What ski do I want?

[ski otter 2]

I've heard tremendous things about the AX — haven't had a chance to demo it, but everyone I know who has, or who owns a pair, loves it.

If MX 74, why not MX84 (or 83, used)? One of the great skis of the decade, and it's been a strong all-mountain choice in the East. Maybe the Midwest differs (lived in Iowa for 2o years, but I didn't ski in those days.)

From what I can tell, both these skis are 4-5 star. I skied these two Kastles back to back on a Colorado demo day afternoon in mid-November. The ground was a bit frozen, skied off, increasingly icy with bumps forming in places. Many skiers. As close to an Eastern or Midwestern old snow day/afternoon as we in Colorado get.

The MX 84, comparatively, felt all-mountain good. Not great with unpredictable icy patches, but good. Probably more versatile than the MX 74, but not so much that day, in those conditions, relatively speaking.

By contrast, the MX 74, in those conditions, was a stand out "wow." If the hill had been shorter, putting a premium on amazing flow shorter ("between") turns, then the "wow" contrast would have been even more.

Other skis that excelled, really zinged it, in those unpredictably icy, crowded, skied off and intermittently bumpy conditions (for me, mind you):

The Head Rebel/Supershape iSpeeds (two slightly different versions of the iSpeed).
(The pro version mentioned by @markojp . for me too, might well have been even a bit more fun.)

The Monster 88 & 83.

 

[ski otter 2]

P.S. You never know, however. It was just a demo day, after all. Maybe I was partially just testing the relative tuning of the two skis.

 

[Read Blinn]

From what I can tell, both these skis are 4-5 star. I skied these two Kastles back to back on a Colorado demo day afternoon in mid-November. The ground was a bit frozen, skied off, increasingly icy with bumps forming in places. Many skiers. As close to an Eastern or Midwestern old snow day/afternoon as we in Colorado get.

The MX 84, comparatively, felt all-mountain good. Not great with unpredictable icy patches, but good. Probably more versatile than the MX 74, but not so much that day, in those conditions, relatively speaking.

By contrast, the MX 74, in those conditions, was a stand out "wow." If the hill had been shorter, putting a premium on amazing flow shorter ("between") turns, then the "wow" contrast would have been even more.

The Monster 88 & 83.

I've heard great things about the 74, but I'm surprised the 84 didn't do better. Tune may have been an issue. (Last season I demoed the new LX72 (full sidewall, much stiffer ski than the old LX) and found the one I was on really catchy, almost as if it had been tuned with a 0º base. If I didn't know better, I'd have said the 72 sucked.)

 

[Philpug]

I've heard great things about the 74, but I'm surprised the 84 didn't do better. Tune may have been an issue. (Last season I demoed the new LX72 (full sidewall, much stiffer ski than the old LX) and found the one I was on really catchy, almost as if it had been tuned with a 0º base. If I didn't know better, I'd have said the 72 sucked.)

Over the past couple of years, we had numerous issues with their skis at test...

 

[markojp]

The Head Rebel/Supershape iSpeeds (two slightly different versions of the iSpeed).
(The pro version mentioned by @markojp . for me too, might well have been even a bit more fun.)

To clarify, there are two Rebels iSpeed models: the Rebels iSpeed (non WC plate, not 'piston dampener' compatible, slightly thinnerTitanal) and the iSpeed Pro (WC plate, piston dampener compatible, RD layup).

The Supershape iSpeed (black topsheet, yellow graphics) are quite different in turn radius (shorter) and layup than the iSpeed Pro.

All are very good skis, but the Supershape and 'Rebels' iSpeeds are very different critters.