2021 Kästle MX83

[TheArchitect]

This is a ski that I totally do not need but would love to try just in case it turns out that I do.

ditto

 

[Philpug]

@Philpug I'm thinking of replacing my 2012 MX88 with either the 2020 MX84 or 2021 MX83. My goal is for something with the same stability and crud-busting ability of the 88's but a bit narrower. The only thing that I would change from my 88 would be the tip being a little softer in the moguls but probably not at the expense of that great hook up it has. With that in mind how would compare the 2020 and 2021 skis to my MX88?

It comes down to sizing the the new version being slightly different than the older one, I would go with whatever length is closer to what you are used to.

 

[TheArchitect]

It comes down to sizing the the new version being slightly different than the older one, I would go with whatever length is closer to what you are used to.

The the 84 and 83 are effectively the same ski. Okay. My MX88's are 168 so I'll see what the 83's and 84's are available in. Thanks, Phil.

 

[TheArchitect]

It comes down to sizing the the new version being slightly different than the older one, I would go with whatever length is closer to what you are used to.

One more question regarding the sizing. I have the 2019 MX74 in 164cm which I freaking love on groomers. I think part of the love is because of the slightly shorter length gives me more control/leverage over the tips. If either the MX83 or MX84 were available in 164 I'd buy it's not. The Kastle ski finder keeps putting me in the 161 to 164 range but the 161 seems like it's too short. Maybe if I was lighter but not right now. Any thoughts?

 

[Andy Mink]

One more question regarding the sizing. I have the 2019 MX74 in 164cm which I freaking love on groomers. I think part of the love is because of the slightly shorter length gives me more control/leverage over the tips. If either the MX83 or MX84 were available in 164 I'd buy it's not. The Kästle ski finder keeps putting me in the 161 to 164 range but the 161 seems like it's too short. Maybe if I was lighter but not right now. Any thoughts?

I skied the 83 in 175 and was impressed. At about 195-200#.

 

[TheArchitect]

I skied the 83 in 175 and was impressed. At about 195-200#.

Thanks, Andy. I suspect I'll stick with what I know works well and not go shorter than the 168.

 

[Ben]

I don't know enough about the ski manufacturing process and/or the distribution chain to be able to say WHY it's true, but it does seem to be true that you can NEVER count on a ski having a perfectly flat base out of the wrapper, no matter what you pay for it.

I agree that this seems unreasonable, but it is what it is. If I were buying an expensive ski at full retail, I would treat the experience like buying a luxury car, and say that I wanted a perfect tune before agreeing to fork over. Of course this requires a way to KNOW whether the tune is good. It's never simple.

Ideally you would be dealing with a straight shooting shop that would A) be willing and able to evaluate the factory tune and B) know how to make it right if it was off. Tall order, unfortunately. Which is one reason sites like this exist. Sigh.

This is a really interesting topic. I own two pairs of stockli and various freeride skis from manufacturers such as Dynastar, Black Crows, K2. The tune is so personal. How you ski dictates how much of the edge you want tuned and of course edge angles. Let’s say that Kastle decides their product is for a super expert category, they could tune the ski at factory with an aggressive tune from tip to tail, 0.5 base edge and 87 side edge BUT they’d be making a non commercial decision since they’d be excluding most of their potential client base. These top end manufactures make incredible skis but not everyone will appreciate or understand the difference. What I will say, is that build quality of Kastle and Stockli is in a different league. Just compare the tails - they’re metal and not plastic. Top sheets are bomb proof (especially Stockli) so, you’re buying something that not only feels great but actually lasts longer and THAT should be available to all level skiers. As a final remark, most level skiers will be happy with the tune from factory and those that notice the difference will want to put their preferences on their new skis.

 

[Tony S]

How you ski dictates how much of the edge you want tuned and of course edge angles. Let’s say that Kastle decides their product is for a super expert category, they could tune the ski at factory with an aggressive tune from tip to tail, 0.5 base edge and 87 side edge BUT they’d be making a non commercial decision since they’d be excluding most of their potential client base.

That's not what's under discussion. What's under discussion is whether the ski comes FLAT and whether the base and edge angles are CONSISTENT and within what most would consider normal parameters.

I think it is possible to define a "good tune" (call this "in scope") without going into personal preference ("out of scope"). My sense is that of the many complaints over the years on many threads about bad tunes on potentially good skis, the vast majority are about tunes that don't meet the baseline definition of "good tune." They're not complaints about otherwise solid tunes that don't meet someone's personal preference.

Strawman definition of a good tune:

• bases are flat, really flat
• bases have a consistent well-executed structure, with no fuzz, etc.
• base bevel is consistent* along the length of the ski
• (consistent) base bevel is somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees.
• side edge angle is consistent along the length of the ski between outermost on-edge contact points
• (consistent) side edge angle is somewhere between 1 and 3 degrees
• edges are sharp between outermost contact points (not detuned unless specifically requested by customer)
• edges are not sharp beyond the outermost on-edge contact points

* Sure, extra credit if there is evidence that the base bevel is INTENTIONALLY modified near the tip and tail to provide modulated engagement, and there is evidence that this was done well. But I believe this is so rare as to be ignorable.

Edit: As a consumer I do not care whether the good tune was achieved by the factory or by the retailer. What I do care about is that the ski has a good tune when it is delivered.

 

[surfsnowgirl]

I bought the '21 version of this ski in a 161 a couple years ago and finally got them mounted up this season. I have had them out 3 times and love them. First day out with them I just intended to take them out for one run to try them out and ended up staying on them for a few hours at Bromley. Conditions were soft packed powder and they were a ton of fun. Brought them to magic and so far have had them out twice on VERY HARD hard pack/ice and I've been nothing short of impressed. Super fun to ski, easy turn initiation and really had my back on the firm stuff. I was initially concerned this ski would be too much for me based on prior reading up on the ski but it seems the '21 version is "softer/lighter so perhaps that's why. On the flip side I have had some premium instruction the past year with some clinics,, instructors that have skied with me and have worked my butt off. As a result, I seem to have exited my intermediate slump. Still have lots to work on but perhaps now I'm in a better place to enjoy this ski and enjoying it I am.

 

[Tony S]

I bought the '21 version of this ski in a 161 a couple years ago and finally got them mounted up this season. I have had them out 3 times and love them. First day out with them I just intended to take them out for one run to try them out and ended up staying on them for a few hours at Bromley. Conditions were soft packed powder and they were a ton of fun. Brought them to magic and so far have had them out twice on VERY HARD hard pack/ice and I've been nothing short of impressed. Super fun to ski, easy turn initiation and really had my back on the firm stuff. I was initially concerned this ski would be too much for me based on prior reading up on the ski but it seems the '21 version is "softer/lighter so perhaps that's why. On the flip side I have had some premium instruction the past year with some clinics,, instructors that have skied with me and have worked my butt off. As a result, I seem to have exited my intermediate slump. Still have lots to work on but perhaps now I'm in a better place to enjoy this ski and enjoying it I am.

 

[surfsnowgirl]

Sorry it was around 15 degrees out so my hands didn't leave my mittens mostly for the 4 hours we were out there.

This is all I have