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

Ron

Seeking the next best ski
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Posts
9,282
Location
Steamboat Springs, Co
well, the fiberglass sleeve part I was told about was correct. I did not notice any of the Fx's having differing sized hollowtech tips; all had larger sized tips than before. if I understand what I am reading, there is just a "FX86", meaning its not intended to be like the prior iterations of hp or the wood non-hp. since this is a new layup, I think they are just calling it a FX86 (meaning there is just one layup/build). this makes sense.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Philpug

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
Sounds like a lot of misinformation is out there.

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.
 

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.

The FX 96 HP doesn't come shorter than 172?
 
Thread Starter
TS
Philpug

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
The FX 96 HP doesn't come shorter than 172?
Not according to their catalog...IMHO a big hole since the mold is already there for the FX96W...I will shoot a message over to them to see if it happened to be an over site in the catalog.
 

Tony S

I have a confusion to make ...
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
12,623
Location
Maine
^^^ yes, it basically confirms what I just posted.

Yeah, but it's not what the rep told you, which is why I was confused.

Edit: It matters because it means that the construction you reported on is not the construction FTM and Kevin reported on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron

TheArchitect

Working to improve all the time
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Posts
3,383
Location
Metrowest Boston
Not according to their catalog...IMHO a big hole since the mold is already there for the FX96W...I will shoot a message over to them to see if it happened to be an over site in the catalog.

Thanks, Phil. I hope it's a typo. If not then I'm out because 172 is too long for me.
 

Swiss Toni

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Posts
586
The announcement is a bit vague about where these skis will be made....

At ISPO (the European equivalent of the SIA trade show) Kästle announced that in future most of their skis will be manufactured at the Sporten factory in the Czech Republic, which will be rebranded Kastle CZ https://vorarlberg.orf.at/news/stories/2962672/ R&D and small series production together with the manufacture of composite components will remain in Hohenems.

When Kästle moved back to the old Kästle factory at Hohenems it acquired a 75% shareholding in a small ski manufacturer called Differences http://www.differences.at/ owned by Rainer Nachbaur who became Kastle’s head of R&D and small series production. Rainer started his career in race ski development with the original Kästle ski company and went on to work for Nordica, Head and Blizzard. He also started a company that makes carbon fiber components including Austria’s Olympic gold medal winning luge, http://www.kaestle-technology.at/
 

UGASkiDawg

AKA David
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
1,760
Location
CO
@Tony S when I demoed, the rep told me this was the HP. He explained it no longer had metal but was fiberglass wrapped (not just an overlay of the top) over wood.
There is no hp86 or 116 and there is no non hp 96 or 106 is what they told me and what was reflected in the tent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron
Thread Starter
TS
Philpug

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
When Kästle moved back to the old Kästle factory at Hohenems it acquired a 75% shareholding in a small ski manufacturer called Differences http://www.differences.at/ owned by Rainer Nachbaur who became Kastle’s head of R&D and small series production.
Wow, they sure are purdy.
 

Swiss Toni

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Posts
586
Before they were taken over, they were selling bespoke skis (top sheet and flex) for 1000 euros a pair including bindings. A few pairs of have been imported into the US.

 

procos

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Posts
234
Location
Michigan
Perfect put me down for the FX 106HP in size 176. Super stoked. I own the BMX 105 in 173 and love it but always am wanting just a tad more length. Bought the Stockli SR 105 and am loving that ski. So do I need the FX 106. Not really but do you need more than one pair of shoes? Not really but it sure is cool to have more pairs. Lol. Might even grab the FX86 in 177. I own the FX 84 in 176 and love that ski. Have had it for many years.
 

Scruffy

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Posts
2,429
Location
Upstate NY
Thanks, Phil. I hope it's a typo. If not then I'm out because 172 is too long for me.

Pardon my intrusion, and I don't know your physical stats, but are you sure 172 is too long for you? I haven't seen anything about the ski shape, other than the tip-waist-tail stats, but you need to look at the effective edge before making a decision. I'd suspect the effective edge on the FX96 172 is something like 166 ( taking a guess ). Does the new hollow tech tip change the overall dimension of the tip? or just use the real estate within the old mold? What's the rocker profile? I'm 5'11" and ski the 186 in the old FX94 ( 186 is 6' 1" ), which has minimal rocker overall.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Philpug

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
Pardon my intrusion, and I don't know your physical stats, but are you sure 172 is too long for you? I haven't seen anything about the ski shape, other than the tip-waist-tail stats, but you need to look at the effective edge before making a decision. I'd suspect the effective edge on the FX96 172 is something like 166 ( taking a guess ). Does the new hollow tech tip change the overall dimension of the tip? or just use the real estate within the old mold? What's the rocker profile? I'm 5'11" and ski the 186 in the old FX94 ( 186 is 6' 1" ), which has minimal rocker overall.
I will be skiing the ski tomorrow...in fondling the ski and putting it base to base making me think that the ski will ski pretty true to length.
 

TheArchitect

Working to improve all the time
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Posts
3,383
Location
Metrowest Boston
Pardon my intrusion, and I don't know your physical stats, but are you sure 172 is too long for you? I haven't seen anything about the ski shape, other than the tip-waist-tail stats, but you need to look at the effective edge before making a decision. I'd suspect the effective edge on the FX96 172 is something like 166 ( taking a guess ). Does the new hollow tech tip change the overall dimension of the tip? or just use the real estate within the old mold? What's the rocker profile? I'm 5'11" and ski the 186 in the old FX94 ( 186 is 6' 1" ), which has minimal rocker overall.

Earlier this season I demo’d the FX95 HP in 173. I had a hard time consistently getting the tip to engage and initiate the turn unless I really exaggerated my forward balance. My guess and the shop’s as well was the ski was one size too long for me. I have the MX88 in 168 and the FX94 in 166 and both engage easily. I do have the BMX105 in 173 and that’s fine but I only ski that on powder days.
 

Ron

Seeking the next best ski
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Posts
9,282
Location
Steamboat Springs, Co
I'm 6' 170 and skied the last iteration of the FX85 in 181. unless you are skiing in open terrain all the time, the 186 is a lot of extra real estate to turn with little benefit. I just tested the 177 and it skied just fine.
 

procos

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Posts
234
Location
Michigan
I'm 6' 170 and skied the last iteration of the FX85 in 181. unless you are skiing in open terrain all the time, the 186 is a lot of extra real estate to turn with little benefit. I just tested the 177 and it skied just fine.

To each his own. Some people love the additional length. What is good for you might not be good for him and vice versa.
 

Ron

Seeking the next best ski
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Posts
9,282
Location
Steamboat Springs, Co
To each his own. Some people love the additional length. What is good for you might not be good for him and vice versa.

totally agree which is why I put up what I prefer. And I'm referring to a FX85
 
Last edited:

TheArchitect

Working to improve all the time
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Posts
3,383
Location
Metrowest Boston
I've always preferred a shorter ski (I'm 5'-4"). As I said up-thread, I demo'd a 173 and didn't like the length and gave reasons why. With the exception of a powder ski, which I have at 173, I don't want the extra real estate to turn, especially in eastern trees. @Ron is on-point.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top