The Reforma Test
In early April, Taos’ Reforma was skiing really well with 8” of new snow over some pretty big bumps and very few icy spots.
When I first checked out the Q Lab 190, it looked like it belonged to the class of skis that I really like on Reforma, like the 185cm Blizzard Cochise, 186cm Line Supernatural 108, 187cm Moment Belafonte, 191cm Volkl Katana, 190cm Moment Bibby Pro, 184cm V-Werks Katana, and the 184cm Volkl Mantra. All of these skis are conducive to skiing fast, making airplane-turns on top of moguls, straightlining out the bottom, and ripping highspeed carves back to chair 2.
But the airplane-turning part at high speed has been harder for me on the Q Lab 190 than on all of the other skis named.
In steeper, bumped-up terrain at speed, I want to be able to really lean on the shovels of my skis so that I don’t get knocked around. The shovels of the Q-Lab 190s felt too soft for me to be able to do that, which had me trying to stay a bit more neutral and in the center of the ski. But the problem there is that, if and when I would get knocked back a bit, those very stiff tails would want to take me for a ride. So while I tend to like stiff tails, the stiffer those tails are, the more I want to be able to get on the shovels and stay away from the backseat. But on the Q Lab, it was easy to over pressure and fold the shovels, while the ski wouldn’t tolerate getting too far back.
Caveat: skiers who are either lighter than me or more balanced than me may have a different experience, and perhaps there are some skiers who like pretty heavy skis with a very stiff tail and a much softer shovel relative to that tail. But I can’t say that the combination worked great for me, and I had to keep my speed in check on Reforma more than all the other skis I’ve named.
By the way, when comparing how well the Q Lab 190 worked on Copper’s Hallelujah, with it’s more mellow pitch and smaller bumps, it seems to me that the Q Lab’s shovels weren’t being forced to flex as much, so the relative softness of the shovels was more masked. My takeaway from this is that, if you are skiing very fast in variable snow—but not necessarily on really steep, bumped up pitches—the more I think you will really enjoy the Q Lab.
Still, I personally would be psyched to see the Q Lab’s shovels made a bit stiffer to better match up with its tail (and create a bigger sweet spot on the ski), or perhaps make the tails a touch softer to better line up with the current flex pattern of the Q Lab’s shovels.
(Semi-relevant note: one of my new favorite examples of a ski that absolutely nails the Consistent-Flex-Pattern thing is the Salomon X Drive 8.8….)
Deep, Soft Chop
In deep, soft chop around Alta’s Baldy Shoulder, High Greeley, and West Rustler, the Q Lab performed quite well. Granted this was really soft, deep chop, but the tips weren’t deflecting at all.
Then again, if your skis weigh ~2500 grams each and they are deflecting in these conditions, you should probably just make a shot-ski out of them.
Deep, Soft Chop & Bumps
Skiing fast in the bumped-up trees of the Eagle’s Nest area required a lot of very quick turns, and while I would call these skis pretty quick for their weight (probably thanks to that lightweight, tapered tip), this is a good amount of ski to make dance in tight trees and bumps—unless you stay committed to the fall line and don’t try to slow things down by making full turns perpendicular to the fall line.
But the catch here is that if I’m going to stay committed to the fall line and not scrub off speed, then in this situation, I’d opt for the 187cm Moment Belafonte with it’s stiffer, straighter shovels.
On another day at Alta, while storm skiing in low visibility down pretty big, firm bumps with new snow coming in fast, creating pockets of 4-12” deep pow, the mountain was skiing well (Highboy, Lone Pine, Fred’s Trees, Eagle’s Nest), but I wouldn’t call these easy conditions.
The Q-Lab’s tail wasn’t made for noodling around, and again, this is not a ski that will let you hang out in the backseat.
Final Thoughts on the Q Lab Design
While the 183cm Q Lab bore a strong family resemblance to the Salomon Quest 105, the 190cm Q Lab is quite a different beast—and it’s a hybrid beast. The back half of the 190 Q Lab is ‘all business, all the time.’ It has a beautiful, fat tail that is seriously stiff, and lots of traditional camber underfoot.
The front half of this ski, however, is looking for an easy, fun time. Its modern, lightweight, 5-point tapered tips are designed to turn easily, not rage.
And for a ski this long and this heavy and this stiff through the tail, it does have an awful lot of sidecut when compared to other ~190cm skis that are about this burly. In fact, of every ski I’ve mentioned in this review, the Q Lab has the tightest sidecut radius of the bunch, while also having a tail that’s among the stiffest of the bunch, and a shovel that’s among the softest of the bunch.
Bottom Line / Who’s It For?
The more you remove bumped-up terrain from the equation, the more I’m willing to bet that you will like the 190cm Salomon Q Lab. This ski kicks ass on good groomers (its softer shovels are easy to bend), and it works quite well at speed in deep snow (those softer shovels facilitate flotation, more so than the Moment Belafonte or 13/14 Blizzard Cochise). The tradeoff here is that the Q Lab feels less at home in steep, bumped-up terrain.
With that in mind, I think strong skiers who appreciate a very powerful tail and like to ski fast down groomers, tight chutes, and trees that aren’t all moguled out will like this ski. And the more balanced you are, the less you may be bothered by bumped-up terrain.
And if you are a strong, balanced skier who already knows that the formula of a stiff tail + softer shovel works for you, you should definitely check out the 190cm Q Lab.
NEXT: ROCKER PROFILE PICS
Which niche do you think salomon is trying to put this ski on? From what I’ve heard before it looked like it would be a crud buster, but based on this review it’s really far from belafonte/cochise/katata and I’d think the same compared to vicick or wrenegade. So looks like it doesn’t bust crud as well as others, and it doesn’t really reserves a place in tight, groomers, pow… not really sure what salomon is going to accomplish here. Think this won’t be any close to the BC version in terms of number of users.
Salomon positions this as a freeride, 1 ski quiver, and it is a ski that can be pushed hard, it just has a flex pattern that didn’t feel as balanced to me as some of the other skis in the category. But while I’d give the nod to the Belafonte / Cochise / Katana in roughed up groomers and steep bumps, I’d take the Q Lab over the Cochise and Belafonte in deeper pow, and would probably take it over the regular Katana, too. So I think it depends what you’re looking for.
Also – it’s important to note that the Katana no longer exists, the shovels of the Cochise get softened up, too, and the Belafonte has been modified – we’ll see how similar or different it skis. And as for the 13/14 Wrenegade I reviewed, it is WAY softer than the 190 Q Lab all around.
These are still my favorite skis I’ve ever been on. What 2024 skis do you think most closely resemble them?
Nice review Jonathan,
I spent a little bit of time on a 183 demo and a shop owners 190 up here in the PNW this spring. I was expecting just a beast to work through some of my favorite steep big mogul runs but found the 183cm quite fun and the 190cm tolerable. Spring slush bumps helped I’m sure but I thoroughly enjoyed the green machine on numerous other runs as well. The 190cm was a blast on late afternoon slushed up groomers. I typically don’t prefer stiff heavy skis as a daily driver but found enough fun on both sizes that I’m looking forward to more time on them next season.
Thanks for the feedback, Troy. And I agree, there’s a lot to like about these skis, and I had a blast, too, on slushed up groomers.
Thats a pretty centered (forward) mount point compared to something like the Katana. I wonder how much of your impression was because of this. Did you try it mounted further back? From testing next years Wailer 105 T2, and playing with mount points, it can really affect a ski’s personality.
Hey, Brian – check out the section in my review of the Quest 105 re: Salomon’s forward mount points. It’s something they did on the Quest 105, the Rocker2 108, and the Quest / Rocker2 115. It’s clearly an intentional decision on their part, and the truth is, the fore / aft position felt good / less peculiar on the Q Lab 190 than it did to me on the Quest 105. I really didn’t feel out of balance on the Q Lab (too little tip, too much tail), it was just the flex pattern. Having said all that, the Q Lab 190 truly skied well in many conditions & terrain types, so I hope my review makes that clear. Still .. I’ll try to find the time to tinker a bit with the mount point over the next week and a half.
(BTW, I’m getting back on the Wailer 105 this weekend & coming week. Curious what mount point you ended up preferring?)
My BSL is 300mm and I moved it back -1.5cm from the recommended mount. My preferred mount point ended up being around 80.5mm from the tail (center of boot sole). Measure first, because I skied this back in February, and the mount point might have changed since. Also, the rocker might have changed a bit? This was one of the two pairs that went to SIA.
For more details:
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php/273993-Review-2014-2015-DPS-Wailer-105-185cm
Wow, that surprises me about the wrenegade, and it got softer for next year. Interesting… when are you guys gonna be in the remodeled belafonte?
Just to be clear, while the Wrenegade is softer all around, I thought it skied great. Love the shape, love the flex pattern. And if Brian is right that ON3P is stiffening it up a bit, that’s fine by me – so long as the consistency of the flex pattern doesn’t go out the window.
As for the new Belafonte? I’ll begin A/B-ing it with the old Belafonte at Alta tomorrow…
Actually, next year’s Wrenegade 112 is back to the 11-12 stiffness, so noticably stiffer than the last few years. Still somewhat softer than the burliest of skis though (of which the only one I’ve been on are next year’s Wailer 105s, which is comparable to my old Head 103s and PM Gear Kusala extra stiffs).
How would you compare the 190 Q lab to the 190(?) Rocker 2 115 when it comes to bumped up terrain?
And how are the showels on the Q lab compared to the 115?
I had the first gen el dictator as my every day ski and switched them out with the 115, something I really regret because the showels where way to soft for me..
sounds like just another piece of crap ski from salomon. I like they the way you tried to make it sound useful in certain situations, but it only sounds O.K. at best.
this is the best ski ever made…carves on tussock patches and stomps everything. makes normal life feel boring.
Jonathan, how does the 183 Q Lab compare to the 182 E100? Their descriptions/stats would make them seem similar in a lot of ways, but there’s gotta be some things that set them apart, I reckon.
I need more time on the 183 Q Lab, but my impressions were that it is an all-around easier ski to ski than the E100. When skiing the 183 Q Lab in those same messed-up bumps at the bottom of Hunzinger that I mention in my E100 review, the 183s were more forgiving, for sure. But I didn’t get the 183 Q Labs on Reforma or in the steeps of West Basin, so I can’t say yet how hard they could be pushed in that type of terrain. But if a question remains about how hard you can push the 183s, I will again say that they will likely be the easier, more forgiving ski all-around the mountain.
I skied the 183 and enjoyed it albeit it felt a little short. Not necessarily in how it skied more so in look at the lack of ski in front of my feet. I’m 6′, 190 isn, ski 8 of 10 on the aggressive scale and definitely don’t seek out bumps, however they are inevitable in the locations that we all ski (SW Colorado, New Mexico, Utah on occasion).
Debating about buying the 190 even though I haven’t skied it yet. My usual everyday ski that this would be replacing is a beat pair of 185cm Cochise’s as a resort charger. Any input as you’ve been on both?
Thanks!
I’d be really really interested in a review of the Salomon Q BC Lab. At 114 underfoot and only 1.7 kg it sounds like a killer (pow) touring ski. Unfortunately very few reviews out there. Any chance you guys will be getting on it soon?
How do you think this ski compares with the Q105? I am pretty torn between the two of these, but worried the Q-Lab may be a little on the too stiff side. Curious which you prefer.
Hi Jonathan,
Last season I had the Q105. A stone that took out my edges forces me to look for new ski’s this season. Since I will occasionally do Alpine touring on the ski’s as well and also like to charge a few groomers now and then as well along the way I, as well as trees and bumbs I was considering to maybe opt for the Q98 to replace them. This because for me there was very little not to like in the Q series of last year. Still your review made me thinking. I’m quite a heavy guy (98kg) so I immediately got interested in the Q-lab after reading your review. I am heavy but fit and like to ski aggressively and fast now and then. I had the Q105 in 188 and that performed quite well for me. Although on speed the edge grip, which was normally fine in most conditions, could for me still be a bit better on hard snow and I thought the Q105 did have a speed limit. Since I will want to use this ski for all mountain purposes (I have the AK JJ for deep days), will do occasional AT, like bumps and trees but also to ski fast. Would you recommend the Q105 /98 or the Q-Lab in this case? Your view would be much appreciated. Thanks, Joost
What do you think of this ski compared to a devastator for a daily ski? Been on the devastator for the past two seasons and I am thinking hard about the 190 q-lab for a replacement. Not that the Devastator was bad in anyway but to try a little different flavor out. Thanks.
Hello, If you were skiing Crested Butte everyday would you prefer the Q-Lab 190 or the Scott Punisher 189?
Advanced skier 6’3″ 175 pounds rips the entire mountain and likes to huck cliffs
rode the 190 a bit last season, gotta say i wasn’t very impressed. don’t really know what they were going for with this thing. i’ve been on the cochise and 4frnt renegade for the last 4 seasons, love a ski that has no speed limit, that crushes everything in it’s path. after flexing this ski i thought it would be that type of ski, but the extreme sidecut and massive shovels really killed it for me. the renegade has a 135 mm shovel, and a 122 mm waist. q lab comes in at 144 in the tip, and 109 waist. everytime i got this ski up to the kind of speeds this flex pattern wants i would get slowed down by the ridiculously hooky tip and super tight turn radius, the dimensions just don’t make any sense. a whole slew of better skis for the job in my opinion.
Is it true that the actual tip-to-tail length is only 187.2cm ?!?!?…
Yep. Measured with a straight tape pull from tip to tail — for the record, when measured this way, very few skis we review come in at their stated length. So nothing out of the ordinary here — check out any random selection of our other ski reviews.
Tragically Salomon stopped making these skis in 2016, succumbing to the industry trend of floppy skis, early rise tails, long turn radiuses etc. etc. etc. I’ve bought ALOT of skis trying to find a suitable replacement for my aging Q Labs. (A stiff, traditional camber ski with a flat/powerful tail, turn radius in the low 20s, and 105+ waist)
To Jonathan, the entire Blister crew, and anyone reading this. If there is something similar to this ski currently being made – please reply to this comment.
– A desperate skier
You should definitely check out our review of the Fischer Ranger 107 Ti. It’s (of course) not *exactly* the same ski as the 190 cm QLab, but there are a whole lot of similarities, and I feel confident in saying that it’s the closest thing to a 190 QLab that we’ve reviewed.
And if you still have questions after reading, then I recommend becoming a Blister member, sending us an email, and we’ll get you sorted out.
Blister is without a doubt the most valuable gear resource available to the ski/snowboard community – Thank you for everything you guys are doing!
What are your thought on mounting these at -1 or -2cm? The line seems a bit centered. Less tail could make them more pivoty and plane better, no?
PS: I get -8cm from center as my recommended line. Did they change that between 14/15 and 15/16?
Hi- I was wondering if you put any more time on the 183? I’d be really interested to know more about what separates it from the 190 and maybe how it compares the Cochise. Thanks!
Knowing they’re discontinued I think you should really get back on the 190’s again, this time mounted at -8 or even -9 cm. Just do it!
Hi, guys!
Like John Zordell, I’m also a huge fan of Q-lab (183). Looking for replacement (one season on Q-Lab, but returned to my friend few days ago).
And I’ll check the Fisher Ranger 107 Ti.
BUT, what about Salomon Stance 102 vs Q-lab (183)?
I lot of similarities… What do you think?