Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Kastle FX94 (166cm) vs Stockli VXL (169 and 159)

  1. #1
    Know all the neighbours by name Senior Citizen Representative
    - see the rocking chair by the fire
    CharlieP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maryland, suburbs of Wash DC
    Posts
    1,868

    Kastle FX94 (166cm) vs Stockli VXL (169 and 159)

    Jan 27, 2014

    Hi Village Skiers:

    Last week, I was on my Kastle FX94 (166cm, 94mm) on Wednesday, my Stockli VXL(170cm, 86mm) on Friday and Saturday, and then back on my FX94 on Sunday.

    For complete disclosure, my Kastle FX94(166cm, 94mm), second time out ever, had a tip top tune on them from my ski shop. The Stockli VXL (169cm, 86mm) had not been skied in 3 seasons, but did have a complete tune,wax and stone grind, three seasons ago. I usually ski my Stockli VXL (159cm, 85mm) when I am at my home mountain (small vertical, small area, slower speed etc).

    After two days on my FX94, I think that this will be my one ski quiver, here at Liberty (600 vertical) and even when I go north to bigger mountains. I hope that this decision is not "tune based". The VXL (159cm, 85mm) are quick and forgiving for skiing my home mountain, it just loses a touch in stability at speed and doesn't gain any quickness points when in the bumps, compared to the VXL (169cm, 86 mm) and the FX94 (166cm, 94mm). Before we leave the VXL (159cm, 85mm), let me say that it is an excellent ski, and a good description for it (which applies to the other two skis as well) is that it skis like a mid-fat GS ski.

    Head to head comparison of the FX94 (166cm, 94 mm) and VXL (169cm, 86 mm), is that the FX94 gives up a hair in stability at speeds (since it has only one sheet of metal and probably 3 cm shorter(?)) while it gains tons in playfulness and quickness when compared to my VXL (two sheets of metal and 3 cm longer). The VXL is just a beefier ski and as such, working it all day long is just a tad much for this Senior Citizen Rep (SCR). Rebound effect from the VXL is excellent, such that when timed right and with some speed, it will "sling shot" one into the next turn landing on the inside edge, if you are standing on it more or less correctly. However, the FX94 did just as well in this drill and was livelier and more playful. Note that these are larger turns. Even for medium and smaller turns, both skis displayed excellent rebound effect. In the moguls, the FX94 came out ahead by a modest but significant margin. I think that the playful nature of this ski "comes out" in the moguls when compared to the VXL. Both skis held an edge on ice and hard pack excellently, on the steeps, in the moguls (scrapped down to ice). Pivoting on the ridges of long shaped moguls were easy to perform for both. Pushing up when going up the face of the moguls and kicking back one's heels to point the tips down, when one clears the top, were performed easily and well by both skis. It was just always easier to dig the tip of the inside edge into the snow, when compared to the VXL (any shaped turns and anywhere). The only area which the VXL came out on top was stability at speed. It would be a perfect ski for Nastar GS course. However, as mentioned earlier, the beefiness of this ski, takes a lot out of this skier, when one truly tries to work the ski, turn after turn after turn. Haven't skied a Volkl in years, but I would guess that the VXL skis like your beefier Volkls due to the stiff tips. The tips of the FX94 are a lot more forgiving, but still held an edge just as well as the VXL, when not going "mach schnel". Due to the waist width, I didn't think that I would enjoy the FX94 at my small mountain. On Wednesday, we had our two hour senior training class (coached by a former PSIA-e dev team member). I asked him if my skiing had "lost a bit", compared to when I skied my VXL 159. He said, not at all and actually thought I skied better. I think that the skiing better comes from the fact that one really has to be more patient on the FX94 during the transition phase and make patience turns. Well, at least for myself, anyway, since I usually tend to "rush" my turns during transition. I've been working at correcting this now for 3 or 4 seasons.

    So:

    Stability at mach schnel speeds VXL 169.
    Stability as schnel and under speeds, a toss up.
    Rebound effect of the skis, a toss up.
    Playfulness. Forgiveness and Liveliness, FX94.
    Ease in the bumps, FX94.
    Everything else, a toss up.

    Bonus: The FX94 tends to force one to be patient when making turns.

    Another week of sub-freezing temperatures here in the mid-Atlantic banana belt, where "banana skis" reign supreme, well at least for this season.

    Think snow,

    SCR

    ps: complete disclosure, none of my skis are rockered or have tip rise. The Stocklis are 5-6 season old and the FX94 a model from 3 seasons ago. Boots, Lange RS 120 SC (short cuff).
    Last edited by CharlieP; January 27th, 2014 at 12:12 PM.
    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it ~ George Santayana

  2. #2
    This is the Stockli VXL with the deer-antler topsheet that almost looks like barbed wire?

    I used to really like that ski, but then that was during my park & ride lazy phase.

  3. #3
    Looking for an apartment Snow Sport Instructor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Near the Great Hill
    Posts
    337
    [QUOTE=CharlieP;35727]Jan 27, 2014

    Hi Village Skiers:
    ...
    SCR

    Curiosity question, can I ask your size, ability, etc. For comparing the length of the skis (those sound short for most taller/larger person.)

  4. #4
    Know all the neighbours by name Senior Citizen Representative
    - see the rocking chair by the fire
    CharlieP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maryland, suburbs of Wash DC
    Posts
    1,868
    [QUOTE=learn2turn;36002]
    Quote Originally Posted by CharlieP View Post
    Jan 27, 2014

    Hi Village Skiers:
    ...
    SCR

    Curiosity question, can I ask your size, ability, etc. For comparing the length of the skis (those sound short for most taller/larger person.)
    March 6, 2014

    Hi L2T:

    I'm 5'5" and fluctuate between 160-165 lbs. I believe that I would be rated as a solid 8 in the standard skier's rating schedule. My age may also play a role in the lengths of my skis, as we know that as one ages, one tends to lose lean muscle mass as well as quick twitch muscles. Also note that I usually ski a 600 vertical feet ski area, so "stability at speed" is not as important to me as for some skiers who ski at larger areas. However, I find that at the speeds which I usually ski (I'm not slow, but not among the fastest skiers on the mountain either), I have had very little stability issues with any of the three skis listed. Also note that none of these skis are rockered or display early tip rise.

    As an afterthought, after 3,4 seasons working on patience turns so as not to pivot or stem at turn initiation, I've think that I've finally nailed down this issue this season. The "toppling" into the next turn is a "sweet" sensation.

    Think snow,

    SCR
    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it ~ George Santayana

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by CharlieP View Post
    The "toppling" into the next turn is a "sweet" sensation.

    Think snow,

    SCR
    Like jumping off a diving board, eh?

  6. #6
    Know all the neighbours by name Senior Citizen Representative
    - see the rocking chair by the fire
    CharlieP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maryland, suburbs of Wash DC
    Posts
    1,868
    Quote Originally Posted by comprex View Post
    Like jumping off a diving board, eh?
    March 7, 2014

    Hi comprex:

    Exact amundo. Right on Bro. High Five.


    SCR

    ps: My thanks to all Village Coaches, Racers, Skiers who have helped me with this patience turn and "tumbling into the next turn" concept over the past 3-4 years.
    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it ~ George Santayana

  7. #7
    For me that sensation was seriously addictive when I first learned it - but I could only do it with OLR.

  8. #8
    Looking for an apartment
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Marlborough, MA
    Posts
    346
    I tried out the FX94 on Sunday at Stowe (me: 6'2", 175 pounds, level 8.5 on the standard PSIA scale). Conditions were on the "firm" side (white ice, little frozen chunks all over the place (although not to the level of death marbles and not blue ice).

    What I noticed:

    • The FX94 is LOUD. It seemed to have decent (not spectacular, but live-able) edge grip, but something was making such a racket that my skiing partner commented that it was far louder than the usual "sideways drift" that you'll get when not railing carves.
    • I found the FX94 to be about as nimble as a battleship. I took it through a couple bump runs of varying craziness and I just couldn't get it to work. Hopped back on my skis and I was able to ski about as well as I could expect given the conditions.


    It seems that the skis that everybody loves (FX94, Rossi Experience 88) are the ones that I hate. Go figure. I guess this is why we demo.

  9. #9
    Wot length did ya demo?

  10. #10
    Looking for an apartment
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Marlborough, MA
    Posts
    346
    I was on the 176cm version.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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