Help me continue my Kastle addiction

[nemesis256]

I'm male 5'7" 130 lbs. I have the FX85 and LOVE them for moguls and glades. On groomers though, they're kinda meh. So I'm looking for a skinny Kastle, either MX or LX. I would prefer this ski to have a short radius, and I also ski fast on groomers, think 30mph.

Today I demoed the MX74 and enjoyed them quite a bit. Ideally I would have tried the 164 length but they only had 156 available. Even then, the stability and dampness inspired confidence. I somehow got less than average icy conditions but I think the edge hold was better than anything else I've used. However I didn't feel like I was able to pressure the ski enough to bend it in the front. This is my first experience with a ski with 2 layers of metal, so I don't know if this is expected, especially at my size.

Another option is the LX73. Apart from the longer radius, I struggle to see the difference between this one and the MX. On paper they look very similar. Both have two layers of metal. Is it somehow less stable? Easier to pressure? Not as good edge hold?

Other options is saving a bit of money and getting an older model. First is MX78. But there's a few things against this one. I'm between sizes, where 168 is a bit too long and 160 is a bit too short. The radius is bigger than I would like. Also maybe a bit wider than I would want. Is the performance of the MX78 on par with MX74?

Last option is the LX72. But with the older style of construction I have the most concerns for this one. The lack of a sidewall kinda turns me away from it. But it does still have metal so is the difference that big?

Help!

 

[Philpug]

The MX's will have more dampening that the LX, being on the East, I would err that way, especially since you have the FX for mixed condtions. The old LX is nice, but not what you are looking for.

 

[Read Blinn]

Current LXs? Full sidewall. Metal layers differ. You might demo them. Not sure what North Conway has, but I know there are Kästle dealers at Stowe (Pinnacle Ski & Sports, the brick-and-mortar address of skiessentials.com), also in Ludlow (The Boot Pro), and, I've heard, at Stratton (not sure — First Run?). Killington's supposed to have a place, and there are supposed to be a couple more in Ludlow (but I've not seen Kästles in either of those places). First Trax in West Dover, VT is also on that list, and though I've been there pretty often, I've never seen a Kästle there. Maybe that's new.

The only place I've demoed from is The Boot Pro. The demo rate is reasonable, and they seem to do good work. Bought my FX84s there.

 

[speedster]

The MX's will have more dampening that the LX, being on the East, I would err that way, especially since you have the FX for mixed condtions. The old LX is nice, but not what you are looking for.

Sorry for the necrobump, but why isn't the old LX (LX72) not right for OP? Isn't it easier to flex than the current (and old) MX, and even the new LX with full sidewall construction?

 

[Philpug]

Sorry for the necrobump, but why isn't the old LX (LX72) not right for OP? Isn't it easier to flex than the current (and old) MX, and even the new LX with full sidewall construction?

I tend not to recommend a skit that has been out of the line for a number of years. There is no 'Discontinued Ski Factory" that builds and sells older models. The original LX72 was probably the weakest seller of the Kastle line and the chances of finding one...in the right size is pretty slim.

 

[mike_m]

If you really like short turns and want the best ski Kastle makes for them, you want the RX12 slalom in a 165 length. Smooth as butter, even flexing, not burly, and perfectly happy making medium-radius turns when desired. It feels like an extension of your leg, not a ski. At your weight, they may be the best short-turn recreational ski in the world (and yes, I own it!).

Best!
Mike

 

[Tony S]

Today I demoed the MX74 and enjoyed them quite a bit. Ideally I would have tried the 164 length but they only had 156 available. Even then, the stability and dampness inspired confidence. I somehow got less than average icy conditions but I think the edge hold was better than anything else I've used. However I didn't feel like I was able to pressure the ski enough to bend it in the front. This is my first experience with a ski with 2 layers of metal, so I don't know if this is expected, especially at my size.

Almost exactly your size. 164 should be a good length. Video of you skiing arcs? If you had trouble bending the shovel of a 156, there is something up. The point of the video is to help suggest a good match, not to flay your technique.

Edit: Another possibility is that Kästle didn't scale the flex well and made the short length too stiff. You might find the 164 easier to bend.

 

[nemesis256]

By the way guys, this was posted in December. I've skied the MX74 several times since then!

 

[Tony S]

Do tell, then.

 

[Brad J]

I have the MX74 in 172 length, I find them very damp , great hold on firm conditions and very stable. They are similar to the MX 88 where you will receive what you put into them as far as the energy the ski has. Two words describe them smooth ,stable.

 

[François Pugh]

If you really like short turns and want the best ski Kastle makes for them, you want the RX12 slalom in a 165 length. Smooth as butter, even flexing, not burly, and perfectly happy making medium-radius turns when desired. It feels like an extension of your leg, not a ski. At your weight, they may be the best short-turn recreational ski in the world (and yes, I own it!).

Best!
Mike

That rings true, although for the OP, at his weight, he might want to go down one size from the 165 cm version.

 

[mike_m]

Good point. The RX12 also comes in a 155 length. The 165 would give a bit more versatility and stability; the 155 would be optimized for shorter turns. Both would likely be better choices for the stated desires of the OP than the MX or LX.

Best!
Mike

 

[Philpug]

There is also a MX67...Drool.

 

[nemesis256]

Do tell, then.

I have the MX74 in 172 length, I find them very damp , great hold on firm conditions and very stable. They are similar to the MX 88 where you will receive what you put into them as far as the energy the ski has. Two words describe them smooth ,stable.

What Brad said sums it up well. Although after several days of skiing them they did lose their factory sharpness, losing the ability for me to carve on bulletproof ice. I did possibly get them sharp enough when I did my end of season tune though.

 

[Dakine]

I'm with Mike M. Don't be afraid of the RX series......

 

[mike_m]

Hi, Phil!

Have you have a chance to compare the RX12 to the MX67? If so, please share impressions!

Best!
Mike

 

[Philpug]

Hi, Phil!

Have you have a chance to compare the RX12 to the MX67? If so, please share impressions!

Best!
Mike

They didn't have a MX67 to test Kastle is considering not offering it in the US market, might be Euro only.

 

[nemesis256]

They didn't have a MX67 to test Kastle is considering not offering it in the US market, might be Euro only.

That almost makes sense...it's too bad though.

 

[James]

Stock up before they're made in the Czech or Slovak Republics.

 

[sinbad7]

I demoed the Kastle MX67 in 170cm on Saturday, 21 July. I did two runs on good groomers; not first tracks as I had to sign into the demo, but about 25 mins later. Smooth, perfectly edgeable groomers of varying steepness following ~15cm of snow 24 hours earlier, groomed overnight.

I'm 6'4" and about 95kg. I'm not a racer, I don't often ski at those speeds and I don't demo skis at those speeds. I try all sorts of shapes and turns and speeds on a couple of runs, looking for hardpack and softer stuff, and I'll dive off piste if the ski is that way inclined (although not if it's a piste ski).

I'm a bit out of the loop these days and I didn't know Kastle was releasing this ski, so I was utterly thrilled to find it in the demo tent. With about ten manufacturers on offer that was the first tent I visited ... the first ski I jumped on. There was just no question about it.

It's safe to say I'm a Kastle fan. Have been since I first tried the skis in 2010. I own the MX78 (that's my ski) in 184cm, the MX88 in 178cm and the FX94 in 186cm. I've owned and spent time on the BMX98 in 188cm but it made no sense for my life and the slopes I ski - sold it. My partner has owned the MX70 in 160cm and still owns the MX88 in 158cm. I love all of mine and the 78 is the ski I would keep if I were forced to ditch everything else. Being a fan, and turning up to the annual demo days at Thredbo every year, the list of Kastle skis I have demoed is long and varied but I'm a fan of the MX series first and foremost.

So, what can I say about the MX67? Everything you've ever heard or read about the MX series will apply. It has that smooth, stable feel that you'll recognise if you've been on any of them; that damp-but-still-alive feeling I always espouse. It hooks up faster and more immediately with that same smooth feel, and it's more approachable than the RXSL, which is a ski I love and would happily own. From memory the SL is a stiffer, more hefty ski - more of a one-trick-pony.

I've spent years skiing on Kastles with a 20 metre (or more) radius and this thing has a radius of 13.2 metres. I'm not going to reiterate the merits of the MX series. The easiest description is this: if you love the MX series this is going to be a slalom MX ski you love versus a wider-turning MX ski you love. All the good stuff is still there. It's faster edge-to-edge and that edge is going to be noticeably more underfoot. It was the ski of the demo for me and I was on fifteen different pair over the weekend.

I love slalom skis. They provide a fun factor on piste like nothing else. The stability that comes from being on skiing's equivalent of an ice skate is a lovely feeling. I'm amazed to see they're going to make this thing up to 186cm. That's going to be some ski - I wanna try that one day. The 170cm was handling my demo runs without any problem at all, although I might opt for the 178cm version. Nobody is going to carry the 186cm for me to demo and I think that thing would blur the lines about what this ski is supposed to be - at least in my quiver.

By the way, the FX85HP ain't too bad either ... just saying. So much grip underfoot.