What ski am I? Quiver of One, 100's underfoot

[Danno]

^^^
That looks like a contender, thanks!

[MakersTeleMark]

Moment death wish 184. Thank me later.

[gaijin]

That OG Gotama has got to be one of the most versatile skis in history. Still have mine.

At first turn on the M102, I renamed it the Gotama 2. It’s the ski I use to compliment my Ren in Japan. I have others but none of them get skied anymore.

The M102 is more carver than playful. It’s just as easy to noodle around as my OG Goat. But decades more precise.

Starting over from scratch with only one ski in mind—

K108 (based on my experience with M102)
MF108 (based on reputation here)
FL113 (my next ski— dreamy on paper)
Praxis FRD veneer (pure beauty and timeless shape)
ON3P Woodsman (probably more versatile than I imagine.)

Good luck. Hard to make a mistake in this market.





Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[BeHuWe]

Moment death wish 184. Thank me later.

Second this or woodsman 110. But it’s almost impossible to beat the OG DW as a tele ski


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Shorty_J]

I have the katana 108 and the blaze 106.

If you don't tour much the katana is a little more damp and higher speed limit.

If you want to tour with it, the blaze is remarkably similar but a little less damp.

Both skis do more than I expected they would on both hard pack and powder.

I owned an S3 for a while and felt it was best on groomers... Both skis I mention above are better on hard and soft than the S3.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[PowderPig]

I loved my QST 106 until I skied them in tight trees. They did not feel right for me - probably because I’m an old school skier with daddy legs, used to more rear mounted skis… :-) I got the Blaze 106 as a replacement, and we get along much better. I think it’s probably a bit less damp than the QST 106, but much more versatile and fun for me.

[waxoff]

But I am thinking that I want a slightly wider ski to have in the quiver or become the quiver if these break. A few years ago, I looked for a "wider S3" and ended up with a BD Amp. And they just weren't that, I didn't enjoy that ski nearly as much, even in deep powder. Though it has been a while (I eventually gave them away for a bottle of bourbon) so I couldn't tell you all the reasons, I do remember that they were just so much heavier which would wear me down, and didn't turn quickly at slow speeds, which was a lot scarier in the trees. I'm thinking I should be looking around the 105+ range now, that if I go into the 110s the weight penalty and turnability penalty will get too big for me to be happy, but that's just my guess, I'm not committed to the idea.

So, what ski am I?

Having spent some, but not extensive, time on the S3 and appreciated them, I kinda get where you're coming from. Many suitable alternatives are already mentioned, Of them, I guess MFree 108 sings loudest to me as of yet. But if I were in yer shoes, I'd be strongly drawn to Praxis MVP 108, just because they seem like a perfect candidate for the job and your preferences.

Edited to add; MVP in 183 , and just for similarities I'd throw in Wildcat 108 184 in the mix!

[Brewski2]

All good suggestions. FWIW I have some brand new QST 106s for sale. This year’s flavor. Blister’s review of it almost matches what you are looking for.

[Danno]

All good suggestions. FWIW I have some brand new QST 106s for sale. This year’s flavor. Blister’s review of it almost matches what you are looking for.

Thanks. The review of the QST 106 did match what I posted for sure. However, some feedback I got elsewhere suggested that they needed more hard driving than the review suggested, ie not necessarily the right ski for me.

[Climber Joe]

I loved my QST 106 until I skied them in tight trees. They did not feel right for me - probably because I’m an old school skier with daddy legs, used to more rear mounted skis… :-) I got the Blaze 106 as a replacement, and we get along much better. I think it’s probably a bit less damp than the QST 106, but much more versatile and fun for me.

I found the exact opposite, that the QST excelled in trees. Super easy to pivot. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[schindlerpiste]

I bet the Kastle ZX108 would be to your liking. It can be found at reasonable prices


zx100 a bit more on piste oriented

[Brewski2]

Thanks. The review of the QST 106 did match what I posted for sure. However, some feedback I got elsewhere suggested that they needed more hard driving than the review suggested, ie not necessarily the right ski for me.

Right on. I would also recommend checking out the new Nordica Unleashed 98.

[Danno]

I found the exact opposite, that the QST excelled in trees. Super easy to pivot. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I have no idea what explains the difference, other than you may be a different skier than PowderPig or the few people on the FB tele group. You may also have come from different skis than they did (eg it might be way easier to pivot than the other skis you were on and may be way harder to pivot than the skis PowderPig was on). That said, I am definitely looking for the more pivoty things in this class, so if a few folks say this one is not pivoty enough and they found something else in the class better at that, that is key info for me. I haven't heard that yet re some of my other leading contenders.

[tang]

^^^ On the QST, looks like they changed it up recently. I skied it one day ~3 years ago and felt it really needed to be unweighted to quickly bring it around. But looks like the new or current QST is much lower camber at 3mm. That's low enough that I'd think it fully de-cambers when weighted and (combined with its tip/tail rocker) would be slashy enough - per the recent blister review. The 2019 QST 106 blister review states 5-6mm of camber

[Sullywhacker]

Line Sir Francis Bacon.

I liked the S3 too back in it’s day and I feel like the current SFB took all the good parts and made it better: light, floats excellently, easy to ski, tons of pop, holds an edge bizarrely well given what it is. I’m an up and over skier opposed to explode through.

Agree with this, particularly if trees are your focus.

[brutah]

Why not the Rossi sender 104 ti or the sender 106? I skied the sender 106 ti and thought it was a blast. The non-ti 106 may be just the ticket for ya

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[rfconroy]

Surprised no one has mention a mindbender 108. The first gen was surprisingly easy to get along with, even with a sheet of metal in it. If I was more into more traditionally mounted skis, that would probably be my go-to for just about everything. Got a buddy who skis tele on the 116c and loves it.

Also would reiterate Wax's statement - Wildcat 108 should also be on the short list too.

Most of the 4FRNT stuff, aside from the Dev and MSP is too light for resort duty.

Also - Line Blade Optic should be on the list too, if you're looking for a more energetic and progressive mounted option.

[Flippo]

Already cited but Deathwish 104

[PNWbrit]

That OG Gotama has got to be one of the most versatile skis in history. Still have mine.

Yep, Other than the tail is kind of a pain for touring (although awesome for the wake they kick up).

Destroyed my original pair and missed them ever since. Found some in reasonable condition a few years back threw some kingpins on and have been my absolute go to daily driver since. They might make it another season.

Someone should do a remake of that ski.

Hated the S3.

[Climber Joe]

My reasoning for recommending the QST is the balance of weight and ski ability. I’m assuming it’s the cork “damplifier” and the flax fiber that give it a nice snow feel without 2 sheets of metal. I am unsure if the newest QST has a full sheet but the older ones I think just had a platform for the mount zone.

The swing weight is why I think they’re easy to turn, I didn’t mean to say they slide around like a reverse camber.

If that’s enough of a concern you might be slightly happier with a SFB, Enforcer 104 free, or another twin tipper, I’d recommend the rustler 10 as second to the QST, but that’s my preference again due to swing weight, since their metal layers tapers towards the tip and tail to reduce swing weight, and they’re damp AF.

I found that with the QST, as long as you’re weighted forward enough, and are centered over them, they’ll do anything you want, and the tip shape is superb. They fixed everything wrong I didn’t like about the Qlab with the QST.

[PowderPig]

FWIW, my QST 106 are model year 2018.

[FlimFlamvanHam]

Currently on an old Rossi S3 and fucking love them. there is nothing about the S3 that I am looking to improve upon, other than wider

I ski the resort a lot and I ski trees a LOT looking for the soft snow plus I just like trees, and I love how stupid easy these skis are to turn; you just think about turning and they pivot. They actually ski groomers better than any ski this soft and rockered would be expected to And they ski better in powder than anything else I have ever been on (which includes some skis 10-15mm wider). You can't bury the tips; they turn so easily, even at slow speeds; they don't need to be charged to ski well. The last 2 points are super important to me.

A modern S3 (kinda forward mount but not nuts + ample tip and tail rocker + underfoot camber + soft but not a noodle + not a twin like the S3 but a good amount of tail kick) = Volkl Blaze or Blizzard Rustler.

An S3 is nothing like an Enforcer 100 or Mantra 102. I've obviously never seen you ski but if you love your S3's in the trees you'll fucking hate an M102 in the trees, probably.

[kc_7777]

I think about mount points a lot.

Just curious what the OP’s mount point is on their S3….ie. the rec is -7cm for S3 on the 0 line…..but marks at +5cm and -2cm. So a range of -2cm to -9cm.

Eg a SIr Francis Bacon has a mount of -2cm to -3cm and Rustler/Enforcer 104 is -7cm to -8cm and an M102/Blaze is -11 to -12cm.

Those are all pretty different mounts and are gonna ski different. And require different stances.

I know myself I can’t get along with a -11cm mounted ski. I can ski them. They feel great when I’m on a groomer and do big turns. The M102s absolutely fucking ripped groomers. But they felt so wrong in steep, sketchy tight spots.

So I know I like my skis with a -4cm to - 7cm mount.

The OP should know what they like, where their current mount is, and then pick a 99mm ski that reflects their individual style/mount preference.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[TexasGortex]

Don’t forget that mount point in relation to ski length isn’t always indicative of where it falls on the effective edge. Especially on skis with all kinds of tail rocker. A quick and sloppy measurement of my clapped out S3s look like -3cm from center of effective edge.

[Duffman]

The Rossignol S3 skis like garbage compared to just about every ski listed here. That’s not meant to be an insult but rather a big nudge to be open to the design changes over the past 10-years that should provide a way better experience.

Dead on. I was a big fan of the OG 186 S3 , other than the tip had a bit too much vertical rocker height than necessary and was also a bit floppy, but it was a very versatile, easy going ski that made lots of conditions fun. Newer stuff has refined this formula and skis so much better.