TOURING
Brian: The QST Pro 130 has a lot of the same features that make the Salomon MTN Lab such a great touring boot: a low weight, a single upper cuff buckle, a cam powerstrap, an easy-to-use walk mode, and amazing rearward range of motion.
But the QST Pro 130 is lacking in forward range of motion, and the stiffness of the tongue in the lower portion of the shell is the culprit — the lower part of the one-piece tongue doesn’t move at all, starting where the notches are cut into it. And this created a very hard stop on my lower shin. John Freely at The Custom Foot in Englewood, Colorado, dremeled more notches into the tongue lower down, but it really didn’t make that portion flex much; the plastic is simply too thick and stiff.
While some people may not have an issue with this (e.g., Jonathan didn’t), it was painful enough for me on my lower shin that it would be impossible for me to do anything more than really short tours in. It even became quite painful on 15-minute bootpacks — enough that I wouldn’t want to do more than about two laps. While tightening the upper buckle and powerstrap did help to distribute the pressure, that didn’t solve the issue, and it also significantly reduced the forward range of motion even more.
So while all of this essentially made touring in the QST 130 Pro a non-starter for me, I encourage you to try out the walk mode for yourself. We’re confident that a test in the shop will tell you whether or not this will be an issue for you.
And if you intend on only using this boot at the resort and don’t hike much, then it probably won’t be an issue at all.
But even if the hard stop isn’t painful to you, the QST Pro 130 doesn’t exhibit a great forward range of motion, which is disappointing, since everything else about it as a touring boot is really excellent, especially its amazing rearward range of motion (which also makes it really easy to walk down stairs).
Luke: I have spent most of my time in the QST Pro 130 touring, including a few long days with several hours of skinning and bootpacking. And I’d say that Brian’s description of the tongue’s effect on the forward range of motion is spot-on. I can feel my upper ankle / lower shin pressing into the tongue when skinning and hiking, and I notice it most often on steep skintracks and bootpacks.
There is certainly plenty of rearward range of motion, and I imagine this takes up most of the QST Pro 130’s stated 40 degrees of range of motion. Despite the limited range of motion, I have continued to tour in the QST Pro 130 rather than the Fischer Transalp because it fits my feet well and skis much better. So I’d echo Brian’s recommendation to try the boot on and see how you feel about the range of motion in order to consider it as a touring boot.
Jonathan: While I experienced no pain when touring in the QST Pro 130, there’s no question that if forward ROM is a big deal to you, then this is not your boot. Personally, a huge forward ROM isn’t my priority in a touring boot, but still, I’m with Brian here: there is so much to like about the QST Pro 130 as a touring boot that we would love to see Salomon resolve the issue that Brian has described quite well.
Then again (and to be clear) Luke continues to tour in this boot, and I certainly could. So I would think hard about how you really intend to use the boot. If you want a lightweight boot that you will mostly use inbounds but that will also give you the option to tour in (which, by the way, probably puts you in the majority of people buying “crossover” or “50/50” boots like this), then keep reading.
Stiffness / Flex
Brian: While Salomon rates the QST Pro 130 as a 130-flex boot, I didn’t feel like it was that stiff. It’s definitely softer than other boots I’ve spent time in, including last season’s Tecnica Cochise 120. This might be, in part, due to the tongue design. Other three-piece tongue boots (such as Full-Tilts) are known for having a more linear flex pattern that doesn’t ramp up much.
So if you are looking for a burly “130” boot, the QST Pro 130 doesn’t quite have the powerful flex of some of the other crossover boots on the market.
Then again, if you’ve read our Salomon MTN Lab and MTN Explore reviews, we make a strong argument that the MTN Explore may be a better boot for a lot of people than the MTN Lab. Some people simply don’t want or need the most powerful boot on the market, and we think that this is where the QST comes in. It isn’t the stiffest boot, but it still offers a pretty strong, forgiving, flex that will suit a lot of skiers quite well.
Downhill Performance
Brian: While I had issues with the QST Pro 130 as a touring boot, it definitely performs on the downhill, and none of the issues I had with the tongue are present when locked into ski mode. The boot actually feels extremely comfortable and secure, especially through the lower shell. Salomon may be onto something with “Endofit.” Despite a softer flex than I personally like, it has a smooth flex that offers good suspension in harsh snow. However (and while this is minor), it does feel like the upper part of the tongue gives a bit easier than the lower part.
The QST Pro 130’s lateral power transfer is excellent, and you really feel well connected to the boot and the ski.
Overall, I think what’s most amazing about the QST Pro 130’s downhill performance is its very low weight. I’m not aware of any other DIN-compatible boot on the market at this weight or under that has such a smooth, forgiving flex and offers good suspension. So the more that a light boot is a priority for you, the more attractive I think the QST Pro 130 will be.
My one real caveat on the Pro 130’s downhill performance would be the rear support. For one, the rear cuff is shorter than other crossover boots I’ve worn, and it also feels a bit soft. I didn’t really notice this when on groomers, but I did notice it in moguls and other very uneven terrain at speed. When I got bucked by uneven terrain, the lesser cuff support made it more difficult to stay in or recover to a forward position. This was exemplified when forcefully trying to shut down high speeds in variable terrain. The flex of the rear cuff would give too much, and I would end up in the backseat, struggling to get forward again. I haven’t experienced this in other (heavier) boots I’ve been in, like the Tecnica Cochise Pro 130. When flexing the QST Pro 130 backward, you can watch the shell distort quite a bit. In the shop, with a MTN Lab on one foot and the QST Pro 130 on the other, the QST Pro 130 may even feel a bit softer (maybe due to the differences in plastics?). It is arguable that this mates well with the QST Pro 130’s forgiving forward flex, but I think that certain skiers who are really looking to ski hard in variable conditions and terrain would appreciate a more supportive rear cuff.
Luke: I agree with what Brian has stated above, and will add what I’ve experienced as a lighter and less-aggressive skier than Brian. I am used to skiing softer boots like the old Salomon SPK Pro and Fischer Transalp, so I didn’t mind that the QST Pro 130 flexed much softer than other 130-flex boots. The QST Pro 130 does a good job of absorbing smaller impacts, yet maintains enough rigidity to drive stiffer and wider skis better than the SPK and Transalp. As Brian mentioned, this sort of progressive and accessible flex is certainly unique in the realm of ~1600 g boots, and was what made the QST Pro 130 stand out to me. I did notice the softer support of the rear cuff when flexing the boot at home, but I haven’t noticed this while on snow, which I attribute to me being a bit smaller and lighter than Brian.
Jonathan: In short, I found myself skiing the QST Pro 130 as if I was skiing a good, comfortable, snug touring boot. I did not ski it the same way I would ski a heavy, dedicated alpine boot. So for those looking for the performance of a dedicated alpine boot in a “50/50” boot, I would stick to something like the (much heavier) Scarpa Freedom RS, Lange XT 130, or the Tecnica Cochise Pro 130. Then again, there are tons of skiers who definitely don’t want or need the burliness of a Freedom RS, and all of you should read Luke’s comments again.
NEXT: Binding Compatibility, Buckles and Powerstrap, Etc.
You said that the rear support is lacking. How does it compare with the Lange Free tour 130 in this regard?
I find the Free tour a bit lacking in rear support though mostly on carpet, not really skiing.
Hi Rod,
I haven’t skied the Lange XT Free Tour 130 before, Paul Forward is the only reviewer at Blister who has. He said it had comparable downhill performance to the Lange XT 130. He’s also skied the prior season’s Cochise Pro 130 (when it first became orange), but he doesn’t speak to the rearward flex comparisons with the Lange XT 130 (MAYBE because they were the same?). I’ve spent a lot of time in that same season’s Cochise 120, and can definitively say that the Cochise 120 (bright green version) has a noticeably stronger rearward flex than the QST Pro 130. I can also say the same about the current Cochise Pro 130. Draw what conclusions you want to from this, but unfortunately, I can’t say for sure how the Lange XT Free Tour 130 would compare to the QST Pro 130.
You said that the boot doesn’t have that burly feeling you experienced with other 130 flex boots. Did you find it too soft to ski very aggressively? I am in the market for a new pair of boots and the qst 130s were one of the options. I am a very aggressive skier but also pretty lightweight (150 lbs). Do you think the qst 130 won’t be enough boot for me? I tried on the cochise 130s and found that the boot wasn’t as secure around the higher portion of my ankle; the qst was more snug there. In addition, the qst 130 fit pretty well out of the box on me. I have not tried on the lange freetours; is that something you would recommend? Are there any others you would recommend? Thanks for the advice.
Hey Zac,
My experiences in skiing this boot very aggressively are in firm, variable conditions (I didn’t ski it in powder conditions). I found that the FORWARD flex of QST, while softer than other 130-flex boots, was adequate for skiing aggressively in these conditions. However, the REARWARD flex of the boot gave me some problems.
Generally speaking, I don’t pressure the rear cuff as part of a normal skiing stance (perhaps when loading up the tails at the end of a carve). However, when getting bucked off balance in firm, variable conditions, I found that the softer REARWARD flex of the QST made it quite difficult to recover. I.e., when off balance, the rear of the boot gave way and further compromised my stance and balance, and I’ve never had this trouble in boots that have stiffer rearward flexes. This was most prevalent when speeding across smooth, firm snow, then suddenly encountering rougher firm snow – i.e. getting knocked off balance by a rut. I also found it to be a problem when airing into rough firm snow (minor mogul fields).
And, while I haven’t skied the Lange Freetour, our reviewer Paul Forward has never mentioned any such issue with the rearward support of those boots. So I think you probably should take a look if you’re really putting a premium on stability at speed in variable conditions — and especially if you’ve ruled out the Cochise 130 (for which I found the rearward flex to be stiff enough for this sort of skiing).
Hi Brian,
I have read the review and the 101 on bindings, I am planning on buying this boot, it will be my first 50/50 boot. I have tried the 120 at a store and it fits very well, but I think I would prefer the flex of the 130. Could you confirm my logic for buying it and my understanding of sole compatibility please?
I am 65, my current boot is a 2007 Salomon XWave 100 flex, bought when I was just getting serious about skiing. It served me well but it is done and I need a new boot now. I am more of a finesse skier than a charger. I am climbing a fair amount in the resort and side country and I hope to get some real touring in the the 2018_19 season.
1) I expect this to be my new resort boot for some time. The lighter weight and flexibility are positive attributes and I will get more control from this boot, especially laterally then from the old one, so I don’t have to buy a resort only boot.
2) The QST Pro boot can not be skied safely in ISO 5355 bindings with the AT soles? – If this is the case, then on occasion, maybe 12 times, I could swop to AT soles and rent/buy AT skis. This will give me some experience of skinning.
3) If touring becomes a thing I do a lot, then I would buy dedicated a tour ski and boot and use the QST for the resort only.
Thanks in anticipation!
Gregory
Hi Gregory,
“The QST Pro boot can not be skied safely in ISO 5355 bindings with the AT soles? – If this is the case, then on occasion, maybe 12 times, I could swop to AT soles and rent/buy AT skis. This will give me some experience of skinning.”
Salomon does not recommend frequent swaps of the soles. The soles use wood screws directly into the plastic and frequent swapping may compromise the ability of the screws to hold.
Hi,
I am quite lost in ISO norms. Is it possible to use this boot with walking tech pads into Marker sole id binding or tyrolia attack binding? Thank you for your answer.
If you have the tech soles (the ones with the rubber soles) on the QST Pro, you could use them in a Marker Sole ID binding or other “Multi Norm Certified” (aka, “MNC”) bindings like the Tyrolia AAAttack2 14 AT and Salomon Warden. The QST’s rubber soles are *not* compatible with alpine bindings that are *not* MNC certified, such as the “GW” version of the Tyrolia AAAttack series, the Salomon STH, Look Pivots, or any of the Marker bindings that do not feature their Sole ID toe piece.
Hi Brian, I just looked at the the info and the podcast on the Salomon S/LAB SHIFT MNC. So, I f I get this binding I will be able to use AT pads all the time! What a deal!
Gregory
do these boots come with the DIN compatible sole plate? Thanks!
Hi Chris, yes they do.
If the liner of the 130 is anything like the liner in the 120, I can attest to Brian’s comments on its fit and function. It is decidedly different than the more ‘traditional’ liners, especially in the toebox, in that it is firm and unforgiving in terms of moldability. After molding and trial use I moved off the boot b/c I had to upsize to make the liner work but then the fit of the shell was lost. Unfortunate b/c I really liked the weight and feel of the Endofit tongue. YMMV.
I have 8 days in these boots, I like them. I had to do the the “sixth toe stretch” to the boots AND liners – the liners are too narrow in my opinion but the stretch worked, now the fit is excellent. I get good lateral control and progressive forward flex. I love the reduction in weight. from my alpine boots. I read Brian’s mention of lack of support in the rear, but had no issue UNTIL I landed on my tails on a jump in my local terrain park. The left boot dug into my calf around the hight of the power strap and has given me a lasting deep bruise. I don’t think this would have happened in my regular alpine boots. It’s bummer because I am going to struggle with this injury. I have removed the plastic spacers that attach to the rear of the liner with velcro, this gives me a slightly softer feel back there with a better spread of pressure. I think the inserts are supposed create a tighter fit towards to top of the boot, but probably what is going on is the boot is too rigid at the back and creates a narrow pressure point with sudden back pressure. Now I am a little weary about them. I am doing 6 days at Snowmass at the end of this week and will add a comment on how it goes.
Correction to the bit about the plastic inserts on the back of the liner. After fiddling around a little bit I have put them back in, but higher up. They protrude above the rear cuff by 3/4″ now. I think this moves the pressure point higher and spreads it a bit better.
Hey everyone,
I thought that I would leave this comment in case there are any women looking at getting into this years QST Pro 90. I didn’t have time to read this whole post but after reading about the lower shin/upper ankle pain I figured I should say that this is also a major problem in the women’s version of the boot. I bought this boot brand new in December 2018 and only did 2 very long tours on it (a 20 km day trip, and a 50 km hut trip). Sadly, these boots made it impossible to do any skiing due to the extreme shin pain from touring. Unfortunately, I’ll have to get rid of these boots and into something different when my shins heal. For me, this was severe enough that my doctor is now looking into the potential of stress fractures on both lower shins.
I assume it was due to the extremely long tours that made this so painful, but a few consecutive shorter days would have likely done the same thing.
Sorry guys, it looks like I may have left this comment on the wrong review of this boot (as I notice now that this one does not mention others with shin issues). However, I figure I’ll leave this here in the case that there are still other women looking for a review on the women’s specific boot.
I’m try to understand the differences in Salomon’s line-up. QST 120 vs MTN S/Lab vs Mtn Explore.
Stiffness: 1 MTN S/Lab, 2 QST, 3 Explore
range of motion: 1. Explore, 2 MTN S/Lab, 3 QST
comfort?
which skis the best?
why would one pick the QST over the Explore?
Hi Lawrence,
It’s hard to say which is stiffer… the MTN S/Lab or the QST Pro 130. I’d likely have to ski them back to back to know for sure. The Explore is definitely softer. Your range of motion list looks accurate to me.
As for comfort, it really depends on your foot. I can’t answer that question.
Again, for which one skis the best, I’d really have to ski the MTN S/Lab and QST back to back to say for sure. I felt that the MTN S/Lab was also lacking in rearward support, for me, personally, which was my biggest complaint about the QST’s downhill performance.
The QST skis better than the Explore. It also has DIN compatibility, which the Explore does not.
I skied the QST 130 Pro for roughly one and a half seasons. I used it as a “50/50” boot, realistically skiing 90% inbounds. After somewhere around 40 days the stock liner was entirely packed out, and actually had lost all pull tabs and had blown out multiple stitches holding the toe box area together, as well as lost the glue holding the foot of the liner to the rest of the liner. After 50-60 days I lost the pin on the right boot that holds the walk/ski mode engaged, the same thing happened soon after to the left boot. I was able to fix this with a machined screw since Salomon had no parts available. The actually mechanism (that u would use to engage/disengage the walk mode) also began to wear on itself causing a small, albeit noticeable amount of play in the boots while in ski mode. Then roughly around 80-90 days I broke off the lowest buckle on my right boot (buckle over toe box area). I also went through two sets of heel blocks during ownership of this boot due to the heel area that the alpine bindings connect to wearing out.
Aside from all of my issues with this boot (and zero assistance from salomon due to no parts available and no boots in stock for warranty), I found this boot to be lacking in rearward support. If you were caught in the backseat, these boots lacked in the support to rebound. Intuition Powerwraps greatly increased the overall support of these boots, but did not align well with the tongue of the boot (tongue is too narrow to fully wrap the liner).
I thought that these boots actually tour quite well. I never spent more than 12hrs a day touring in them, but always found the ROM and weight to be fine for my needs. They would make a strong, although heavy dedicated touring boot.
I now ski the newest models of Lange RX 130 LV and XT 130 Free LV. IMO there is no comparison as far as support between the Lange boots and the QST 130 Pro, even though I actually felt the Salomon fit my foot slightly better after proper fitting.
Has Salomon improved the 2019/2020 model with a stiffer rear flex support?
As far as we’ve been told, Salomon has not updated the QST boots since the version we reviewed, apart from colors.
Hello
I’ve had the boots for a while now and really like them. They came with 2 plastic hard pieces which might be inserts to place at the top of the calf between the liner and shell. Is that correct. Thanks Mike