Considerably more accessible than the MX 88. The FX is on the light side with a shorter turn radius making it very easy to turn and amenable to various speeds and styles. MX 88 is a stiffer, heavier ski with more stability and power that focuses more on firmer groomers and strongly carved turns.
@@c_kennmusic5737 It's more about style and aggressiveness than weight. The FX is more amenable to moderate speeds, shorter turns, and more versatile terrain while the MX is happier at speed, in a carved turn, on firmer, smoother snow.
@SkiEssentials Thank you! One last question: FX 86 or Volkl Deacon 80? I'm an older dude, late 50s, some race experience, bitd. I love to carve a big turn on skis that are more a little more on the forgiving side so I can ski longer days. You are the best, thank you!
@@c_kennmusic5737 The FX is considerably more versatile. It's a better option if you are looking for that forgiveness and well-rounded nature. If you stay on groomers 90% of the time or more, the Deacon makes more sense as it's got that dedicated front side character, but if you're mixing it up, then I'd go FX.
How would you compare this ski to the Dynastar M-Pro 85 for all mountain performance? Is it as quick, forgiving and precise in the moguls and trees? I’m an advanced intermediate skier skiing in Colorado. Probably spend 50 - 60% of time on groomers. Thanks 😊
I don't think the Kastle is quite as quick or agile as the Dynastar. You'll get a damper and stronger feel overall out of the Kastle and its two sheets of metal, but more agility and pop out of the M-Pro 85. SE
Great review! Are these more accessible/softer/forgiving than the MX 88?
Considerably more accessible than the MX 88. The FX is on the light side with a shorter turn radius making it very easy to turn and amenable to various speeds and styles. MX 88 is a stiffer, heavier ski with more stability and power that focuses more on firmer groomers and strongly carved turns.
@SkiEssentials What if one leaned to the north side of 200lbs? Would you recommend the FX or the MX?🙂
@@c_kennmusic5737 It's more about style and aggressiveness than weight. The FX is more amenable to moderate speeds, shorter turns, and more versatile terrain while the MX is happier at speed, in a carved turn, on firmer, smoother snow.
@SkiEssentials Thank you! One last question: FX 86 or Volkl Deacon 80? I'm an older dude, late 50s, some race experience, bitd. I love to carve a big turn on skis that are more a little more on the forgiving side so I can ski longer days. You are the best, thank you!
@@c_kennmusic5737 The FX is considerably more versatile. It's a better option if you are looking for that forgiveness and well-rounded nature. If you stay on groomers 90% of the time or more, the Deacon makes more sense as it's got that dedicated front side character, but if you're mixing it up, then I'd go FX.
How would you compare this ski to the Dynastar M-Pro 85 for all mountain performance? Is it as quick, forgiving and precise in the moguls and trees? I’m an advanced intermediate skier skiing in Colorado. Probably spend 50 - 60% of time on groomers. Thanks 😊
I don't think the Kastle is quite as quick or agile as the Dynastar. You'll get a damper and stronger feel overall out of the Kastle and its two sheets of metal, but more agility and pop out of the M-Pro 85.
SE