Soft snow skis: Rustler 11, Blank or Countach

Hey everyone,
I recently sold my Deathwish and now find myself without a ski over 96mm. My current quiver consists of the Line Blade and Blade Optic 96, both of which I really enjoy. I also liked the Rustler 9 when I had it.
However, I never fully clicked with the Moment Wildcat 116 and Deathwish (179cm). Especially for the later, I struggled with its forward mount point and felt like there wasn’t enough ski in front of me. The triple camber design made it feel almost like a short, full-rocker ski, which didn’t inspire confidence in deeper snow. While I appreciated its ability to pivot in tight trees and make big turns on soft groomers, I never fully trusted it at higher speeds in variable or deep conditions and were not skiing fast enough in for them to come alive in these conditions.
I enjoy hitting small/medium jumps in the park, side hits, and playful terrain, but I don’t spin more than 360s. I want a ski that’s easy and fun to ski, something in the same spirit as my Blade Optic 96, just wider for soft snow. Since I ski at Palisades Tahoe, where powder gets tracked out quickly, I’m looking for a versatile soft-snow ski rather than a dedicated powder ski.
I narrowed down my search to the following skis:

• Rustler 11 – Concerned it might be too light for Tahoe’s heavy snow?
• Salomon QST Blank – Seems to check all the boxes; would the 2025 or 2026 model be a better choice?
• Moment Countach – Maybe too soft-snow oriented and boring at slower speeds?
• Blade Optic 114 – A logical choice given my love for the 96, but I’ve heard it’s more of a straight-lining missile, which isn’t what I’m looking for. Opt for the 104 instead?

Would love to hear thoughts from anyone who’s skied these or has other recommendations! Thanks for reading.

You might also consider volkl K108. I ski Palisades on M102s mostly, and the K108 is similar but gives up a little hard snow performance for better float. Good backbone for our heavy snow, but also a pretty easy ski.

Countach is not boring at slower speeds, I skied with 8 year olds and had fun. For me, I like this ski for open terrain. I ski the 194 so if Im skiing tighter spaces, tightish trees, moguls, Im reaching for something else. I found it excels in windbuff, bowls, boot deep powder (havent skied it in anything over 8 inches), and it rails softer groomers.

R11 is fine in heavier power. It's very light, and skis a little short. Tail rocker means edge hold is lacking on any real ice, but it is very maneuverable. I had the edges and 1 and 1 and just set them at 2 and 1 which helped a little, but does lead to some buffeting. Again, this is only on manmade and refrozen shit, so if it's soft enough everywhere, it won't matter. If you really want to charge, just size up. If you don't like a more forward mounted ski, -1cm seems good. That's what I mounted mine at. I wouldn't go back any further because of the tail rocker. Honestly, I feel like there are better skis out there if you care about more than just maneuverability. It's a great ski for me in the trees, moguls, and variable conditions at my local hill, although I think it's a little wide for how much snow we usually get (less than Tahoe areas). The overall flex, minimal taper, and metal keep it pretty stable and from getting knocked around. If anything, I wish the very tip was a tad softer because of the drier snow we usually get compared to the west coast. OTOH, that also means it doesn't get knocked around by junk. It has a light swing weight, so you could probably spin with it easily, but I wouldn't call it a slouch. Somewhere in the playful charger spectrum, I'd say. I'm 6', around 200lbs +-5 and getting old and my back hurts. I ski the 188 mounted at -1. It's an easy enough to ski ski that if I was skiing Palisades, I'd consider the 192 mounted on the line. A good stone grind made a difference though. It's pretty lame that skis are coming out of the main Austrian factories without a good structured base finish. Some diagonal stripies made the ski much faster and smoother. Bases seem pretty hard too.

I went from R11 (first year green ones) to Optic 114 last year. Optic is more damp for sure, doesn’t carve quite as well, but is a bit easier to release/drift. I‘d say neither are ‘straight line missiles’ but they both have sidecuts in the 20s (I think the Optic is somewhat higher), though all my skis have 20+ sidecuts and I ski pretty fast, so I may be biased here.
Edit: I ski Sugarbowl and have no regrets with the switch to the Optic for skiing there.

In regards to the model year of Salomon skis, the recent blister podcast details the changes over the years of the blank/qst line. It the second half of this episode. Worth a listen if you are debating between the two model years...https://blisterreview.com/podcasts/g...st-skis-ep-332

[/LIST]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fleaches

You might also consider volkl K108. I ski Palisades on M102s mostly, and the K108 is similar but gives up a little hard snow performance for better float. Good backbone for our heavy snow, but also a pretty easy ski.

---

I think that I want a more playfull skis with more tail rocker than a K108

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoubleBogey

Countach is not boring at slower speeds, I skied with 8 year olds and had fun. For me, I like this ski for open terrain. I ski the 194 so if Im skiing tighter spaces, tightish trees, moguls, Im reaching for something else. I found it excels in windbuff, bowls, boot deep powder (havent skied it in anything over 8 inches), and it rails softer groomers.

---

Thanks for the feedback. That's just what i thought given my epxerience with the deathwish and the long rocker of that ski.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn

R11 is fine in heavier power. It's very light, and skis a little short. Tail rocker means edge hold is lacking on any real ice, but it is very maneuverable. I had the edges and 1 and 1 and just set them at 2 and 1 which helped a little, but does lead to some buffeting. Again, this is only on manmade and refrozen shit, so if it's soft enough everywhere, it won't matter. If you really want to charge, just size up. If you don't like a more forward mounted ski, -1cm seems good. That's what I mounted mine at. I wouldn't go back any further because of the tail rocker. Honestly, I feel like there are better skis out there if you care about more than just maneuverability. It's a great ski for me in the trees, moguls, and variable conditions at my local hill, although I think it's a little wide for how much snow we usually get (less than Tahoe areas). The overall flex, minimal taper, and metal keep it pretty stable and from getting knocked around. If anything, I wish the very tip was a tad softer because of the drier snow we usually get compared to the west coast. OTOH, that also means it doesn't get knocked around by junk. It has a light swing weight, so you could probably spin with it easily, but I wouldn't call it a slouch. Somewhere in the playful charger spectrum, I'd say. I'm 6', around 200lbs +-5 and getting old and my back hurts. I ski the 188 mounted at -1. It's an easy enough to ski ski that if I was skiing Palisades, I'd consider the 192 mounted on the line. A good stone grind made a difference though. It's pretty lame that skis are coming out of the main Austrian factories without a good structured base finish. Some diagonal stripies made the ski much faster and smoother. Bases seem pretty hard too.

---

I am 5'9" 170lbs and were happy with the R9 180cm, so plannig on going with that length. Fo rthe mount point, I think that the line on the rustler corresponds well to what i like. I feel that I would be fine with this skis but could find better suited to my use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

I went from R11 (first year green ones) to Optic 114 last year. Optic is more damp for sure, doesn’t carve quite as well, but is a bit easier to release/drift. I‘d say neither are ‘straight line missiles’ but they both have sidecuts in the 20s (I think the Optic is somewhat higher), though all my skis have 20+ sidecuts and I ski pretty fast, so I may be biased here. Edit: I ski Sugarbowl and have no regrets with the switch to the Optic for skiing there.

---

That sounds interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TCNROMPER

In regards to the model year of Salomon skis, the recent blister podcast details the changes over the years of the blank/qst line. It the second half of this episode. Worth a listen if you are debating between the two model years...https://blisterreview.com/podcasts/g...st-skis-ep-332

---

From what I got the skis got stiffer? Also, not the priority but the topsheet is hard too love. 2025 blank is blandbut the 2026 is really ugly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn

Also, not sure the R11 is a good park ski. It's not crazy stiff, but the flex at the very ends is quite firm. It doesn't butter at all under me. This would probably be a good thing in that wet garbage you call snow.

---

Definitely not the priority here, I just jump and have no aspiration to do tricks at my advancing age https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...wink_smile.gif

Also, not sure the R11 is a good park ski. It's not crazy stiff, but the flex at the very ends is quite firm. It doesn't butter at all under me.
This would probably be a good thing in that wet garbage you call snow.

Someone sells a countach in 176cm in my area so I may get these. Given that I ski the blade optic with more rocker in 178cm and the regular blade in 176cm that length seems right.

I skied the 2025 blanks on a powder day at bachelor last week and had a blast. Pretty easy to turn sideways but didn’t let me down when i pointed them downhill either. They were fine in soft chop, reasonably damp but not super planted. Carve decent on soft groomers too.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

So, do you want a ski with metal or not? Do you want a playful charger or a freestyle ski you can push hard? That's an interesting list of skis. I've skied everything but the Countach. It's the one that doesn't feel like it belongs in that list, but might actually be the one that works best for your use case. I would add an MFree108 or Sender 110 to the list.

I skied the 24/25 M-Free 112 and 108 yesterday. Both are great skis. The 108 could be my favorite I have been on. Silky smooth and somehow loose and precise at the same time. Such a great ski. The 112 could be great, but I would want to test it in soft snow to really call it. It charged chalk well, but not quite as well as the 108.

I also skied the forthcoming QST106 and Blank. Did not jive with the 106, but may have been a tune issue. The tail felt sharp and hooky. The Blank was really great!! I am a big fan of that ski. The QST skis feel a bit more dead than the Dynastars.

I own the Blade Optic 114. It is for sale. Too bad you do not want a 186. I would sell them cheap with STH or flat. I like that ski. I do not love it. It just does not excite me. It can be skied fast, but it is just kinda missing snap.

FWIW I ski the Deathwish 184 as my resort soft snow ski. I really like that ski, so my opinions may not work for you. If I am really charging I do want more ski at times, but you can push the Deathwish pretty hard if you are light on your feet. I skied the 192 M-Free 108, 190 M-Free 112, 189 QST 106 and 186 Blank.

I just ordered the 186 HL AM110 as my resort soft snow ski before I skied the others. If I did not, I would be buying the 192 M-Free 108 or 190 M-Free 112. I'm expecting the HL to be very similar the the M-Frees or Sender Free 110.

Oh, I am also at PT OV. Salomon is having a demo there this weekend. I assume it is open to the public. Should be great conditions for soft snow ski testing.

Also, Noah Gaffney seems to think the R11 works just fine.

Countach 110, 194 owner here. They are not boring at slower speeds. I can easily ski tight stuff as long as it's not too soft (deep crud) as I find the tips to be problematic and hooky. Also, they will take you for a ride if you aren't careful. If you want to rage, regardless of conditions they'll do ya just fine. I imagine the shorter versions are far more compliant and easily a daily driver. I could DD mine but I have other skis.

Insights on how the new Blanc is, vs the current edition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastside

Countach 110, 194 owner here. They are not boring at slower speeds. I can easily ski tight stuff as long as it's not too soft (deep crud) as I find the tips to be problematic and hooky. Also, they will take you for a ride if you aren't careful. If you want to rage, regardless of conditions they'll do ya just fine. I imagine the shorter versions are far more compliant and easily a daily driver. I could DD mine but I have other skis.

---

I really want to ski the CT, but what you say about it makes me nervous. My DD has to crush it in the mank because that's a big part of my life. Your description sounds how I feel about the Commander. It's a game on ski and if you want to rage, it is there for you. Dial it back to 7 and it will eat you. I would guess the Commander is more extreme than the CT, but nothing I have read about the CT makes me feel like I HAVE to ski it.

I might grab a 190 Wildcat this week. It seems like my kind of ski.

I mounted my Countach on the line at -8 (194). One of the first days I skied them was 6-8 and deeper in spots where the wind blew it in and packed the snow a little bit. I found out real quick that it doesnt really like a centered stance, you must drive it. And you can drive it with the 140mm tips. What I thought was hooky tails turned out to be operator error. I doubt you have to be on it as much as much as you do with Commanders (never skied commanders, just going off hearsay). Pushed around snow and chop was a non factor but I havent been wettish/heavier snow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ezgzy

I skied the 2025 blanks on a powder day at bachelor last week and had a blast. Pretty easy to turn sideways but didn’t let me down when i pointed them downhill either. They were fine in soft chop, reasonably damp but not super planted. Carve decent on soft groomers too. Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnowMachine

I skied the 24/25 M-Free 112 and 108 yesterday. Both are great skis. The 108 could be my favorite I have been on. Silky smooth and somehow loose and precise at the same time. Such a great ski. The 112 could be great, but I would want to test it in soft snow to really call it. It charged chalk well, but not quite as well as the 108. I also skied the forthcoming QST106 and Blank. Did not jive with the 106, but may have been a tune issue. The tail felt sharp and hooky. The Blank was really great!! I am a big fan of that ski. The QST skis feel a bit more dead than the Dynastars. I own the Blade Optic 114. It is for sale. Too bad you do not want a 186. I would sell them cheap with STH or flat. I like that ski. I do not love it. It just does not excite me. It can be skied fast, but it is just kinda missing snap. FWIW I ski the Deathwish 184 as my resort soft snow ski. I really like that ski, so my opinions may not work for you. If I am really charging I do want more ski at times, but you can push the Deathwish pretty hard if you are light on your feet. I skied the 192 M-Free 108, 190 M-Free 112, 189 QST 106 and 186 Blank. I just ordered the 186 HL AM110 as my resort soft snow ski before I skied the others. If I did not, I would be buying the 192 M-Free 108 or 190 M-Free 112. I'm expecting the HL to be very similar the the M-Frees or Sender Free 110.

---

From what I read the MFREE is more surfy than what I am looking for but again I never skied them... The blank really sounds like the best choice for my style and use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastside

Countach 110, 194 owner here. They are not boring at slower speeds. I can easily ski tight stuff as long as it's not too soft (deep crud) as I find the tips to be problematic and hooky. Also, they will take you for a ride if you aren't careful. If you want to rage, regardless of conditions they'll do ya just fine. I imagine the shorter versions are far more compliant and easily a daily driver. I could DD mine but I have other skis.

---

Yes, the 176cm should be more manageable but the CT may be more chargy than what I want. I will still use my Optic 96 as a daily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandit Man

So, do you want a ski with metal or not? Do you want a playful charger or a freestyle ski you can push hard? That's an interesting list of skis. I've skied everything but the Countach. It's the one that doesn't feel like it belongs in that list, but might actually be the one that works best for your use case. I would add an MFree108 or Sender 110 to the list.

---

I guess that I want a playful charger or what I would call a directional ski with softer tip/tail and a progressive mount point (around -7cm). The countach does not have metal but Blister's deep dive made it sound like it was very similar to the Blank: eg:n "The QST Blank is a bit looser than the Countach 110, though not by much. The Countach is similarly stable in soft chop and maybe a bit quicker to punish backseat skiing, at least in soft snow (neither likes backseat skiing on firm snow). The QST Blank feels more damp and smooth and is more compliant at slower speeds. The Countach 110 holds a line better when making bigger turns in soft snow, though the QST Blank can carve tighter turns on piste and is more exciting on groomers."
Sender free recommended mount point is -3.4cm from true center so even if i mount it back from that i feel that it will be too centered for me.

FWIW, I have both the 177 Line Blade Optic 96 and the 178 Line Blade Optic 114. I spend the majority of my time on the 96 and I think it does everything pretty well, albiet the tip can be flappy when up at speed. I don't get to ski that much soft deep snow here in ID, so I don't have a ton of days on the 114's but I did have the 114's out last week and they were so easy and intuative to ski pow on, really fun. They can go fast if needed, or pivot and make shorter turns in trees if you are over the ski. I wish I could compare the 114 to the Moment CT110 but I don't have any time on the Moment ski. The 114 is a bit easier to ski than the Dynastar MFree 108 in a 182 likely due to the difference in length and more tip and tail splay/rocker on the Line ski. If you like your Optic 96's, I don't think you can go wrong with the 114's. The difference in width is a big jump though from 96 to 114, kinda wish Line made this in a 110 as the 114 width is pretty wide for all but really soft snow (I would't ski it in less than 8-12" cause the 96 can handle anything less). Good luck in your search.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnowMachine

I also skied the forthcoming QST106 and Blank. Did not jive with the 106, but may have been a tune issue. The tail felt sharp and hooky. The Blank was really great!! I am a big fan of that ski. The QST skis feel a bit more dead than the Dynastars..

---

FWIW, based on other QST threads, most people have greatly preferred past versions of the QST 106 mounted +1.5 or 2. Makes a big difference.

Given the responses, you may just have to demo. I skied the Countach one-ten, in a one-eighty-two last weekend (me, five-ten, one-seventy-five pounds) at Heavenly Valley, both in and out of bounds, and had the most fun I've had in a while. I don't find them demanding at all. They just seem to fit my skiing style. I also have the Commander ninety-three, which I like, but not as much as the Countach. I also just bought the Countach one-oh-four, but have yet to ski them.Good luck,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yeahman

FWIW, based on other QST threads, most people have greatly preferred past versions of the QST 106 mounted +1.5 or 2. Makes a big difference.

---

Could very well be the case that I needed to slide the mount forward. The build is very different than Dynastar. I hate to say they feel like they're cork dampified, but that's what they feel like. A different resonance that I probably would have liked had I not skied them back to back with the M-Free.

I definitely got along with the new Blank. I could quite happily own that ski, though I think I would take the M-Free 112 over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnowMachine

Could very well be the case that I needed to slide the mount forward. The build is very different than Dynastar. I hate to say they feel like they're cork dampified, but that's what they feel like. A different resonance that I probably would have liked had I not skied them back to back with the M-Free.

I definitely got along with the new Blank. I could quite happily own that ski, though I think I would take the M-Free 112 over it.

---

MFree 108 was way too much feedback for my tastes, that is one reason I sold them. QST 106 is pretty damp, not flashy or poppy, but I've really come to like them as a super solid DD that I can trust in all conditions. Just my two cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yeahman

MFree 108 was way too much feedback for my tastes, that is one reason I sold them. QST 106 is pretty damp, not flashy or poppy, but I've really come to like them as a super solid DD that I can trust in all conditions. Just my two cents.

---

I completely agree with your assessment. You could almost call the M-Free pingy, but they also absorb hits very well. They feel electric to me. Super snappy and full of energy. I am not sure about the older M-Free. I have not skied them.

Just bought some Countach from last year. Now I am waiting for a good deal on pivot sender signature.

You're going to love them

Good timing. Corbetts just discounted the Pivot to $294 CAD. You need to go on the product page to see the discount.

Just checking back in after a few days skiing in 1 to 3 feet of fresh snow to say that I’m really happy with the Countach. They’re a better fit for me than the Deathwish, I feel like I have a better fore/aft balance on them, and they float better in deeper snow. Even when everything’s tracked out, they stay composed and fairly easy to ski. They’re a bit uninspiring on groomers and don’t offer much rebound out of a turn, but I’ve got other skis for that kind of riding anyway.