Salomon QST Blank

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DigSki

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.

---

Correct, that’s why something is changing stance, balance etc here.

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noslow

Correct, that’s why something is changing stance, balance etc here.

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.

---

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joesnow_

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.

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_

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.

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...

---

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.

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tupp_

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tupp_

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhetherMan

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.

I have both the 186 and 194. Haven’t skied the 194 yet, but the flex seems to be the exact same. A lot of skiers seem to get overly obsessed with how a ski flexes compared to how it skis. For instance I’ve been skiing 184 k2 reckoner 102s most days last spring and this early season. Reckoner flex is a complete noodle, however if you’re skilled enough to stay in the middle of the ski the ski absolutely rips. Blank is somewhat similar. Today I skied some head monster 98s and while I like that ski the reckoner 102 actually gripped better on firm snow. That’s mainly due to the monster needing speed and room to actually get up to speed and really grip, which early season wrod doesn’t provide. I admit that formerly I was fully on the all my skis need to be stiff as hell train. But now I enjoy going back and forth between stiff chargers and playful skis. The blank actually feels like a ski that’s a mash up of a playful ski and a charger.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altacoup

I have both the 186 and 194. Haven’t skied the 194 yet, but the flex seems to be the exact same. A lot of skiers seem to get overly obsessed with how a ski flexes compared to how it skis. For instance I’ve been skiing 184 k2 reckoner 102s most days last spring and this early season. Reckoner flex is a complete noodle, however if you’re skilled enough to stay in the middle of the ski the ski absolutely rips. Blank is somewhat similar. Today I skied some head monster 98s and while I like that ski the reckoner 102 actually gripped better on firm snow. That’s mainly due to the monster needing speed and room to actually get up to speed and really grip, which early season wrod doesn’t provide. I admit that formerly I was fully on the all my skis need to be stiff as hell train. But now I enjoy going back and forth between stiff chargers and playful skis. The blank actually feels like a ski that’s a mash up of a playful ski and a charger.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

---

Looking forward to your thoughts on the 186 vs 194. In the denser snow of the PNW, the 186 can get tossed around. Probably more of a product of the rocker profile versus flex profile, which makes me curious about the 194..


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

Bump. Have some new Blank 194s. How have people felt with them mounted forward? Anyone at +2?

@Bandit, how does the Blank compares to the Blade Optic 114 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supermoon

Bump. Have some new Blank 194s. How have people felt with them mounted forward? Anyone at +2?

---

Fwiw I think they feel pretty balanced on the line. Right behind the bindings the ski is real stiff and the tip is relatively softer. I'm 6 and a half feet tall though. Hopefully someone with actual experience forward can chime in