I'm glad they didn't change it. For people who overlook these skis because of the absence of metal in it, do yourself a favor and try these. I skied the Stance last winter and I didn't have as much fun carving as on the QST. The rebound factor is too good to be ignored. On crowded trails I'd rather have skis that send me in the air to grab the next turn, than racing rails that demand speed and a lot of square meters to express themselves ! In powder they're fantastic and the manoeuverability in trees/moguls and everything offtrails is better than most skis.
@jerl.980
9 ай бұрын
I totally agree. This ski is a steal in the market. I am an east skier and for those soft days and spring it is a great ski. The tip,is very forgiving in chopped up snow. In soft base snow it carves really good and can do any shape turn easily and is quite light. I ski the 184 and it is quite good. I only get tip chatter on icy or rock hard snow at fast speed. In the east this is a perfect second pair to enjoy the rare pow days and make a lot more sense than 100mm and more skis. You can build that ski with a binding for a very low price. The Kore 93 is the second best in my experience but i have not tried all the mid 90’s ski like you guys. Really like your videos and test, they are very accurate and honest. Keep it up guys good work.
@luucschuurman8728
6 ай бұрын
What is the big difference between the qst 92 and kore 93 and do both of them carve good?
@jerl.980
6 ай бұрын
@@luucschuurman8728the Qst is a bit softer especially in the tip. So if you ski more hard pack snow the kore will perform a bit better. The kore is a stiffer ski than the Qst. In terms of carving i would rate them equal. I have the qst 92 in 184cm and use it on soft snow condition and really like it. You cannot go weong with either one. Choose the one you can get the best deal on.
@luucschuurman8728
6 ай бұрын
@@jerl.980 right on, thank you so much
@jerl.980
6 ай бұрын
@@luucschuurman8728 my pleasure any time.
@Sep45
10 ай бұрын
I'm in that camp..have gone back and forth considering so many different skis. Watched a million Skiessentials videos. I have my front side rippers already so I think i'm just going with a set of these 🙂
@SkiEssentials
10 ай бұрын
That's the idea of the QST 92 for sure--so much to like about that ski!
@carterfan80
10 ай бұрын
I was in the same exact position as you. I bought the q s t ninety two (2021/22) I never regretted it. Really good east coast soft snow ski. I skied it in as much as 6 to 8 inches and never felt like I needed something wider. The carving is mediocre. In fairness to the ski. I don't keep them very sharp because I really only use them for soft snow. They probably would be halfway decent with a good tune on a groomer. But that's not why you buy it. I will say it is a bit heavier than you might expect. But that's what makes it pretty stable.
@Sep45
10 ай бұрын
@@carterfan80 Cool. Thanks. My biggest temptation outside of qst 92 would be the ‘24 Rustler 9 even though it’s more expensive. Probably a more fun ski when I do need to get down some hard, fast groomers. Decisions….😩
@carterfan80
10 ай бұрын
@Sep45 That's the other ski that was on my short list. Still have not been on it tho
@Sep45
7 ай бұрын
Unnecessary follow up BUT I went with ‘24 Rustler 9’s and they’re awesome. You won’t get sports car like turn initiation but they do exactly what you ask of them and they’re fun all over the mountain. Great choice when you’re only dragging one pair of skis with you on vacation.
@Opie222
9 ай бұрын
I’m a 5’8” 150 lb beginner skier. I’m wanting something that I won’t grow out of too soon that will work for most conditions. They will be my first set of skis, but I can’t decide between the 92s and the 98s. I’ll be skiing primarily at Sundance in Utah this winter. I’m just worried that if I get the 92s I’ll wish I’d gotten wider skis and vice versa. Any advice?
@SkiEssentials
9 ай бұрын
The 92 is a better floater than the 98 is a carver/on-trail ski. There may be some days that the 92 is on the narrow side, but for most conditions, most of the time, I think you'll come out ahead with the 92.
@faceinthecrowd5810
10 ай бұрын
The QST92 sounds like a fantastic all rounder for the frontside here in the mighty East. My quest for a new 90ish all mountain ski has kept me busy watching Ski Essentials reviews all summer and 2 days ago I pulled the trigger on the K2 mindbender 89TI after the stellar review from SE. now I’m focused on the binding pick, leaning towards the Look Pivot. Question ?? I’m 5’8” 153Lbs and 65. I am an expert eastern bomber with a knee brace on each kneeand set my current quiver of skis at a 6.5DIN. Is the Pivot 12 or the Pivot 14 the better choice for me?
@SkiEssentials
10 ай бұрын
They're very much the same binding other than the spring. If you're charting to a 6.5, then I'd go with the 12 in the 95 mm brake.
@thomasmedeiros5722
9 ай бұрын
The Pivot is certainly a great binding and a favorite with the hard charging Freeride skiers. However based on your personal information I would suggest you check out the new Solomon Strive 12 or 14. This binding is replacing the iconic STH Driver Bindings. The new Strive has a very low stand over hight, great elastic travel and a 72 mm wide AFD that provides great l power transfer from binding to ski. I have been a binding tech for a long time and work with many brands and models. This new Strive is one of my favorites. I have ordered a Strive 14 GW to go with my new QST 92’s. The Mindbender 89 TI is on my wish list. But what ever I buy I will definitely put a Strive on them. Check them out👍⛷⛷
@tomfischer9021
5 ай бұрын
Hi there, great review as always. Again the length question (176 vs 184): well advanced skiier, 182cm tall (6ft0), 75kg (165pound). Love all terrain and typically higher speed. Thx Tom
@SkiEssentials
5 ай бұрын
In the QST 92, I think the 176 has the most benefits. The only slight downside is the stability at speed part, but what percentage of your overall time is actually spent at these top speeds? For most turn shapes and styles, I feel the 176 is a better choice.
@sulydog
5 ай бұрын
Hi! Was wondering how this compares to the Volkl Blaze 94? Like u, Bob, I’m a larger East. Coast skier at 6’1” 240, looking for a versatile ski. Also intrigued by the KORE 93, but wondering if too stiff for bumps. Would appreciate any guidance. Thanks!
@SkiEssentials
5 ай бұрын
I love the Blaze. It's not quite as stiff as the Kore, but it feels very engaging in a carved turn, even on firm snow. It's not as floaty or smeary as the QST, rather it prefers shorter and quicker turns--amazing in the bumps. These three skis are some of my favorites for sure for pure all-mountain skiing here in Vermont.
@RJskol
8 ай бұрын
Considering a 2nd ski for west couple trips 7 days PC and Breck. Home is MN. Have 84 stance 160 and love it. Advanced intermediate. 5-8 165 50y/o. Thinking 168vs160 but interested your thoughts, and/or other skis in 90 range. Would i benefit from qst92s vs 84stance?
@SkiEssentials
7 ай бұрын
The QST is quite a bit floatier than the Stance 84, but still has a lot of the sharp and crisp turning capabilities. Watch out, the QST may become your go-to! I'd go 168 in the QST, or if you're looking for something similar, the Line Blade Optic 92 is a great choice as well.
@Kgermaine
5 ай бұрын
I’m 5’9”, 138 lb, beginner/intermediate. I got the Salomon QST 92 size 176, and they stand a bit over my head. I’m curious if the 168’s would be better for my purposes. But the Salomon size chart suggested the 176. Any advice?
@SkiEssentials
5 ай бұрын
I think 176 sounds long for your stats and application.
@robbiemayhew8691
10 ай бұрын
Great review as always - your vids are the best! I’m leaning towards buying the QST 92 for this season but I’m after a bit of advice. I’m after a ski in the ~90mm range, and I prioritise off piste performance over on piste performance, but only just (I still like skiing groomers!). Are there any other skis I should consider? I’m a bit concerned that the QST doesn’t quite have the performance on groomers I’m after and is further toward the off piste side of the spectrum. Cheers!
@SkiEssentials
10 ай бұрын
I don't think you'll have any issue with the QST 92, but I also think the Elan Ripstick 88 is a wonderful ski that's also worth a look for this application. Great grip, excellent energy, and versatility as well. If you're looking for a ski like the QST in terms of overall sophistication but with a lighter and more groomer-focused character, Ripstick 88 is an amazing choice.
@robbiemayhew8691
10 ай бұрын
@@SkiEssentials thanks for the response! Will defo consider the Ripstick. Could the new Stance 90 also be an option? Sounds like Salomon have made it more playful and brought it closer to the QST.
@SkiEssentials
10 ай бұрын
@@robbiemayhew8691Correct, but the 90 is still very much more of a precise and engaging carver than the QST. It's like the Ripstick, but stiffer in the shovel and a bit more comfortable on firm snow.
@tigerkiller2832
9 ай бұрын
Thank you for this great review. I need help deciding if I should go for the 184 or 176 model. I'm 6'2 but I am a very light person at 142 lbs. I am in the min-advanced skill group. Pls help me find the perfect size. Thank you.
@SkiEssentials
9 ай бұрын
I'd say the 176 will have more upside. I'm 6/2 225 and loved the 176. While I'd probably end up buying the 184 for myself, I do think the ski works great in slightly shorter sizes, especially given your weight and ability.
@lomonator2969
5 ай бұрын
Hi, I am 5'8 150lbs, advanced and mostly skiing east coast with some trips west. I like to do a bit of everything (besides park which I am trying to learn) but most time is spent on-piste. Currently on 2015 k2 shreditor 92 170cm which work ok but not sure if I can get better performance out of another ski, I have used these as long as I can remember. Would the QST 92 be a good choice? Or is there a better option? What length would you recommend?
@SkiEssentials
5 ай бұрын
The QST 92 is always a good choice. I'd say the 168 in that ski will be really fun.
@Tayden_8
8 ай бұрын
Just bought a pair well I’ll see how they perform this season
@luucschuurman8728
6 ай бұрын
And did you try them out?
@osceolaseminole5596
4 ай бұрын
What are your thoughts so far?
@martinstlo
6 ай бұрын
Hello SE! I'm 6' 160 lbs expert in mid 50's looking for a ski to fit between Nordica Hot Rod Tempest 170 and my snow storm day ski. We get around 12' of snow and I spend most of my days in the tight trees, ungroomed trails/bumps and I ski from opening to closing. My dilemma is that but I also enjoy high-speed small to medium radius / high-G carved turns on the trails. I've always preferred an energetic ski that rewards good technique but now at 55 I feel like I could appreciate something like the QST 92 or Ripstick 88 or 96. After countless hours of watching your videos I'm wondering if the QST 92 is the ski for me (still energetic but less demanding)? 176 or 184? I would naturally lean toward a ski like the Enforcer 88, Mindbender 89 Ti or Maverick 88 Ti but I'm afraid they would be too similar to my Hot Rod? Thanks!
@SkiEssentials
6 ай бұрын
I love the sound of the QST, and it does offer a nice separation from your other skis. I'd go 176 in that ski based on your stats and application. The Ripstick 96 is a good option, but I don't feel that it's quite as substantial as the QST.
@martinst-laurent4005
5 ай бұрын
Ok Thanks!
@adamkallenberg1100
9 ай бұрын
Great work guys, i am a 100kg human who loves skiing that use to be 90% in the slopes (frontside) carving short and long turns. Would you recommend these 92 QST or Stance 90? Last year i had the 95 Maverick TI.
@SkiEssentials
9 ай бұрын
If you're looking for more similar to the Maverick, then go with the Stance. For more playful versatility and agility, the QST is amazing. It sounds like since you're 90% on trail, the Stance is a better option for you.
@rafale2012
5 ай бұрын
I used to race and I m telling you if carving is your thing I Ve ever skied something more fun on piste than my qsts. Great in deeper snow too!
@mathewmatu6094
10 ай бұрын
I am a 5'7" (170cm), 150 lbs, and an improving skier (Level 2). I am not sure which length I should get, either 168cm or 176cm. I plan to ski off-piste and go touring once I have improved later in the upcoming season. I am worried that if I get the shorter version, I will outgrow them. I'm doing four weeks this season.
@SkiEssentials
10 ай бұрын
I'd go 168. The skis are very stable so it's okay to go slightly shorter. Have fun!
@mathewmatu6094
7 ай бұрын
@@SkiEssentials Thanks I got the 168 length with Tyrolia Attack 14 bindings. Can't wait to ski them next week :)
@marc-andrecarriere6473
5 ай бұрын
Hi, first if all...your reviews help me a lot!! I would appreciate your input on these... Im 5'8" (173cm) 70kg intermediate/advanced. East Coast, cruising and having fun around the mountain with my son (11yo freestyling and Jumping everything he can hehe). I'm not searching mach1 speed Carving but a like to hold a carve at medium speed I can say. I've tried today at resort (East coast - Quebec) a pair of QST 92 in 176cm(only lenght available)....just because you said a lot of good things of it. I'm in the market for new ski now....and i think i just found my new skis! These a good and fun to ride! Based of my stats and application...Should I take the 168cm or 176cm? Does the rocker profile need me to size Up? Keep Up your amazing job you help a alot of skiers out there!
@SkiEssentials
5 ай бұрын
Thanks so much! sorry we're a bit behind on our correspondence. I do think that the 168 would be more fun overall--I'd go right ahead and get that one if you can!
@liamkingsbury7438
10 ай бұрын
How does this compare to this year’s model? Is it the same ski with different top sheet graphic? Thanks guys!
@liamkingsbury7438
10 ай бұрын
Oh. Nvm I see you said that it is the same as last year beside the graphic.
@jkm8089
7 ай бұрын
Looking got a complement to 104 Free (which are great) to something a bit easier in moguls and trees. Advanced skier, mid 50’s and 6’ and 210 lbs. Evaluating Declivity 92 Ti, Ripstick 88 and QST 92. Ripstick 88 looks good, but concerned on faster skiing as the 104 Free is just so stable. But want ease of use in bumps and tight turns and easier for all day adventures. Narrowing down to Declivity and QST - thoughts? Thanks for all the great reviews.
@SkiEssentials
6 ай бұрын
The QST is going to be easier in the trees and bumps--I love that ski. The declivity is going to feel slightly more like your 104, albeit narrower and more directional, which I think is kind of more of the same versus the QST which offers a greater variance of applications and versatility. I'd lean to the QST .
@jkm8089
6 ай бұрын
@@SkiEssentials Thank you. Was also looking at Line Blade Optic in both 92 and 96 (understanding differences in construction between the two). The 92 seems more like the QST while 96 closer to the Declivity? Will try to demo a few.
@tagTEAM53
10 ай бұрын
Great review! Love your stuff. Hoping to pick your brain! Looking to get a playful do everything east coast ski that I can also use out west when snow is less. I was considering Qst92 vs Rustler 9. Do you have a suggestion?! regarding Qst sizing would you reccomend 160 or 168? For rustler 164 or 172? Im 5’4 (163cm) but very stocky at 180lbs - advanced/expert skier. Currently have soul 7 2.0 at 172 (ski them well but not sure if they might be a tad long) Any help would be greatly appreciated!!!
@SkiEssentials
10 ай бұрын
You've got two great choices here. I consider the QST 92 to be about as automatic as they come--any skier can get on them and love them. The big difference between that and the new Rustler 9 is that the Rustler has a lot more splay to them, and therefore a shorter effective edge. This makes the ski feel a bit more swively and playful than the QST, which has more tip to tail contact, creating a more dynamic turn. You can go a bit shorter on the QST as it's got the longer effective edge, so I'd lean to that ski in the 160.
@tagTEAM53
10 ай бұрын
@@SkiEssentials thanks!!!!! Keep the great content coming
@SriLankan22
4 ай бұрын
@@SkiEssentialsThank you so much for the amazing reviews and videos. Quick follow-up to the above. Is there a material weight difference between the QST 92 and the new Rustler 9 considering the metal? I demo'd the Rustler 9, loved it but thought it felt a tiny bit heavy when trying to maneuver through tight / steep sections (I'm 5' 7", 135lbs and was using the 168cm Rustler 9). Would I be happier with the QST 92? I did really enjoy the stability and power of the Rustler 9 on sierra cement as well as the feel through trees and bumps.
@maxwellschweigel7163
4 ай бұрын
Hey. I'm 5'11 140ish lbs, intermediate skiier. Located in the West Coast and primarily ski groomers but want to push into more moguls/technical tree terrain next season. Currently looking to buy a first pair of skiis and want some advice on what you guys would recommend between the qst 92, qst 98, or rustler 9s. Also any length recommendation? Thanks.
@SkiEssentials
3 ай бұрын
I find it hard to argue against the QST 92 anytime that groomers, bumps, and trees seem to be equally mixed. You'll get more flotation out of the 98 and more stability from the Rustler, but the 92 does it all so easily and naturally. I'd think the 176 in this ski would be great.
@richardcole4776
10 ай бұрын
Did the 2023 or 2022 versions have cork damplifier in them? A lot of retailers list cork damplifier for the 2023 model, but I'm assuming they are wrong if there was only a cosmetic change for 2024.
@SkiEssentials
10 ай бұрын
Nope, not in the 92. 98, 106, and Blank get/got cork, but not the 92.
@richardcole4776
10 ай бұрын
@@SkiEssentials Thanks for confirming. Just shows me what I already suspected, that some big name retailers out there either aren't as knowledgable as you, or even worse, don't put in the effort to get things right.
@Nico--
9 ай бұрын
I am 184 tall and weight 65-70kg. I am a Downhill-MTBer and Trailrunner who wants to get into skiing a bit more this winter here in the Alps. I was riding Snowboard in my youth and spent overall about 3 weeks skiing in my life. So I am not a extremely good at it yet but I had no problem riding black-rated pistes on my first day of skiing. I am not sure how much time I will spend on/off piste but I guess that skiing fresh powder will be very rare. I also want to get into ski-touring down the line but not right now. Would the QST 92 be a good fit for me? Would you recommend any skis other than the QST 92 for someone like me? I watched your long comparison videos and came to the conclusion that 92 mm under foot plus a bit of camber is most likely a safe spot to start at. Which length would you recommend to me? 174 or 184 cm? Since all-mtn-skis have some rocker which is bigger and longer than my current carving ski I am not sure which length would work best for me. I also don't have much interest in riding extremely fast on piste. I would rather try riding couloirs whenever I am comfortable doing so with less speed than bombing down groomers. Thanks in advance!😄
@SkiEssentials
9 ай бұрын
I think the 176 in that ski makes better sense than the 184 given your stats and application. Since speed isn't a huge consideration, that also reinforces the notion that a shorter ski will work better for you. Have fun! SE
@markmillingen
9 ай бұрын
@@SkiEssentialsApplication and experience wise I would compare myself to Nico's description. However, I'm slightly taller 190cm and heavier 75kg, would you advise me to go with the 176 or size it up to the 184? Reading online I see most people around my hight going with the 184 but often these skiers are heavier than me. Unfortunately I won't be able to demo them as I want to grab the 22/23 model that's 40% off at the moment. Thanks for all the great reviews!
@SkiEssentials
8 ай бұрын
@@markmillingen I think the 184 is a pretty safe bet. At the end of the day, these skis are not difficult or demanding to ski, so there's not really such a thing as them being too long, especially if you are 6 cm taller than the skis.
@markmillingen
8 ай бұрын
@@SkiEssentials Thanks for the advice!
@martinaarlot2915
8 ай бұрын
Hey. Would you recomend this if you like abit of everything? Im 191cm intermediate should i get the 184 or 176.
@SkiEssentials
8 ай бұрын
I'd go 184. They are great skis and highly maneuverable. I fear the 176 would be on the short side.
@csmith0244
5 ай бұрын
East coast skier who takes one trip out west per year. Probably advanced intermediate and out west and jay peak this winter did mostly blues and groomed blacks. Did a bumpy black at Jay peak and want to improve in this area. Also struggle in trees and would like to get better there. I do enjoy steeper groomers and like to try to charge and carve hard so also like skis that handle being pushed. I’m 6’2” 225 currently skiing Nordica enforcer 88 in 186 length. I like my skis but looking to open up my skills or lack there of a bit and figured I’d consider changing it up a bit. Any thoughts?
@SkiEssentials
5 ай бұрын
I think the move to the QST 92 is perfect. If you want to go a bit wider for softer snow, the Blizzard Rustler 9 is also worth a look. Easy to turn, and surprisingly capable in a carved turn on firm snow.
@csmith0244
5 ай бұрын
@@SkiEssentials thanks for the reply. If you had to pick a capable one between qst92 rustler 9 and ripstick88 that is good for everything which would you choose. Sounds like I need to demo.
@piotrfrackiewicz6703
8 ай бұрын
Is it a big differens from the qst92 17/18 ?, Vart of uppgreiding to the new model ?
@SkiEssentials
8 ай бұрын
Yes. While the overall intent of the ski is the same, it's a new build and shape--a bit heavier overall than the 17/18's and considerably floatier and grippier.
@jacobbode249
10 ай бұрын
I need help. I’m torn on the chetler 90s and the QST 92. I love the chetler 100s I ski on now and want to move to a more narrow ski and these are my two final options. I don’t ski park much anymore so I’m leaning QST. Help!
@SkiEssentials
10 ай бұрын
Yeah, I agree with the QST. It is more capable, energetic, and versatile than the Bent 90, especially in a groomed application. The 90 is still a great bump and tree ski, but overall, the QST feels more substantial and rewarding.
@ljshoreslokal
9 ай бұрын
I agree with the QST92 choice. I have the Bent90's in the 184cm length and once I got my QST92 (184cm) I decided to sell my Bent90's. My son on the other hand is wanting them, lol.
@neeedlz
5 ай бұрын
Hi, I'm 174cm (5'8") and 85kg (187lbs) and would be interested in these. Which size would you recommend? I'm intermediate and usually ride "east", but I'd like to try an all mountain ski like this.
@SkiEssentials
5 ай бұрын
I'd go with the 168 in that ski. Have fun!
@kajakmannen1666
6 ай бұрын
I bought the Salomon QST 98 but not 100% satisfied how they carve. Would you say these skiis are a better alternative?
@SkiEssentials
6 ай бұрын
For the most part, skiers will find better carving performance in the QST 92 vs. the 98. Within Salomon's line, you could also move over to Stance 96--more of a directional all-mountain shape with two sheets of metal--way better carving performance with this ski.
@NPow94
10 ай бұрын
How do these compare to the Mirus Cor?
@SkiEssentials
10 ай бұрын
Similar turn shape and overall style, but you ski it differently. The Mirus Cor operates best when you stand in the middle of your boot and use more lateral movements while the QST 92 feels more traditional in that it's a lot of fun when you pressure the front of the boot and make the ski come around from tip to tail. For soft snow, powder, trees, or bumps, I still think the QST is a more useful ski, but overall, it's not quite as entertaining in an on-trail format as the Mirus Cor.
@lenemauchien182
8 ай бұрын
Qst 92 s or 98 for an all mountain ski that performs well on groomers, moguls and powder?
@SkiEssentials
8 ай бұрын
I'd say the 92 will offer you a greater percentage of satisfaction. Sure, in deeper snow, the 98 will float better, but overall for some powder, but realistically more groomers, bumps, and trees, the 92 is a better choice. I'd go 168 in that ski. have fun!
@vowthyn
5 ай бұрын
I currently ski on Salomon XDR 84 Ti and I'm starting to think about replacing them with QST 92 . Any chances someone could compare those two models (if anyone still remembers XDR line from Salomon). This would be my second pair in quiver (I have dedicated race carvers for hardpack and good conditions on groomers). QST 92 would be used for crud, slush, bumps and ocassional off-piste exploration. I love my XDRs, they are superfun, but starting to get old and used. I would like to try a bit wider skis for off-piste. My main concern is the lack of Titanal in construction of QST 92. XDRs have single layer of titanal in them but are still super playfull and easy, and in the same time quite good on the edge. Will QST 92 be much more noodly? I'm also hesitant about the lenght. My XDRs are 172 cm, which is OK most of the time, but I could use a bit more length. 176 is not much more, probably woudn't feel much different, but 184 on the other hand may seem like too much for the bumps, but maybe it would be OK given amount of rocker that they have? My race carvers are 180 cm and they feel perfect being full camber profile, but it's completey different type of ski, so it's really difficult to compare. Any advice? I'm 175 cm and 78 kg (5,9" 172 lbs). And last question - which line is more similar and could be treated as succesor to XDR - QST or Stance?
@SkiEssentials
5 ай бұрын
I wouldn't say the QST is noodly--it uses carbon and flax pretty effectively to make it stiffer. For off-piste conditions and terrain, it's tough to beat the QST. The Stance 84 is a more direct replacement to the XDR as that ski uses more metal and has a more similar shape. I still think the QST is a better option for more adventurous skiing and if you're 175cm, I'd go a bit shorter to the 176.
@vowthyn
5 ай бұрын
@entialsThank you so much for your answer! Now, last weekend I got a chance to test two different, slightly wider skis - Atomic Maverick 95 Ti (180 cm) and Bent Chetler 100 (179 cm). Mavericks are such a great ski, stable and confidence inspiring, however they were slightly too much of a charger for me which was fun in the beginning, but after two hours started to become a little bit of a handfull. Bent 100 on the other hand felt like a paper ski - yes, they were very easy to navigate between bumps and toss around, but they felt lifeless, they took whatever I was throwing at them, but they were not giving any energy back. So after this experience I would like to go wider in the waist (I'm thinking somewhere betwen 92 - 100) and just a little bit more nimble and playfull than Mavericks with slightly shorter turn radius that would be more fun than charging oriented (especially in the bumps), but still not very far from the Mavericks. Something that would be between Mavericks and Bent, but slightly closer to Maverics than Bent (definitely more snappy than Bent).
@fimfengius
3 ай бұрын
Hi! I just bought the QST92 on your recommendations and sure, it is a fine ski and it works great off pist and it floats very well on both cold and warm snow and has fairly good grip on ice also and it can be driven pretty hard and fast. But there is one thing. I seem to come behind the ski in some situations when I have to ski it more technical, such as in moguls, while maintaining higher speed. I have mounted Salomon shift with factory recommendations and I ski it in 176. What´s wrong?
@SkiEssentials
3 ай бұрын
Without diagnosing ski technique, it may be a boot fit or stiffness issue as well?
@fimfengius
3 ай бұрын
@@SkiEssentials Hi! I ski with Salomon QST Pro model 120. I haven´t had this problem on my other skis but on the other hand they are not QST 92 in 176. I ski moguls pretty well and I can also do this with these QST 92 but I find them to be quite unforgiving and I have to watch and collect them in almost every turn, otherwise I come behind with my weight and then I they kind of shoot off. I thought that the skis might require me to lean more forward but I might be hindered by my ski boots, QST Pro model 120, or something else?
@nicholasng6069
9 ай бұрын
Im 5’6 145 lbs and at an intermediate level. Do you think i should go for the 160 or 168?
@SkiEssentials
9 ай бұрын
I'd go 160 in that ski based on your stats and application.
@exothermal.sprocket
5 ай бұрын
Do I have the impression that the edge hold for hard charging, laid out carving isn't what this ski will do, but it does off trail, trees, bumps, powder, crud really well?
@SkiEssentials
5 ай бұрын
That's pretty accurate. A strong and skilled skier can still get a high level of carving performance, but this ski works better in the mid-range for a lot of skiers, especially in off-trail situations and applications.
@ambertudor
3 ай бұрын
Does the cork damplifier of the 98 , make that much of a difference over this 92?
@SkiEssentials
3 ай бұрын
In terms of stability, I think so. Also weight. Granted, they have different widths and profiles, the 92 is considerably quicker than the 98. It is a different feel at both low and high ends. Mid-range, not so much of a change.
57 year old advanced skier who likes to ski moguls, powder and steep. not that interested in speeds over 40 mph. in Europe so it is similar to west coast Sierra skiing. how would this compare to Elan ripstick 88 or the blizzard rustler 9? thanks and love your work!
@SkiEssentials
6 ай бұрын
The QST fits pretty squarely right between those skis. And that's a remarkable thing to say given the Ripstick and the Rustler's performance and versatility. The QST 92 is great at doing it all. It's not quite as poppy or snappy as the Ripstick, nor is it as floaty or smeary as the Rustler, rather it falls right in the middle. If you're looking for one pair for any condition or terrain, it's tough to go against the QST 92.
@fzmehr
6 ай бұрын
Gosh, what do you mean by "smeary"? help! :) @@SkiEssentials
@mkrnjic2612
9 ай бұрын
Is there any real difference between QST 92 and QST Lux 92? or it is just the "women-aimed" graphics/name??
@SkiEssentials
9 ай бұрын
Graphics and size options. That's it.
@wm.scottpappert9869
10 ай бұрын
Bob, is the 92 a west/midwest ski ? Or is the 98 the ticket for all mountain there ?
@MillsapsFan
10 ай бұрын
I’m not Bob, but I read the 92 is good in up to 6-10” of powder. It’s what I got for a Midwest skier who goes west 1-2 times a year.
@SkiEssentials
9 ай бұрын
Bob here--The 92 is the way to go for midwest and even snowier. The 98 has considerably more rocker and taper to it, so it's a much more soft-snow oriented ski. It's amazing what you can get out of the 92 when it comes to mixing edge grip and versatility.
@wm.scottpappert9869
9 ай бұрын
Bob thanks for the personal response. Sold !
@ljshoreslokal
9 ай бұрын
I have the QST 92 and QST 98. They're both incredible ski's and tons of fun. I take both up with me and ski the 98 on fresh pow days and the 92's for packed powder of machined groomed sunny days. Both are nimble for the trees.
@wm.scottpappert9869
9 ай бұрын
@@ljshoreslokal thanks for the opinion ...
@brandonberz5125
7 ай бұрын
Intermediate looking for advice. Currently skiing on Head V6 170cm. Looking for a something as I venture off-piste a little more and progress. Given I already have a 170cm length all-mountain ski, curious if the QST would be a good fit for me and if I should go with 176 or 184? I'm 6"0 and 170lbs.
@SkiEssentials
6 ай бұрын
I always say yes to the QST 92, especially if you're looking to ski all-mountain and offpiste. I'd go with the 176 based on your stats and your ski length history--I feel the 184 will be on the long side.
@edking4226
4 ай бұрын
How would these compare to the LINE blade optic 92?
@SkiEssentials
4 ай бұрын
Yes, the Line feels lighter and poppier than the QST, which has a bit more heft and oomph to it. I personally prefer the slightly stouter QST, as it fits my heavier frame, but I've certainly been surprised by the Line's agility and energy.
@125conman
6 ай бұрын
Do i get these, line optic 92, or K2 reckoner 92?
@SkiEssentials
6 ай бұрын
The QST is the no-brainer safety ski of the world--it's so easy and fun. The Line is close! Reckoner lags a bit.
@mikaelboejrgensen10.klasse49
5 ай бұрын
I am 180 cm, 95 kg - what length should I buy ?
@SkiEssentials
5 ай бұрын
I'd say 176 is the way to go in this ski based on your stats and application.
@jackwallace1016
9 ай бұрын
Qst 92 or Captis?
@SkiEssentials
9 ай бұрын
I'd be happy with either if you gave me a choice, but the energy and pop of the QST stands out, as does the softer snow performance. The Captis is easy, fun, and totally consistent, but there's something about the snappy nature of the QST that I enjoy as a skier.
@jackwallace1016
9 ай бұрын
@@SkiEssentials you guys are the best! Thanks for responding
@bm5799
9 ай бұрын
Why does everyone love these skis so much? I hate all the QSTs. To me they feel like riding a stiff dead corpse of a body or a piece of 2x4 lumber from Home Depot down the mountain. I just dont get the appeal? any alternatives you can suggest? Possibly because Im not an expert or ex-racer. Im just a guy who learned to ski as an adult and likes to cruise the resorts out West.
@SkiEssentials
9 ай бұрын
Very graphic! If you're looking for a ski in the ~92 mm range with energy, I'd take a look at the Black Crows Serpo or the Armada Declivity 92. Great cruisers with a high caliber of pop.
Пікірлер: 123