Kästle Announces Largest Model Line Increase Since 2007

[procos]

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.

Yeah good you found what you like. I can't ski anything under 173 or the ski starts to feel to turny and squirrely to me. That is why ski companies make skis in all different lengths. So the consumer can decide for themselves what they like.

 

[neonorchid]

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.

IIRC, FX 94 is full camber so I'd think @5'4" 166cm would be on the longer side for you, same with MX88 @168cm.
BMX 105 is rockered as is FX 96 HP, can't hurt to try the 174cm as well as the 165cm FX 96 W if you're not physically too heavy for it.

 

[neonorchid]

Yeah good you found what you like. I can't ski anything under 173 or the ski starts to feel to turny and squirrely to me. That is why ski companies make skis in all different lengths. So the consumer can decide for themselves what they like.

You know, giving us your height and weight would help us understand where you're coming from when making such a blanket statement as your above post...

 

[TheArchitect]

IIRC, FX 94 is full camber so I'd think @5'4" 166cm would be on the longer side for you, same with MX88 @168cm.
BMX 105 is rockered as is FX 96 HP, can't hurt to try the 174cm as well as the 165cm FX 96 W if you're not physically too heavy for it.

I'm definitely heavy and I tend to ski fast/aggressively on groomers (at least IMO). The FX94 and MX88, while technically may be a bit too long, actually ski really well for me (probably due to my weight). I'm only interested in the new line because 'you can't have too many skis'.

 

[procos]

You know, giving us your height and weight would help us understand where you're coming from when making such a blanket statement as your above post...

5'6" 175 Lbs

 

[neonorchid]

5'6" 175 Lbs

you're ~ my size, I'm 5'6.5" 140lbs and tend to agree with you about skis under 174cm.

 

[procos]

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.

Hopefully you will get a chance to ski the FX86 and the FX106 HP down the line. Every time I have discussed skis with you or read your reviews I have agreed with what you have had to say. I value your opinion when it comes to reviewing skis.

 

[procos]

you're ~ my size, I'm 5'6.5" 140lbs and tend to agree with you about skis under 174cm.

Well I am a lot fatter. LOL I honestly feel weight,ability and terrain you ski is way more important than height. To me height is the least important. But height is definitely a factor. There are so so many factors that it is really hard to give advice on a forum without skiing with someone. You can get close but usually within 2 sizes. That is just my opinion.

 

[coops]

I treated myself to some MX89s last year, ex demo from Jans at Park city... so i'm sorted already...

But it's not the 'Made in Austria' or not that has me raising a doubting Roger Moore eyebrow, it's the deuced preposterous increase in models.

Smacks of throw it against the wall and see what sticks, rather than carefully considering what is really needed... the introduction of a 'Women's' line is silly enough - even if it is common enough with other brands who happily follow what everyone else is doing and slap rocker on all their skis.

Do some women need a less stiff or shorter ski? Perhaps.. but then so might a younger skier or a more lightweight and less aggressive man.
Some women might need nice stiff metal layered, long, beefy as all out skis - do you really need a separate line with flowers on the topsheet?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/12-hilarious-reviews-of-a-pen-just-for-women


No, I say.. what they needed was to revive a brilliant and Austrian thing that Atomic came up with - was it called power rating or something?

I hope it was Atomic, come to think of it... but back a few years - my first ski purchase was some Atomic Metron XIs... tried the Metron 7 and 9 also, and it was interesting to feel the difference in what was otherwise the 'same' carving ski. I tried some others (Salomons and etc...) but went with the XIs as at that time I loved the extreme errr energy I suppose it might be described as - or to put it another way, when I leant back coming out of a turn (by accident not by design) I was very much entertained by the ski trying to throw me onto my back. The less stiff 9 or 7 was good but didn't have that level of 'pop' i wanted then. Now, mind you my knees are older... but i'm still around 85kg and haven't shrunk from 6ft tall, so the MX89 feels good to me.

What i'm imagining is Kastle keeping the 'old' lines but having at least one or better two or more options in length for each model AND for each length having let's say two or maybe three (?) levels of stiffness.

Overall you wouldn't need to stock/produce any more different range of skis (compared to this new vast and confusing range), but for instance you wouldn't need a separate FX HP & non-HP version - you'd simply have FX with different stiffness ('power') rating to help you choose what you prefer - and with that idea you can get a good idea and feel for what power rating you would likely prefer in one of the other wider/skinnier models in the range - am I imagining it or didn't Atomic have a kind of cardboard wheel type thing to dial in what ski power number might suit you based on weight/height/ability and aggressiveness etc?

Well, that's my little rant off now

Back to work, i suppose

 

[Alexzn]

I think women's skis tend to have slightly different mounting points to accommodate anatomy differences. Yes, you can mount forward of the line, but not many consumers are educated enough to ask for that.

 

[James]

No, I say.. what they needed was to revive a brilliant and Austrian thing that Atomic came up with - was it called power rating or something?

Actually, it was a French thing. Salomon came up with Power Numbers. Well before the Atomic Metron.
I agree though, less models and more lengths and stiffnesses.

 

[neonorchid]

Heads up for our Austrophiles and others, Made in Austria FX 85 (non-HP) are $299 on clearance at Sierra - https://www.sierra.com/kastle-fx85-...d~4868/snow~d~9687/skiing~d~9690/skis~d~9694/

 

[procos]

Heads up for our Austrophiles and others, Made in Austria FX 85 (non-HP) are $299 on clearance at Sierra - https://www.sierra.com/kastle-fx85-alpine-skis-for-men~p~343pr/?filterString=clearance~1/gear~d~4868/snow~d~9687/skiing~d~9690/skis~d~9694/

Damn great price. Wish it was the HP version.

 

[rj2]

Damn great price. Wish it was the HP version.

$399.95 @SkiEssentials
http://www.skiessentials.com/2017-kastle-fx-85-hp-skis.html

 

[procos]

$399.95 @SkiEssentials
http://www.skiessentials.com/2017-kastle-fx-85-hp-skis.html

They only have short skis.

 

[SkiNurse]

I loved the FX 96 that I tested at SIA last week!

 

[Tony S]

Heads up for our Austrophiles and others, Made in Austria FX 85 (non-HP) are $299 on clearance at Sierra - https://www.sierra.com/kastle-fx85-alpine-skis-for-men~p~343pr/?filterString=clearance~1/gear~d~4868/snow~d~9687/skiing~d~9690/skis~d~9694/

@Pumba - this is your opportunity to go to a longer length if you want.

 

[Tony S]

I loved the FX 96 that I tested at SIA last week!

These are a must-try for me.

 

[Pumba]

@Pumba - this is your opportunity to go to a longer length if you want.

Tempting....Very tempting....Should I stock up on these skis? Or should I wait to try the new iterations? First world problems...

k

 

[Swiss Toni]

But it's not the 'Made in Austria' or not that has me raising a doubting Roger Moore eyebrow, it's the deuced preposterous increase in models.

Smacks of throw it against the wall and see what sticks, rather than carefully considering what is really needed... the introduction of a 'Women's' line is silly enough - even if it is common enough with other brands who happily follow what everyone else is doing and slap rocker on all their skis.

The idea is to increase sales, to achieve that they need to broaden the range. The factory has the capacity to make 100,000 pairs p.a, current sales are around 18,000 pairs p.a.

They are pretty successful in the US, but less so in other markets. They sell twice as many skis in Aspen as they do in all the Arlberg resorts (Lech, Zürs, Stuben, St. Christoph and St. Anton) put together, which are on their doorstep and have little or no presence in other important markets.