Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 54
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    BC to CO
    Posts
    4,780
    I'm on the Orange ones (18/19) and have them mounted on the line. 190lbs 5'11". I prefer a ski I can carve more, than smear turn.
    Other skis are Atomic Auto/Back 117 and Auto/Back 109, both on the line.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Alta
    Posts
    2,751
    I have mine mounted at +1.5 of line, I think they carve better there and release into a slarve much easier. When I had them on the line they felt locked in and very race ski feel. I do prefer progressive mounts though. FYI Cody mounts his +2


    Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    3,716
    Quote Originally Posted by altacoup View Post
    I have mine mounted at +1.5 of line, I think they carve better there and release into a slarve much easier. When I had them on the line they felt locked in and very race ski feel. I do prefer progressive mounts though. FYI Cody mounts his +2


    Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
    Awesome, this is good info and more along the lines of what I'm thinking. I often find that a more forward mount can make a ski feel more balanced and surfy, though I'd be concerned about trying to turn the QST 106 into something it's not.

    You bought those Head A-Stars off me, right? Those were fairly forward mounted (-6 recommended line) but I liked that. Did you get along well with that mount point?

    Good to know that Cody is at +2. Is there somewhere he discusses mount point that you could direct me to? edit: he talks about it on his website here: http://www.codytownsend.com/gear-copy

    "I ski the 188cm and mount them a 2cm forward of the recommended line. As they’re more a traditional shaped ski, mounting near the recommended line is advisable. I ski these whenever the conditions are potentially variable or I don’t know what to expect in the mountains. They excel on everything from groomers to pow, windboard to slush, crud to crap. "

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Alta
    Posts
    2,751

    Salomon QST mounting

    A-star seems like itís based off hoji designed skis. I liked A-stars but end up skiing renegades and hoji more. Chalk it up to really liking full rocker skis. The tail of the qst is fairly stout when you mount forward. But if youíre used to that itís not a problem. I never ski the 106 in pow ski canít say if itís surfy but itís certainly looser while still carving great. The recommended mount seemed like it was too locked into the radius. Seems to me that Cody is saying he also doesnít ski the 106 in pow, even though he says it versatile. Watch the 50 series, if itís going to be soft even if itís a big day heís in the 118. I think they put the recommended mount there to increase float.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,779
    Funny Iím rethinking all my forward mounts. I skied for years on 4FRNTs, Libs and Icelantics all at -6cm.

    Anyways, I was +2.5cm on my 2020 181cm QST 106s and they felt just fine. Surfy, could feel the tails were there, but I had no problems. No tip dive either. Sold them as I like my Enforcer 104s just a bit better. But the 2020 QST is a good ski.

    Probably would go +2cm on the QSTs if I were to do it again.

    But take that with the fact that Iím a forward mount guy.

    For reference, Iím +1cm on Rustler 11s and +2cm on Dynastar Protos and +2cm on Volkl M102s and like them all at those mounts.

    And at +2.5cm on Enforcer 104s (should really be +2cm).
    _________________________________________________
    I love big dumps.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    3,716
    Thank you both for the info. Mounted forward, did you still feel like you could drive the tips into carves, or did you need to ski more centered?

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,779

    Salomon QST mounting

    Hey D(C),

    I have a short bsl (Dalbello krypton 130s in a 24.5). So I think thatís part of the reason I tend to go forward. At 288mm bsl I would have an extra cm in front compared to a similarly mounted 26.5 boot?

    I could drive the tips when needed on the 181cm QST. But I tend to ski pretty centred, with shin pressure on my boot tongues. So Iím probably more a ( centered) slarver than a pure, drive the tips carver overall. I have M102s now....they are schooling my legs on big vert days. As they need to be driven.

    The QSTs felt really good. The tips are surfy in deeper snow which I liked. And the upturned tail was nice and easy to release.

    KC.
    Last edited by kc_7777; 02-04-2021 at 10:38 AM.
    _________________________________________________
    I love big dumps.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    SW, CO
    Posts
    1,458
    I mounted my 188s at +1 and if I could do it again I'd probably go +2. They are a bit too locked in for my taste. They are also my one ski quiver for touring so I have ended up using them in nearly every condition possible. The only conditions I thought they excelled in were consistent corn and high density surfy pow. I think I'd like these skis much more as a daily driver of sorts in the resort.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    3,716
    Quote Originally Posted by ASmileyFace View Post
    I mounted my 188s at +1 and if I could do it again I'd probably go +2. They are a bit too locked in for my taste. They are also my one ski quiver for touring so I have ended up using them in nearly every condition possible. The only conditions I thought they excelled in were consistent corn and high density surfy pow. I think I'd like these skis much more as a daily driver of sorts in the resort.
    Thanks a lot. Iíll be using these as a resort ski.

    To avoid hole conflicts, my best options are either right on the line or +1.5 to +2 (+2 a bit better than +1.5). Sounds like going forward is the way to go.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    3,716
    Just following up - I ended up going +2. Iím happy with the result. The ski rails on groomers and is easy to pivot in the trees, but still feels stable. I can still drive the tips.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    3,716
    Following up again, I actually ended up selling the 188 QST 106s after a few days on them. The main complaint was the tails - I found that when skiing through trees or weird snow, the tails were hard to release. In my past experience, mounting forward usually makes a ski looser and easier to slide around, but I am wondering in this case whether mounting at +2 led to simply having too much tail behind me. The tails feel stiff and donít have much taper, so being on the line maybe would have allowed me to have more control over them. I am also thinking I would have preferred the 181s. Iím not sure...

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    4,963
    Quote Originally Posted by D(C) View Post
    Following up again, I actually ended up selling the 188 QST 106s after a few days on them. The main complaint was the tails - I found that when skiing through trees or weird snow, the tails were hard to release. In my past experience, mounting forward usually makes a ski looser and easier to slide around, but I am wondering in this case whether mounting at +2 led to simply having too much tail behind me. The tails feel stiff and donít have much taper, so being on the line maybe would have allowed me to have more control over them. I am also thinking I would have preferred the 181s. Iím not sure...
    You just described why I am so reluctant to go forward on a ski...to me it makes the tail harder to release.

    I owned the reddish/plum-colored 106 in a 188 after having a stellar day on them in 8-12Ē of blower at Whistler. They were ďgood enoughĒ from a float perspective and more than held there own on groomers, as long as they werenít icy. After skiing them in firmer spring conditions, the magic wore off and I missed a more substantial ski that was more damp and had better edge hold.

    Unless you are looking for a one-ski quiver 50/50 ski (which the QST is a good candidate for...with lots of compromises), there are lots of better options out there that retain the accessibility of the 106 while offering better overall performance and better skiing experience, especially at a resort.


    Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    gamehendge
    Posts
    781
    I've skied my 17/18 (purple and orange) 188 106 for 2.5 seasons and have the same issue with tail release. I'm looking to get into something that is 110 that's a good all around ski and a touch shorter in the 180 range for lenghth. Everything I've read it sounds like the bent chet is a great ski but I don't want the 100 or 120.

    Any other skis that are more forgiving and perhaps a touch on the lighter side in the 110 waist that anyone could recommend? My touring skis are the line vision but they are a bit floppy for in bounds skiing.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Alta
    Posts
    2,751
    I have 188 mounted +1.5 and think theyíre great there. On the line I thought they were a little to one dimensional. Always wanting to carve the same turn. Went forward and like the much more. I think they release easier and have a more versatile turn shape mounted forward. They do have a fairly stout tail so I could see how it would over power some people who arenít used to that feel. To me the stiff tail allows for super quick super precise last second direction changes.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Bottom feeding
    Posts
    10,631
    Just recently there was a pair for sale here in gear swap mounted at +3 and I thought that was way too much. I get +1 or something but to move that much in a small running length seems odd.
    Well maybe I'm the faggot America
    I'm not a part of a redneck agenda

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Golden
    Posts
    811
    Old 106 is very different to new 106. I hated the old one. Love the new one mounted -1cm. A lot of clients have liked it that way too.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    496
    For the past 10 years or so Iíve always been a forward mount guy. I think it stems from when I bought a pair of Dynastar Six Sense that were mounted on the ďtraditional lineĒ as opposed to the ďprogressive lineĒ. Since that ski had a lot of tail rocker and/or were soft, I felt I had no support if I ever got into the back seat. Once I moved them up 2cm they felt way way better, so after that Iíve always been a ďforward mountĒ guy.

    I have a pair of Bentchetler 100s mounted +1.5 and think they skied great, however there are times when I experienced feeling too much tail and feel too locked in to turn. I get the same sensation on my Q-Labs from time to time as well.

    I recently bought a pair of Mantra 102 and reluctantly had them mounted on the back line since the shop, and comments in the ďMantra 102, where to mount threadĒ recommended them there. I only have 2 days on the skis but Iím super happy with where they are mounted, the tails have plenty of support, and since theyíre on the shorter side i think it makes them easy to break out of a turn and throw them sideways. The skis are super stable blasting through crud (better then my Q-Labs), I canít help but think having a few more centimetres of ski in the front of the bindings helps with that. Anyway, going forward unless itís a power ski with that has lots of tail rocker that is designed to be skied with a forward/centred stance (like the Rocker2 122), Iíll probably stick to the recommended line in the future.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    SW, CO
    Posts
    1,458
    Quote Originally Posted by ASmileyFace View Post
    I mounted my 188s at +1 and if I could do it again I'd probably go +2. They are a bit too locked in for my taste. They are also my one ski quiver for touring so I have ended up using them in nearly every condition possible. The only conditions I thought they excelled in were consistent corn and high density surfy pow. I think I'd like these skis much more as a daily driver of sorts in the resort.
    Just a quick update on this. I ended up getting new boots that forced a remount. I went +2 this time and I am really starting to enjoy the ski much more. So far I've had them out in a range of weird spring like conditions to a few inchs of blower on boiler plate and the more forward mount really lets the ski pivot and turn reasonably well in manky strangeness. I'm sure I lost some top end float in the deeper snow, but those type of conditions are so rare in backcountry skiing for me that I'm much happier with the +2 mount.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Front Range, CO
    Posts
    416
    I picked up a pair of used 2018 QST 118's. I don't think I can mount on the line - would have to reuse two of the toe holes and they are filled with epoxy and wood dowel. Is the consensus to mount +1? I am a little leery of going too far forward and getting tip dive.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    7,072
    Quote Originally Posted by slcdawg View Post
    I picked up a pair of used 2018 QST 118's. I don't think I can mount on the line - would have to reuse two of the toe holes and they are filled with epoxy and wood dowel. Is the consensus to mount +1? I am a little leery of going too far forward and getting tip dive.
    I had them on the line and felt some dive. I personally think I would amount back -1 or even -2. Itís std mount is -5. But just my opinion


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I need to go to Utah.
    Utah?
    Yeah, Utah. It's wedged in between Wyoming and Nevada. You've seen pictures of it, right?

    So after 15 years we finally made it to Utah.....


    Thanks BCSAR and POWMOW Ski Patrol for rescues

    8, 17, 13, 18, 16, 18, 20, 19, 16, 24, 32, 35

    2021/2022 (13/15)

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Front Range, CO
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by whyturn View Post
    I had them on the line and felt some dive. I personally think I would amount back -1 or even -2. It’s std mount is -5. But just my opinion


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Interesting. Thanks for the feedback. I ended up drilling out the plugged holes, so will try it on the line and move it later if needed.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    the Low Sierra
    Posts
    17,798
    thatís what I was going to suggest - just redrill those holes
    I didn't believe in reincarnation when I was your age either.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Alta
    Posts
    2,751
    Bumping this to see if someone can help me out. I snapped my green 188 Qst 106s this winter. Ended up giving the ski that wasnít snapped in half to someone for decorating. Anyway, I was given a another set of them but they are a pre production pair and donít have the recommended mounting line printed on the ski. Can someone measure the length from the tail to recommended boot center?


    Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    88
    I can in 1-2 weeks when mine arrive. Where are you going to mount those up? Can you confirm you are on the 189s?

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Alta
    Posts
    2,751
    Just to clarify, Iím looking for the recommended line on the green qst 106. My old pair were mounted +1.5 and that mount was money.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •