Salomon QLab 190 Experience & Mounting

[Mustonen]

My theory is that having a bit less tail actually neutralizes some of the comments about the stiff tail since it is now a bit shorter. It also gives me a bit more tip, which helps givens some of the comments about the super soft tip. For me, I could drive the tip and it wasn't diving, was still plenty pivoty, and had good stability. I wouldn't change the mount for me based on my small sample size of 2 days.

You have two spoons. One is a foot long. One is an inch long. Both are exactly the same width/diameter/stiffness. Which one requires less effort to bend in half?

[Climber Joe]

I have my 183 Qlabs mounted at recommended. I find them to absolutely slay pow/crud when I am paying attention, but are punishing when I get my balance out of whack. For pow pow I prefer my bent chetlers or jjs. But for high energy don't give a shit charging in all conditions short of bulletproof I'll take the Qlabs. They kick ass. I might even keep them.

I think -1 would be perfect.

[Core Shot]

This ski is a lot like RPC with more sidecut and less tip splay and almost no tail rocker (wish it had the RPC tail for more slarvability). I love the RPC but just wish DPS would make a truly damp ski for charging chowder piles.

Interesting about the mounting points. I have the later, corrected line and it is still forward. But I guess it works. i ended up -1.2 only to avoid mounting hole conflicts, but I am okay with that after comparing to RPC and XXL

Tip splay


Tails - - note also the camber in the Qlab compared to RPC
Wish the Qlab had the RPC tail. FYI, speaking of mounting lines, you can see how much more tail the Qlab has on hard snow.


Here are the tip lengths when the tails are even.


So here is a pic showing all the mounting lines with the tails even. The XXL is 184cm (the left edge of the white tape shows the line).
But what I dont get is comparing Qlab to the RPC which is a much longer ski, with tons of tail splay.
Qlab is +2.2 compared to the RPC. But there are lots of folks that ski it at +2, so I think the Qlab line is fine, but I also think moving back is not the end of the world.

[westoxified]

Wish the Qlab had the RPC tail. FYI, speaking of mounting lines, you can see how much more tail the Qlab has on hard snow.

Went from the 190 QLAB as the dd to a 192 QST 118 as dd (#wasatchproblems) and it has what you are looking for. Flat tail when you point straight. Slarve when you don't. It is incredible and hands down the best powder ski evar made. Damp poppy charger.

Yep.

QLAB is fine- mounted on the line.

[gforce]

I have a pair of 190's for $300.00 + ship.
New in wrapper.

[Core Shot]

Well, rode them a half day and not what I am looking for. Selling for $250 shipped, what I paid for them.

tail was not too stiff, but it did show up if you backseat the bumps.
Nice hardpack carver. Great at speed on smooth snow. Great edge grip.
Happy being pushed into short or medium turns. Didnt get powder, but I am sure it would be great in that.

Going fast through crud piles I found myself being tossed around by the camber and stiffness. Been there before, do not want that again.
That was one of the things I hated about the Chamonix when they killed off the LP.
Pushing them with 215 pounds. Tried going faster, loading it harder, driving the ski more, but still feeling bucked going fast in the cut up snow piles.

And so my search continues for the damp charger mid-fat . . .

[Fred Pabst]

Funny how skiers like-dislike skis. That's a good thing though. Imagine how boring chair lift rides would be if we all skied the same and on the same equipment. Anyway the more I use my q labs, which are mounted on the line, the more I love the ride. To me the stiffness of the ski resist being in the backseat as it is so stiff in the tail it's like they are saying just stay centered and ride me. To all the people that think it's a forward mount stop looking at your tips and just ski. FWIW I switch back and fourth with cochise 193 blue with orange bull model. When you compare one of each base to base the mark is almost exactly the same for the two models as is the contact point of the tip rocker. I think both skis are great with the qlabs being turnier(sp) but both crush.

[stuckathuntermtn]

I'm really them. Heavy to tour with tho. Also, sometimes I miss the turn I want, which isn't good, since there could be a tree in the way. I'll get better. Just gotta stay forward on them.
They handle most shitty snow very well. Dust on breakable crust? No problem.
I have to get used to more stance changes versus the old Ruby, because of the extra sidecut and stiff, mostly flat tail. Mostly narrower on groomed, wide nn powder with the downhill leg way out if you want to slash without hooking back uphill.
They don't feel surfy, but they don't dive either. Maybe if we get anotger big dump and I really let them run, I'll get that surfy feeling some skis have when they decamber and float. Boner!

[comish]

This ski is a lot like RPC with more sidecut and less tip splay and almost no tail rocker (wish it had the RPC tail for more slarvability). I love the RPC but just wish DPS would make a truly damp ski for charging chowder piles.

Interesting about the mounting points. I have the later, corrected line and it is still forward. But I guess it works. i ended up -1.2 only to avoid mounting hole conflicts, but I am okay with that after comparing to RPC and XXL

Tip splay


Tails - - note also the camber in the Qlab compared to RPC
Wish the Qlab had the RPC tail. FYI, speaking of mounting lines, you can see how much more tail the Qlab has on hard snow.


Here are the tip lengths when the tails are even.


So here is a pic showing all the mounting lines with the tails even. The XXL is 184cm (the left edge of the white tape shows the line).
But what I dont get is comparing Qlab to the RPC which is a much longer ski, with tons of tail splay.
Qlab is +2.2 compared to the RPC. But there are lots of folks that ski it at +2, so I think the Qlab line is fine, but I also think moving back is not the end of the world.

This was a useful post. Thanks

I did the same sorta of thing with my original LP's, Stockli stormrider 95's, and Head Monster 98's. Also looked at compared to Atomic Atlases. The factory line was probably 4cm forward of the Monsters and well forward of everything else I own. I think I'm still a good 1cm or so forward of anything else I own even at my modified mount point.

Agree w/ Bandit Man that the 183 is the midget ski and a completely different beast. Just sharing my thoughts on it given there wasn't anything relating to the mount point of that ski. For me, where i mounted is definitely the right place, given I like to drive the tips, ski a bit more old skool, don't do flippy spinny shit, and don't like center mounted skis. For those that don't think my explanation makes sense

I don't think the 183cm is a demanding ski at all. At least not compared to the others skis above. It seems about right for what I was looking for,. Something that can be that elusive 1 ski quiver for travel, a ski for the 6" of new snow days, or if I pick the wrong ski I'm not hating life since it can still carve a groomer or ski the pow ok. Not as well as my Atlas and groomers are not as good as the Monster's, but all around ok.

[stuckathuntermtn]

190 definitely needs a more attentive driver or you go into a tree.

[Jethro]

The pair of 190's I bought from Gforce arrived yesterday. I'm pretty psyched that ski these. Just comparing them to other skis I have, I'm inclined to mount back at least 1cm. Wanted to subscribe to the thread

[Jethro]

I'm hoping to drill my skis tonight, after the three year old goes down. Laying all my fatter skis side by side and taking tip and tail rise into consideration, I could easily go -2. However, it seems like a lot of guys are happy with on-the- line. I don't like centered mounts or twin tips, and prefer a higher ratio of tip to tail. I'm 6'4.5" and a relatively heavy 235 lb now. kids do that to ya. Gotta get back to 210lbs. I'm hoping this ski isn't a floppy noodle for me. It hand flexes more evenly than the blister gear review lead me to believe

I think I will go -1.5 cm. Drill time, 40 minutes from now

[SeatownSlackey]

I'm 6'1 225 and ski like a maggot. I'm on the line and honestly wouldn't change it. Maybe if I was trying to make them more pow specific or still rocking an older boot with lots of fwd lean I'd consider going 1-1.5 back but for a frontside ripper for between storms and mobbing groomers at warp speed: On The Line

[Jethro]

here are the Qlabs between the Praxis Freerides they are replacing, the Cham 127 and the girly 187 bonafides. Lining up boot centers, the Salomon is -2cm. I just can't get onboard the idea of that much tail sticking out the back. I'm gonna center punch the layout tonight and drill them tomorrow. Paper templates take me forever to lay out

[Mustonen]

If I was mounting mine all over again, I'd put them back on the line. I ski fast and like jumping into variable shit at speed, and I'm no kind of racer. I have a really hard time seeing how mounting back will improve them in any way that isn't to mask bad habits.

[Jethro]

I'm a bit puzzled by your comment. Look at the epitome of fast skiing. Downhill and super g, and even GS. These skiers are on skis mounted noticeably back from center. What bad habits are they compensating for? Granted, these Salomon skis are not race skis and are intended for more variable conditions, but still all the fatter skis I've owned have had more rearward mounts. I get a more centered mount for twin tips if the skier goes backwards.

I tend to push the front of my boots, and drive the tips of my skis. Others have a more centered upright stance, and benefit from more centered bindings

I'm taking tomorrow off and am taking the new boards out. I mounted them -2, and if the skis had no recommended mountings line, I would have gone even further back. I'm looking forward to the test run.

[Mustonen]

I'm sure they'll be fine. I don't care where you mount.

Bad habits = tail gunning, driving with your heels, defensive skiing. All things aided by moving the mount back. Driving the tips is cool and all. I find these are pretty great in a centered/slightly forward attitude, guiding the tips. Driving? Dunno.... report back, curious to hear if you have anything to report but confirmation bias.

[Jethro]

I'd disagree that tailgunning benifits from moving the mount back. Guys riding the backseat need more tail to lean back on. I will give an update after skiing them tomorrow. I have no idea how this ski will perform. It has the most pronounced early run see of any ski I've been on. I'm not sure how that will affect the ride in cut up conditions. Conditions are firming up a bit here as the last storms snow is getting skied off and temps are rising

[Bandit Man]

I'm sure they'll be fine. I don't care where you mount.

Bad habits = tail gunning, driving with your heels, defensive skiing. All things aided by moving the mount back. Driving the tips is cool and all. I find these are pretty great in a centered/slightly forward attitude, guiding the tips. Driving? Dunno.... report back, curious to hear if you have anything to report but confirmation bias.

X 2. I've owned these for three seasons and have no complaints with the one the line mount. On the other end of the argument, I have never skied them at -2, so no idea if that is better, different, or sucks.

I have also wondered how many people bought the Q-Lab hoping it was somehow different than the specs and flex would indicate. It has a race-room core with a stiff tail and a tip that is considerably lighter and softer than the tail. The 20.5-m radius allows it to rail groomers while the 109-mm waist and rocker profile make it handle powder or softer snow quite well. Spring conditions are a blast on these, but true variable conditions expose the limits of the softer tip. Charger...most of the time. Cochise equivalent...close but not quite. And for that reason, I still own a Cochise.

[stuckathuntermtn]

The rear mount is great. If you stay forward, you can make any turn shape you want easily. If you get on your heals, they won't turn.

[Jethro]

I took the ski mounted -2cm out today at Aspen Highlands with my wife. Took four cruisers and really had fun. The 20.5m sid cut is the smallest in my quiver, and coupled with perfect edges I had a blast on the easy groomers. Then we hiked the bowl. The conditions didn't warrant a 109 ski. Real set up crud and steep, chalky hardpack. I would have preferred a 95-100mm ski. In conditions like this I really like a narrower ski. It really was not a good test day for the Q-lab. I will post again when we get more snow

[stuckathuntermtn]

Interesting. I would agree that their edgehold is not what I would expect. Maybe it's the rocker?

[Jethro]

It's not a matter of edge hold. It's the width of the ski and the leverage it has on the skier when edging hard on steeps. More of a speed control edging vs riding a flexed ski mask n hard pack. It is just so much easier and pleasant to ski steep hardpack with narrower skis.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Probably

[stuckathuntermtn]

I don't think I ever mentioned this (maybe I did, sue me):
The actual length of these things is 187. The actual length of my 188 Moment Ruby is 186. The mount at -2 (about -7 from center) on them and the midsole line on the Labs are really close. within half a centimeter. "ok," you say, "that should be expected. It's basic math!" But no! The Ruby has no taper, no rocker, and a massive twin tail. So the stock mount point on the Q Lab is where it should be if it had no taper and a twin tail. It has a flat tail, so that is ridiculous (to me). Waaaay to forward. And yes, I did ski them a few times mounted on the line.
Believe it or not, I'm a decent skier who skis often. Or at least I used to be. The skis are probably overkill for my daily driver at Snowbowl, but hey, it's better than underkill. Plus they look cool