2020 Salomon QST 92

The 2020 Salomon QST 92 has been overhauled for this year with the goal of making the ski lighter and quicker yet more stable and with better edge control. By tweaking the shape, they’ve given it a more turny personality, thanks to a bit more pronounced tip and tail taper. They’ve also managed to make it lighter and more appealing to the upper-intermediate to lower-expert level skiers. The blend of poplar wood, a Titanal power platform, carbon fiber, basalt, and flax seem like a lot of materials, and it is, but it works. Different materials create different effects, and Salomon does a great job putting them all together in a manner that makes sense on the snow. Additionally, they’ve added cork to the tips and tails to lighten and reduce vibrations. It’s a complex combination, but so are sports cars. Skiers can rest assured that all that research and design actually pays off in the end result. Our testers were thrilled at the upgrades, and all noted that the skis were quite stable for how light and quick they are, a specific nod to Salomon’s intended changes.

Chuck Waskuch ripped a few runs on the 177 and found it to be the perfect length. He’s a Salomon fan and commented on how the QST 92 has that “classic Salomon feel of a quality product in a light and stable package.” As a former Q98 owner, Chuck knows a thing or two about this type of ski. His overall impression of 4 out of 5 is fantastic, and is indicative of Salomon’s progress in this all-mountain category, and specifically with the QST line as a whole. He also scored 4’s for edge hold, forgiveness, quickness, and stability. These are all categories that Salomon was intent on improving upon, so it’s nice to see testers picking up on that effort. Chuck goes on to say the QST 92 is “solid and stable and can plow through stuff. They have a great blend of light and stable qualities, and while they’re not the quickest, they still react well to skier input.”

Noah Labow also skied the 177, and although he found it to be a good size, he also found it to feel a bit short. Sounds like he’s in between lengths. It happens. Regardless, Noah had strongly favorable opinions about the 2020 Salomon QST 92, as he’s been a fan of this ski in the past as well. He scored it all 4’s straight down the line. When testers resort to this practice, it generally means that they were not only impressed with the ski overall, but also that it is highly versatile. When scores are all over the board, the skis tend to excel in one area, but falter in another. The consistent scores generally show a well-rounded ski. Noah agrees: “This was a really fun ski. It preferred soft or cut-up snow to hard pack and ice. Also, the new shape preferred shorter quick turns, and that was at the expense of high-speed performance.” So we see there is a trade-off, as so often is the case with all-mountain skis, but it did not dissuade Noah from having an overall pleasant experience on the QST 92.

Mike Thomas is a bigger guy, so it’s not surprising that the 177 was too short for him, especially given the lighter-weight nature of the ski. As such, a score of 5 out of 5 for quickness and maneuverability is not surprising. He also gave 5’s for versatility and overall impression, so even though he could have used the 185, he’s still a big fan of the new QST 92. “Fun, fun, fun! What a great ski. Solid but easy…tough to combine but Salomon nailed it with these skis.” Great point by Mike that the QST 92 has those opposing qualities of stoutness and poise at the same time.

We like it when a ski crosses over a bunch of pre-conceived notions of what an all-mountain ski should be, and the 2020 Salomon QST 92 is a barrier-buster for sure.


Bob St.Pierre

Age: 41Height: 6'2"Weight: 215 lbs.

Ski Style: Adaptable, versatile, ex-competitive mogul skier and coach

Noah Labow

Age: 38Height: 5'10"Weight: 155 lbs.

Ski Style: Acroski wannabe, versatility supreme

Chuck Waskuch

Age: 47Height: 5'8"Weight: 180 lbs.

Ski Style: Smooth and Controlled

Mike Thomas

Age: 50Height: 6'3"Weight: 215 lbs.

Ski Style: Upright, fluid, nimble, and powerful

66 Comments on the “2020 Salomon QST 92”

  1. Hi SE, thanks for your test! It seems this salomon 2020 qst 92 is the forgotten one comparing with the heated Mindbender 90, rustler 9,etc… I am guessing rustler 9, qst 92, and ranger 94 fr are pretty similar to each other, could you do a further caparison of those three? I am quite interested in which one is easiest pivoting and sliding in moguls and which one is better for firm snow? Plus, I read your comment on ranger 94 fr vs rustler 9 that rustler 9 is more damping due to the partial titanal sheets underfoot, while I am pretty amazed because ranger 94 fr is actually heavier, indicating the rustler is both more damping and lighter. Thanks!

    1. Hi Mike!
      Sometimes it’s not the weight or the materials that lead to damping, but rather the weight and the materials and how they’re used/dispersed. I guess I’d say that the Ranger is damper overall from tip to tail, but that the Rustler is damper underfoot while the tips and tails can sometimes feel like completely different skis. I’d put the 2020 QST in the same arena as the Ranger in terms of damping and consistency from end to end. If you like the smeary, pivoting style of skiing, I’d say the Rustler is the way to go just because of the lightness of the tips and tails and the fact that it has a lower-feeling swing weight. On firm snow, I’d say the longer titanal of the Rustler gives it an edge in terms of grip and rebound, but I found the Ranger to be a very capable carver on pretty firm snow. I would agree that the Salomon tends to get lost, and we can never really tell why that happens. I think it’s a wonderful ski that a lot of skiers should at least try. It’s a bit heavier, like the Ranger, and is smooth and fun all day and all conditions. Hope that helps!

  2. Hi SE, I ski pretty much exclusively in the MID Atlantic like Snowshoe, WV and Wintergreen, VA. Id call myself an intermediate skier that is 6’2″ and on the heavier side at 280. I would say I’m 50/50 cruiser and hard charger skier. Would this ski at a 177 length be a good ski for me skiing in the MID Atlantic?

    1. Hi Jacob!
      It’s on the wide side, but still carves like a dream. Great edge grip for a 92 underfoot. If you’re pretty aggressive, combined with your weight, I’d size up to the 185. I’m 6/2 220 and I found it to be just about right. Have fun!

  3. Dear SE,

    I’ve decided to purchase a second set of skis for trips out west and over to Europe. Renting skis on my trips has been hit and miss. For example in the miss category a pair o Blizzard Brahmas just didn’t work for me. Atomic Vantage 91’s were wonderful in the morning but by mid afternoon my legs were fatigued and I was struggling. And that’s the rub. At 5’6, 160 lbs., and 67 years of age my leg. strength and stamina are not what they used to be. I’m an advance on piste skier that mixes turns from short to long based on the pitch of the slope, snow conditions and my mood. Bumps are inevitable and I ski them and on occasion I ski off piste on the sides. More and more I like to cruise and let my skis run. On the hit side I tried a set of Solomon QST 92’s and they were a delight to ski. Almost immediately I found the seat spot and skied ten all day without fatigue. I loved them. I thought I would purchase a pair of the QST 92s for out west and then saw your video and review of the Elan Ripstock 88, which was defined as fun and forgiving. That caught my attention. So now I’m starting to wonder which way I should go? QST 92 or Ripstock 88. What length should I choose in either ski. I would appreciate your thoughts and many thanks.

    1. Hi Barry!
      Sounds like you’re a QST 92 fan for sure! The Ripstick will certainly feel lighter and quicker than the QST and not quite as stable at speed on the groomers, but if you’re a lighter skier and want easier maneuverability, it’s worth a second look. If you’re using it for western skiing, I’d think the QST would be more useful in the softer snow. The high 160’s are a good place to look in terms of length. Hope that helps!

  4. HI SE. Iwanted to buy these skis salomon qst 92 and I wanted an advice for the length to choose: I am 165 cm tall and I weigh 65 kg, I am a skier of good quality.

    1. Hi Nicholas!
      You’re between the 161 and the 169 I believe, and you should base your decision on your level of aggressiveness. If you prefer long turns at high speeds, the 169 is the way to go, but if you spend most of your time at slower speeds making shorter turns, I think you’d like the 161. Hope that helps!

        1. Nicholas,
          Yes, while obviously narrower than the 99, it’s still going to be a decent floater for eastern skiing. I think the quickness and maneuverability of the narrower width is a good compromise. SE

  5. Hello,

    Trying to decide between the QST 92 and the QST 99. I am an advanced intermediate and although I am from the east coast I ski mainly out west. I don’t leave the resort, but I love a mix of the back bowls (vail) and the front side..

    Are the 92’s wide enough for me? I want as ski that is light and can rip, but also one that can handle some fresh snow. How much fresh snow would be too much for the 92’s? If it dumps 12+ inches I’d be more than happy to keep the 92’s at home and rent a pair of real powder skis for the day, but I don’t want to feel like I have to go to the rental shop if there is only 6-8 inches of powder. Can the 92’s tackle this this amount of snow well.

    Lastly is there a size you recommend? I am 5’8 & 160 lbs.

    Thanks a lot!

    1. Hi Jordan!
      You should also be asking how well the 99’s can carve! I was very impressed with the on-trail ability of the 99. As far as depth is concerned, I’d say the 92 is good up to 6 inches, but will likely flounder after that. Keep in mind, though, that a 92 underfoot used to be considered super-fat, so there’s that as well. If you get the 99, you won’t really have to think about it either way–I’d recommend the wider one in either the 167 or the 172 based on your level of aggressiveness. Have fun!

  6. Would the QST 92 be a good next progression to a wider ski from the XDR 84 Ti? I’m 5′-9, 195 lbs skiing 172’s in the XDR and I’d call myself a pretty strong intermediate looking to advance as far as a 50 something can who started skiing in his late 40’s. I really like the XDR 84 Ti as it’s on rails in firm conditions, great grip when it get’s icy, and feels poppy and fun especially when pushed hard. I’m in Michigan but get out west every year at least 5-8 days – hopefully more in the future. As I’ve progressed I find I enjoy skiing smaller turns in the loose snow along the edges and beginning to venture into the trees/glades so I’m considering what my next ski should be for trips and loose snow but still can handle groomer duty and typical Midwest conditions with the grandkids.

    1. Hi Bryan!
      If you’re looking to keep the 84, I’d say the 99 is the next logical step, as it creates a bigger difference between your skis. For one pair, I’d definitely think the 92 is the way to go. Have fun!

  7. Hi Guys!! Thanks for the great review! I’m an advanced/Expert Telemark East Coast skier using NTN. I narrowed it down to Rossignol Experience 94 Ti VS Salomon QST 92 or 99 and Rustler 9. I use my telemark for front side, moguls, trees, groomed trails and some powder on the hidden spots. Is the new QST 92 will be as stable as EXP94 TI on groom and hard pack? Also, could I go a bit wider and keep solid groomer on hard surface and playfulness in soft stuff and trees. As for the size, I’m 173 cm and weight 80kg (176lbs). What would you recommend?

    1. Hi Hugues!
      I’m pretty impressed with the 2020 QST 92 (and 99 for that matter), but they still won’t be as stable on really firm snow as the E94. I’d put the E94 in the slightly softer than a Mantra category, while the QST 92 is more playful and easygoing. The QST models have a spoon-like tip that gives you great float on softer snow, but not quite as engaging as the E94 on hardpack. I’ve always thought the Rustler skis would make a great tele ski, with the tips and tails are lighter and softer than those of the Salomon or Rossignol. For sizing, I’d stick to the low-170’s for length. Hope that helps!

  8. Hi SE,

    Thank you for the great reviews, I’ve been reading most of the ~90mm section in the last couple of days.
    I need some guidance, QST 92 looks very promising however I could not find anywhere to rent in my area so not sure if a good choice for me.
    I am a lower intermediate (181 cm, 74 kg) and mostly skiing in the Canadian Rockies, on-piste but want to slowly get into off-piste skiing by the end of the season.
    I have quite a few models on my list: Blizzard Rustler 9, Rossignol 88ti, Head Kore 93 and Salomon QST 92. I rented the Rossignol 88ti today and could not get used with them (on-piste with some powder) – stable and easy but not impressing, I also tried the Kore 93 several times – I like it a lot but took me down a few times as it is not very forgiving. All things considered, is the QST 92 a good choice or I should look at something else? If QST 92, what size would be more suitable for my level and characteristics?

    Thank you very much and keep up the good work,

    1. Hi Alex!
      You have a pretty common list with a lot of great skis on it. I loved the Salomon’s versatility, ease of use, and high-performance ceiling. It was a very automatic type of ski, where you pretty much just think where you want to go and the ski does the work. The Rustler is a bit snappier thanks to a partial metal laminate, and the Kore is on the lighter side of the spectrum. I think the QST is a great choice, I’d look to the 174 for length. Have fun!

  9. Hi SE

    I am trying to decide between the QST 92 and XDR 88 .
    I ski 50/50 on and off piste and like to Ski Valle Blanche or similar a couple of times a year between the Family Ski trips.
    I am 6ft and 95kg and have not had a new set of Ski’s since my BBR 8.9 186 in 2013 and want to know if these would be a good upgrade or not?

    1. Hi Byron!
      Yup! I’d go QST 92 for a more true all-mountain ski. The XDR is great, but is better suited for on-piste while the QST has more versatility. Have fun!

      1. Thanks for the reply SE

        Looks like I will go for the QST but out of interest is it worth going for the 2020 model otherwise I can pick up some 2019’s for a bargain price!


        1. Hi Byron!
          The 20 is a bit quieter in the tips thanks to the cork material–it does make a difference, but if you find the 19 at a good price, I’d go with that! Still a great choice.

  10. Hi SE,

    Thank you for the great reviews, your site has been a great source for information but i need some aditional guidance.
    I am a lower intermediate, not very aggressive (189 cm, 98 kg) and mostly skiing in the Austrian Alps, on-piste but want to slowly get into off-piste skiing by the end of the season or in the next season.
    I have my list narrowed down to two models (but open to other suggestions, if you think there are a better fit):
    Salomon QST 92
    Atomic Vantage 97 C
    The Vantage seems to be a better fit for my current skills while the QST 92 seems to have a higher performance celling.
    Wich one would you recommend? Any suggestions on the length? I’am not sure of the 177 on the QST92 or the 180 on the Vantage is the right size.

    Thank you very much and keep up the good work,


    1. Hi Tim!
      I’ve found that skiers who have trouble deciding usually love the QST 92. There’s nothing wrong with the Vantage–it’s a bit wider and lighter than the QST, so is going to be more chattery at speed while the QST does have that higher-end feel that’ll help you improve. I’d say the 177 is the proper size for your application. Have fun!

  11. A dilemma, 7 seasons and 20 years of skiing means I can get down a hill. Being 50 and overweight and barely fit – I am 1m72 and 200kgs -means I am not the hard charger I used to be. A repaired ACL and Medial rupture from 2006 also a factor. This leads me to forgo a metal ski and get a ‘stiff enough’ all mountain plank that is great on piste and great off. That I can rip when I want and cruise when I dont. I generally like a lively poppy ski.

    My choices are Head Kore 93 or Salomon QST 92. Struggling to settle either way – I was unsure the Kore 93 may be too light and chattery – but reviews suggest different – what are the fundamental differences between these 2 I wonder? I am 177 in Salomon and 180 in Head

    Please enlighten me – I can get both options at the same price.

    1. Hi Iain!
      The build is the biggest difference, as the shape and rocker profile are generally similar. Head uses carbon, graphene, and koroyd to stiffen the ski while the QST uses carbon and flax. Both of these are out of the box type builds, and the QST also uses cork in the tips to dampen the ski. I think the QST is overall a better build and option for you just because it’s got some more power. It’s quieter, not quite as quick, but likely a better choice in the end. I think 177 is just fine. Have fun!

      1. Thanks a lot – one final question then , how do you think the Navigator 90 compares in this equation? Like the idea of a snappy piste ski that has a bit more power but still easy to ski and can jump off the side when it wants – hence my interest in the QST 92. Cheers – a very helpful resource

        1. Iain,
          I’m a huge fan of the Nav 90, just not off-piste. The tail is on the sharp side for softer snow and skidding turns, while the QST seems to be able to make that transition pretty quickly and smoothly. Just a more precise ski, especially for groomers. Have fun!

    1. Ha!
      I assumed it was a typo, and answered as if you were 100kg. Definitely shared that one with my office mates though!

  12. HI SE,

    I am struggling to choose between the following skis:
    – QST 92
    – Enforcer 93
    – Kore 93
    – Rustler 9

    I am an advanced/expert skier (178cm & 78kg). I ski only in Europe and would say I ski 60/40 on piste to off piste. I want a ski that that manages short turns well as well as being able to carve at high speeds. I aim to ski in powder as much as possible (sadly conditions dependent) so would like a ski that floats well when the opportunity arises.

    Any advice would be appreciated.

    1. Hi Steve!
      We see this list a lot, and it’s a good one. There are really no wrong choices but I’d put the Enforcer on the high-end of the spectrum in terms of overall performance and demand, with the Kore on the lighter side. They share similar shapes, but the energy coming out is totally different. The QST and the Rustler offer the most versatility as well as upside. I usually find that skiers who have the QST somewhere on their list will be totally happy with the overall performance of that ski. The Rustler has a bit more energy, but the QST is just so smooth and fun to ski. Hope that helps!

  13. I tried and really liked these skis, but I did not buy them for one reason: I ski mostly in eastern PA and there is a lot of hard packed and ice (and there was not a lot of that yesterday afternoon when I tried these out). I felt that they were easy and really helped me go down the steeper slopes slow and stable. I also liked that the were able to go from surface to surface with similar results. I am having non-buyer remorse and wanted thoughts on whether this would be a good everyday ski for PA conditions.

    I have also tried the Enforcer 88 (loved it, but I do not ski aggressively and did not want to be on it all day), the Navigator 85 (did not like as much as a I thought I would because it really did not perform will on ice pellets in the morning) and the a ski in the S-Force line (did not like at all because it is too much like a better version of my 10-year old K2 Ranger Apaches, which is what I am trying to get away from). People suggested the Head Kore, the Kendo, and the Ripstick 88 as better for the conditions I am more likely to face.

    All I want is a nice easy ski to ride in all conditions for the full day, going over bumps, groomed and ungroomed, intermediate to double black, but recognizing my winter ends up being a lot of PA day trips with my kids and not making it to VT). Thanks.

    1. Hi Jon!
      Probably on the wide side for a PA ski, but not out of the realm. That’s what they’re built for, though, is a fun, all day ski for any and all conditions and terrain. Are there some times that they’ll be too wide for icy conditions? Sure, but I think it’s worth the tradeoff. In the 88 range, check out the Rossignol Experience 88 in addition to the Ripstick. I think the Kendo will give you the same issue as the Enforcer while the Rossi/Elan are easier-going versions of those other 88’s. The Kore is a good comparison to the QST, but doesn’t solve the width issue. Hope that helps!

  14. Hello,
    First of all thank you for all the helpfull informations.
    I am a strong intermediate skier from the east coast. I am 5’8’’ (1.74) and 185, 43 yo.
    I have the possibility to buy a pair of Salomon qst 92 at a great price (demo) for my second pair, the only problem is that they are 177 cm. Do you think I could ski them or are they too long for me?
    Thank you

    1. Hi Aurel!
      On the long side, but I don’t think too long. For strong intermediates with potential for improvement, the only time they’ll be a handful is in the bumps and tight trees, but you’ll likely appreciate the stability of the longer length. Have fun!

      1. Thank you very much.
        Bought them, tried them, absolutely loved them!
        After two days of skiing them I think my other skis will start to collect dust!
        Very easy to control but strong enough to give you confidence to rip the slopes. Better than I would have thought on ice (not like my Rossi Hero but I didn’t have troubles at all).
        Bumps and trees a bit tricky but I think this is me not the skis (I was able to ski some black runs without problems-no speed records though but I think I can improve with these skis).
        Very easy to carve with, surprisingly easy to go from edge to edge for a ski this large and even if it is a bit heavy (with warden 13 bindings) feels light when skiing. We had about 6” of snow Friday and I had a blast with these!
        Even if are a bit long (177 and I am just 174) I felt them to be the perfect length for me, gave me excellent stability and I do not think I lost too much maneuverability (I think 169 would just be too short).
        Overall just a very fun, confidence boosting ski that I think will help me to improve-my new favourite.

  15. Hi! I’ve been reading lots of your reviews for the past few weeks and really wanted to thank you for all the info you provide. I’ve been using the same equipment for the past 10 years and wanted to finally get something new. I mostly ski groomed but really want to start going off-piste, so the versatility of the QST 92 has really caught my attention, but can’t really decide about the length. I’m 184 cm and 86 kg, fit and I’d say I’m an advanced skier who likes to go fast and make long turns and even though I plan on trying off-piste, I will still stay more often on the grooms. Which size would you recommend, 177 or 185? Or is it just too subjective?
    Thanks so much for the feedback.

    1. Hi Jose!
      Great ski choice!
      I think that if you’re enjoying the speed aspect of the sport, the 185 is the way to go. You might find the 177 to be on the short side. Have fun!

  16. Hi SE!

    Thank you for the great post. I’m 5’10, 170lbs. Currently ski on a 172cm Navigator 85. I like to go fast when I have the energy but also enjoy the flexibility of casual skiing. Would you mind advising on the length? 169cm vs 177cm for QST 92? Also, what’s the difference between a 2019 and 2020 model from a skiing experience standpoint? Thank you as always!

    1. Hi FG!
      I’d go with the 177 based on your stats and application. Between the two years, the 20 is a bit heavier, as it has added more C/FX material as well as cork to the tips. This makes for a more stable ski versus the 2019, which had lighter tips and tails. The 20 is a bit less quick and a bit less tour-oriented, but superior on-piste from a burliness standpoint. Have fun!

  17. Hi from Greece ! Hope you are ok , tough times all over the world … Your reviews are excellent and fully informative . Bravo

    I ski in eurpe only and looking for a new pair of skis (previous nordica sportmachine 70 2011, beginners and 1.68m) to help me going from intermediate (piste only) to all mountain advance level. 92kg 1.80m and quite athletic shape. The candidates are qst 92 2020 (more soft snow?) , experience 88ti (more piste?) and legend x88 (soft and piste?). I would like to hear your opinion and/or recommend something different . Thanks in advance and stay strong.

    1. Hi Anastasis!
      I’ve found that when a skier usually has the QST 92 on their list, that’s a great choice. They’re just so automatic in their response. Not quite the carvers as the other two, but many skiers won’t even find the top end of any of these skis. For a great mix of on and off-piste performance, there’s not much out there better than that QST. Take care!

  18. Hi SE!

    Absolutely love your reviews of the qst92 and 99! I’m currently choosing between them and could do with some advice on which to go for. Also, much like one of your testers, I might be between sizes. I’m 5ft10 (177cm) and 85kg.

    I’m a higher intermediate/advanced skier who spends about 60:40 time on piste:off piste. I need a ski which can hold its own in deep powder (which I actively search for!), is manoeuvrable between trees and moguls, but perhaps more importantly, one which can carve well and turn easily on piste.

    Initially I thought that the qst92 might be a better bet, because the narrower waist width might allow for better carving and edge hold, and for me theres nothing more enjoyable than carving at speed. BUT the 92s are only available in 177, which I’m concerned may be bordering on too short for serious off piste or high-speed carving (?), or 185, which I think might be way too long in general??

    So then I wondered whether the qst99s in 181 might be a better bet. Having tested them both, did you notice a significant difference between them in the ease of carving?

    I realise that this is one hell of a complex lengthy question, but any guidance you could offer would be great. Cheers!

    1. Hi Ed!
      I’d go 177 in the 92 and 181 in the 99. Overall, it sounds like you’re leaning to the longer ski, and if you’re looking for more stability in on-piste conditions, the added basalt in the 99 makes gives it more horsepower. The 92 might give you better edge grip and certainly better quickness, the 99 is a higher-performing ski. Take care!

  19. Hi Guys thanks for all the great reviews.
    I’m looking at a slightly skinnier ski to compliment my wider Salomon qst 106 (2019 version) and replace my Salomon xdrive 8.8fs.
    I love my xdrives but I have a young family so need to take things a bit easier and want a ski that’s more playful at the lower end. I will still be going out for a few runs on my own so a ski thar can be pushed aggressively on the piste and in the trees.
    Ski mainly in Europe in high snow areas. 6ft1 230pounds and I’d say I am an advanced skier.
    I love my qst 106s hence why I’m looking at the qst 92 2020. Other skis on my list are the Fischer ranger 92ti and 94fr.

    1. Hi Gavin!
      Right you are, in that if you like the feel and character of the QST 106, the 92 is going to give you a lot of the same, just in a quicker and more carvy sense. The Ranger 92 is a tad stronger in the tail and through the turn, but still nowhere near how stiff some of the dual-metal laminate skis are. The 94 is likely the most playful and versatile of the group and is a bit lighter than the QST, so if you’re valuing playfulness over performance and stability, I’d give that a strong look. No way you’re going wrong with any of these skis. Take care!

      1. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Definitely leaning towards the qst. How much difference is there in stability from the Qst 2019 version to the 2020? I know that Bob is similar weight to me and skiing style and I want to know how hard he could push this ski and What’s its top end limits are.

        1. Hi Gavin!
          I’d say the 2020 is certainly more stable than 2019–the cork in the tips does make a difference. In terms of a top end, I’d say it’s very high for a ski without a metal laminate. For a skier like Bob, who is 6/2 220 and skis pretty hard, the 92 has pretty much all he’d need. He does own Nordica Enforcers 88 and 100 rather than a QST, if that means anything to you! Take care!

  20. Hello, love your video reviews! Think I’ve pretty much watched them all. I’m an advancing intermediate, east coast skier, 5’9, 180lbs. I primarily ski fast, wide turns on groomers with a 162cm 2017 experience 84, which I’ll probably replace with a longer front side carver. For now I’m looking to go more glades, trees and yearly trip out west with growing kids. Can’t decide between QST92, Rustler9 and Sky7. Thanks!

    1. Hi Jack!
      I’ve found that the QST 92 is just a great all-around ski that’ll take care of a lot of skiers and their needs. Nothing wrong with the other skis at all–the Rustler is a bit snappier due to the partial metal laminate and the Sky is super-maneuverable because of their tapered and light tips and tails. The QST is just a very consistent ski from tip to tail and I haven’t found a weak point on it quite yet. I’d look to the 169 in that ski. Have fun!

      1. Thanks for the info. Just watched your “2020 Men’s Twin Tip Freestyle and All-Mountain Ski Comparison” video and the Fischer Ranger 94FR caught my eye. Does this compare at all to the QST92?

        1. Hi Jack!
          The Ranger is a bit more flexible from tip to tail and is a bit more playful. I’d definitely put it in the same category as the QST 92, but with more of a soft snow and quick-turning personality. The Ranger has a lighter swing weight and less taper in the shape, so you can maneuver it a bit better. Take care!

  21. I am 5’11”-6′ and around 170lbs. I am an intermediate skier but haven’t skied much for a number of years but moved to the east side of the Rockies. I am looking at the QST 92 but not sure if I should go with the 169 or 177 length.

    1. Hi Larry!
      I’d go with the 177. Pretty maneuverable ski, even at that length, and it’ll allow you to progress. Have fun!

  22. Hi SE!

    Great reviews. I am 5’8 140lbs and an intermediate WestCoast skiier. I am wondering if the 161 length is suitable for me?

    1. Hi Nathan!
      I think that’ll be on the short side. The 169 is the next size up, but not too long. Kind of depends if you’re skiing aggressively or not, whether you need those extra 8 cm’s. I think if you’re looking to improve and progress and pick up speed, you’ll like the 169 more, but there’s nothing wrong with shorter skis! Have fun!

  23. I’m 5’11″/185#, ski the Sierra’s mostly on piste, probably advanced intermediate to advanced skier, 20+ days per year. Currently ski older pair of Armada JJ’s at 185 and Blizzard Bonifides at 180. While I love both skis, the JJ’s aren’t made for hard snow conditions, and the Bonifides requires you to stay on them 24/7… no relaxing. I’m not looking for something to replace the skis I have, but more a ski that adds another element. A ski that works If I want to kick back and relax, or if necessary can ski fast and aggressive. The local ski shop was pointing to the 2020 Mindbender 90 and QST 92, both at 177 length and on sale at good prices. Was wondering what your recommendation would be or if there’s another ski out there that’s more suitable to my needs. Thanks.

    1. HI TG!
      I think either/both of those skis will fit your needs, especially if you can get them at a price. I’m assuming it’s the 90 Ti rather than the 90 C. If it’s the C, then I’d lean to the QST, but if it’s the Ti, you’re going to get stronger carving and on-trail performance versus the QST. For mixed snow and different turn shapes and styles, there’s not a lot out there better than that QST. The Mindbender 90 Ti has more of a hard-snow capability thanks to the metal laminate, but it’s pretty close. The QST is really a non-thinking, highly intuitive ski that can be used any day, any run, and by any skier. Have fun!

  24. Just my observations and 2 cents after a season of skiing on my QST 92s.

    My search for skis ended when I found the QST 92 during a demo day at Mount Bachelor in 2018. I skied everything I could find in the all mountain $400+ – $800 price range. As soon as I took my first turn my comment to myself was “Shut up and take my money”. I was skiing this ski all over the mountain on piste and in the fringes of the woods on a nice snow day in up to about a foot of snow in places. I started with the 188 but downsized to the 177 and loved it.

    I spent a ton of money renting Demo skis the 2017 – 2018 (30+ days) and 2018 – 2019 (25+ days) ski season to verify and find the ski for me. I tried everything I could find in the price range skiing everything I could find in the range during that time.

    Other Skis I very much enjoyed and stand out in my memory in the range were in the following order Nordica Enforcer, Elan RIpstick, and the K2 Mindbender.

    It is a bit softer in the deeper snow. I purchased the 2020 Ski early last year and can not be happier. Unfortunately I have not been able to ski this ski in deeper snow. No new snow on ANY of the 20+ days I went skiing all of last year. You can get pretty aggressive on this ski without it feeling too out of control. My favorite is linking nice long carved turns on the wider trails then linking them with some quick short ones. Quite easy to control and is a forgiving ski. I just absolutely love how this ski turns and how responsive it is even on icy conditions with a good edge.

    I am looking forward to this season already have 2 days in North Carolina on them. Planning on getting a few more days there before a big 10 day trip to Colorado next month.

    For the price this ski can not be beat. If you are going to ski in deeper snow on a regular basis I’d recommend the QST 99. I rented this ski a couple of times and skied it on the groomers (No powder) where I was on those days I skied them. They were good but not as responsive as the QST 92 on the groomers and packed snow.

    Talking to Salomon dealers in shops the QST 92 was a hard ski to find because it is a popular ski as they said. The ski has not changed in construction for this year you may be able to find last years model at a discount.

    In the mean time Live to Ski – Ski to Live – Pray for snow Ski Safe and stay healthy.

  25. Hey,
    I’ve read all the reviews on the QST 92 and it seems like the perfect skit for me. I’m coming off a pair of Elan Amphibios 168cm.

    I’m an advanced skier and I spend my time liking the mogul runs, steep snowy areas and anything else I can find on the mountain. I’m torn between sizes. Not sure if I should get the 177 or the 185?
    I’m 6’1” and 210 lbs.

    I hear these ski ‘short’ so that has me leaning to the 185s, but then I’m worried that’s going to be too much ski.
    Ahhhhh, first world problems here, but any advice would be greatly appreciated!


    1. Hi Jon!
      The moderate taper shape of the ski does make it feel a bit short, as it lessens the effective edge. Not by much, but I think it’s enough to get you into the 185. I’m 6/2 220 and I think the 177 is just too short. Very fun and intuitive skis!

  26. I see that Chuck Washuch was a Q98 fan and loved the QST 92. I had a pair of Q98’s, curious as to how the two compare performance wise. Found the Q98 to have floppy tips in crud and rutted conditions but a lot of fun in powder. I’m an upper intermediate if not lower expert, skiing for almost 50 yrs, 5’11” 165 looking at QST 92 but concerned its not enough ski. My back up ski is 12 year old Mantra. Live in Telluride with varying conditions common, Powder to hard pack to ice.

    1. Hi Bill!
      The 2020 and beyond QST 92 have more substance in the shovels than the Q98. I think they have a great range and cater to a lot of different skiers and ability levels. I’d also check out the Fischer Ranger 94 FR for another middle-ground ski that has tons of upside. Have fun!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *