• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

ARL67

Invisible Airwaves Crackle With Life
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Posts
1,218
Location
Thornbury, ON, Canada
^^^ good points James, shipping has definitely increased over the last 2 years, and a good tune costs real money, which few appreciate. 2 years ago it used to cost me $85 $C to ship to the USA, now it is $125 $C. So Shipping and PP fees are easily $100, and then eBay wants their 10% too.

To further sidetrack me, Phil just commented over in a Stockli thread "Which Stockli For Me" is that the Augment 88 would the love-child between a Kastle & SR95. Phil is such a tease. I made an offer on the Limiteds today. If it doesn't fly, then I'll sit tight and maybe consider an Augment 88 for pickup across the pond on our annual trip to The Arlberg next Feb.
 

TheArchitect

Working to improve all the time
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Posts
3,383
Location
Metrowest Boston
FX Collection:

FX86
123-86-114
153cm 10.6M
161cm 12.2M
169cm 13.9M
177cm 15.7M
185cm 17.6M

FX96 HP
133-96-119
172cm 16M
180cm 18.1M
188cm 20.2M

FX106 HP
137-106-125
168cm 14.4M
176cm 16.8M
184cm 20.4M
192cm 21.8M

FX 116
141-116-125
165cm 23M
175cm 27.3M
185cm 32.5M

FX96 W (Vogue)
133-96-119
156cm 12.3M
165cm 14M
172cm 16M

I hope that helps.

I was re-reading the thread and my question about a 16x for the FX96. I just noticed that the FX 86, 106 and 116 all have something in the 16x. Isn't the 96 the most popular model in the FX line? Why on earth do they offer the 16x in all but the 96?

Pardon me while I pine for a new, short FX96 for next season. My son is angling for my FX94's.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Philpug

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
I was re-reading the thread and my question about a 16x for the FX96. I just noticed that the FX 86, 106 and 116 all have something in the 16x. Isn't the 96 the most popular model in the FX line? Why on earth do they offer the 16x in all but the 96?

Pardon me while I pine for a new, short FX96 for next season. My son is angling for my FX94's.
Add to the fact that the women's FX96 is available in a 166..so the mold IS there.
 

Brad J

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
871
Location
Newbury, Ma.
Having skied with you at MRG I am going to say 172 would be more than fine for you. the new ski most likely ski a little shorter than the old FX94, I had that ski and I thought the front of the ski didn't annunciate a turn all that well that may make them ski longer than they are. I had 176 on mine and I am 170 # and 5' 10" and shrinking and never felt too long . I would try 172, I doubt you will be sorry . you can always give them to your sonogsmile
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
Maybe @TheArchitect wants them for his son? Otherwise, dude, get a short skinny ski. The 96 should be for you at least 172 and really a 180. Unless you want to get all experimental and have both, which would be cool.
You're not a light guy, the length helps blast through the cut up with stability.
Plus, float??

I do agree with the 96 sizing being odd though.
The 106 is sensible. 168, 176, 184, 192.
 

TheArchitect

Working to improve all the time
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Posts
3,383
Location
Metrowest Boston
Having skied with you at MRG I am going to say 172 would be more than fine for you. the new ski most likely ski a little shorter than the old FX94, I had that ski and I thought the front of the ski didn't annunciate a turn all that well that may make them ski longer than they are. I had 176 on mine and I am 170 # and 5' 10" and shrinking and never felt too long . I would try 172, I doubt you will be sorry . you can always give them to your sonogsmile

I'm sure I'll try the 172. I just like my skis to be on the shorter end. The Kastle website skifinder has always put me on a 16x ski and I've found that that length range has always felt right to me. I do hope that the 172 works for me, though. I demo'd this year's FX95 HP in 173 and found it didn't want to initiate a turn without me exaggerating forward lean.

Maybe @TheArchitect wants them for his son? Otherwise, dude, get a short skinny ski. The 96 should be for you at least 172 and really a 180. Unless you want to get all experimental and have both, which would be cool.
You're not a light guy, the length helps blast through the cut up with stability.
Plus, float??

I do agree with the 96 sizing being odd though.
The 106 is sensible. 168, 176, 184, 192.

Nah, my son wants my FX94's. I'm using that as an excuse to buy a new pair for myself. I AM looking to get a short skinny ski as well, though. I may try an MX74 next season.
 

Alexzn

Ski Squaw
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
1,956
Location
Bay Area and Truckee
I was re-reading the thread and my question about a 16x for the FX96. I just noticed that the FX 86, 106 and 116 all have something in the 16x. Isn't the 96 the most popular model in the FX line? Why on earth do they offer the 16x in all but the 96?

Pardon me while I pine for a new, short FX96 for next season. My son is angling for my FX94's.

Because that range is covered by the FX96W.
 

Wilhelmson

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
May 2, 2017
Posts
4,328
I demo'd this year's FX95 HP in 173 and found it didn't want to initiate a turn without me exaggerating forward lean.

I don't notice that at 181 and I'm not a super skier or anything. But whatever works for you, my wife by chance started using my kid's skis and she liked them except in deep snow.
 

TheArchitect

Working to improve all the time
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Posts
3,383
Location
Metrowest Boston
I don't notice that at 181 and I'm not a super skier or anything. But whatever works for you, my wife by chance started using my kid's skis and she liked them except in deep snow.

I've been wondering if having the binding forward of the line would have made a difference. I read others saying moving a binding forward 1-2 cm changed how the ski felt to them so maybe that would be the case for me. I don't know. What I do know is that of the 3 Kastle I own it was clear within a run that those skis were 'right' for me. The FX95 HP never felt that way. I guess that's why we demo when we can, right?
 

Brad J

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
871
Location
Newbury, Ma.
I've been wondering if having the binding forward of the line would have made a difference. I read others saying moving a binding forward 1-2 cm changed how the ski felt to them so maybe that would be the case for me. I don't know. What I do know is that of the 3 Kastle I own it was clear within a run that those skis were 'right' for me. The FX95 HP never felt that way. I guess that's why we demo when we can, right?
First I am not an instructor , second I have skied at a reasonable level for a long time , I take some mental notes when skiing with a group of people as we did at MRG in end of March. Knowing you are always trying to improve as most of us are The one thing I noticed with you is your stance, My son had a similar Stance and has corrected it to be more centered and balanced his skiing has improved 100%. and it shows especially in the bumps. I think this is why you don't like longer ski's, you can't engage the shovel of the ski properly. this is critical in bump skiing especially. So Please try jumping off something 2' and take a mental picture of the position you land when you feel that you landed balanced . thats it you new basic ski position. I know taking advice from a contractor is all wrong but try this.ogsmile
 

TheArchitect

Working to improve all the time
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Posts
3,383
Location
Metrowest Boston
First I am not an instructor , second I have skied at a reasonable level for a long time , I take some mental notes when skiing with a group of people as we did at MRG in end of March. Knowing you are always trying to improve as most of us are The one thing I noticed with you is your stance, My son had a similar Stance and has corrected it to be more centered and balanced his skiing has improved 100%. and it shows especially in the bumps. I think this is why you don't like longer ski's, you can't engage the shovel of the ski properly. this is critical in bump skiing especially. So Please try jumping off something 2' and take a mental picture of the position you land when you feel that you landed balanced . thats it you new basic ski position. I know taking advice from a contractor is all wrong but try this.ogsmile

I've been working on correcting my stance. I think I've improved it but as you point out, I still don't have myself consistently centered and I know it's something I need to make second nature. I'll get there but thanks for the advice, despite being a contractor! ogwink
 

ski otter 2

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
2,920
Location
Front Range, Colorado
There’s still some potentially useful information in the posts, but one thing I’m still not totally clear on is what the “version 2” skis are, particularly for Stöckli. Is the current speculation/understanding that there are multiple versions of some of these skis for the same year, or are we strictly talking about different years?

AFAIK, there have been several versions of most/all the Stormrider series prior to the current iteration.

I apologize for this confusion. Whatever the truth that is left about two versions of these skis for just 19/20, only the latest are on shop racks now, the same versions tested at SIA. For all I know personally, the first versions were only in routine prototype, versions to be tested. (I never had two retail versions of any of these in my hands, except last spring with multiple pairs of two versions of 18/19 V-Werks Mantras, and also of V-Werks Katanas.)

My own preference would be to delete the misinformation above that I posted in error, including the correction. I've already agreed to let that happen.
 

Sponsor

Top