I scored a pair of the 3rd generation 15-16 FX 85s (no metal) at the end of the (New England) season with a low-ball bid for $335 shipped. Bought them un-demo'd, basically on the strength of SB's review. Brand new with Attack demos. I'd been waiting for more time on the ski before posting a note, but since this thread seems to be active at the moment I'll put in my two cents.
Me: 5' 7" 130lbs, East coaster. Beer leaguer. Level 8-ish.
Skis: 2014-15 Kastle FX 84 @168cm, 2015-16 Kastle FX 85 non-HP @165cm
Looking for the elusive daily driver.
I had demo'd the 2nd generation 14-15 FX 84s early season 2014 in very limited terrain on hard snow and liked them. Bought a pair early this season when shops were getting rid of them due to the design change for 15-16. After several days on them here and in Aspen I decided they were not quite what I was hoping they'd be. Surprisingly nice ski on groomers; lovely, stable, and trampoline-y at speed in shallow chop and easy round bumps; but a bit of a handful in steep deep-troughed moguls, trees, and other low-speed technical terrain.
So I now have exactly one day on the new FX 85. Conditions were what by rights should have been full-on spring corn at Sunday River, on a sunny calm 55 degree day. In practice it was ... not exactly that. There were precious few bumps to be found. Presumably they've been grooming them out to preserve the limited remaining cover. Something about the "snow"pack this year ... even on really warm days that shiny translucent blue-gray cake of ice still underlies everything and raises its ugly head everywhere among the big sugar piles. To be sure, it was eminently edgeable ice on this particular day, but it was still ice. Not corn, not potatoes, not slush. Ice. Anyway, I spent about half the day lapping White Heat despite the shiny stuff, just because there were a few bumps there, and less sloppy slushy runout than elsewhere.
So... this ski does ski pretty darn short. "Well, duh," I hear you saying. "Look at them." Yeah, I know. You're right. But still: If a 168 FX 84 was a bit of a handful, a revised version at 165 should probably be perfect. Right? (I ski a 155 SL, so I'm not shy about going short with the right ski.) Well, the jury is still out on that. Part of me thinks the 173 might have been a better choice, even though that's generally a long size for me, based on experience. The design is SO different between the two skis. The 2nd gen skis like an "MX lite," to use James's phrase. At my size it's a like a gentle little GS ski, which is a great thing in the right circumstance. (Bumps are not the right circumstance.) The 3rd gen is, indeed, much friendlier in bumps and on steeps at low velocity. At speed on choppy groomers, though, it gives up a whole lot of stability to the 84. Much turnier. Much more flighty. When you look at the two skis together it's immediately obvious that the 168 FX 84 is going to have WAY more edge on the snow. I'm guessing it's probably about the same amount of edge the 173 FX 85 would have, if not more. Now, it's entirely possible that on a normal firm mid-season groomer the shorter 85 would feel just fine. My one day on them did not offer that particular condition, so I can't say. Ditto on true hard-snow grip. So, more testing is in order.
