Featured Kästle Announces Largest Model Line Increase Since 2007

Discussion in 'Hardgoods: Skis, Bindings, Poles, and More' started by Philpug, Jan 29, 2019.

  1. Ron

    Ron Don't judge a ski by its width underfoot! Pugski Ski Tester

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Posts:
    5,078
    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.
     
    neonorchid likes this.
  2. Thread Starter
    TS
    Philpug

    Philpug Enjoying being back on two skis. Admin Pugski Ski Tester

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Posts:
    19,236
    Location:
    Reno, eNVy
    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.
     
  3. Ron

    Ron Don't judge a ski by its width underfoot! Pugski Ski Tester

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Posts:
    5,078
    Location:
    Steamboat Springs, Co
    ^^^ yes, it basically confirms what I just posted.
     
  4. TheArchitect

    TheArchitect Working on Angulation because....see above Skier

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2016
    Posts:
    785
    Location:
    Metrowest Boston
    The FX 96 HP doesn't come shorter than 172?
     
  5. Thread Starter
    TS
    Philpug

    Philpug Enjoying being back on two skis. Admin Pugski Ski Tester

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Posts:
    19,236
    Location:
    Reno, eNVy
    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.
     
    ski otter 2 likes this.


  6. Tony S

    Tony S aka qcanoe Skier

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2015
    Posts:
    2,281
    Location:
    Maine
    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.
     
    Ron likes this.
  7. TheArchitect

    TheArchitect Working on Angulation because....see above Skier

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2016
    Posts:
    785
    Location:
    Metrowest Boston
    Thanks, Phil. I hope it's a typo. If not then I'm out because 172 is too long for me.
     
    Philpug likes this.
  8. Ron

    Ron Don't judge a ski by its width underfoot! Pugski Ski Tester

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Posts:
    5,078
    Location:
    Steamboat Springs, Co
    @Tony S correct! And I will reinforce that on my Sia review :thumb:
     
  9. Swiss Toni

    Swiss Toni Getting on the lift Skier

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2016
    Posts:
    107
    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/
     
    cantunamunch, ski otter 2 and Dakine like this.
  10. UGASkiDawg

    UGASkiDawg AKA David Pugski Ski Tester

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2015
    Posts:
    1,294
    Location:
    CO
    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.
     
    Ron likes this.
  11. Thread Starter
    TS
    Philpug

    Philpug Enjoying being back on two skis. Admin Pugski Ski Tester

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Posts:
    19,236
    Location:
    Reno, eNVy
    Wow, they sure are purdy.
     
  12. Swiss Toni

    Swiss Toni Getting on the lift Skier

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2016
    Posts:
    107
    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.

     
    cantunamunch likes this.
  13. procos

    procos Booting up Skier

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2017
    Posts:
    87
    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.
     
  14. Scruffy

    Scruffy Getting off the lift Skier

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Posts:
    421
    Location:
    Upstate NY
    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.
     
    TheArchitect and procos like this.
  15. Thread Starter
    TS
    Philpug

    Philpug Enjoying being back on two skis. Admin Pugski Ski Tester

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Posts:
    19,236
    Location:
    Reno, eNVy
    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.
     
    Scruffy likes this.
  16. TheArchitect

    TheArchitect Working on Angulation because....see above Skier

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2016
    Posts:
    785
    Location:
    Metrowest Boston
    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.
     
    Scruffy likes this.
  17. Ron

    Ron Don't judge a ski by its width underfoot! Pugski Ski Tester

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Posts:
    5,078
    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.
     
    TheArchitect likes this.
  18. procos

    procos Booting up Skier

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2017
    Posts:
    87
    Location:
    Michigan
    To each his own. Some people love the additional length. What is good for you might not be good for him and vice versa.
     
  19. Ron

    Ron Don't judge a ski by its width underfoot! Pugski Ski Tester

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Posts:
    5,078
    Location:
    Steamboat Springs, Co
    totally agree which is why I put up what I prefer. And I'm referring to a FX85
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
    neonorchid likes this.
  20. TheArchitect

    TheArchitect Working on Angulation because....see above Skier

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2016
    Posts:
    785
    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.
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice