Individual Review 2017 Kastle MX84 first take and review

[CJSailor]

No question, the MX 98 targets a limited audience. But it's a heavenly ride.

 

[dawgcatching]

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.

I think the sizing works very well. 10cm is quite a bit. Also, there isn't a ton of difference between the MX84 and MX89. The sizes fall right in between: 168/176/184 or 172/180/188. If you are in between sizes, just get the other model. That MX89 is also stellar, just as good on edge, a bit more of a GS feel, tons of energy, and incredibly forgiving (I skied the 180). Kastles are way up on stability compared to most any other brand, in the same reference length, so it is OK to go a bit shorter. They also are very forgiving (the MX89 in 180cm skied like a 175 in terms of forgiveness) so you can go up in length without a penalty if you have the skills. I always ski high 170's/low 180's, and I owned the MX83 in 173cm. Bumped the binding back 1cm, and it was wickedly stable. Not as much soft snow float as I would like, being on the short side, but I didn't buy it as a soft snow ski anyways, so it wasn't an issue.

The MX84 felt perfect in 176 for me, for what that ski was designed for; slightly snappier all-mountain feel with no drop-off on hard snow groomers. The MX89 felt perfect in the 180, for how that ski was designed: longer radius, a bit more GS in feel, a bit more of a crudbuster.

 

[dawgcatching]

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.

You should really ski it first. Determining how a ski performs by looking at the specs...there is a reason we get on the hill. The sidecut works. I am not a "turny" ski guy, most of the skis I love are 17-20m aside from pure carvers, and this is anything but an Atomic Metron B5. It loads properly, has GS dampness and carver energy when asked.

 

[dawgcatching]

How do the MX84 compare to the MX74?

I skied the 74 for 6 runs. It was fun as well, more energy as it was a 172. It ripped up groomers, lots of energy. Wicked good in bumps, but did have a top end that both the MX84 and 89 did not have. It would be a great ride for a smaller hill in that length. I need to try an 180cm to get more apples to apples; I also skied the 89 in that 172cm length and again, just a touch short for how and where I ski. Would have played around with binding mount point if I had more time.

Maybe Phil can chime in: are the layups in all 3 identical?

 

[dawgcatching]

No question, the MX 98 targets a limited audience. But it's a heavenly ride.

yes, it is! Meaty no doubt.

 

[James]

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.

Yeah whatever. This isn't freakin quantum dynamics. Not that difficult. They've been told this for years. It's Germanic obstinancy. If they weren't making a half a dozen useless models I'd understand. Flagship skis should be dialed. No one is thrilled with this. You miss an opportunity to have 2 skis in the 170's.

 

[Lorenzzo]

Were increments 6cm instead of 8 them the maximum variance from theoretical ideal would decrease by .4 inches. I wonder how many could perceive that performance difference.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

You guys ever see Black Crows skis? They measure them to .1 cm. I'm sure someone complains that the 184.2 should have been a 184.4.

 

[Philpug]

I skied the 74 for 6 runs. It was fun as well, more energy as it was a 172. It ripped up groomers, lots of energy. Wicked good in bumps, but did have a top end that both the MX84 and 89 did not have. It would be a great ride for a smaller hill in that length. I need to try an 180cm to get more apples to apples; I also skied the 89 in that 172cm length and again, just a touch short for how and where I ski. Would have played around with binding mount point if I had more time.

Maybe Phil can chime in: are the layups in all 3 identical?

I didn't get out on the 74..I think there was one pair...@Dawgcatching must have had it out. I did flex the 74 in Denver, it felt softer there but the constructions seem to be identical...
Titanal Top Sheet: .5mm
Wood Core: Ash/Silver Fir
Titanal Base Sheet: .5mm

 

[James]

heh, I just looked them up. They list sizes to the millimeter-absurd, but their spacing- 6 cm. Sensible.

 

[Tony S]

I didn't get out on the 74..I think there was one pair...@Dawgcatching must have had it out. I did flex the 74 in Denver, it felt softer there but the constructions seem to be identical...
Titanal Top Sheet: .5mm
Wood Core: Ash/Silver Fir
Titanal Base Sheet: .5mm

Well, that only makes sense. A 2x4 is easier to flex than a 2x6, even though they're both the same thickness, right?

 

[Ron]

loved that mx84.

 

[ski otter 2]

At this year's Loveland demo (the only Kastle rep demo on the frontrange, to my knowledge), the Kastle tent did not bring the MX-74 this year, but they did bring a RS-12 (which I didn't get on, since it was a 2" + 12" powder day!)

I asked the rep about my experience last year of loving the MX-74 on an "old snow," skied off day, but experiencing disappointment at the MX-84 and its edgehold/carve, especially in skied off bumps.

He answered that the MX-74 probably had a much better tune job. He said he gets so few requests for the MX-74 that that ski probably had the better tuning of its original factory tune, whereas his MX-84s had been tuned and skied many times.

 

[pcjer]

I'm going to demo both most likely but any opinions on 176 or 184? My all rounder is the renoun 98 in 184 so I'm thinking mx 84 would be nice for groomer days. 6' 220 or so. Not an ex racer or anything but enjoy putting down some tracks every now and then. Would say I am usually in the 40-50 range at speed with occasional empty resort spikes to 60ish. Mentally I'm leaning 176 for intended use but would love some feedback from the experts!

 

[James]

I'm going to demo both most likely but any opinions on 176 or 184? My all rounder is the renoun 98 in 184 so I'm thinking mx 84 would be nice for groomer days. 6' 220 or so. Not an ex racer or anything but enjoy putting down some tracks every now and then. Would say I am usually in the 40-50 range at speed with occasional empty resort spikes to 60ish. Mentally I'm leaning 176 for intended use but would love some feedback from the experts!

Hmmm..., after lunch probably the 184. @Drahtguy Kevin I think has skied the 83 in 183.

 

[Ron]

well 40 -50 range is flying. The MX84 is super stable and ultra smooth so have at it!

 

[Ron]

yeah, you could handle the 184. My guess is you are much more of a straightliner so the extra length wont hurt you.

 

[Drahtguy Kevin]

The MX84 in 176 was enough ski for me to travel as fast as I cared to go. The 184 is a lot of ski but very manageable on groomers — especially empty ones.

 

[pcjer]

Awesome, thanks all. I'll try em both and try to remove my 176 bias .

 

[Ron]

Isten to @Drahtguy Kevin The Renoun 98skis short so if you were happy on that, the 176 will be plenty.