Author Topic: Review: Kastle FX 84  (Read 6563 times)

SnowHot

  • Ski Shop/Ski Patrol
  • 100 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 184
  • Location: Reno
    • EpicSki
Re: Review: Kastle FX 84
« Reply #15 on: January 05, 2010, 01:34:37 pm »
Nice Review!? Well done!? ?Can't wait to make some turn with you next week ;D
I just hope we don't get into trouble :D
Sometimes you just need to let your Bad Self ski!!
~nolo

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
Re: Review: Kastle FX 84
« Reply #16 on: January 05, 2010, 01:44:00 pm »
Define trouble.... ;D

Philpug

  • Ski Shop/Ski Patrol
  • 400 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 541
Re: Review: Kastle FX 84
« Reply #17 on: January 05, 2010, 05:43:41 pm »
Are Kastle's the new Obama???o :o :o

To expand a little. The hype about this ski brand appears everywhere. Can it produce "change we can believe in"? I hope to demo a pair sometime with Phil and see firsthand.

The one aspect of the Kastle's that John brought out, and also mentioned by Epic's Sierra Jim, is that they are more of a GS ski meaning they want to go hard and fast. Phil skis that way and he has the body angles to get them onto high edge, therefore, I would fully expect him to like this ski.
Phil expressed on Epic that less skilled skiers seem to express this ski is very good. But I think that a skier needs to bend skis and carve to use them at their design point. Last year, I used Hart's of a similar GS design. While I liked many things about them, I do not ski with the energy needed to bring it to life and that was seen in the tracks I left.

One viewpoint, fire away!

Jane, you ignorant ****.

As I have said many times, I liken the MX series to a 911 and a FX to a Cayman. Lets talk 911's. If you have had the pleasure of driving a newer 996 (current Porsche 911), you will understand this, it is a car that you can drive to the store, church and to the track at 190MPH and will react the same in every capacity. Thats what this ski is like, Lola and Alice can ski it on groomer and dance while Ron and I can turn the ski up to mach speed and be able to see God before the ski maxes out. Where I find the FX appealing is the playfulness of the ski vs. the MX, the MX is a Doberman, all business, while the FX is more of a playful Wiemeraner (not one of those Wiemeraner that has been inbreed 12 times over), very quiet and regal of a ski yet a level of mischief under its skin.

On a clarification....Th e word "damp" was being tossed around, I think a more applicable word would be "refined". These are about the most refined skis I have ever skied.

As far as comparing these to the Harts, the Hart you had was a 16M 124/77/110 beautiful ski with a 16M TR but no means a GS ski. I will also say that while a Luciano Panotti ski is truly a work of art, the Kastles have a refinement a la comparing a (cars again) Porsche to a Maserati.

SnowHot

  • Ski Shop/Ski Patrol
  • 100 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 184
  • Location: Reno
    • EpicSki
Re: Review: Kastle FX 84
« Reply #18 on: January 05, 2010, 06:41:03 pm »
Define trouble.... ;D
What......
someone forget to get you a dictionary for Christmas? ;D
Sometimes you just need to let your Bad Self ski!!
~nolo

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
Re: Review: Kastle FX 84
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2010, 07:26:16 am »
well said and just to also add, they are not heavy! I don't know where this comes from????  They are quite lite even with my Plate system.

my line: I don't know what they did to make this ski but they do and that's all that matters.  Ski it to believe it.  


Are Kastle's the new Obama???o :o :o

To expand a little. The hype about this ski brand appears everywhere. Can it produce "change we can believe in"? I hope to demo a pair sometime with Phil and see firsthand.

The one aspect of the Kastle's that John brought out, and also mentioned by Epic's Sierra Jim, is that they are more of a GS ski meaning they want to go hard and fast. Phil skis that way and he has the body angles to get them onto high edge, therefore, I would fully expect him to like this ski.
Phil expressed on Epic that less skilled skiers seem to express this ski is very good. But I think that a skier needs to bend skis and carve to use them at their design point. Last year, I used Hart's of a similar GS design. While I liked many things about them, I do not ski with the energy needed to bring it to life and that was seen in the tracks I left.

One viewpoint, fire away!

Jane, you ignorant ****.

As I have said many times, I liken the MX series to a 911 and a FX to a Cayman. Lets talk 911's. If you have had the pleasure of driving a newer 996 (current Porsche 911), you will understand this, it is a car that you can drive to the store, church and to the track at 190MPH and will react the same in every capacity. Thats what this ski is like, Lola and Alice can ski it on groomer and dance while Ron and I can turn the ski up to mach speed and be able to see God before the ski maxes out. Where I find the FX appealing is the playfulness of the ski vs. the MX, the MX is a Doberman, all business, while the FX is more of a playful Wiemeraner (not one of those Wiemeraner that has been inbreed 12 times over), very quiet and regal of a ski yet a level of mischief under its skin.

On a clarification....Th e word "damp" was being tossed around, I think a more applicable word would be "refined". These are about the most refined skis I have ever skied.

As far as comparing these to the Harts, the Hart you had was a 16M 124/77/110 beautiful ski with a 16M TR but no means a GS ski. I will also say that while a Luciano Panotti ski is truly a work of art, the Kastles have a refinement a la comparing a (cars again) Porsche to a Maserati.

Gary

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2590
  • Location: Rochester, NY
Re: Review: Kastle FX 84
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2010, 08:34:55 am »
Hmmm....when I heft my wifes Kastles MX78's in the 152 length...they ARE heavier and as heavy as my 165 Head SS were.....but...they don't ski heavy.

Kastle found the optimal use of pixie dust to charge their skis with mixed perceptions and outstanding performance....what a combo!

Good on them!

G

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
Re: Review: Kastle FX 84
« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2010, 08:51:41 am »
HMM, not sure what to say but maybe it's the RF?

Philpug

  • Ski Shop/Ski Patrol
  • 400 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 541
Re: Review: Kastle FX 84
« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2010, 08:58:37 am »
Hmmm....when I heft my wifes Kastles MX78's in the 152 length...they ARE heavier and as heavy as my 165 Head SS were.....but...they don't ski heavy.

Kastle found the optimal use of pixie dust to charge their skis with mixed perceptions and outstanding performance....what a combo!

Good on them!

G

Could be the choice of bindings...I just weighed Lola's MX78s and her Pilgrams (a light ski right?), with the same binding on both the Kastle's are 11.4 lb and the Icelantcs are 11.2 lbs. Also, i will add that her Kastle has the rental heel Griffon which is a solid 1.3oz heavier making both skis almost the same exact weight.

jim-ratliff

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Review: Kastle FX 84
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2010, 09:08:08 am »
Hmmm....when I heft my wifes Kastles MX78's in the 152 length...they ARE heavier and as heavy as my 165 Head SS were.....but...they don't ski heavy.

Kastle found the optimal use of pixie dust to charge their skis with mixed perceptions and outstanding performance....what a combo!
Good on them!

G

I also read that Kastle took special efforts to cutout or eliminate mass at the tip (and maybe tail) of the ski to hold down overall weight but more importantly to minimize swing weight/mass (inertia to an engineer like Mike??).  Weight concentrated in the certer of the ski doesn't feel as heavy as the same amount of weight distributed across the length of the ski.
"If you're gonna play the game boy, ya gotta learn to play it right."

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
Re: Review: Kastle FX 84
« Reply #24 on: January 06, 2010, 09:12:54 am »
Hmmm....when I heft my wifes Kastles MX78's in the 152 length...they ARE heavier and as heavy as my 165 Head SS were.....but...they don't ski heavy.

Kastle found the optimal use of pixie dust to charge their skis with mixed perceptions and outstanding performance....what a combo!

Good on them!

G

both heavier and as heavy?  Interesting scale you have!

Philpug

  • Ski Shop/Ski Patrol
  • 400 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 541
Re: Review: Kastle FX 84
« Reply #25 on: January 06, 2010, 09:19:09 am »
Hmmm....when I heft my wifes Kastles MX78's in the 152 length...they ARE heavier and as heavy as my 165 Head SS were.....but...they don't ski heavy.

Kastle found the optimal use of pixie dust to charge their skis with mixed perceptions and outstanding performance....what a combo!

Good on them!

G

both heavier and as heavy?? Interesting scale you have!
It is a progressive scale.

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
Re: Review: Kastle FX 84
« Reply #26 on: January 06, 2010, 09:37:10 am »
Shall we try for best of 3 weigh-ins? 

Gary

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2590
  • Location: Rochester, NY
Re: Review: Kastle FX 84
« Reply #27 on: January 06, 2010, 10:04:17 am »
Actually after speaking with Phil...I think it really is the bindings.

ALice has a railflex binding on her Kastles...as do I on my Progessors.

The skis weigh in at 13lbs...the same.

Thinking it's the binding that camaflouges the true weight of the boards.

Never the less....Alices said it's the bestis and most versatile ski she's ever skied....period!

Thanks Phil for helping me see the light!  ;D

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
Re: Review: Kastle FX 84
« Reply #28 on: January 06, 2010, 10:38:43 am »
I am so glad I didn't post that about the RF bindings before..... ???


"HMM, not sure what to say but maybe it's the RF? "

SnowHot

  • Ski Shop/Ski Patrol
  • 100 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 184
  • Location: Reno
    • EpicSki
Re: Review: Kastle FX 84
« Reply #29 on: January 06, 2010, 10:58:17 am »
I am so glad I didn't post that about the RF bindings before..... ???


"HMM, not sure what to say but maybe it's the RF? "
You know Phil has forgotten more about ski gear than you and I know put together.
Sometimes you just need to let your Bad Self ski!!
~nolo