or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Salomon Q 105 181

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 

I skied my Q-105's today (181 mounted on the suggested line) in ~10" of medium density powder. These ski's rock! Often compared to the Soul7 due to the similar dims and composite tip and tail but the Q is far more stable and serious. Where the Soul7 fails in snow like this, the Q dominated it. Where they are similar is the light feel and next to zero swing weight. 2 traits that I loved about the Soul7. The Q has less camber than the Soul7.  I was skiing with a friend from Steamboat Ski who felt the Soul7 has too much camber and may be part of its problem with getting knocked around. The Q still has enough camber to be fairly energetic (its not super poppy or jibby) .  The Q has less rocker; in fact, nearly no tail rocker (Some reviews say it has none but it does; its just subtle). I have grown to want a tail that can be used to finish a turn and to modulate radii. Its a mid-stiff ski with softer tips that build in stiffness; underfoot is fairly stiff as is the tail with just last few inches (where the composite is) being softer.   The tip has a nice low splay that  the call Utility rocker, pretty means not a lot. The Q just skis so smooth and precisely. Fairly damp too. It had excellent float, on broken terrain, you have to be a little more patient in the transition (the lack of tail rocker makes you be a little more attentive and accurate)  but once you tip it, it hooks up smoothly (nice tapered tip) and holds the track of the turn very well. I was very impressed with the Q in bumps, its thin tip works well in troughs and I found that it was pretty much a  point-and-shoot ski. The tips flex enough to absorb.   Underfoot is fairly stiff and holds well. I had it on some 30*+ faces today and it was very easy to set and release the edges and with the zero swing weight, tight slotted turns were smooth and predictable.    Philpug named it a steal and deal ski a couple years back and I have to fully agree. I think the Q is a ski that never got it's props and if anyone is looking for a ski like a Soul7, they should really take a serious look at the Q. 

 

Size (cm)181  Tip Width (mm)133  Waist Width (mm)104 Tail Width (mm)125 Turning Radius (m)23.3


Edited by Finndog - 3/25/15 at 6:34pm
post #2 of 21

A really underated ski.... another 'death by crappy graphics' candidate.

post #3 of 21

My husband also has them in a 181 and he loves them. Too bad the powder days have been slim pickings for him to ski them this year!

post #4 of 21

Finn,

 

I've had it's little brother the Q98 for 2 seasons now, and, I share your thoughts on the performance of this line of skis. As you know, I'm not a fan of wide skis, as my home mountain just does not match up well to the conditions you experience, but, in any soft snow, these skis are just fun to ski. I've two more days planned this season and they will be underfoot.

post #5 of 21
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the added comments @Living Proof  I should also add that the 181 does ski pretty short although for our mountain (and you should buy skis that are appropriate for where you ski) its perfect for trees which is what I buy a powder ski for. You could def' size up for more open terrain. I did find it more than adequately stable though.  I had skied the QLab (nearly same ski but with 2 sheets of metal and stiff wood layup) in even deeper powder a few weeks back in the 183 and it was supremely stable and the best crud and broken ski I have ever clicked into but the uber stiff construction just made it less than ideal for trees. Just more work than I prefer. Again, if I skied more open terrain, the Q Lab is a super ski and the 183 is the perfect length. 

 

mount point: IMHO, the factory suggested point is perfect. You will see some comments about the ski feeling too far forward but its balanced perfectly. The suggested line allows you to work the ski,pressuring with big toe little toe, pressing down tips in troughs.   Its also very "flickable" ski.meaning its easy to pick up and redirect in bumps, trees and small features.  We were skiing down the center of Storm Peak where there are small evergreens and leftover piled snow, the Ski was a blast to pop off and redirect with a hard edge set, retraction and redirection in the air.  


Edited by Finndog - 3/26/15 at 7:05am
post #6 of 21
I agree . On the above reviews. I do know salomon is moving the mounting position back on these skis next year..so if you like where they are mounted now measure because next years line will be back.
post #7 of 21
I've spent around 2 weeks on the Q98 in Hakuba Japan. Me 90kg and an advanced recreational skier. I've spent pretty much the last 15 years on wood core, metal laminate skis. These obviously have no metal laminate. As a soft snow focused all mountain ski I found them great. As mentioned they are great in soft snow, can change direction very quickly, and while they are by no means hefty skis, they were plenty stable on hard snow provided there was just something tiny to grip to on the slope surface. I had no issues with the mount point (mine are the blue Gen 1 Q98). Preferred terrain is soft snow/powder, bumps, groomers, crud and up the back ice. There's no doubt they aren't quite as hefty or planted as a stiffer ski, but they are by no means insubstantial and for the brief are ideal. I expect the Q105 would be much the same, just marginally better off piste.
post #8 of 21
Thread Starter 

@bmck3780 I will track down a pair today to do a quick comparison if you like?  I am pretty sure the Q105 is a bit stouter than the 98. 

post #9 of 21

Last season, as well as this season, the Salomon Quest series got good reviews.

At the start of the 13-14 season, I read the Backcountry magazine's review of the Salomon Q96 Lumen(woman's skis) saying they were an outstanding ski(editor's pick) for the backcountry.

Coincidentally, I saw a pair of 178 Lumens(97 waist) on E-Bay for a very good price and purchased them. I planned on putting tech bindings on them but first installed Tour F12s to see how they skied overall. I only weigh 160#s so I am not adverse to skiing on a woman's ski.(They should be marketing skis for "lighter skiers".) To say the least, I was very impressed with the skis and since we had a spectacular snow year last year I ended up spending probably 75% of my time on the Lumens. The rest of the time I was on my Patron's. As I said, "a great snow year."

I also spent a major part of this season on them as well. Even on very firm snow they perform very well.  Not ice but anything softer. Extremely heavy, and I mean extreme, crud probably makes you work and requires the most focus.

Also I had 2 friends that bought S7s which I tried several times and found my Lumens to be a much better ski(for me anyway,) They also disliked their S7s and continue to ski their S3s and S6s..

I do believe the Q(uest) skis are highly underrated.

post #10 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
 

@bmck3780 I will track down a pair today to do a quick comparison if you like?  I am pretty sure the Q105 is a bit stouter than the 98. 

 

I would love to hear a comparison.  I demo'ed the Q98 and really, really liked it in soft snow and bumps, but in firmer crud it really got knocked around a little too much for me.  If the 105 is a little stouter, it could be money.

post #11 of 21
Just feels like a slightly wider Q98... It's been awhile since I've skied them both, but I don't recall one feeling 'burlier' than the other at all.
post #12 of 21
Don't do so on my account @Finndog but by the same token I would also be curious to hear the outcome of the experiment!

As Marko suggests though my suspicion is they will share very similar traits. They have almost exactly the same construction which would tend to suggest similar flex attributes. Aside from the width the only notable difference is the edge free extremities in the Q105, which to me if anything suggests a less not more burly ski. My guess though is almost exact same "burl" between the two.
post #13 of 21
Thread Starter 

I'll see if I can find a pair..  Neither pair is Burly for sure but the mid and tail of the Q105 is certainly not soft as/for a powder-centric ski. For crud busting, I wouldn't think these are the tickets but it really comes down to where you skiing and what you are skiing. 

post #14 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
 

mount point: IMHO, the factory suggested point is perfect. You will see some comments about the ski feeling too far forward but its balanced perfectly. The suggested line allows you to work the ski,pressuring with big toe little toe, pressing down tips in troughs.   Its also very "flickable" ski.meaning its easy to pick up and redirect in bumps, trees and small features.  We were skiing down the center of Storm Peak where there are small evergreens and leftover piled snow, the Ski was a blast to pop off and redirect with a hard edge set, retraction and redirection in the air.  

This is the second season for this model, and Salomon actually moved the recommended mount position for 14-15 model back about 1cm from the previous season.

 

For more discussion and links to the Salomon Shop Cert Manual - desertsnowjunkies.com/salomon-q-series-review/

 

Also, as far as the 105 being burlier than the 98, both are laid up the same, but the 105 does feel burlier due to added size and materials and feels more directionally stable with a 23m turn radius..

post #15 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fritzski View Post
 

This is the second season for this model, and Salomon actually moved the recommended mount position for 14-15 model back about 1cm from the previous season.

 

For more discussion and links to the Salomon Shop Cert Manual - desertsnowjunkies.com/salomon-q-series-review/

 

Also, as far as the 105 being burlier than the 98, both are laid up the same, but the 105 does feel burlier due to added size and materials and feels more directionally stable with a 23m turn radius..

 

@Fritzski  your review (and site) continues to shine, excellent job, well written with just the right amount of detail.  love your comments about "pro" reviews...Thumbs Up

post #16 of 21
Hi guys
My first post so take it easy on me.

I have the Q105 in a181 length and skied it in Hakuba for about 20 days this year and wow did we get powder.
Loved it as you mentioned it skis the whole mountain really well.
One thing I had trouble with tho was when we got into the alpine and I tried to let them go
I found them very nervous and I had to reign them in to keep control of them.
Is this more a question of technique or should I be investing in a ski designed for that type of skiing ?
I love to rail a ski on the groomers and this ski does that at speed really well but off piste I had trouble.
My objective next season is to ski more alpine so I want to make sure I'm on the right ski.

Would something like a Bent Chetler be a good choice for a second set if that's the case ?
I weight 75 kg 180cm.
post #17 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Layno View Post

Hi guys
My first post so take it easy on me.

I have the Q105 in a181 length and skied it in Hakuba for about 20 days this year and wow did we get powder.
Loved it as you mentioned it skis the whole mountain really well.
One thing I had trouble with tho was when we got into the alpine and I tried to let them go
I found them very nervous and I had to reign them in to keep control of them.
Is this more a question of technique or should I be investing in a ski designed for that type of skiing ?
I love to rail a ski on the groomers and this ski does that at speed really well but off piste I had trouble.
My objective next season is to ski more alpine so I want to make sure I'm on the right ski.

Would something like a Bent Chetler be a good choice for a second set if that's the case ?
I weight 75 kg 180cm.

Layno, the Q105 can be skittish at high speed. If you're charging the alpine above Hakuba, you could easily ski the 188 which might begin to feel more like a 'big mountain' ski for your size and weight. A Chetler is a fun ski as well and would work well for your weight. If you want some dampness, a Head Cyclic would be a great Japan ski. Next season's Blizzard Bodacious is going to be more accessible for lighter skiers as well, but will still fall into the big mountain charger catagory. Glad you're having fun there! Good place. I've spent a lot of time above the lifts there. smile.gif
post #18 of 21
Thanks
What size in those other options do you suggest and should I be concerned about the binding position.
post #19 of 21

With the Heads, yes. There are six cm marked on the ski's sidewall. Go two from the rear. On your 181 Solly's, you could try to mount 1-2cm aft and see what happens.

Chetlers, can't recall. Blizzards, go with the factory suggested.

post #20 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post
 

With the Heads, yes. There are six cm marked on the ski's sidewall. Go two from the rear. On your 181 Solly's, you could try to mount 1-2cm aft and see what happens.

Chetlers, can't recall. Blizzards, go with the factory suggested.

 

good info here.  I have found after skiing the 105's in more open terrain at higher speeds (especially in broken) the 181 mounted on the factory mark (brown version, 13-14 version) is too far forward. I know Sali moved that mount point back 1cm, I am going to remount and try.  Still a really good ski though 

post #21 of 21
And a good ski to tour on...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews