Mounted some 178 cm Blanks a bit forward (+1.5cm @ -6.5cm).
Great ski. But way too “short feeling” so sold. Wished it was a 183.
Though I could turn em like snow blades in the trees!
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Printable View
Mounted some 178 cm Blanks a bit forward (+1.5cm @ -6.5cm).
Great ski. But way too “short feeling” so sold. Wished it was a 183.
Though I could turn em like snow blades in the trees!
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
It’s mounted fairly forward and with all the tail rocker it skis a lot shorter then the 194 length would suggest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojangles Mgillicutty
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I got out on some 186 demos yesterday and had a great day mobbing around in shallow wind sift, soft bumps and soft groomers. I would echo all of the positive comments here - the Blank is easy to ski, can be pushed harder than its rocker profile and flex pattern might suggest and is more versatile than it looks. I enjoyed making different turn shapes on it in lots of different conditions and came away from the day more impressed than I thought I would. My experience REALLY makes me want to try the current QST 106, as that's the waist width/class of ski that I am currently looking for. I have deep days and shitfuck days covered. I'm looking for a fun and versatile ski to grab for everything in between. If the QST 106 doesn't give up too much of the easy/fun/capable combination of the Blank it would be a very strong contender in this spot for me. Anyone here able to compare the new QST 106 to the Blank or even provide experience with the 106 compared to other similar skis? The only other ski in this class that I have been on is the Enforcer 104 Free. I liked it, but felt like it was a touch too piste oriented for my tastes in this width. Part of that might have been the tune, so I could probably dial it in better with some detuning/edge work, but it's nice to not have to change the basic feel/nature of a ski. The Blank felt intuitive and easy from the second or third turn and allowed me to ski how I wanted to in every condition that I had it in. Is the current 106 really just a narrower Blank with a slightly longer turn radius?
I think the new 106 is similar to the blank in terms of versatility but quite a bit more lively and fun than the blank. It's also quite a bit more lively than the old 106 (I have the maroon). By lively I mean more energy out of turns - you can use the ski's rebound to get into your next turn a lot more than the blank.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed
For reference, I skied those 3 skis in back to back to back runs last season skiing fairly steep chopped up snow as well as groomers, and the new 106 was hands down my favorite (as well as one of my buddy's). We generally ski pretty fast and aggressively, although we both do more quick turns than barreling through chop.
Also, I've been skiing Solitude every day since Dec 29 and I think there's only been two days when I didn't ski the 106; I have yet to find a weak point. I probably should have been on protests another day - I didn't know the 10" report was going to ski like 30" - but I did not feel held back by the 106 at all. They were quite predictable trenching on the bottom, and face shots every turn is pretty fun.
Couldn't pass up ptex1's closeout and joined the club. It looks like there's going to be a few inches of fresh to try out tomorrow.
Attachment 450564
I ended up mounting mine +1 and cast set up. Really an ideal go anywhere do anything set up. Skis great in pow and is surprisingly good on firm snow.
Would these be a good pow day option if I have a QST 106, or too much overlap? The 106 is a 181 and they have felt a little under gunned on some recent pow days, as in I can’t drive them like I would like to. I’d go 186 in the Blank. Pretty happy with the 106’s otherwise.
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
Are those the 194’s? They look big. Looking forward to hearing about their maiden voyage.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain
Hell yes. Blanks for the pow day, 106 for the days after.Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
Camber, rocker, and taper are all different. It's the QST 98 that is actually a baby Blank.
$479 at The House right now using code: SAVINGS
hmmmmmmmm...............
Lot's of tip/tail rocker so they ski short and are easy to turn. Yet they are pretty heavy / damp so they are actually pretty good at crud blasting. The 186's just looked way too short and turny to meQuote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
I’ll second this. I’m 5’ 10”, 150 lbs and the 186 ski short. The Blanks are surprisingly damp and handle cut up 3D snow well at speed. They are fun on storm days. I don’t think they are that great in 2D snow but they will get you back to the lift just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by sierraskier
Finally got them out this morning. About 15 degrees (F) with 4-5" of 5% fluff on top of groomed and 12" cut up heavy crud from yesterday. First chair up and conditions were tracked out pretty quick with spring break crowds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
These skis are a cheat code. Love them. Handled everything very nicely - new pow, bumped up stuff, scratchy hardpack, day old crud. Solid skis.
I just spent a day on the 194. 6-9" @JHMR Good gravy, what a ski. All the superlatives already mentioned here but what impressed me the most was how well it navigated the interface between fresh and the crust beneath: damp, stable crushing with zero drama. Definitely not a ski for tight spaces, but give them a steep open fall line and watch them just shrink the mountain.
Quick question guys - had mine remounted with shifts after swapping the sths these came mounted with over to a pair of m102s. When they were remounted the shop mentioned they had to go “about 1cm back” due to interference with the original mount. I had grabbed these second hand so the original mount wasn’t centred to my boots - I could just squeeze in with the heel all the way back on the track.
Skiing them at -1 has not been great - when finishing turns the tails just want to wash out constantly. Feels like they’ve lost the bite they had before - can’t get the tails to lock in at all, took them in for a tune but still no Bueno.
I’m on the 194s so I’m not short on length…am I going mad or can that -1 make such a difference?
Major bummer!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Paging Bandit, DC, or anyone else who spends time skiing a maritime snowpack and whose quiver has contained Goats and Mfrees: About to pull the trigger on 194's: Too much overlap? 6'2 205#. Goats definitely have more smash-y vibes, Mfrees pivot and slash better. Super impressed with Blank's performance in nice light-to-medium density pow but it's a rarity that I'm skiing snow that good.
Over 12: 187 Protest
Over 6: 189 Assym Goats
Under 6 or soft leftovers: 192 Mfrees
??? - 194 Blank
Wondering if the difference in binding delta(heel to toe height) is actually causing the issue more than the mount change?Quote:
Originally Posted by joesnow_
So you had the STH on before and got along with the Blanks fine and then swapped to the Shifts with the mount moved back a bit and now have the issues?
STH have a higher positive delta than most regular alpine bindings out there and if you got along fine with them, the Shift may be different enough that it puts you slightly off your “happy place” when it comes to stance and balance.
I’m not sure the actual delta of a typical AFD adjusted Shift binding is though so maybe measure the heights of the toe AFD and heel on both bindings to see if the delta is wildly different.
I can see how mounting these back would lead to tails washing out. See if you can remount forward of the line. I’m skiing mine at +1.5 and know a lot of people are at +2 especially on the 194.
I don’t ski the 194’s (I keep thinking I should try the adult size) but I think they fit right between the MFree and BG. However, the question becomes “When will you choose the Blank over the others?” I feel like the Blank is a great resort powder ski, especially when you have a lot of groomers to get back to the lift. That being said, I only skied mine once this season and opted for the MFree instead. As TAFKALS told me way back when…”the MFree is the closest thing to a skinny BG as you are going to find.” And is there anything more tantalizing on those PNW in between days?Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskydoc
To add to your theory - wouldn't moving back cause the tail to be more engaged, not less? I find moving mounts forward makes skis easier to pivot / slide, so I'd assume moving back has the opposite impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by noslow
Correct, that’s why something is changing stance, balance etc here.Quote:
Originally Posted by DigSki
Moving a mount forward(all things kept the same) will move weight forward which will initiate turns quicker and be easier to pivot because of a lighter tail. The carving power may eventually decrease if too far forward as there isn’t enough weight on the tail to prevent the tails washing out.
Moving a mount back should increase float and carving power(tails more locked in) at the expense of slower turn initiation and harder pivoting.
Wondering if something(binding delta or different forward lean on different boots?) is unconsciously causing their weight to be too forward near the middle/end of a turn now? That would cause the tails washing out even with a mount moved backwards.
I have been having paralysis by analysis. Can't decide 186 or 194. I have both new unmounted. Won't keep both.
I am 200lbs and 6"1'. I ski 195 old heavy early rise Line Motherships everywhere. Wanted rocker to pivot in the trees. Spoiled by the cadillac of the heavy moships. 52 and wanted something super easy in the trees. Only rarely do the Moships feel long in the trees.
Worried about the 186 feeling too short especially bombing crud coming out of the trees.
It is a tree priority but I am not sure I can give up the stable speed on the open terrain. Maybe I just need to add an enforcer or sender next year for the charger at the 190ish size. Can't figure it out because of too much analysis and lack of compromise.
194 +1 mount? I know they ski short with the massive tail rocker.
186 on the line? Too short or cheating fun without being unstable?
All for steez in the trees.
Can't' decide strive, pivots or shifts (longshot).
Appreciate the thoughts guys. My initial reason for thinking it may have been caused by the move back was with the amount of tail rocker, moving back may have lost some effective edge.Quote:
Originally Posted by noslow
But then thinking back to their previous mount - I picked these up second hand, so they had been mounted for someone with a shorter BSL - I was riding the STHs as far back on the rails as they could possible go - so with 28mm of adjustability, assuming they were mounted on the line for the person before at say half way down the rail (assuming that's standard practice but don't have a clue...?) they could have been around 1.4cm back of the line anyways. Kicking myself that I didn't check.
The STH delta vs. Shift Delta is an interesting one - I've skiied the shifts for a long time on my QST106s and put them across to the blanks when I blew an edge and picked up the mantra 102s - was also wondering whether that contrast between skiing the STHs on M102s (191, nice stiff tail) a bunch and then flipping back to the shifts on QST is the cause.
I'm probably going to give them another day before I head back to the shop where they were mounted to see if we can figure out what the original mount was and go from there. May have to find a set of STHs to get back to what they were before...
Interested to know how they play mounted up a couple cm if you are behind the line or close to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by joesnow_
The binding has 28mm total travel(14mm forward and 14mm back) so if the smaller boot was mounted on the line originally, you’d be moving the heel 14mm back which would move your boot mid sole 7mm back from the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by joesnow_
I’d put your boot in and see where the mid point line on the boot lines up Vs the recommended mount point now. Put some tape on the ski and use a straight edge down from the boot mid line and mark on the tape. Then measure from the rec line to see where it’s actually landing.
Curious if folks who have skied both believe there is too much overlap between the 186 Blank and 189 106 (new version).
I own both. I turn my quiver over pretty often but I will be keeping these for the upcoming season, at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by tupp_
Blank is a powder day ski for me. The new 106 skis powder well but is excellent all over the mountain. I have Shifts on both. Will probably take the 106 to the Alps this year if conditions are decent.
By "new 106" you guys are referring to the Echo 106? Or 2024 QST 106?
I skied the QST 106 last year and found it to be a great everyday, all-mountain ski, but was left wanting a little more for powder days. I picked up the QST Blank to add in this year, hopefully I can add some more thoughts in a few months.
What did you both opt for length wise from 106 to Blank?
By new 106 I am referencing the non-echo, which was updated last year I believe.
The 106 is the 181 length and the Blank is 186. I’m 5’11 and almost 170lbs.
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
^^^^ same.
I was concerned the 181 would be too short but it feels right.
Have blanks and 106's on their way. Mounting 1 with Strive 16s and the other with pivot 18s, eventually CASTs for a travel setup. Really debating which ski to drop the pivots on. Which would you go with?
106 for pivot and then cast. It will not only see the most variable but it is also the chargier ski. More elasticity = welcome. It is also the more likely tourer.Quote:
Originally Posted by tupp_
For the Blank the added undrefoot stiffness from the strive heel might be a good thing, with the short radius and all.
I’d go in the opposite direction and mount the blank for future CAST use. It’s a ski that performs well in just about every condition. Also the blank is very stiff under foot, it just softens towards the extremities. This makes it so versatile as long as you’re balanced enough to be able to stay in the center of the ski. Personally the blank skis better when skied very fast down the fall line, not across it. Personally I think it’s an ideal travel ski, as it can ski hard in pretty much every condition.
Alta - would you still go this route with travel in Europe and Argentina? I have always preferred ~105mm skis in these lower snow regions.
^^^
Yes. But there are a few skis in the 105 width that ski pow really well and would also be contenders.
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
It's not like Blanks are light skis...I'd think the 106 would be the way to go for a 50/50 setup.
Yeah my 194s weigh over 2400g a ski.
It's interesting that I've read people talking about the blank as a softer ski. Maybe the shorter ones are nerfed, but like alta says, besides the extremities it's pretty fucking stiff
You on the 194? Sounds like they are a different animal. The 186 is stout under foot but softer in the extremities. Fun for tight terrain and low angle stuff, but definitely not the most stable of platforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhetherMan