I suspect that you would only get minimal benefits from changing to a 173cm MX83 from a 168cm MX78.
My advice would be to save a bit more and buy the MX84 in a 176cm
Agree with this. I’m similar stats to you and loved the MX84 in a 176. The extra length will give you the extra stability at speed that you’re looking for
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
I'll throw this in the pot.
Height 1m78cm Weight 87kg
My previous skis Salomon XRace 170cm good on piste. Whitedot Preacher Carbon 179cm (now for sale).
I recently bought Kaestle FX95 HP in 181cm (they ski shorter) and they are the best ski I've ever been on. Very Very stable on piste while going fast. Easily manoeuvrable and good off piste or in the crud at the end of the day.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
GlasgowCyclops wrote:
I'll throw this in the pot.
I recently bought Kaestle FX95 HP in 181cm (they ski shorter) and they are the best ski I've ever been on. Very Very stable on piste while going fast. Easily manoeuvrable and good off piste or in the crud at the end of the day.
Now you are raising another of my questions I was going to start a separate thread for.
I was also thinking of buying the FX95, but the non HP version. I haven't really skied off-piste to any extent previously, but I was thinking as I plan to rent an apartment for next season I should be able to get to ski for around 3 months. So during that time I would plan to get a guide and try more off piste. And part of the luxury of having a fixed location for the season is that I can keep more than one pair of skis and so pick the right ski for the day.
As you picked the HP version , I would presume you are a strong off-piste skier? My concern is whether I would ski fast enough off piste on the HP version to give it the right amount of energy it would need to perform. Did you consider the non HP version?
And the other query about the FX95 is the correct length to choose. I can see they ski shorter due to the rocker, but at the same time would going for a 1.81m length sometimes feel cumbersome (particularly for someone like me who is currently probably closer to being a keen intermediate rather than an expert?)
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
@eddiesteadygo, what do you weigh?
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
eddiesteadygo wrote:
GlasgowCyclops wrote:
I'll throw this in the pot.
I recently bought Kaestle FX95 HP in 181cm (they ski shorter) and they are the best ski I've ever been on. Very Very stable on piste while going fast. Easily manoeuvrable and good off piste or in the crud at the end of the day.
Now you are raising another of my questions I was going to start a separate thread for.
I was also thinking of buying the FX95, but the non HP version. I haven't really skied off-piste to any extent previously, but I was thinking as I plan to rent an apartment for next season I should be able to get to ski for around 3 months. So during that time I would plan to get a guide and try more off piste. And part of the luxury of having a fixed location for the season is that I can keep more than one pair of skis and so pick the right ski for the day.
As you picked the HP version , I would presume you are a strong off-piste skier? My concern is whether I would ski fast enough off piste on the HP version to give it the right amount of energy it would need to perform. Did you consider the non HP version?
And the other query about the FX95 is the correct length to choose. I can see they ski shorter due to the rocker, but at the same time would going for a 1.81m length sometimes feel cumbersome (particularly for someone like me who is currently probably closer to being a keen intermediate rather than an expert?)
I'm not very good off piste but not too bad on piste. At your height I'd go 181.
PaulC1984 on 173cm FX95HP on pist.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
under a new name wrote:
@eddiesteadygo, what do you weigh?
already answered higher up.
I'd also agree that 168 is too small for your weight. I ski a 178cm piste ski and I'm 178cm, 73kg.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Skis don’t know how tall you are.
Longer skis are not necessarily more stable, just a little harder to turn. Slightly wider probs float a bit better in mush but you aren’t talking wide.
The 168s at 88kgs sound rather too short to me.
Not sure I understand what “sufficient speed to utilise surface area” actually means. Skis aren’t wings.
Unconvinced the “upgrade” will make an enormous positive difference. You are about to (effectively) do a season. Test lots of skis. Buy something that fits your aspirations for the end of the season.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@under a new name, True
At the OP's weight id go 181
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
@GlasgowCyclops, then again, they’re on piste skis pretty much and from threads elsewhere OP doesn’t sound as if they’re skiing aggressively enough yet for that length?
Kästle’s website suggests 168s...
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@under a new name, No way for the OP's size. Q? is..... do they baby a red run or ski a red run fast. If the 1st then something else is in order. If they can ski a red quick to fast then I'd go with the one's I bought. Indeed PaulC said he would prefer something a titch longer now he is used to his.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
@GlasgowCyclops, seriously, that’s what Kastle said for the 84s.
168s on a 177 height (not that f*ckin height makes a difference, but as a quick and super dirty heuristic) is about eye level which is pretty much what a shop would hand you for a piste ski.
TBH one could argue that if you are wanting a longer piste ski you probably really want a race ski...
Please post the link for that. I can't find it and I thought Kastle took their sizing guide off their website a couple of seasons ago. In any case, here's one from powder 7 which says for the OP's weight he should be on a 176cm by height or a 184cm by weight...
http://www.powder7.com/kastle-ski-size-chart-and-sizing-guide
Given his experience level, the 176cm in a MX84 would be my recommendation, as before.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
eddiesteadygo wrote:
I was thinking as I plan to rent an apartment for next season I should be able to get to ski for around 3 months.
And the other query about the FX95 is the correct length to choose. I can see they ski shorter due to the rocker, but at the same time would going for a 1.81m length sometimes feel cumbersome (particularly for someone like me who is currently probably closer to being a keen intermediate rather than an expert?)
Skiing for 3 months won't make you an expert from a keen intermediate but it will transform your level and make you exceptionally comfortable on a pair of skis in all conditions. It will also increase the speeds you ski at almost without noticing. Effectively, you're a seasonnaire. Don't make the mistake of buying punter length skis (which is what you're looking at), buy the seasonnaire length. If you don't, you'll be kicking yourself at the end of those 3 months.
And don't worry about Kastles being cumbersome, they're not. The hollowtech tip was (I think) the first to market as a way of lightening the tip to make the ski's swing weight less. i.e. easier to turn. It was quickly followed by Rossi's honeycomb in the Soul series and now everyone has something similar.
I have never regretted buying the MX83 in a 183cm. They're not difficult to turn at all (even in short turns) but the additional edge grip from the extra length is superb. In fact, I'm extremely grateful to the French ski tech who categorically told me that was the best length. If I had bought blind, I would probably have picked the 173cm and it would have been a mistake.
BTW, in that store (the only Kastle dealer in Courchevel), EVERY single member of the tech staff skied on Kastles through choice. One on MX83's, one on MX88's and one on MX98's. No better recommendation, I reckon.
After all it is free
After all it is free
@Raceplate, not sure I can, it’s some complex web crap. Will try.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
@under a new name, well if you can't, it makes your criticism of them somewhat redundant. My recollection of Kastle's "Ski Selector" or whatever they called it, was that it generally came up with longer lengths than I was expecting, not shorter. Probably why they took it off the website - the longer lengths scare off the punters!
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Thanks for the comments guys.
Re the Kaestle recommended ski lengths - the feature is still on their website. You click on "Product" and then "Lets go" in the ski finder button.
I don't quite understand why they ask for height rather than weight. But when I plug my details in they also ask for your skiing style. It seems that generally speaking "Sport" gives the 1.7x lengths, "Advanced" gives the 1.8x lengths whereas "Comfort" gives the 1.6x lengths.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
@Raceplate, what, I can’t criticise something that can’t be linked to?
I can start by criticising that fact. I can go on by asking wtf they mean by “sport” vs “comfort” as the “type” of skier. Marketing, huh?
@eddiesteadygo, height is used fairly generally (and, IMO extremely badly) as a simple heuristic for weight. In that it’s pretty easy for a shop tech to work out how tall you are but somewhat more tortuous to establish how strongly attracted you are to the planet.
It’s all a little subjective however, better imo to err too short than too long. A shorter ski than you need will never be as unhappynthan one that’s too long.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
PS the first ski to market with a “marketed” reduced swing weight (at least that I recall) was the Rossi 7S, in ~1989, which they achieved by shortening the tip by 2cms.
So I skied 201 instead of 203. (For slalom. GS or powder was 205 instead of 207, of course).
There is often a lot of toot talked about skis.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
@under a new name, surely height is important as it influences the centre of gravity? A tall guy on short skis is more likely to go overpower then than a short guy at the same weight, no?
@eddiesteadygo, given what you’ve got already and the first hand feedback above the FX95 HP sounds like the way to go if you want to get into the off piste (which you most definitely should!)
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@BobinCH, absolutely, there’s an influence, just not nearly as important as mass.
How far away is my CoM at 167cms from a tall chap at 197cms? And how much difference does that make compared against my 60kgs vs his 90kgs? Esp if he ate all the pies...?
Given that Op is setting out for a 3 month season next year, I stand by my suggestion to test when got there and buy aspirationally.
Can’t believe you are advocating a mere 95mm ski!
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Personally I find the 95mm perfect. I find my preacher carbons good in deep stuff but need to be pushed on piste on sugar (not nice) to get them working fine. Where I would find 95mm off piste too narrow but workable.
I find the Kastle FX95 so good as an all round ski that I'm going to sell my Preachers.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
@under a new name, if money was no object i’d advise him to get a DPS Wailer 112 Alchemist - no quicker way to improve your off piste skiing 😉
Have eyes on it for my next touring setup with Salomon Shifts 💰💰💰
Ps when r u going fatter than the Mantras? This is the season.... moguls on the Spoons would be a true test 😉
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
GlasgowCyclops wrote:
Personally I find the 95mm perfect. I find my preacher carbons good in deep stuff but need to be pushed on piste on sugar (not nice) to get them working fine. Where I would find 95mm off piste too narrow but workable.
I find the Kastle FX95 so good as an all round ski that I'm going to sell my Preachers.
Another vote for the Kästle FX95 HP. Both my wife and I have them.
Can be pushed like a GS ski on hard pack, eats crud, and great in the powder. There are, no doubt, better powder-specific skis, but we can only travel with one pair each, so the Kästle it is.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
@eddiesteadygo, without wanting to sound too much like a spammer, give Glide n Slide a call. I belive they personally test what they stock and they stock far more Kastle lines than any other UK retailer. And they're nice people to chat to. Where were you thinking of buying from?
@under a new name, i have more sympathy for the comfort/sport/advanced description. In the vast, multi-dimensional world of describing skiers or skis; this particular axis makes a lot more sense than the usual; beginner/intermediate/advanced/expert. The majority of on piste skiers are simply looking to get down the hill in any conditions without anything untoward happening, while putting a little glow in their cheeks - staying in their comfort zone I suppose; it doesn't really matter how many weeks they've skied. It's a more customer friendly way of saying, forgiving/less forgiving/no forgiveness.
I'm getting seriously seduced by the Kastles, closest I've come to buying my own so looking at the thread with great interest.
Not sure I like that selector much - looks like someone from Audi got hold of it. 😉
Agree that it should take weight into consideration. Anyway, putting all that aside I think you'd have to take the view that 3 months on skis will put you in the advanced category which gives a 176cm on a MX84 and a 181cm in a FX95 HP.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Penry wrote:
@eddiesteadygo, I'm getting seriously seduced by the Kastles, closest I've come to buying my own so looking at the thread with great interest.
I notice a certain retailer who I may have mentioned earlier has a number of 15/16 CPM82s. Worth trying to get a deal or false economy? I.e. just be out of date 3 years earlier.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
I did! Love the site and writing style, reminds me of a quote from Paul Kimmage, "Couldn't write a note to the milkman in less than 500 words."
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@kitenski, yes I discovered realskiers a few years ago. I really like the way the guy writes plus they seem to have reviews on just about everything ever made, going back years. Great if you're looking at an old stock bargain like the guys on here.
And of course, they are completely independent. I've certainly found that anything they say is good, is good. I also like that they differentiate the score for your preferred skiing style - power or finesse. I consider myself a power skier on piste (hence the MX83) but off piste I prefer something a little friendlier, so an FX rather than a BMX for instance. The way he writes really helps me to understand what's likely to suit me. And I wouldn't have discovered Kastle without realskiers!
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
You should be on something in the mid/high 170's. The MX83 in a 183cm could be right but if you've never skied that length it could be a handful. An MX83 will do anything but I suspect that you would only get minimal benefits from changing to a 173cm MX83 from a 168cm MX78.
