Mammoth, on FEB 4th 2024, they were for me. I had 63mm and 85mm underfoot in my quiver so I grabbed these demos from the main lodge ($76) to get my beak wet on proper powder. 178cm and 112mm underfoot. Shorter length and machine waxed made my first ever powder day a blast. These are hoppier than a double IPA. When I went straight I would just hop up and down on them like a little spring board. Super fun. I was able to keep my feet together without them getting squirrely, very forgiving. The lack of side grab is a big plus since it allows for some wiggle room in this regard. And that feature inspires confidence. For me the trick was to go fast in the wet powder and these were a very stable platform to ride up on top and turn like water skis. At slower speeds, I was knee deep and they just plowed through as long as the incline was steep enough. If I took a line knee deep, I would hit it again faster and would surf. Great learning expirence and great confidence builders. About an hour before the chairs closed I returned them and I grabbed my 172, 110/85/126 r=16. I was able to go over some of the same lines, fast AND floaty. I feel like these specifically and fat skis generally made me a much better skier in just one sesh. I was happy to have them on SUN. P.S. ($ki industry) give them HELLiott :)
Kinda surprised you didn't talk more about the maneuverability on these skis, that's what really stands out to me when I ski these. With the amount of rocker and turn radius, I feel so confident on these in tight terrain or when I'm trying to navigate obstacles, it's incredibly confidence inspiring. I ski in Washington(Crystal) and with the other ski in my quiver being the M6, I felt the 106 was a bit too close in width, having a dedicated pow ski meant more sense. I basically take the Mantra out if it's less than 6 inches, more and the Blank comes out. Have been super happy thus far. In hindsight I wonder if the QST 92 would have been a better fit for me than the Mantra but I didn't have a chance to demo them before I bought the M6's Still a great review as always, it's your opinion and you share it honestly and open mindedly, just because I think a bit differently about the ski doesn't mean either of us is right/wrong. Keep up the great content!
Elliott I think your comments are spot on and I'm sure this comparison comparing the qst 106 vs the qst Blank will really help folks in their ski selection! Many of my ski buddies (myself included) have actually sized down/narrower for their daily driver to get that carving performance. I skied Sunday at Snowbird on my 102's and caught the rope drop to ski an untracked slope that had not been opened during the storm, with 24 inch storm snow total .... guess what? My 102 Declivity's rock it!
There are lot more fun all around than the review points out. They can be skied easily in all conditions, they are an absolute masterpiece. For people to take these on the most extreme terrain they must perform very well not only in powder, where they certainly are excellent.
Absolutely I used them all last year in any condition, yes they are outstanding in powder but super fan to ski around and can carve all day long, no problem. I am 180 and ski the 186cm version.
Enjoy your reviews, very entertaining. I recently purchased this ski and love it. I ski the 194 and it's super stable and hauls thru everything, powder, crud, any softer snow conditions. As you know skis ski very differently in different lengths. They also carve better then the 106 in every condition except hard pack. Shorter turn radius helps and on softer groomers this thing rips. Neither ski does well on hard pack, they are not meant for those conditions. Blank is also is easier to pivot in tighter spaces and in the bumps due to the increased tail rocker. If you are a good skier then you wont have washed out turns except possibly on super firm snow. I have skied them both quite a bit, zero reason for the 106.
@@BenMargolius Same here -- though I like them better then @user-rh1gh8nj5v on hard pack. I demo'd for 3 days at Big Sky last weekend. One was spring conditions, one was frozen icy, and one was fresh powder. On the spring day I tried the 106 QST in a 181 (they didn't have the 189 available) as @ricketyskireviews likes it so well -- he is right -- that is a great ski and after two runs I thought it was the ski I was going to buy -- then i tried the Blanks (in a 186) on the back half of the spring day it performed like a heavy version of the 106 that could charge through spring chop better. Then on a lark I tried the 194's -- still on the spring day -- those were possibly the most fun 2 hours I'd ever had on skis. The next day was frozen - I tried some ski's I thought would be good here -- Mantra 102, Enforcer 100 and got a couple runs on each -- they were "meh." Back to the 194 Blank -- so much fun on icy crap, and bumps, even the groomers, they just took it all. I went back to the 106 181's just to confirm my experience from the previous day. I couldn't push the 106's nearly as hard and they didn't maneuver as well in the icy bumps. I finished the day off on the 194 Blanks. The next day was 5-10in of fresh, light, fluffy western snow -- two 2x4s with heli straps would have been fun. Unsurprisingly the 194 Blank's were amazing. I ordered a set which should arrive next week just in time to collect dust for 6-8 months.
So now you have ridden the QST 98, 106 and blank.....i finally pulled the trigger on the 98 for my one ski quiver 90% resort 10% touring set-up...but part of me was almost regretting not getting the 106 cause I love the purple color (of the newer graphic) and they have the best bases of any ski in existence (except the Blank bases might be even doper), especially when I learned the the 98 and 106 are almost the same weight (weirdly I think the 106 is actually 20g lighter than the 98 for the same length), so whatever "sacrifice a tad bit of floatation to save a little weight for climbing" advantage I thought I was getting does not exist. But I'm still gonna do mostly resort skiing and I think 98 probably is the best width for a daly-driver one ski quiver in CO
I see where you are coming from saying they are best for fresh lines, but as a pow ski with respectable weight I would argue the do better in soft chop than most pow skis. I think when you get to try more pow skis (many of which are lighter and less damp), you will see what I mean. If it's snow where you can touch the bottom, then yes the 106 would be clearly better. I'm also biased as I happen to like the Blank :D
I bought these as my powder ski for a half season in BC this year, in the 194 (i'm 181cm and heavy). This review is the most honest out there. What they give you: the most fun you could possibly have on a powder day, surfing powder on huge faces as fast as you like is amazing compared to making nice neat S turns with other skis. On groomers: they allow you to ski back to the chair lift, and are alot on your knees. Do not buy these are your only ski. They will give you the best powder turns of your life and are so playful on a powder day its hillarous.
No doubt the QST 106 would have been a better option in the conditions seen in your video - it didnt look to be more than 6" of fresh. I dont take my 112's out until its at least 6-8 inches. That said, I find the 112 to be a very versitile ski for its width. I think its great in chop/crud and is totally carvable on groomers if you use enough hip/knee angulation to get it on edge... (but yes, for sure its a little more work to do so). If I only had one ski, I would def. choose the 106, but if you can afford multiple skis, the 112 belongs in your quiver. Personally I use a QST 98 as an every day ski and the 112's on bigger days here in Tahoe. One caution if youre considering the 112's.... if youre on the border line about jumping up to the next length (say a 178" vs. the 186 cent)... go bigger. With its short turning radius and shorter effective edge, you'll likely be better off with the longer option. If youre a thicker more aggressive skier, the shorter ski can feel "divey" or "twitchy" in deeper snow over 16 inches.
Great review! I personally own a pair of blanks and at 6' 210 lbs I find them to be great soft snow and slush skis. For context, I'm mostly skiing at Mount bachelor in Oregon.
are you skiing the 186 or 194s? I'm 6'3" 220 and ski at Bachelor. I can't decide between 186 for the trees or if I would even want the 194s given how not steep Bachelor is.
@@kdh613 I think for your weight and height the 194 is not going to feel like too much ski. I demoed both before buying in the 194 is still pretty maneuverable.
@@kdh613I have the 194 at 6’1” 260LB and they feel shorter then my 184 Mantras. Can’t imagine downsizing on these. They are super super nimble in the trees at 194. For sure get these in 194. Awesome ski!
Omg Salomon alone is gonna run me a month's worth of ad revenue, they need to send out the X and the Stance if they want me to review their entire fleet.
I own the entire QST lineup and they are all awesome, I do however like the 106 the most unless we are hard pack/ice then the 92 is the real deal. I am part of a ski club etc. and we all have huge quivers so we get to ski a lot of fun stuff. Its always great to see your reviews and reactions to compare with our subjective opinions. None of us are sponsored or get any assistance, we are mostly just irresponsible with our ill-gotten gains.🤘🎿
Yeah, just use it. That QST 92 will ski anything. Super fun on groomers, in the trees and moguls. Only place I found it lacking was on hardpack, but otherwise it's a great ski for just about anything.
They don't call them Blank for nothing... it's a fresh powder ski and one can only dream. That's like the first hour of a snow day at resorts, so I think the actual customer goes heli skiing
Kinda bizarre how everyone's riding pow on 110ish skis these days 🙈 I mean, sure, it works but i'd much rather be on a really fat and long ski (>125mm >190cm) on a deep day. Like a Blizzard Spur, DPS Lotus/Spoon, Whitedot Redeemer. Just a better feeling when you get a bit of speed and they completely come out of the snow. And it absolutely does not have to be Hokkaido pow - i find those superfat planks work well in the alps too. I only own a pair in 108 width for touring, because they weigh like 1600g which is obviously nice when going up^^
Had a super deep weekend and rode my 125mm sat. Super fun to haul ass an float above it all. However, very tiring throwing that around. Rode my 112 sun and they were so much easier to ski. Bigger is funner but its hard to get as many runs in. 110 can do pretty much everything good enough.
Ikinda weird how everyone is riding 110ish skis at all. I remember when my all mountain skis were Rossi Bandit X at 77mm and my "fat" ski were Salomon Pocket Rockets (90mm) which are way skinnier than the QST 98
It's all about tip shape/width... at least with the Blank. Still has great flotation at 112 underfoot... because the broad tip shape pulls the ski on top of the snow. The advantage with less ski underfoot?... better overall maneuverability and quickness.
Curious -- why did you go longer? My powder skis are longer than other skis BUT I wouldn't do that anymore -- I htink I've come to the conclusion that it makes sense to use close to the same length or even shorter powder skis if I don't need the stability on hardpack. Of course that's a theory, I won't test untill I need another set of skis...
@@MADHIKER777 right but Elliot skis his 106 at 173? and chose the 186? for the blank. I ski sort-of powder skis at longer length too, but that's for groomer performance, I wouldn't expect any groomer performance from the blank and would use them as true powder skis.
The Blank is an unusual situation... less effective edge and a shorter turning radius makes it ski "shorter" than other skis. I just sold my 178's and bought the 186's and they're much better for me - less tip dive and less "hooky" in snow over 16" or high speed powder turns (Im 5' 9" and 170lbs and an agressive off piste skier). The longer ones still feel very manueverable in tighter trees, but MUCH more reliable in deeper snow@@jehjay2600
Hey great question, I actually run my qst 106's at a 182 and my maverick 88's at a 176. I just wanted to get a similar proportion from the ski, also it's what the demo shop had. I kind of have a "range" of what I'm cool testing.
Totally agree. They ski short. I jumped from the Blank 178's to the 184's this year. They're much less divey/hooky in deeper snow and are more reliable when landing jumps into powder (e.g. - tips come up to the surface more consistently... and faster). No noticible change in quickness through trees or maneuaverability with the longer option.
Surprisingly, this is the first video I've found comparing the qst 106 vs the qst Blank, Awesome!
Glad you liked it!
Always excited when a new Rickety video gets dropped :)
Hope you enjoyed it!
Mammoth, on FEB 4th 2024, they were for me.
I had 63mm and 85mm underfoot in my quiver so I grabbed these demos from the main lodge ($76) to get my beak wet on proper powder.
178cm and 112mm underfoot. Shorter length and machine waxed made my first ever powder day a blast.
These are hoppier than a double IPA. When I went straight I would just hop up and down on them like a little spring board. Super fun.
I was able to keep my feet together without them getting squirrely, very forgiving. The lack of side grab is a big plus since it allows for some wiggle room in this regard. And that feature inspires confidence.
For me the trick was to go fast in the wet powder and these were a very stable platform to ride up on top and turn like water skis.
At slower speeds, I was knee deep and they just plowed through as long as the incline was steep enough.
If I took a line knee deep, I would hit it again faster and would surf.
Great learning expirence and great confidence builders.
About an hour before the chairs closed I returned them and I grabbed my 172, 110/85/126 r=16. I was able to go over some of the same lines, fast AND floaty.
I feel like these specifically and fat skis generally made me a much better skier in just one sesh. I was happy to have them on SUN.
P.S. ($ki industry) give them HELLiott :)
Thanks for the e great review! I was consering blank, qst 106 and rossignol sender free and this review has been super informative!
oh cool!
Kinda surprised you didn't talk more about the maneuverability on these skis, that's what really stands out to me when I ski these. With the amount of rocker and turn radius, I feel so confident on these in tight terrain or when I'm trying to navigate obstacles, it's incredibly confidence inspiring.
I ski in Washington(Crystal) and with the other ski in my quiver being the M6, I felt the 106 was a bit too close in width, having a dedicated pow ski meant more sense. I basically take the Mantra out if it's less than 6 inches, more and the Blank comes out. Have been super happy thus far. In hindsight I wonder if the QST 92 would have been a better fit for me than the Mantra but I didn't have a chance to demo them before I bought the M6's
Still a great review as always, it's your opinion and you share it honestly and open mindedly, just because I think a bit differently about the ski doesn't mean either of us is right/wrong. Keep up the great content!
I thought I did (but maybe it got cut) yes very manueverable and easy kind of hop turns in the trees.
Your reviews are top notch, I wish there was more 😂
New reviews every week!
Elliott I think your comments are spot on and I'm sure this comparison comparing the qst 106 vs the qst Blank will really help folks in their ski selection! Many of my ski buddies (myself included) have actually sized down/narrower for their daily driver to get that carving performance. I skied Sunday at Snowbird on my 102's and caught the rope drop to ski an untracked slope that had not been opened during the storm, with 24 inch storm snow total .... guess what? My 102 Declivity's rock it!
There are lot more fun all around than the review points out. They can be skied easily in all conditions, they are an absolute masterpiece. For people to take these on the most extreme terrain they must perform very well not only in powder, where they certainly are excellent.
No problem to carve a full day with the QST Blank. A really fun ski to ski.
Totally!
Absolutely I used them all last year in any condition, yes they are outstanding in powder but super fan to ski around and can carve all day long, no problem. I am 180 and ski the 186cm version.
Enjoy your reviews, very entertaining. I recently purchased this ski and love it. I ski the 194 and it's super stable and hauls thru everything, powder, crud, any softer snow conditions. As you know skis ski very differently in different lengths. They also carve better then the 106 in every condition except hard pack. Shorter turn radius helps and on softer groomers this thing rips. Neither ski does well on hard pack, they are not meant for those conditions. Blank is also is easier to pivot in tighter spaces and in the bumps due to the increased tail rocker. If you are a good skier then you wont have washed out turns except possibly on super firm snow. I have skied them both quite a bit, zero reason for the 106.
Ya. my experience lines up closer to yours than Elliot's, which I find interesting
@@BenMargolius Same here -- though I like them better then @user-rh1gh8nj5v on hard pack. I demo'd for 3 days at Big Sky last weekend. One was spring conditions, one was frozen icy, and one was fresh powder. On the spring day I tried the 106 QST in a 181 (they didn't have the 189 available) as @ricketyskireviews likes it so well -- he is right -- that is a great ski and after two runs I thought it was the ski I was going to buy -- then i tried the Blanks (in a 186) on the back half of the spring day it performed like a heavy version of the 106 that could charge through spring chop better. Then on a lark I tried the 194's -- still on the spring day -- those were possibly the most fun 2 hours I'd ever had on skis. The next day was frozen - I tried some ski's I thought would be good here -- Mantra 102, Enforcer 100 and got a couple runs on each -- they were "meh." Back to the 194 Blank -- so much fun on icy crap, and bumps, even the groomers, they just took it all. I went back to the 106 181's just to confirm my experience from the previous day. I couldn't push the 106's nearly as hard and they didn't maneuver as well in the icy bumps. I finished the day off on the 194 Blanks. The next day was 5-10in of fresh, light, fluffy western snow -- two 2x4s with heli straps would have been fun. Unsurprisingly the 194 Blank's were amazing. I ordered a set which should arrive next week just in time to collect dust for 6-8 months.
@@jessewalker6128would you be willing to share your height, weight, strength, age etc. Things that help me judge between the 186 and the 194!
So now you have ridden the QST 98, 106 and blank.....i finally pulled the trigger on the 98 for my one ski quiver 90% resort 10% touring set-up...but part of me was almost regretting not getting the 106 cause I love the purple color (of the newer graphic) and they have the best bases of any ski in existence (except the Blank bases might be even doper), especially when I learned the the 98 and 106 are almost the same weight (weirdly I think the 106 is actually 20g lighter than the 98 for the same length), so whatever "sacrifice a tad bit of floatation to save a little weight for climbing" advantage I thought I was getting does not exist. But I'm still gonna do mostly resort skiing and I think 98 probably is the best width for a daly-driver one ski quiver in CO
Yeah I bet you'll really like them!
@@RicketySkiReviews picking them up today from getting the bindings mounted
Now you’ve got to demo the 92s to get the full view of the line up!
Truuuuue
I see where you are coming from saying they are best for fresh lines, but as a pow ski with respectable weight I would argue the do better in soft chop than most pow skis. I think when you get to try more pow skis (many of which are lighter and less damp), you will see what I mean. If it's snow where you can touch the bottom, then yes the 106 would be clearly better.
I'm also biased as I happen to like the Blank :D
I agree with you, I think I said the same in my review? I just meant that the 106's are a bit more pragmatic for most chairlift skiers.
great review, i've been highly considering these for my replacement to the back crows corvus
They're definitely nice! I would definitely try them if you get a chance.
I bought these as my powder ski for a half season in BC this year, in the 194 (i'm 181cm and heavy). This review is the most honest out there. What they give you: the most fun you could possibly have on a powder day, surfing powder on huge faces as fast as you like is amazing compared to making nice neat S turns with other skis. On groomers: they allow you to ski back to the chair lift, and are alot on your knees. Do not buy these are your only ski. They will give you the best powder turns of your life and are so playful on a powder day its hillarous.
No doubt the QST 106 would have been a better option in the conditions seen in your video - it didnt look to be more than 6" of fresh. I dont take my 112's out until its at least 6-8 inches. That said, I find the 112 to be a very versitile ski for its width. I think its great in chop/crud and is totally carvable on groomers if you use enough hip/knee angulation to get it on edge... (but yes, for sure its a little more work to do so). If I only had one ski, I would def. choose the 106, but if you can afford multiple skis, the 112 belongs in your quiver. Personally I use a QST 98 as an every day ski and the 112's on bigger days here in Tahoe. One caution if youre considering the 112's.... if youre on the border line about jumping up to the next length (say a 178" vs. the 186 cent)... go bigger. With its short turning radius and shorter effective edge, you'll likely be better off with the longer option. If youre a thicker more aggressive skier, the shorter ski can feel "divey" or "twitchy" in deeper snow over 16 inches.
Good advice.
This is super helpful, thanks!
Glad it was helpful!
Great review! I personally own a pair of blanks and at 6' 210 lbs I find them to be great soft snow and slush skis. For context, I'm mostly skiing at Mount bachelor in Oregon.
Nice!
are you skiing the 186 or 194s? I'm 6'3" 220 and ski at Bachelor. I can't decide between 186 for the trees or if I would even want the 194s given how not steep Bachelor is.
@@kdh613 I think for your weight and height the 194 is not going to feel like too much ski. I demoed both before buying in the 194 is still pretty maneuverable.
@@kdh613I have the 194 at 6’1” 260LB and they feel shorter then my 184 Mantras. Can’t imagine downsizing on these. They are super super nimble in the trees at 194. For sure get these in 194. Awesome ski!
awwwww... you got some fresh POW
If your home resort is Silverton, Alta, Mt Baker or Alyeska or Japan these might be golden
True
Yo Elliott have you reviewed any On3p skis? There following swears by their skis but there’s limited information and reviews out there.
He would haaaaaate those haha he’s all about carving performance
I would love to try them if I could get the chance.
Great insight.. Cheers
Glad it was helpful!
Thinking QST 98 for Tahoe as a 2nd ski.
Oh nice, what's your 1st ski?
@@RicketySkiReviews Volkl Kendo 88
@@RicketySkiReviews Though really, my first ski was a K2 5500 at 200cm. But that was back in the 80's 🤣
Just to keep u honest Salomon just announced the QST X which is 116 underfoot..
Omg Salomon alone is gonna run me a month's worth of ad revenue, they need to send out the X and the Stance if they want me to review their entire fleet.
Got a pair of these this season and they are my second fattest skis haha
My brother in christ, what? lollll
I own the entire QST lineup and they are all awesome, I do however like the 106 the most unless we are hard pack/ice then the 92 is the real deal. I am part of a ski club etc. and we all have huge quivers so we get to ski a lot of fun stuff. Its always great to see your reviews and reactions to compare with our subjective opinions. None of us are sponsored or get any assistance, we are mostly just irresponsible with our ill-gotten gains.🤘🎿
"Ill gotten gains" is a great name for a pirate themed gym
As an East coast skier, my "powder ski" is a Salomon QST 92 in the 184 length. Don't get to use it very often, LOL.
O man that's my daily driver in New England.. just use it.. holds an edge better than u might think. Was just at Loon last Sunday
daily drive a 96mm underfoot here
Yeah, just use it. That QST 92 will ski anything. Super fun on groomers, in the trees and moguls. Only place I found it lacking was on hardpack, but otherwise it's a great ski for just about anything.
would like to see you review a line blade optic 96
There aren't any locally and Line hasn't been willing to send me any.
They don't call them Blank for nothing... it's a fresh powder ski and one can only dream. That's like the first hour of a snow day at resorts, so I think the actual customer goes heli skiing
Ohhhh I hadn't connected those dots great insight
Kinda bizarre how everyone's riding pow on 110ish skis these days 🙈
I mean, sure, it works but i'd much rather be on a really fat and long ski (>125mm >190cm) on a deep day. Like a Blizzard Spur, DPS Lotus/Spoon, Whitedot Redeemer. Just a better feeling when you get a bit of speed and they completely come out of the snow. And it absolutely does not have to be Hokkaido pow - i find those superfat planks work well in the alps too.
I only own a pair in 108 width for touring, because they weigh like 1600g which is obviously nice when going up^^
Had a super deep weekend and rode my 125mm sat. Super fun to haul ass an float above it all. However, very tiring throwing that around. Rode my 112 sun and they were so much easier to ski. Bigger is funner but its hard to get as many runs in. 110 can do pretty much everything good enough.
Ikinda weird how everyone is riding 110ish skis at all. I remember when my all mountain skis were Rossi Bandit X at 77mm and my "fat" ski were Salomon Pocket Rockets (90mm) which are way skinnier than the QST 98
It's all about tip shape/width... at least with the Blank. Still has great flotation at 112 underfoot... because the broad tip shape pulls the ski on top of the snow. The advantage with less ski underfoot?... better overall maneuverability and quickness.
Shoutout Liftblog Peter
Curious -- why did you go longer? My powder skis are longer than other skis BUT I wouldn't do that anymore -- I htink I've come to the conclusion that it makes sense to use close to the same length or even shorter powder skis if I don't need the stability on hardpack. Of course that's a theory, I won't test untill I need another set of skis...
The QST line has such long rocker at both tip & tail, that it skis shorter than a groomer ski. That's why I ski QST at 184cm and all others at ~173cm.
@@MADHIKER777 right but Elliot skis his 106 at 173? and chose the 186? for the blank. I ski sort-of powder skis at longer length too, but that's for groomer performance, I wouldn't expect any groomer performance from the blank and would use them as true powder skis.
The Blank is an unusual situation... less effective edge and a shorter turning radius makes it ski "shorter" than other skis. I just sold my 178's and bought the 186's and they're much better for me - less tip dive and less "hooky" in snow over 16" or high speed powder turns (Im 5' 9" and 170lbs and an agressive off piste skier). The longer ones still feel very manueverable in tighter trees, but MUCH more reliable in deeper snow@@jehjay2600
Hey great question, I actually run my qst 106's at a 182 and my maverick 88's at a 176. I just wanted to get a similar proportion from the ski, also it's what the demo shop had. I kind of have a "range" of what I'm cool testing.
Totally agree. They ski short. I jumped from the Blank 178's to the 184's this year. They're much less divey/hooky in deeper snow and are more reliable when landing jumps into powder (e.g. - tips come up to the surface more consistently... and faster). No noticible change in quickness through trees or maneuaverability with the longer option.