Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    34

    189 cm Kastle FX95 - too much ski?

    5'10" 170 lbs, expert skier. Demo'd these in this length in Whistler last year and loved them. Yet everything I read says I should be on a 181 cm, which is what I normally ski. Am I nuts to get these in 189? Anyone ski both lengths and have any thoughts?

    thx

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    7,510
    If you "loved" the 189 then why get the shorter one based on what some article says. Ski what you like not what some hack in an article is telling what you should like.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Skiing during your summer
    Posts
    293
    Dude my goto size is 186. I got the fx95 in 181 and seriously regret it. I wanted a shorter ski for more technical steep skiing, but not that short! The 181 skis like a 175 and feels like there is nothing infront of me. The dude at the shop told me that, should have listened... Anyway get the 189 will feel close to your standard size on snow. Thats why you loved it.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,436
    Have Kastle BMX108 188cm it measures 185 for some reference. I wouldn't consider a smaller size and I'm just a little taller. Fan of Kastle but their line is a little long in the tooth.. I'd have a hard time spendy Kastle money on a ski that I believe is rumored to be overhauled. Sale priced or different skis - my 2 cents

    Use mine as early/late season skis but they're also 2012's

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,561
    Quote Originally Posted by 2FUNKY View Post
    If you "loved" the 189 then why get the shorter one based on what some article says. Ski what you like not what some hack in an article is telling what you should like.
    This.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by alex1123 View Post
    5'10" 170 lbs, expert skier. Demo'd these in this length in Whistler last year and loved them. Yet everything I read says I should be on a 181 cm, which is what I normally ski. Am I nuts to get these in 189? Anyone ski both lengths and have any thoughts?

    thx
    One the things I don't really like about Kastle's line is their naming conventions, they are too hard to differentiate between the different models. The normal FX95 has no metal in it and weighs 9.5lb in a 189cm with a 22m sidecut. That's not too much ski for you at all, especially considering the rocker, complex sidecut and modern (forward) mounting. It probable skis really short, like a traditional 175 to 180 midfat. If you really wanted a shorter length, you could consider the FX95 HP, which has metal and weighs about 9.5lb in the 181cm.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    34
    Thanks for the input this is helpful

    Quote Originally Posted by CascadeLuke View Post
    Have Kastle BMX108 188cm it measures 185 for some reference. I wouldn't consider a smaller size and I'm just a little taller. Fan of Kastle but their line is a little long in the tooth.. I'd have a hard time spendy Kastle money on a ski that I believe is rumored to be overhauled. Sale priced or different skis - my 2 cents

    Use mine as early/late season skis but they're also 2012's
    The 189 length is on telemark pyrenees for 50% off right now

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    5,405
    Quote Originally Posted by 2FUNKY View Post
    If you "loved" the 189 then why get the shorter one based on what some article says. Ski what you like not what some hack in an article is telling what you should like.
    Hard to argue.

    No offense to Jonny.

    "Some folks may have the luxury to hold out for ďthe perfect.Ē But a lot of Americans are hurting right now and they canít wait for that." - Hillary Clinton

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    2,035
    Quote Originally Posted by alex1123 View Post
    ...Demo'd these in this length in Whistler last year and loved them. Yet everything I read says I should be on a 181 cm, which is what I normally ski...
    Listen to 2FUNKY.

    The only reason I can think of at the moment for you to NOT trust your demo experience is: If during your demo at Whistler maybe you were skiing that longer ski in a style that you cannot replicate at your usual resort. (I.E. Just because you love a longer ski in Whistler's wide-open terrain, with terrain macro-features everywhere, at high-speed, huge turns, big stomps, etc. does not mean you will also love that longer ski in a tiny resort, with terrain micro-features everywhere, forced into tight hopturns all the time, etc.)

    .
    - TRADE your heavy BILLYGOATS or PROTESTS for my lightweight versions at this thread

    "My biggest goal in life has always been to pursue passion and to make dreams a reality. I love my daughter, but if I had to quit my passions for her, then I would be setting the wrong example for her, and I would not be myself anymore. " -Shane

    "I'm gonna go SO OFF that NO ONE's ever gonna see what I'm gonna do!" -Saucerboy

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    off on yet another Tangent
    Posts
    2,794
    Quote Originally Posted by alex1123 View Post
    5'10" 170 lbs, expert skier. Demo'd these in this length in Whistler last year and loved them. Yet everything I read says I should be on a 181 cm, which is what I normally ski. Am I nuts to get these in 189? Anyone ski both lengths and have any thoughts?

    thx
    Good points above. As an apples to bananas comparison, I'm same height and a little heavier and been on the 'right sized' 1st Gen FX95s at 176 and no rocker for several years. I imagine the 181s would ski similar in length. They can ski short but fun and desirable in tighter bumps and trees. I never thought of them as big carvers, but generally versatile. As I understand it, the newer FX95s should carve better and may be more fun here. The 189s might provide a little more float in deeper snows and better for higher speed GS turns on groomers. Also, as weak comparison, with a pair of massive and bit long 189 Keepers at hand, but a blast, I'd be where you are at, 'between clubs', where probably 185 would be a perfect fit.
    Best regards, Terry
    (Direct Contact is best vs PMs)

    SlideWright.com
    Ski, Snowboard & Bike Tools, Wax and Wares
    Repair, Waxing, Tuning, Mounting Tips & more
    Paste 5% TGR Discount code during checkout: 1121TGR
    BIKE TOOL BLOW OUT!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    5
    Aus George - do you mind if I ask your height / weight? I think your response just helped me decide on the 189cm (2019 Kastle FX95 HP).

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    ne pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,443
    Regarding the FX 95 HP....they are sooo much
    $$$. Is there a poor man's option out there with similar construction/characteristics?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Exiled from Maine
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by cinnepa View Post
    Regarding the FX 95 HP....they are sooo much
    $$$. Is there a poor man's option out there with similar construction/characteristics?
    The FX95 HP is discontinued, (now the 96 HP, I believe it uses composites and not metal) so you should be able to pick some up for much less than the old MSRP if you had your heart set on them. A metal off road ski in mid 90s... every company has one. Among the mid-price range ones I've driven (I rode the FX 95 but not the FX 95 HP) Volkl Mantra M5 felt the closest... but I was only on the 177s (I was 155) Should also be able to snag Enforcer 93s for cheap with the Enforcer 94 inbound.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by cinnepa View Post
    Regarding the FX 95 HP....they are sooo much
    $$$. Is there a poor man's option out there with similar construction/characteristics?
    What do you like about them? Kastles are a pretty traditional shape with a metal laminate construction. If what you want is a minimally rockered metal laminate ski, then Blizzard has been making those a long time.

    However, spending the money on a Kastle/Stockli gets you a feel I have personally never found in a cheaper ski. Itís both damper and livelier.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,408
    Nothing traditional about the shape of the FX95HP, it's like a Bonafide with more tip rocker. Very short running length.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by 1000-oaks View Post
    Nothing traditional about the shape of the FX95HP, it's like a Bonafide with more tip rocker. Very short running length.
    Ah, havenít skied that specific model so didnít know. My observation about the brand was based on the MX and older FX skis (still use my 104 on occasion) which have pretty flat tails and very minimal tip rocker. The least traditional thing about the FX104 is a slight pin tail, but itís still totally flat.

    To be fair, I would also call the Bonafide pretty traditional relative to many of the skis on the market.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •