2025 Salomon QST X Ski Review with SkiEssentials.com

[@richardcole4776]

This is probably not a ski I'll ever own (although I wish that wasn't the case), but that doesn't diminish my enjoyment of another great review from all three of you. Loved it.

[@SkiEssentials]

Thanks! Never say never when it comes to owning more skis!

[@richardcole4776]

@@SkiEssentials Too true!! I have a garage full of golf clubs that resembles that comment. 😅

[@davidbeazer9799]

@@SkiEssentials Just got a Blank partly because of your Alta footage!

[@user-fy8kg2tu2v]

love the construction explanation at 4:45

[@alexlimkin7397]

Beautiful skiing! Appropriate conditions for these big skis...really showcased their qualities... lucky! 😊

[@RobertBoyle-z7g]

I live in Salt Lake at the base of little Cottonwood Canyon so I ski the Cottonwoods constantly. I own both the blank and the X the blank is pretty much my daily driver except for the days when we haven’t had snow for weeks then I’m on my Kendo 88’s. anything over 8 to 10 inches I get on the X. My blanks have alpine bindings and my X has shift 2. Love your guys stuff keep it up.

[@jglads21]

It sounds like Ski Essentials needs to move out west so everyone can get on those wider skis more often!

[@SkiEssentials]

All that snow is certainly nice!

[@YouTubeBurner-hv5sp]

@@SkiEssentialsOr at least setting up a SE-West satellite office 😎😎

[@davidbeazer9799]

16:00 Hmm, me thinks the original Alta footage showed a little further here…….😊

[@chriskahn93]

Still waiting on that shift2 review 👀

[@jeffreydunn952]

How would this compare to a sender 110 free for skiing the cottonwoods in good snow conditions.

[@rmnley]

sender 110 would compare more to the QST blank I'd say

[@SkiEssentials]

The Sender 110 does have more of a Blank vibe than QST X. The weight of the Sender is closer to that of the Blank, and both are more turny than the X.

[@jeffreydunn952]

@@SkiEssentials superb! I liked the sender over the blank but both are really good skis.

[@edmund1245]

Do you think there’s more of a trend recently of going back to the heavily tapered shape of the late 2000s- early 2010s ? Skis like the Rossi s7, armada JJ, ARG, a lot of the Line Pollard designed skis (ep pro, bacon mordecai (?)) etc. I’m a big fan of the almost diamond shape shovels. Giving up effective edge for deep snow slashiness.

[@SkiEssentials]

Some companies surely are emphasizing that diamond shape for smooth powder performance. Even within Salomon, though, there's quite a difference between an earlier tapered QST 106 and the squarer Blank, and then back to smoother with the X. The Bacon 108 and 115 are more flexible, but not as dramatic as the older SFB, so there's a bit of a backtrack there from Line.

[@tahoekg]

Super thorough and helpful review AS ALWAYS, guys! Thank you! I've learned so much about skis from you over the years. Can you tell me a little more about how QST X compares to QST 118s? I have an opportunity to pick up some 118s and now I can't decide. My all-time favorite ski is the 2021 Stella QST with Shifts. Also, since all of you would choose to put Shifts or Strives on Xs, do you think you would be limiting what the skis can do by mounting an MTN Pure instead? I keep it pretty mellow in the Tahoe backcountry... so I'm barely a blip on the gnar factor scale and I'd only take these out on big pow (Sierra Cement) days. For everything else, there's Stella.

[@SkiEssentials]

Sure! The 118 felt more like just a wider QST Stella or normal 106. The X is a totally different feel and shape. The new ski is a lot more flickable and surfy. It's very quick and agile for deeper snow and pure powder flotation. The 118 was more sturdy and felt like it could handle wider spaces and higher speeds a bit better, but the new X is no slouch. I think the more techy binding is fine. Pro skiers use them all the time for really aggressive lines, but it's all about your comfort with this type of binding.

[@tahoekg]

​@@SkiEssentials Oh no... it sounds like I'm gonna need both 😬I just wish the X (and the Blank) were available in the low 170s. It was awesome to see Emily charge on the 178 Blank in the Ski Testing at Alta video. Further motivation to up my game. Thank you for all of your help!

[@cams3425]

So you guys are making it hard to decide between the QST X vs Blank... kidding.... I have not owned a pure powder ski and always wanted the Bent Chetler 120s then the Blank came out and I love my QST 106s so was kinda waiting to buy the Blank, but now I've got more choices. Very much appreciate the resort vs backcountry discussion for both skis and looking forward to demoing some this coming season. Great stuff!

[@SkiEssentials]

Ha! No bad answers here.

[@dynastar8769]

Is there a discount for the use of recyclable materials in the production of skis?

[@KevinLauscher]

There is not.

[@bearclaw5115]

Joke I'm assuming. The material is not what we think of as recycled. They don't use pop bottles to make them! They are just re-using scraps from their own production lines of other skis. Which is fine. The reason they do this is because their scraps are much cleaner and the correct type of plastic.

[@dynastar8769]

@@bearclaw5115 Rossi uses recycled materials in the production of edging, sliding surface, ski top cover. This is their thing, the green agenda

[@rasmuskoplimaa2120]

I’ve had most of my best powderdays on the old and legendary Rocker2 122. Loved the float and easy maneuvering of that ski. Watching your review it feels like this could be the Rocker2 resurrected in a modern form. How would you compare the Qst X against the legendary Rocker2 122?

[@SkiEssentials]

I think you're right about the modernity of the QST X. It's not as dramatically rockered or tapered as the Rocker2 122. The difference is in the energy--the X has more of it while the Rocker was really locked into the surfy aspect of the ski. I love the X and its ability to smear and drift while also bringing some nice pep and pop to the mix.

[@OB2Kenobi]

At Steamboat you often see powder combined with trees. What would be the ski for those conditions? Some of those trees are pretty tight and steep.

[@SkiEssentials]

I like skis in the ~110 range for this, so Elan Ripstick 108, Dynastar M-Free 108, and Rossignol Sender Free 110 jump to mind as good options here.

[@darinsmith2458]

i probably have some questions but they get lost when i watch you ski these.. i really don't have anything bad to say about QST

[@jonklass]

Great review as usual. How would these compare to the new Bent 110? Would they be pretty similar in terms of application?

[@SkiEssentials]

Kind of. I think there's a lot of the same light weight feel, but the 116 is a better pure floater. The Bent 110 feels like it wants to turn more like the QST Blank, but in the X's weight. There's more of a carvy and round feeling to the Bent 110 with good energy out of the turn. But, yes, in terms of application, both are very clearly entrenched in the powder day style of skis--the X is flatter and lower in profile all around with a longer turn radius.

[@nickreid5886]

Those sidewalls are so sweet

[@SkiEssentials]

100% yes.

[@yuriyivanov8946]

Great review as always. How would you compare QST X to Volkl revolt 121 in the resort use? Which ski would be better option once the fresh snow is all tracked out. Would QST blanks more comparable to Revolt 121. Thanks

[@SkiEssentials]

I think the X is easier to use--it's considerably lighter than the Revolt 121, but it depends on what you're looking for. The Blank has more of a similar snow feel than the Revolt, but is a way better carver and turner.

[@src248]

I've skied all three, I'd go Blank > Revolt > X for tracked out conditions. The X is considerably lighter and less damp than the other two. (and fwiw the Blank and Revolt both carve very well for pow skis in my experience)

[@yuriyivanov8946]

@@SkiEssentialsThank you for the feedback

[@yuriyivanov8946]

@@src248Thanks for the info

[@TheJFari]

Looking for a recommendation on length for my stats. 5’6”, 156lbs, advanced skier. Would be using it for skiing fresh resort snow, side country, and some touring. Leaning 178 but I haven’t a lot of experience with pow skis.

[@SkiEssentials]

Seems long for your stats, but they're on the light side so may be fine. If you're looking for something similar but available in shorter lengths, I'd add the Volkl Blaze 114 in the 166.

[@mariusgjers2956]

Great review!!! 🙌 How would these compare to Armada JJ UL 116? I have atk 15 evo on mine. Length 185cm. I do a lot of lift based off piste and touring / shorter hikes. As well as full day hikes, but if I can get more runs, I’ll go for that ;) Always looking for powder. Usually ends up in the trees ;) Thx

[@SkiEssentials]

Pretty similar, not as twin tippy, but light, energetic, and really fun. The QST X is smoother and more amenable to straighter lines and I think it's a bit quicker in chopped up snow.

[@markuswagner4579]

Jeff !!! according to your own website there is only 95grams / binding weight difference between the Shift MNC 13 and the Salomon Strive 14 GW , 885 gr to 980 gr per binding, I don't know if the Shift 2.0 is a little bit lighter but I'm certain that you would not be able to tell the weight difference between the 2 setups when skiing, they would definitely feel different but not because of the weight, after looking at other sites, the new Shift 2.0 is actually 920 gr which makes the difference only 60 gr per binding !!!!!

[@SkiEssentials]

Does it change your thoughts at all noting that we were on the Strive 16 which weighs 1125g? Now we're talking about a 200 gram difference which is not unsubstantial.

[@markuswagner4579]

@@SkiEssentials Hi Jeff, if you compare products then you have to compare apples with apples, why would Bob choose the Strive 16, with his details of Advanced Skier, under 50 years, 210+ lbs, 5.11 - 6.4, 311-330 boot his DIN setting is 8.5 !!!! let's make it 10 for OFF-PISTE, there is NO way a skier would choose the Strive 16 over the 14 for something he doesn't need and costs $90 more on your website, regular price, therefore the only comparison that can be made is the Strive 14 to the Shift 13, your question to Bob was: Would you use a regular Alpine Binding on the QST X and because he doesn't go on Tours his answer was " ABSOLUTELY " , because you would use this ski also for touring you are absolutely correct to choose the Shift Binding, it just comes down what you use it for, NOT down to weight !!!!

[@bearclaw5115]

@@markuswagner4579 The DIN chart doesn't even go up to 16. In other words, you don't buy a 16 because numerically, it is called for. Ski binding numbers are more like classes. DIN 10-11 Women, lightweight skiers, beginners. Designed to pop off at the drop of a hat. DIN 12-14 Most men, intermediates to fairly aggressive skiers. More elastic travel to limit pre-releases DIN 16+ Most aggressive skiers, cliffs, jumps. You beat the hell out of your skis and you want them to stay on. Best power transmission too. So you can see that Bob picking a Strive 16 over the 14 makes sense for how he skis. And I own both but haven't skied either yet. There is a substantial difference in the robustness of the heal piece between them.

[@nygisgod]

would this work for a west coast bigger storm day and absolute deepest east coast day ski!

[@SkiEssentials]

Yup! We skied it in some deeeep snow and it worked great.

[@bigmack10]

How would you compare this to the Line Vision 118? Similar width and weight.

[@SkiEssentials]

This is pretty fair in terms of width and weight, but the Line's shorter turn shape and more twin tipped profile make it feel different than the X. It's playful for sure, but it's not quite as happy going sideways and in a surfy manner as the straighter cut and lower/flatter profile of the QST. I think that playful and creative skiers will lean to the Vision while more directional powder enthusiasts will find more in common with the QST X.

[@jfdeforge9946]

I just bought these in 192 and plan to throw a Cast binding on it. I like mounting my skis a bit forward from recommended, but from your testing information, would that be something you'd do? I know you slightly touched on it but im still questioning it...

[@SkiEssentials]

I'd keep the binding on the line but that's my preference.

[@ethansumrall]

What size do you recommend for my stats? 5'11 - 185 - Advanced skier. Ski some of the higher-snow areas of Colorado (not I-70).

[@SkiEssentials]

I'd go 184 in that ski based on your stats.

[@dynastar8769]

Can you compare salomon qst x and k2 mindbender 116c? What is the fundamental difference? The geometry is similar, the materials are the same - wood, carbon, a minimum of titanium.

[@SkiEssentials]

The Salomon feels a bit stiffer and more reactive while the K2 is more flexible and slightly more playful. I got to ski the K2 in deep snow this year, which was a treat, but it didn't quite hold up my heavier frame as well as the Salomon.

[@dynastar8769]

thanks

[@Juu582]

Hi im a intermediate skier on the park can do 360 , 540 and some rail trick should i go for the armad arv 94 or prodigy 1 im 58 kg also 164 or the 171 im 171

[@SkiEssentials]

The Prodigy 1 will be a bit more park oriented and more agile while the ARV 94 can feel more like an all-mountain twin tip. I'd go with the Prodigy in the 171.

[@Juu582]

@@SkiEssentials thanks alot also what bindings should i go with and should i do the freestyle recomended line?

[@SnowsailorB]

Hi guys, how does this compare to the armada locator 112?

[@SkiEssentials]

Pretty good comparison--they both have a longer turn radius, are relatively light weight, and are excellent floaters. I do think the QST X is more consistent in flex and shape from tip to tail while the Locator's shovel taper far exceeds the other aspects of the ski. Even though it's wider, the QST X feels more versatile for changing conditions and terrain through the day while Locator seems happier in exclusively fresh snow.

[@SnowsailorB]

@@SkiEssentials Would you also say that the QST X has better edge grip?

[@SkiEssentials]

@@SnowsailorB I would say that to be true.

[@mathiashaddalhovet]

Add your height weight details to all reviews👍🏼

[@SkiEssentials]

Bookmark this page for future reference! www.skiessentials.com/2025-ski-test/tester

[@dominicmuhlbach7470]

Hi, I like your videos Can you compare the fischer ranger 108 with the qst x or the ranger big stix? I ride the ranger 96 and want something with more float on big powder days here in switzerland Thanks

[@SkiEssentials]

The 108 feels a lot like the 96 in terms of overall personality and character. The QST X is more consistent in flex and shape from tip to tail. The new Ranger 116 is very flexible and playful--not a ton of power or stability here. I personally think the QST X is the superior ski on this list for big powder days.

[@dominicmuhlbach7470]

@@SkiEssentials Many thanks for the answer. I just like the look of the rangers. But I am also drawn towards to the qst x. Maybe you have another good recommendation for a deep power ski?

[@SkiEssentials]

@@dominicmuhlbach7470 I've had a great time on the K2 Mindbender 116C and Atomic Bent Chetler 120 in deep snow--very playful and floaty!

[@dominicmuhlbach7470]

@@SkiEssentials Thank you very much. It's funny that you mention the Bent 120. I still have a bent chetler from 2009 that I ride from time to time. Can you compare the old 120 from 2009 with the new bent 120? Or not?

[@SkiEssentials]

@@dominicmuhlbach7470 The application hasn't really changed--these skis are fat twin tips for deep snow. The new ones feature a rocker/camber/rocker profile while I believe your skis are fully rockered. Additionally, the new ones use a poplar wood core with carbon stringers, so there's some good stiffness and rebound here. HRZN tech in the tips and tails is another newer tech, shaping the ends of the skis to act like a boat hull in deeper snow--adding displacement and surface area without width.

[@proverbalizer]

Wow can't believe the 192 is only 1990g and my 189cm QST 98's are 2100g

[@SkiEssentials]

They feel quite a bit different both on your feet and in your hands.

[@BillHendon-o4n]

Please start including your individual heights and weights in your review videos. It would help a lot with understanding which ski lengths are best for me, and the rest of your viewers. Thanks

[@GrampyScott]

They have quite often

[@SkiEssentials]

While we certainly have stated our stats more than once, it's a good reminder that perhaps new viewers do not have that information. Bob is 6/2 225 and Jeff is 5/10 160.

[@andyhoban-nx1yz]

It’s great to have the different sizes and styles of skiing. Great reviews as always.

[@Moosecoaster]

I’m Bob +3”, really good to know thx

[@VanYehudi-k4p]

Gutkowski Points

[@LawrenceKersey-r8f]

419 Hank Burgs