Kastle fx95hp binding decisions...

[mufasa5446]

Picked up this ski and haven't been able to decide what binding to put on it.

A buddy of mine said that skis with metal in it, such as this one, it's no good to put a second set of holes in it... What do you think and why?

I've been trying to decide between the Salomon STH 16 (which I may be able to simply use the original holes as that's what was there before and for about the same BSL) or the Dynafit FT2.

I do a lot of touring, but originally bought the ski for mostly in-bounds use. Not sure I can let it go to that.

Basically, do you think a new set of holes will fuck up the flex pattern?

Jonathan

[adrenalated]

A buddy of mine said that skis with metal in it, such as this one, it's no good to put a second set of holes in it... What do you think and why?

Your buddy doesn't know what he's talking about.

I've been trying to decide between the Salomon STH 16 (which I may be able to simply use the original holes as that's what was there before and for about the same BSL) or the Dynafit FT2.

I do a lot of touring, but originally bought the ski for mostly in-bounds use. Not sure I can let it go to that.

If you're skiing them inbounds, why would you put a touring binding on them? Furthermore, why would you want to tour on them? They are heavy AF for a 95mm waisted ski. Mount with whatever your favorite alpine binder is.

Basically, do you think a new set of holes will fuck up the flex pattern?

No.

[doebedoe]

Just listen to adrenlated -- not your buddy.

[lordf]

I used to have these, they sucked to ski inbounds and they would have sucked to tour on. I replaced them with mx88s for inbounds which are far superior.

[jorion]

I have a pair of fx94s which I believe are pretty much the same as the 95hps. Took off the demon binding they came with and re drilled for pivots. They ski the same other than the improved feel of having better bindings. I know Davenport tours on them sometimes but I wouldn't want to...too heavy. Awesome inbounds ski though.

[1000-oaks]

Put in two days on a pair of 181 FX95HP's on pretty firm snow, interesting ski. Can see why reviews on them are mixed, they have a really small sweet spot due to the short running length (considerably less than a 174 MX98 or 176 FX94) due to lots of tip rocker and moderate tail rocker. If you're not well-balanced on the ski on hard snow, they will break out of a carve and wash the tips or tails in an instant. But if you're balanced and driving from the heel, they really rail and have a ton of snap into the next turn, something I never found with the 2017 Bonafide (which was maybe too stiff for my 168 lbs). Looking forward to a soft snow day.

They're nothing like the FX94, which has a nice round flex, is very easy going, super predictable, and fun all around, especially on soft spring snow days. The 95HP is more like an edgy race car; stiffer, heavier, damper, wants you to be on the gas, and plows if you get forward. But oh so fun when you're balanced in the zone.

Mine are mounted on the line, but to really rail carves on hard snow you have to drive from your heel instead of the ball of your foot. Which makes me wonder if they might be better carvers when mounted at -1cm or -1.5cm, if you like to drive the front of the ski. You would lose some of that instant on-command looseness however, so skew the mount to the style you prefer.

3/8 Update
Got them out again today; from a couple inches of mank on top of boilerplate, to straight coral reef. Digging these skis more and more. Yeah they're not "fat GS skis", nor are they playful rockered skis. But they do carve through $#%@ snow with authority, are solid yet nimble when you need them to be, and can still hold a mean edge on a pitch of boilerplate. Hard to describe 'em, but if you ever wanted a 2012-2014 metal Mantra with a bunch of tip and tail rocker, it would be something like these. And now that they're discontinued, they're down to a more reasonable price too.