• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Individual Review 2017 Kastle MX84 first take and review

dawgcatching

Snow? What is that?
Industry Insider
Joined
Nov 24, 2015
Posts
172
Location
SMU Cox School of Business
2017 Kastle MX 84 review



The ski: Kastle MX84 176cm. All new ski: tighter radius, revised construction, new tip and tail shape. Still full camber, zero rocker, race room construction. 15M in 176cm. Mounted with Attack 13 demo binding.



Skier: 5 foot 9, 155-160lbs. Skis 10-30 days a year. See video for skill level and skiing style (not yet posted)



Terrain: 4 runs at Copper Mountain. Groomers, steep bumps, some softer snow.



First off, a disclaimer and a little bit about me: we sell Kastle (and provide a Pugski discount!) and were one of the original Kastle dealers in the US. www.dawgcatching.com We have most every model in stock, and I personally have owned around 80% of the skis that Kastle has produced since their re-introduction to the market in 2007. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the brand or would like to take advantage of special PUG pricing. The old MX83 and MX88 were probably my 2 favorite skis of all time: skis that could be amongst the best groomer skis on the market yet amongst the best off-piste as well. The MX is simply the best ski lineup ever conceived, IMO, and I have often said the MX88 was the one ski I would choose if I were stranded on a deserted mountainous snowy island.



In steps the new MX84 for 2017. It has a new length matrix: 168/176/184, in which the 176 is squarely in the meat for many skiers. It does ski true to length: no early rise, full camber, square tail. A new tri-radius sidecut replaces the old single-radius sidecut. The tail shape is refined, the tip as well, and construction is tweaked.



If you want the short version of my review, please note the following summary: this is the best ski I have ever been on.



Long version: first sensations on the MX were extremely positive. I was feeling a lot of energy out of the ski Just cruising, long arcs, very positive tracking in what was a choppy groomers (a few inches had fallen overnight). Amp up the energy a bit, start really flexing that long outside leg and rolling down the hill, aggressive releases, and the ski comes alive. It literally felt 97% as good as any of the new full-on carvers I tried (Fischer “The Curv” and Blizzard “quattro”). Maybe 98%. Just tossing me from edge to edge if I asked for it, a completely unweighted feel, yet accurately locked in when on edge. The ski has no mind of it's own; it completes the movements initiated by it's owner. If your skills aren't where they need to be, it's not the ski's fault. I was amazed at the energy, the snap, the edge grip, the dampness out of a 176cm, the stability, on groomers for the MX. Rough snow, bunches of late-day groomers: the ski blasted through them like they didn't exist. Yet is was easy to ski, relatively speaking. Big sweet spot, felt no more demanding than any other ski I tried, and less demanding than some. This was as much of a “race ski package in an all-mountain skin” as any ski I have yet tried. Isn't that the holy grail for many technical skiers?



In bumps, I found the MX to be about average. I could trust it. The ski required good input: this isn't a hack's ski. With that said, I hadn't been on bumps in about a year (we don't have bumps at Bachelor retirees complain and the runs get mowed down), yet I was as solid on the MX in my first bump run as I was all week. The ski just sucked up terrain, provided I was active, moving over the ski, committing to the turn. The tip was very solid and positive in feel. Steve and I skied the Laser AX and MX84 back to back: he preferring the AX in bumps, while I opted for the MX. He figured the reason might be that I skied a more “2 footed” style, he is more outside foot weighted. Hard to say exactly: I do know that the MX84 is a capable bump tool, as was it's predecessor, the MX83.



In longer bumps, the kind that have several ski lengths between them, the MX84 is as good as anything I have yet tried. It almost seemed to dance and drift between the snow piles.



Skied out trees; likewise, the MX84 was quick, and more versatile than it had a right to be. Just unweight and pull back those feet: the ski whips right around.



In softer snow, the MX didn't have a ton of float. It is only 84mm, underfoot, after all. It did blast through anything, and tackle rough snow in a manner uncommon amongst narrower skis. There is no stopping the MX84 in rough snow.



A word about the feel of the MX: it really hasn't changed from the last generation. You can look at the MX series as a BMW M3/M4: a race-derived ski that is an exceptional daily driver, and a ski that any enthusiast dreams to own. The combo of performance and practicality is unmatched. Smooth, snappy, powerful, huge sweet spot for what it is. The MX is uncannily damp, but with huge snap in the tail once woken up. It truly is worth the asking price.



What doesn't the MX do well? Given the size limitations, there isn't anything that comes to mind. You wont' find a more satisfying carver over 80mm; it is excellent in bumps and trees; has ridiculous top end. It may not be THE most forgiving ski on the market, but it is far from the most demanding.

Comparison skis that day:
Laser AX Stockli
Kastle MX89
Stockli Stormrider 88
Fischer Pro Mountain 86ti
Fischer Pro Mountain 80ti

feel free to ask questions! Video up shortly.
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
So what's the deal with this tri-radius sidecut?
I skied the MX 83 again at Snowmass last week thanks to @SBrown. Such a great ski, just too short at 173 in big spaces.
I'm dissapointed in their new lengths. 8 cm between? Should be 5. 163,168,173,178,183cm. This is the flagship line after all. It deserves more attention.

Also, after skiing the Blizzard SRC in 178, 15m sidecut is too low for such a ski. At that length one bends the ski for shorter turns. 18m would be better. Even 20. I thought Kastle had proven that already after the last 8 yrs? Seems to me they responded to sidecut mania of a couple years ago which has lessened by now.
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
So what's the deal with this tri-radius sidecut?
I skied the MX 83 again at Snowmass last week thanks to @SBrown. Such a great ski, just too short at 173 in big spaces.
I'm dissapointed in their new lengths. 8 cm between? Should be 5. 163,168,173,178,183cm. This is the flagship line after all. It deserves more attention.

Also, after skiing the Blizzard SRC in 178, 15m sidecut is too low for such a ski. At that length one bends the ski for shorter turns. 18m would be better. Even 20. I thought Kastle had proven that already after the last 8 yrs? Seems to me they responded to sidecut mania of a couple years ago which has lessened by now.
7-8cm is the norm in he industry now for lenghts. These at a 176 and 184 is a fine breakdown in sizing. I agree with Scott, this was one of the best skis I skied in Colorado.
 

ARL67

Invisible Airwaves Crackle With Life
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Posts
1,218
Location
Thornbury, ON, Canada
Great review as always !
I found the MX83 at 173 too short, and the MX88 at 178 too long.
Hmmm, the MX84 at 176 could be money !
 

Ron

Seeking the next best ski
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Posts
9,282
Location
Steamboat Springs, Co
My bet is that if it skis like other non rockered kastles, the 176 will work just fine for most. I don't mind a ski like that to be a touch shorter. I did find the mx83. 173 a bit too short.
 

Tom K.

Skier Ordinaire
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Posts
8,402
Great writeup. Very interested in comparisons to the Fischer Pro Mountains, when you get around to them.
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
7-8cm is the norm in he industry now for lenghts. These at a 176 and 184 is a fine breakdown in sizing. I agree with Scott, this was one of the best skis I skied in Colorado.
Yeah I guess. So Kastle is following now ? These skis are worthy of closer spacing due to their precision. Not all skis are. I still think they should pay more attention to these and eliminate some other models.
Upshot: no one's thrilled by this spacing.

But still, piste oriented skis, a quick look. Plenty other than 8 cm spacing.

Nordica:
FA84 edt evo - 8 cm spacing.
160-168-176-184
( now there's a ski that could benefit from closer spacing but it has all that extra stuff on it so it's somewhat understandable)

FA 80Ti Evo - 6 cm spacing
156-162-168-174-180

FA 76 Ca Evo - 6cm spacing
150-156-162-168-174-180

Doberman Slr Evo 4-5cm spacing
156-160-165-170

Blizzard:
SRC Racing (70mm) 4-5 cm
156, 160, 165, 170, 175 cm.

RC Ti (72mm) -6cm
154, 160, 166, 172, 178 cm

Power S8 (72mm) -7cm
160, 167, 174, 181 cm.

Power X8 (81mm) -7cm
160, 167, 174, 181cm
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
Kastle went from 10cm to 8cm...I will take that...baby steps..baby steps.
 

Erik Timmerman

So much better than a pro
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,304
3cm. Does it really make that much of a difference? I'd bet that if that ski was labeled 176 everyone would be raving about how it was the perfect length even though it measures shorter than it's labeled (if anyone bothered to measure it). Of course at the same time even if they went to 5cm gaps there would always be somebody who is "between sizes".

full disclosure: I owned the MX83 in 173. I bought it because MX88s were sold out and I really wanted it to be longer. I hesitated to buy because it seemed too short. It was fine, there was nothing wrong with the size.
 

Lorenzzo

Be The Snow
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
2,984
Location
UT
3cm. Does it really make that much of a difference? I'd bet that if that ski was labeled 176 everyone would be raving about how it was the perfect length even though it measures shorter than it's labeled (if anyone bothered to measure it). Of course at the same time even if they went to 5cm gaps there would always be somebody who is "between sizes".

full disclosure: I owned the MX83 in 173. I bought it because MX88s were sold out and I really wanted it to be longer. I hesitated to buy because it seemed too short. It was fine, there was nothing wrong with the size.
Not that the psychological aspect doesn't matter but with 8 cm you're never more 4 cm from a theoretical ideal target. That's about an inch and a half. Let's see...in what other areas does an inch and a half matter?


Ref: Freud.
 

CJSailor

In the parking lot (formerly "At the base lodge")
Skier
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Posts
4
Location
Niseko / Hong Kong
Thanks for the review! Sounds like a very exciting ski. Really happy to hear the 84/89 will be worthy successors to the MX 83/89. (I'm a bit disappointed over the demise of the MX 98, though.)
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
Thanks for the review! Sounds like a very exciting ski. Really happy to hear the 84/89 will be worthy successors to the MX 83/89. (I'm a bit disappointed over the demise of the MX 98, though.)
The 98 went away once before and they did a secong run to bring it back. If you want a pair, I know there are some still in the Kastle warehouses.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

  • Andy Mink
    Everyone loves spring skiing but not in January
Top