2018 Salomon QST Lux 92 Women's Skis 2018 Salomon QST Lux 92 Women's Skis

2018 Salomon QST Lux 92 Women’s Skis

The QST Lux 92 is part of Salomon’s Freeride All Mountain collection. These skis have designs derived from more freeride oriented powder skis, but in waist widths and using constructions that support all mountain skiing, not just use in soft snow. The QST Lux 92 uses an inverted wood core, Salomons CFX Superfiber (flax and carbon fibers woven together), and a Ti Power Platform. This construction keeps the weight impressively low, but adds in stability and energy thanks to the metal strip and CFX material. The result is a ski that on paper looks to be incredibly maneuverable and a great choice for adventurous skiers that don’t need the most aggressive platform (i.e. a ski with more metal). On paper is one thing, but what about on snow?

Kristi Brown described the QST Lux 92 as having a “warm and inviting personality without any surprises.” Kristi found the ski had an impressive combination of performance characteristics, scoring it 5 out of 5 for stability, forgiveness, torsional stiffness, and versatility. We really like to point out any time a tester gives a ski a high score for both torsional stiffness and forgiveness. Those are two attributes that are difficult to combine into one ski, but typically result in very approachable ski for intermediates and less aggressive advanced skiers, something which Kristi seemed to agree upon. “The Lux will naturally enhance an intermediate’s ability.” We love Kristi’s first comment on the QST Lux 92, “Meow! The Lux purrs and turns with cat-like instincts.”

Ali Berlin tested the 161 cm length and agreed that the QST Lux 92 would make a great ski for progressing intermediate skiers. “This ski is meant for an intermediate skier looking to step up their game.” Because the ski is so forgiving it doesn’t punish you for making mistakes, but has the stability needed to start working higher speed skiing into the mix. They’re also very maneuverable and love making short turns, which helps less experienced skiers manage tighter terrain like moguls and trees. Ali described it as “great short radius turning.” While she did comment that she felt like they had a bit of a speed limit, we don’t think many skiers are going to push it to that point. Those that can will likely be choosing skis with more metal and high speed stability, anyways.

Chloe Wexler agreed that the Lux 92 prefers making short turns. In fact, she gave it high scores for all the criteria that support maneuverable, forgiving skiing: quickness, playfulness, and forgiveness, which is beginning to feel like the theme of this ski. Chloe skied the 171 cm length and described the Lux 92 as having a “short turn shape” and feeling both “playful and bouncy.” She felt like it had “good dampening at slower speeds, but poor dampening at high speeds.” For an intermediate or less aggressive advanced skier the Lux 92 is going to be a dream in terms of skiing tricky, tight terrain, something that Chloe noticed. “Good for skiing bumps and making short turns.”

Our testers on the QST Lux 92 confirmed our suspicions: it is incredibly maneuverable, very playful, and quite forgiving. While there are certainly more powerful skis on the market, few give such a nice mix of versatility while being approachable and relatively easy-to-ski for less aggressive skiers. It’s performance characteristics and the ski’s 92 mm waist width make it a perfect ski for exploring the entire resort without feeling overpowered, overly fatigued, or on the other end of the spectrum, not supported with decent stability.

Testers

Ali Berlin Ski Tester Headshot Image

Ali Berlin

Age: 40Height: 5'"Weight: 110 lbs.

Ski Style: Fast Frontside Free Spirit

Chloe Wexler Ski Tester Headshot Image

Chloe Wexler

Age: 26Height: 5'4"Weight: 115 lbs.

Ski Style: Ripping mogul skier, very precise, hard to keep up with

Katrine Wolfgang Ski Tester Headshot Image

Katrine Wolfgang

Age: 53Height: 5'5.5"Weight: 168 lbs.

Ski Style: Smooth carving

Kristi Brown Ski Tester Headshot Image

Kristi Brown

Age: 48Height: 5'9"Weight: 136 lbs.

Ski Style: Energetic, precise, very smooth and skis with a lot of finesse

54 Comments on the “2018 Salomon QST Lux 92 Women’s Skis”

Comments are closed. If you have any questions, or looking for some guidance, please email our customer service team at info@skiessentials.com.

  1. I fail to see what makes this a woman’s ski. I am a man who has been testing a lot of skis lately. I’m not aggressive but love to ski bumps on both diamond and DD runs. The Lux 92 has bubbled to the top of my list because of its ability to turn quickly and handle both deep powder and icy slopes. I have more freedom to do whatever I want on the mountain than any other ski I’ve tested.

    1. Hi Wally!

      There’s a lot of cross over between the men’s and women’s QST collection from Salomon. It’s tough labeling skis as men’s or women’s, as there are definitely skiers out there who can cross over to other genders. I know a lot of men that ski women’s skis and vice versa! If you like it, there’s no reason you shouldn’t get it.

      SE

    2. Many women’s skis are in fact the Men’s skis with a different topsheet. I’m not familiar with the Salomon line much, but I believe the Volkl skis such as the 90Eights are the same for both men’s and womens with different graphics.

  2. I’m 5’1″ 115 pounds. What length ski would you recommend for me? I tend to ski shorter for quick turning, bumps, and steep narrow chutes. Would you recommend the 153 or the 161cm. I’m on a pair of salomon Jade 148cm currently.

    1. Hi Valerie!

      I would go with the 153 cm length. That will be just slightly shorter than your height, which should be a good length for you and will definitely give you that quick turning performance you’re looking for for bumps and narrow chutes.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  3. HI,
    I am thinking of buying the 153 cm but demo-d the next size up. They were perfect but a little long in the woods. Will I be sacrificing stability front of the mountain on the shorter ski?

    Thanks.

    1. Hi Skye!

      What’s your height and weight? I’m guessing you’ll be fine if you thought the 161 cm felt a little long. You’re not losing a ton of stability downsizing one size, but let me know your size and I’ll let you know if that changes my opinion.

      SE

  4. Hi there! I am 5’8″, 148lbs looking to try and step up my game a little on the mountain and these skis seem enticing! I currently have Rossignol Temptation 88 162 cm skis and have really enjoyed them but would like to work on bettering my skills. Would you recommend going with this ski and at a longer length? Say the 169cm? How much of a difference am I going to feel if I choose a longer length ski? Thanks for the help!

    1. Hi Betsy!
      Given your height and expectations of improving, I think the QST in a 169 is a great choice! You’ll get better off-piste performance out of these skis versus the Temptation 88. They’re lighter, more versatile, and better for all-mountain skiing. You’ll appreciate the stability of the longer length! Happy winter!
      SE

  5. Hi,
    I’m a fresh intermediate, I’d say. I’m 5’5 and weigh about 145lbs. I just turned in my old 2009 K2 Pure Love’s that were a 152 (I think). One instructor last year thought I could get away with a slightly shorter ski to pull in my turns easier. I’m interested in these skis but now I’m worried that the 153 won’t be helpful. Any thoughts on a correct size?

    1. Hi Sherry!
      A shorter ski will certainly help you make more turns, but will also increase fatigue because it’s harder to ride a flat ski. The shorter, the ski, the shorter the turn radius, so the skis will want to make more, smaller turns. As a result, you end up constantly turning, and this can be tiring, especially if you are at a bigger mountain with longer runs. Conversely, your instructor was correct in that they will help you learn how to make proper turns, just a whole lot of them! My wife is about the same size as you and skis on a 153. She’s pretty good, and I feel like they’re a bit short, but she likes them anyway. I think the 153 in the QST Lux 92 would be a great ski for you! Have fun!
      SE

  6. Hi, I am 5 foot tall and have been skiing forever on the ancient, but “I still love them”, Salomon Evolution 9 Women’s ski in a 181 length – I think they’re 20 years old, but I ski them every year ….. I am a strong intermediate, and ski instructed for a while years ago. I ski mainly groomed slopes but all conditions. Not much powder if any. I’m going after a new pair of skis this year and researching the new Salomons. Can you help me out at all with which Salomon ski might best compare to my old Evolutions, and the length…I’m so used to my long boards that I’m a little shy about going to 150’s! Will I lose stability? Thanks!!!

    1. Great question, Kelly!
      Welcome to the wonderful world of new skis! There’s a lot to like about skis these days, and although you will certainly miss your old skis, you’ll probably really like the new stuff, too. You’re pretty much right on track with the QST 92 Lux. That’s a fantastic all-mountain ski that can handle anything from the groomers to the trees and moguls and everything in between. If you’re looking for a more trail-oriented ski, they also have the Aira series which is more “piste” oriented than the Lux series. I’d suggest the Aira 80 Ti. They have some metal in them, so they’re a bit stiffer and more damp. They’re also narrower, so they have better edge grip than the Lux 92. What’s surprising nowadays is that the wider skis carve really well, even at 92 mm underfoot. As far as sizing is concerned, I don’t think you have to go all the way to 150, especially if you’re used to a 181. Skis these days are wider, so you can ski them shorter because they have more surface area. I’d recommend something in the mid to upper 150’s for someone your size, but if you like longer skis, than that’s a personal preference. Either way, I think you’ll love the new stuff. Happy skiing!
      SE

  7. Hi , I am 5’7″ 145LBs Female. Intermediate / Advance skier. West coast. Mostly ski the groomers. I can’t decide whether to go 161cm or 169cm? On a 158cm right now but has a 72 waist I think. Look forward to your feedback. Thank you

    1. Hi Samantha!

      I think you can go with the 169 cm length. The QST Lux is quite lightweight and uses a fair amount of rocker, so is pretty manageable in longer lengths. Even though that’s an 11 cm increase from your current skis, my guess is that your current skis don’t use much rocker at all, so it really won’t feel like you’re increasing significantly in terms of how demanding/forgiving the ski is.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  8. I am a confident Advanced Intermediate Skier who is becoming more comfortable with off piste skiing, steeper runs, ice, etc. Having grown up skiing in the West, the East Coast is a new adventure of conditions. I am 5’4, 150lb and am looking for a good all mountain ski. What length should I consider?

    1. Hi Whitney!

      I would venture a guess that you could handle a 161 cm QST Lux 92. That’s only a cm or two shorter than you, but because the Lux uses quite a bit of rocker and is relatively lightweight, I don’t think you’d have any trouble with it. It’s also going to give you more float in soft snow and more stability at speed. What do you think? Do you know what lengths you’ve skied in the past?

      SE

      1. Bought the 161 after removing a 153 a few weekends ago (it was way too short). Upcoming trip in a few weeks – will report back! Thanks!!

  9. Hello,

    I am looking for help deciding between the QST in 153 or 161. I am a 5’3 and 110 lbs intermediate/advanced skier but I have not skied regularly in a few years and I am concerned that 161 may be overwhelming to get back into the swing of the slopes. On the other hand the 153 seems significantly shorter than what I am accustomed to skiing and may not give as much opportunity to advance. I grew up skiing runs and backcountry on the west coast but currently live in Europe and would like to do more exploration off-piste so the possibility of new terrain is also a consideration in choosing a ski. Any insight would be greatly appreciated!

    1. Hi Colleene!

      Given the lightweight feel of the QST Lux 92, I think you can go 161 cm. It might take you a day or two to get used to it, but I think in the long run you’d prefer that length. 153 cm seems a little short, especially for off-piste terrain. You need a certain amount of stability and edge grip when exploring the BC, and I think 161 cm is going to provide that better than the 153 cm. I don’t worry too much about you having a hard time managing that length. Like I said, it might take a bit of adjustment, but I think you’ll like it.

      SE

  10. I have 158 Elan Zeal from 7-8 years ago. I ski black diamonds comfortably and double black runs once or twice a day if the conditions are exactly right 🙂 I’d like to stay in control but want to up my speed without losing that control feeling. Currently even when I do let my skis run without making too many turns on the blue runs I just can’t get the speed to keep with rest of group. I do like both tree and groomers and some bumps here and there. I have traditionally liked making a lot of turns for the control but these old legs are getting tired of making a lot of turns . I’m looking for a ski that’s going to give me the confidence of not needing to make so many turns but still be able to do trees and occasionally moguls. What do you thinki of Lux 92s. I’m 5’2” 142 lbs.

    1. Hi Lisa!
      I think you’re on the right track with the Lux 92! They’re light, versatile, and have a high performance ceiling for a ski without metal in it. From the groomers to the trees and everything in between, they’re a fantastic all-mountain ski. If you’re comfortable with the 158 length of your older skis, I see no reason to steer you longer or shorter. Happy winter!
      SE

  11. Hi,
    I am an ex-racer of 9 years from the east coast, so I’m very used to skiing on ice. I am 5′ 4″ and 107lb, looking for a pair of all terrain ski. I have only ever skied on race skis before but am starting to travel more and adventure to powder, trees, and other terrain than the race trail. I skied in the powder in the Canadian Rockies with my head worldcup iSL and of course they weren’t ideal for powder. Since I am looking for a ski that challenges me between powder and the groomed, hard packed, ice trails as well I was looking at the Salomen womens QST Lux 92, thoughts?
    -Thank you!

    1. Hi Gabby!
      My only caution against this fantastic all-mountain ski is the fact that it doesn’t have metal in it, and as someone who is used to skiing on skis with metal, you will probably overpower them. I’d recommend looking into something with at least some metal in it so you feel challenged still. The Volkl Secret, Blizzard Sheeva 9, and Nordica Santa Ana 93 are all awesome options. I just feel like you’d think the QST Lux 92 was too soft, especially when it comes to hard pack. Let me know what you think!
      SE

  12. I’m an intermediate skier looking to upgrade my skis to something that can do well in powder/ungroomed trails, as well as the groomed. Currently have Salomon Siam 5 in 154 and am wondering if I should go shorter in the LUX 92 to a 153 and/or go up to the 161? I am 5’8″ female, 125lb.

    Thank you!

    1. Hi Lauren!
      I think you’ll appreciate the stability of the 161. They’re fairly light weight skis, and are quite maneuverable, so I think you could handle the longer length without sacrificing anything. Hope that helps!
      SE

  13. Hi,

    I am an intermediate skier shopping for skis for British Columbia. I have demoed a few skis and wonder if the QST 92 will give me the stiffness I looking for. I like skiing off the groomed snow about 50%.
    1) Salomon Myriad 85 were fun and I like the rocker, but they were a bit soft and I am concerned about performance on groomed runs at speed.
    2) Also tried Blizzard Brahma – they performed okay for me but simply weren’t fun for my skill level.
    So is the QST a good suggestion or should I look for a stiffer ski?

    Thanks for your help.

    1. Hi Debbie!
      The QST is a great 50/50 ski for sure! What I liked about the ski is the fact that the tip was softer but underfoot and through the tail, the skis were pretty stiff. On the stiffer side would be a ski like the Volkl Secret or the Blizzard Sheeva 9. All of these skis are supremely versatile, and the ones with more metal like the Secret and Sheeva will of course be a bit more damp and stiff. Hope that helps!
      SE

  14. Hello,

    I am 5ft 2 and 116 lbs. I currently use a pair of skis that are 151cm and 90wide and I am looking at either the Lux 92 in either 153cm or 161cm. I am an advanced intermediate, looking to progress and will be using shift touring bindings on to these skis for a bit of backcountry. I mainly ski in Scotland which can have some tight tricky terrain. I am not a particularly aggressive skier but was thinking that the extra length of the 161cm would be ok because of the rocker. Would you agree? Also had a look at the QST 85 but the LUX seems like a better option for all terrain, is that right?
    Thanks!

    1. Hi Elle!
      I agree with the 92 over the 85, and I’d recommend the 153, especially if you’re dealing with tricky terrain in the backcountry at any point in time. I think the 161 would be a bit cumbersome in more technical terrain. Hope that helps!
      SE

  15. Hi, I’ve been skiing since I was very young and skied 3 solid seasons in Colorado from 2002-2005. Now, living in Europe I only get about 15 days in a year, but still quite adventurous, do back country touring 1-2 times a season and love to be both on and off piste. I bought the new Salomon shift bindings and debating whether to put them on the Salomon QST Lux 92 and the Salomon QST 99. I am 5’6” and 130lbs. I’d say strong intermediate to advanced skier and quite fit, but don’t ski as often anymore so legs not as strong as they used to be! Which ski would be the better fit? I’m currently on Black Diamonds, 163cm with 88 around the boot and excited to go wider. I want good float in powder and off piste, but also good carving on the piste without the chatter. Would either of these skis work or would you suggest one over the other? Many comment mention the QST 92 doesn’t have metal…is it stiff enough for me? As far as length, I was thinking to go for the Lux 92, 169cm instead of 161cm….or the QST 99 at 167 (the mens version). Any steer on the type of ski and also the length would be greatly appreciated!

    1. Hi Catherine!
      The men’s and women’s versions of both the QST 92 and 99 are the same, except for graphic and sizing, so feel free to get the one that suits you. The 99 has basalt which acts as the “metal” of the ski. It dampens the ski at speed and makes for a smoother ride. This does come at a cost in terms of weight, but if you’re only touring a few days, that might not be a big issue for you. The 92 is certainly easier to handle and still performs quite well on-piste for a lighter ski, but it sounds like you’re looking for a bit more stability. I’d recommend the 99 for floating and chatter-free carving. Have fun!
      SE

  16. As a 5’7″ 120lb intermediate skier, what length would you recommend for the Lux. I loved skiing on them, but was torn on length…

    1. Hi AT!
      Based on your stats, I’d go with the 153 if you prefer shorter turns and slower speed, and the 161 if you are going faster and making longer turns. For more maneuverability, go with the shorter size, and for more stability, opt for the longer. Your size warrants either of those lengths. Hope that helps!
      SE

  17. I am 5’4”, 130 lbs. I have am getting back to skiing after a 6 year break. I would say I used to be an advanced beginner or beginning intermediate… I bought the 161 cm, but I am having a hard time bringing my right ski around on tighter turns. Do I need to hang in there, or should I try to exchange for a 153? I am worried that I am going to tweak my knee. It was sore after my last day on the mountain.

    1. Hi Kris!
      I think you’ll have more fun on the shorter size. Hope that helps!
      SE

  18. I currently ski on Men’s Rossignol 9S Pro 9.9 Race Carve Skis from 1997 and decided to stop procrastinating and buy new skis. I’m 5’0, 118 lbs, 44 years old and still fairly athletic with a lot of leg strength, but maybe not the best technique. I mostly ski Tahoe and Mammoth, but occasionally make it out to Colorado as well. I like to ski black diamond moguls in the morning and then take it easy on the groomed blues and blacks in the afternoon. I’ve been told that the Salomon QST Lux 92, Volkl Secrets, and Nordica Santa Anas could work well for me. What do you recommend that would ski similar to my ancient Rossi’s? I’m open to other skis not listed here as well.

    1. Hi Daria!
      On your list, the Secret will compare the most to your current skis. They’re wider, for sure, as most skis are these days, but they have the same type of on-trail performance. The Santa Ana 93 is the most well-rounded and is a high-performance ski like the Secret. The QST 92 is a bit softer than the others on your list because they do not have any metal in them. If you’re looking for similar carving performance, I’d take the QST off your list. For more carving power, look to the narrower skis like the Volkl Kenja or the Santa Ana 88. Hope that helps!
      SE

      1. That helps a lot! Thank you! Do you think the Santa Ana 93 at 153cm will feel a lot shorter to me since my old skis are 163? I also read somewhere that the Santa Ana 100 at 153cm will feel like a longer ski than the 93 in the same size. Any opinion on this?

      2. Hi Daria!
        They’ll feel shorter, but also more stable, so it’s kind of like a trade-off. The 100 will feel longer because it has more material, and is therefore heavier and with more swing weight. It’s not as quick from edge to edge, so that might give the impression of a longer ski. Hope that helps!
        SE

  19. Hello! I’m considering purchasing the 2019 version of the Salomon QST Lux 92 skis. I’m a fairly new skier living in Utah and I’m just beginning to feel comfortable on blue/intermediate runs. For the past two seasons, I’ve done a season rental and so I’ve mainly skied on skinnier skis (less than 80 mm, I want to say). Considering I live in Utah, I’ve been told a fatter ski (around 95 mm) would be more versatile. I’m mostly worried about being able to control my turns on fatter skis, as I’m still working to perfect my technique. Do you think these skis would work for me considering my situation? I’ve also looked at the 85mm version of the same ski, but I’m worried it may be too thin for Utah conditions. For the size, I’m 5’5″ and about 140 lbs, so it seems 161cm would be best, but I’m not sure. Any advice you could provide would be appreciated!

    1. Hi Alisa!
      I think the 92 is a great all-mountain width for a Utah ski. They’re pretty light and maneuverable, so I wouldn’t worry about the width holding you back. If anything, I’d almost suggest the size down (153). On the slightly narrower side, check out the Blizzard Black Pearl 88 for a light, versatile, and fun all-mountain ski. If you’re worried about the width, there’s a lot in the 88 range that would work for sure. Have fun!
      SE

  20. Hi! I know this is an older thread, but I’m looking at the 92 from last season. I started skiing again after a 5 year hiatus in Colorado. I’m 5’5” 135lbs and currently ski my old 2006ish Dynastar Exclusive Legends 158. I’m curious if these would be a good fit in 161? I mainly ride trails and occasionally trees but my current skis do not tend to handle powder well. Thanks!

    1. Hi Courtney!
      They’re a great choice for your application! They’ve continued to make the ski, and it has changed a bit for 2020, but the 2018/19 version, if you can find it, is still a fantastic ski. They’re light and maneuverable, but have a strong underfoot area for good groomer performance. Sizing sounds about right, especially if you were comfortable on the 158 Dynastar. Have fun!
      SE

  21. I am deciding between these skis and the Nordica Santa Ana 93s, and between 153 and 161 cm length. I’m a 5’4″ 135 lb. advancing intermediate skier from California who wants to be able to ski anywhere on the mountain with control. I have the most fun off-piste, and I’m looking for a light ski that can make tight turns but still has enough edge to get me down steeps and groomers. My style is much more cautious than aggressive and while I can enjoy going fast on groomers, I I’d prefer a ski that can get me through more technical terrain than one that performs best at high speeds. I am to ski about 10-15 days a year, which is enough to improve significantly in a season but not enough to get really strong. I’ve had the most fun on a pair of rented 149 cm Dynastar Glory 74 skis but now I’m looking for something with a little more float and stability. Furthermore, while I prefer shorter-than-recommended skis I don’t want to buy something I will grow out of quickly. What do you recommend?

    1. Hi Lulu!
      Sounds like you’re describing the QST 92. They’re both great skis, but the Santa Ana is more demanding due to the two sheets of metal. The QST uses a mix of carbon and flax to do the damping and powering, so it’s a bit less work than the Nordica. I think you’ll like the overall performance of the Salomon versus the Nordica. My wife is about your size and she likes the 153, but she also prefers shorter skis. I’ve tried to have her at least test the 159/161 sizes, but she likes the maneuverability of the shorter length, so it does come down to personal preference and turn shape preference. In your case, it sounds like the shorter size would be your preference. Hope that helps!
      SE

  22. Hi, thanks for this great review! I’ve been looking at this ski but wonder about performance in the sometimes icy northeast. I am upgrading from a 13 year old pair of ex-rental Rossignols. I ski almost exclusively on groomers but we do occasionally have a nice day of freshies and would like a little flotation when we have the good stuff! I’m 5’6” 190 pounds…. thanks for any advice!

    1. Hi Winnie!
      For the most part, they’ll be fine on icier conditions–just keep your edges sharp. On the slightly narrower and grippier side, check out the Blizzard Black Pearl 88 or the Volkl Yumi. Have fun!
      SE

  23. Hi! Looking to upgrade my 154cm Rossignol Passions. Since buying them in 2010, I’ve become an advanced intermediate to expert skiier (black diamonds, some moguls, etc). I enjoy fast skiing on blues, but moderate/non aggressive speeds on blacks. I mostly ski in New England (often icy/hard packed) but occasionally go out west. I’ve been looking at the QST lux 92, but would love feedback on if these would grip enough on a hard packed black diamond in New England. Looking at the 161s. Thanks!

    1. Hi Amanda!
      I guess I’d say I was surprised at the edge grip of the QST 92 when I skied it. Still light in the tips and tails, but very grippy underfoot. High-speed GS turns on steeper terrain will make it quiver a bit, but for the versatility that you’ll get out of the ski overall, I think that’s a fair compromise. In terms of length, as long as you feel the 154’s were too short, the 161 will be good, but if you are comfy with the size, there’s no real need to go up unless you think you’re leaving some performance on the table. Hope that helps!
      SE

  24. Hello
    Im fairly good and aggressive skier. Ive texted my friends Lux 92 2018 and loved them. im 5.5 and 150 lbs What length of skis do you recommend and would you know where i could still buy the 2018 version?

    1. Hi AJ!
      2018 and 2019 are the same ski, so you can broaden your search to the multiple years. Changed for 2020, with cork added and more turny. We have that one in the 161 in stock! I’d say the 161 is the size for you. Good luck!
      SE

  25. Hi-

    I’m remounting a 2018/2019 QST LUX 92 161cm that were previously mounted with a Warden 11 on the line for a 23.5 boot (my same size). I’m 5’7″, 135 lbs. and prefer short turns over long terms, at moderate speeds. I’m remounting the skis with Warden 11s and am trying to decide whether to have the bindings mounted in front of, or behind the existing drill holes. Just wondering if you might have any recommendations? Thanks!

    1. Hi Jill!
      Are you not going to use the same holes? Same boot size and binding, right? If you have to move them, I’d go in front, but unless you know that you want something specific, we always recommend the factory setting. Have fun!
      SE