Light-ish steep/spring/mountaineering ski ~100 waist -- Kastle TX97 ??

**garuda** · 10-14-2014, 10:00 AM

Looking for a touring ski to be used on firm, variable and spring conditions, for skiing peaks, couloirs and steep lines. It would be nice to keep the weight down but I don't want to compromise performance too much just for the sake of saving a pound or half a pound. My general criteria are something 95-100ish in the waist, 184-188 cm, and confidence inspiring edge hold. Some tip rocker to make turn transitions and playing around when the snow is better is a plus.

Skis that are light but may fit the bill I have found include the Kastle TX97 - 187, Faction Agent 100 - 186 and perhaps Moment Tahoe 186. I am also considering the Blizzard Kabookie but it appears to be pretty heavy relative to the others and I am not sure it's ride quality is worth the weight over other options.

I have looked around but have not found good reviews on the first three skis mentioned above. Anyone have time on the TX97, Agent 100, new Tahoe or other comparable skis? Any other recommendations?

**GeezerSteve** · 10-14-2014, 10:07 AM

Why so long for a spring touring/peakbagging ski? Voile Vector is best bang for the $$ in this category. Lots of other options these days.

**garuda** · 10-14-2014, 10:21 AM

Yeah, the field is pretty crowded. I am having a hard time figuring out which skis actually have a solid backbone and which just claim it but will end up being disappointing. As far as length, I guess I am looking in the mid-180 range because I would like to use the ski any time I am going for a longer/higher tour throughout the winter and spring, and want to have fun skiing pow and windblown snow in the winter in addition to the ski having chops on hard snow. Also I am 6'2" and have never really skied anything under 186 in the past 20 years.

**Tye 1on** · 10-14-2014, 10:38 AM

any interest in some 188 Bro Model, 'softs'? W/Vert FT12's? Shoot me a pm if so...

**tsk01** · 10-14-2014, 10:50 AM

I haven't skied the TX97, but own the TX107's for my backcountry rig. Really impressed with the weight to performance ratio. Slight rocker tip, with a softer tip flex makes turn initiation really easy, and they also float really well. Edge grip is also very good, stiff flex underfoot and through the tail inspires confidence to be able to tip them on edge and not worry about them washing out. I can only imagine that the 97's would be even better harder conditions, to me they would be a perfect spring ski if you want something in that waist width.

As Steve mentioned, there are A LOT of options in this waist width, but I find it very unlikely that you'd be disappointed by the Kastle's. Everyone knows they make fantastic skis, but their touring skis are phenomenal and it's surprising how much of a sleeper the touring skis are.

**GeezerSteve** · 10-14-2014, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by garuda

As far as length, I guess I am looking in the mid-180 range because I would like to use the ski any time I am going for a longer/higher tour throughout the winter and spring, and want to have fun skiing pow and windblown snow in the winter in addition to the ski having chops on hard snow. Also I am 6'2" and have never really skied anything under 186 in the past 20 years.

You'd be surprised how well and fun 180 Vectors ski powder (although I usually take something else on deep tours). The only gripe is that they have short tails -- not a big deal for touring IMO -- and the upside of a short tail is much easier kick turns and the front half planes up like a 185. FTR, I'm 6'1", 245 lbs. Anyway, your initial query is for a steep/spring/ski mountaineering ski, and I'll double down that anything much longer than 180 is contraindicated by those uses. You've got the right idea staying <100mm waist for those uses.

**Lindahl** · 10-14-2014, 01:27 PM

If you relinquish the 180+ restriction, I'd highly recommend the Down Countdown 102. It worked phenominally for me this last season for what you're describing. Think lightweight and slightly skinnier Cochise. Killer ski.

**PNWbrit** · 10-14-2014, 01:35 PM

Cham HM 97

**ghosthop** · 10-14-2014, 03:04 PM

I really like the new tahoe, thought it was a lively ski. Th multiple contact points did a good job of holding an edge on windbuff that had started going icy while still feeling surfy enough once I got them into some softer stuff in the trees. Didn't feel any funky engagements due to the multiple camber sections but I wasn't really looking for it either. I would not call it one of the lightest. Seems like it would be fun in 3d snow if you're more of the amongst it crowd than on top of it crowd.

**panchosdad** · 10-14-2014, 08:48 PM

I like the Cham hm 97's too, but the Dynafit Denali looks like a similar ski with significantly less weight, so my eyes are wandering. The Kastle looked to me to have very little rocker, but I haven't skied it.

**tsk01** · 10-14-2014, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by panchosdad

I like the Cham hm 97's too, but the Dynafit Denali looks like a similar ski with significantly less weight, so my eyes are wandering. The Kastle looked to me to have very little rocker, but I haven't skied it.

It's more of an early rise then rocker, similar length to the Chams just much less splay.

**icb12** · 10-15-2014, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by garuda

Looking for a touring ski to be used on firm, variable and spring conditions, for skiing peaks, couloirs and steep lines. It would be nice to keep the weight down but I don't want to compromise performance too much just for the sake of saving a pound or half a pound. My general criteria are something 95-100ish in the waist, 184-188 cm, and confidence inspiring edge hold. Some tip rocker to make turn transitions and playing around when the snow is better is a plus.

Skis that are light but may fit the bill I have found include the Kastle TX97 - 187, Faction Agent 100 - 186 and perhaps Moment Tahoe 186. I am also considering the Blizzard Kabookie but it appears to be pretty heavy relative to the others and I am not sure it's ride quality is worth the weight over other options.

I have looked around but have not found good reviews on the first three skis mentioned above. Anyone have time on the TX97, Agent 100, new Tahoe or other comparable skis? Any other recommendations?

All Carbon Bro Bya

Obviously not many people on them yet, but on paper they seem fit for the task.

**I've seen black diamonds!** · 10-15-2014, 07:18 AM

Vector, 183 Bro, Countdown 102

All excellent in order of ascending burliness and weight.

**auvgeek** · 10-15-2014, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds!

Vector, 183 Bro, Countdown 102

All excellent in order of ascending burliness and weight.

Can you compare the Bro and CD102? They're my two top choices right now, and I would LOVE to hear your thoughts on a heads-up comparison.

**garuda** · 10-15-2014, 09:14 AM

Lots of good recs, thanks for the info. I will keep an eye on the Down 102 for the next production run, maybe with a touch more length and effective edge. Good to hear the Cham 97 HM is well liked. When I checked them out I was thrown off by the huge tip but in reality its not too much wider than other skis in the class and the rocker probably helps deal with funky snow, soft snow and trailbreaking. The good review of the Tahoe makes it a contender, but I don't love the high twin on the tail.

**I've seen black diamonds!** · 10-15-2014, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by auvgeek

Can you compare the Bro and CD102? They're my two top choices right now, and I would LOVE to hear your thoughts on a heads-up comparison.

I've skied old 179 Bros for many days. I skied newish 183 hybrids with bit of early rise 5-10 days. I skied around 5-15 days on the Original CD4's, which are now called 102's. The feel of the layups is very similar. When I first skied the CD4's I thought, "These feel like PM Gear skis." They all ski like heavier skis despite weighing around 8lbs. The 102 has a short running length. It floats and pivots better, but has less pop in the tail. I think this is because of both the tail rocker (which is long but very low) and the stiffness. The Original CD4's were very stiff. The CD4's are better in Powder and crust. The longer cambered section on the Bros makes them better on corn and ice. You can use the tail on the Bros to pop you through quick turns in a way that isn't possible on the 102's. With a centered stance the 102's will slice small turns on hard snow, especially if you carry a bit of speed, but it requires a bit more effort and precision.

Keeping in mind that I've only skied older version of both skis, I'd take the Bros for hard snow and the 102's for soft and crusts. They're both skis that I'd be happy to use inbounds.

I would not want to use Vectors inbounds much. But they weigh a good bit less (under 7 lbs for the pair). They float as well, but don't pivot as well as the CD4's. They have a nice poppy tail which, for me, helps save energy on steeps, they're surprisingly stable in shit snow. The speed limit is lower and they're a bit more sensitive to having a good tune, but they're my pick. I can feel the weight difference on long days.

Now lighter Bro's and 102's are available, as are Bros with various camber profiles. I can't imagine being unhappy with any of them. The only reason I've moved on from one ski to the next is that it's fun. I love trying new skis. Blizzard Bushwackers are also a great choice in this category. I've tried other skis that aren't as good- Manaslu's suck on hard snow and are made of glass and paper, Trab Stelvio Superlights suck in soft snow, K2 Waybacks are like Vectors but worse at everything.

On my list for when I'm itching to try something new are updated, lighter Bros and 102's, Praxis Yetis, G3 Zenoxide 93's, and maybe Dynafit Denalis.

**Lindahl** · 10-15-2014, 10:41 AM

Surprised you didn't snag the Zenoxide C93s from BC.com when they were on sale for $260. I was really tempted, but I love the CD 102s too much.

**I've seen black diamonds!** · 10-15-2014, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Lindahl

Surprised you didn't snag the Zenoxide C93s from BC.com when they were on sale for $260. I was really tempted, but I love the CD 102s too much.

I am very happy with the Vectors, otherwise.... Also my first born arrived Monday. The gear budget is going to be negligible this year, and ski days will be fewer.

**gregL** · 10-18-2014, 09:03 AM

TX97 TM is a strange ski - very stiff underfoot and at the tail, but super soft in the tip. I've only skied it in soft snow, but I suspect the attempt to make it ski variable conditions by softening the tip might compromise edge grip. Völkl Nanuq might fit the bill, kind of in the same class as the Kabookie - not super light but very solid.

FWIW, Europeans consider 95-100mm waists to be "powder" touring skis; you'll have a better selection of bomber hard snow touring skis if you drop down to 85-90mm.

**çayzi** · 10-19-2014, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by gregL

FWIW, Europeans consider 95-100mm waists to be "powder" touring skis; you'll have a better selection of bomber hard snow touring skis if you drop down to 85-90mm.

I juat hope you are wrong sine i ordered 106mm waist ski used also ob groomers which is in some way also hard snow type of skiing. And i will ski mostly Europe.

**gregL** · 10-19-2014, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by çayzi

I juat hope you are wrong sine i ordered 106mm waist ski used also ob groomers which is in some way also hard snow type of skiing. And i will ski mostly Europe.

I suspect that you will be just fine. You can always try to pass yourself off as an American.

**DoWork** · 10-20-2014, 08:53 AM

179 stiff carbon bros for sure. WAY better "everything steep and sketchy" ski than the Tahoes, which are fun and great for resort snow but I wouldn't want them in big terrain. I've skied a bunch of different 179 and 183 bros (fat, skinny, all glass full camber, hybrid fats, etc. etc. etc.) and I can honestly say that the 179s with the hybrid layup and the slight tip rocker are my favorite do-everything ski of all time- and I can only imagine the pure carbons would kill it too. The perfect intersection of weight, quickness and stability in just about everything that I would want in an "everything far, steep and likely sketchy" touring ski. Just my .02, but that's what I would get. Happy hunting!

**rob stokes** · 10-21-2014, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by gregL

FWIW, Europeans consider 95-100mm waists to be "powder" touring skis; you'll have a better selection of bomber hard snow touring skis if you drop down to 85-90mm.

Give over, maybe older traditionalists but the same can be said for traditionalists from N. America. I read a review of some 100~ skis on wildsnow the other day and the were described as pow touring skis.

People on here sometimes have a really funny view of how Europeans ski.

**gregL** · 10-21-2014, 08:28 AM

The 25 touring traditionalists in North America are the ones on 75mm skis with Scarpa T-3's. The new school backcountry skiers are the ones dragging 115-120mm wide skis uphill because they want to "charge" like they do in the area.

I was talking about European manufacturers, but I've seen a number of Euros on skinny near rando-race weight gear flailing down slopes they'd probably enjoy if they had a slightly burlier setup.