Icelantic Shaman defeats Lotus 138 !!!

[Core Shot]

I know this seems unpossible.
How can an overgrown 160cm skiboard be better than a 192cm big mountain powder weapon?
Easy: The contest took place on the North East.

Conditions: Early Season 20" fresh pow at Jay Peak - knee to thigh deep sweet pow wow. Me: 6'4" 215lbs and not in ski shape.

Both skis excell in tight quick pivot turns in the trees (which is what makes them both perfect for the ridonkulously tight tree runs out East - twig snappage is a regular occurance out here).

Lotus might be a little more fun since you can schmear the turns as well.
But, Icelantic stays in the fall line a bit better which is more fun and flowing - Lotus was so fast it needed to be thrown sideways more often.

Also, one thing I love about the Shaman (compared to regular skis and compared to the Phantom) is that due to the taper teardrop shape, the tip always floats (and I am mounted +2) so clearing logfall is never a problem (remember, this was bare ground 3 days before). The tip is almost always at the surface. I am not sure I would want or need them mounted back at the line.
Lotus has similar tip float and I had no fears of hooking logfall either. Both skis had plenty of floatation and neither bottomed out and hit dirt.

One other great benefit of the Shaman teardrop or dart shape is that this was my first day of the season and everyone around me was complaining about thigh burn and I was feeling nothing. The Shaman puts you in a natural neutral stance with no thigh strain or need to backseat to clear the logfall or make a turn.

Overall, both skis were perfect and kickass fun for the fresh pow and trees.

BUT . . . this is New England, and there is always hardpack and often ice to get back to the lift. (or, if you are at an area with limited glades and lots of crowds, you will quickly run out of fresh pow).

This hardpack performance is where the Icelantic Shaman kicks the living snot out of the Lotus.




I found the Lotus quite survivable on the hardpack, but hardly enjoyable.
1) 138 width is pretty planky underfoot (110 for Shaman felt fine)
2) Lotus 138 in a 192cm length felt like bigfeet skiboards compared to the 160cm Shamans.
3) I am not usually a fan of sidecut, but the Shamans on the hardpack are able to rail over and carve turns!! And not only was it "survivable" but it was actually fun! Last year, I hit EC moguls with these things and other than the edge delay, they were easier in the bumps than my regular long stiff skis. (caveat - I hate EC bumps - they are too tight and completely suck compared to real Western bumps)

Bottom line - Shaman is more fun and useful overall in typical NewEngland powder days. For those of you using reverse/reverse skis to make NE trees easier, you need to realize that you can have just as much fun in the trees without so much sucking and suffering on the hardpack.

The only limit I have found with the Shaman is it is a bit short for real ass hauling in mixed crudpiles (not unpossible, but I just need to stay focused).

I am looking forward to getting a pair of the 173 Shaman someday, which I think will help me with high speed stability for my height.
160 Shaman should be ideal for the average guy/girl.

[cinnepa]

could definately be the next purchase.....being 6-2, 190, think the 173 would be better for NOT going over the bars?

[Doremite]

Responders: Please don't cunt up this thread by justifying the Shaman props with "you need short skis to ski ec glades" rants. .

That being said, nice write up Core Shot. Skeptical a 160cm ski could be fun in any conditions (or even a 173 for that matter), but sounds like you had a blast on 'em. Would have loved to have been at Jay Saturday.

[marshalolson]

let's see the results after a weekend in jackson

[summit]

It's not socking... Phantom Skis were an East Coast pow/tree ski... they are very much like the Icelantics. I skied a Shaman 173 at Loveland. It is surprising stable at speed for something that short... as long as you don't try to go switch.

[marshalolson]

It's not socking... Phantom Skis were an East Coast pow/tree ski... they are very much like the Icelantics. I skied a Shaman 173 at Loveland. It is surprising stable at speed for something that short... as long as you don't try to go switch.

you should write up reviews of everything you skied.

[half-fast]

core shot, besides the tips staying up thing, how would you compare the icelantics and the phantoms?

when I tried your phantoms, it took me about two turns to get used to the fact that I wasn't going to be seeing the tips. but I never went over the bars.

[Core Shot]

let's see the results after a weekend in jackson

Heh.
I would never take the 160cm Shamans to Jackson.
If I get 173 Shamans, I would consider it just to test them, but in reality why bother when I have a quiver that includes the Dynastar Legend Pro XXL and Lotus 120 200cm .

Basically, I felt like the Lotus 138 would be great fun in high speed wide open big mountain slarving - high speed drift turns must be fun. And that would be even better in 202cm.
EC is more mini golf with very few opportunites to open it full throttle in the pow.

half-fast - Phantoms never had enough tip rise. It was like the tip on a race DH ski. I have gone over the bars on a Phantom a few times. Its one of the reasons I gave them to my friend. He is still fighting that handlbar feeling. He is ready to buy Shamans after this weekend when he was complaining about thigh burn and I was still skiing fresh.
Never even come close to going over the handlebars on Shamans even though I am mounted at +2.
Also, Phantoms have the wide tail that clinked in the lift line and would be a pain when skinning. I have skinned with the Shamans and other than not fitting into a skin track, once you learn to adjust to the wide tips, they are fine.

On a scale of 1 to 10, Shaman is a 9.5 for EC powder trees, the Phantom was a 7 and the shorter Atomic Powder Plus skis were a 5.
Lotus 138 is a 9 in the EC trees, but its a 2 or 3 on hardpack, so its overall score might be only 5.

[Dromond]

I'm having a hard time admitting it, but I bet you're right. I often long for something quick in the woods.

[Benny Profane]

Are we talking about the original Phantoms here, or the Crystal Ships (darker topsheet)?

[dookeyXXX]

I, too, have skied the 173 Shaman (@ Loveland this past April). Great little ski in the windbuff off of Ocho and the lower powder bowls. Not so great in the chop, death cookies, and icy moguls that I encountered lower on the mountain.

I believe I did a write-up back then, but my general conclusion was that if they were at least a 177, perhaps a 180, I'd be all over 'em.

I also tended to like the shape of the Nomad a little better (it has a narrower tip), but the Shaman was definitely the more stable of the two.

From what I have heard about EC tree skiing I can see the appeal.

Never been on a DP. I own Spats.

[Doremite]

From what I have heard about EC tree skiing I can see the appeal.

[Benny Profane]

I believe I did a write-up back then, but my general conclusion was that if they were at least a 177, perhaps a 180, I'd be all over 'em.


From what I have heard about EC tree skiing I can see the appeal.

Spoken like a westerner. I would only bring my Phantoms out west to use as powder training skis for the girlfriend. Nothing out there as tight as Eastern trees.

[Core Shot]

It's not socking... Phantom Skis were an East Coast pow/tree ski... they are very much like the Icelantics.

Shamans were not designed for EC trees.

The "design theory" on them is that they allow unlimited ball of foot pressure in powder - you can get as forward as you want. In theory, these guys rip Colorado pow in them.

I mounted mine +2 and haven't come close to goin over the bars and this ski barely comes up to my nipples. I could see ripping pow fast on them, but its ripping hardpack/chowder/chunks that gets sketchy to me, but that is in part due to using a soft boot on them (garmont Megaride Dynafit setup)

All I know is they are the best EC powder tree ski so far. It may be just my opinion and review, but you will see them more and more and come to know the reality of this truth.

Benny, 2nd gen Phantoms ("Crystal Ship") is what I had. Haven't ridden the sitffer 1st gen ones, but if they have same tip profile and are stiffer, I doubt they would be better.

[Benny Profane]

Benny, 2nd gen Phantoms ("Crystal Ship") is what I had. Haven't ridden the sitffer 1st gen ones, but if they have same tip profile and are stiffer, I doubt they would be better.

I have both, and I disagree. The Crystals ski stiffer, and, yes, have a low tip more prone to getting bitten. I think the originals are quicker turning in the trees, but suck monkey balls on hardpack. The Crystals are much better out there getting back to a chair.

[dookeyXXX]

my comments weren't meant as a slag against EC skiing.

having never skied on the EC, i can't really comment.

however, just about every person from the EC who has posted here or over on Epic loves to stress how tight the trees are. The two "stereotypes" I am continually fed about EC skiing is lottsa ice and tight trees (and these stereotypes are coming from the mouths of East Coast skiers, so who am I do disagree).

Thus, from my perspective, given the limited info I continue to be fed from the message boards, it would stand to reason that a shorter, fatter set of powder planks would be optimal in such conditions (the tight trees on a powder day). Seems like a 173cm fatty would presumably be more nimble in tight spaces than a 195 (or even a 185) fatty.

that said,

"In theory, these guys rip Colorado pow in them.

I mounted mine +2 and haven't come close to goin over the bars and this ski barely comes up to my nipples. I could see ripping pow fast on them, but its ripping hardpack/chowder/chunks that gets sketchy to me"

that would be my review in a nutshell.

I loved the Shaman in the windbuff and ankle deep leftovers that were at Loveland the day I demoed them. They were quick, nimble, and floated wonderfully.

They were sketchy on the hardpack, chowder, and chunks, though. That's where I wished for something a big longer and a little narrower. But as a dedicated powder ski I would say they are solid and a bit specialized (much in the way my Spats are, but for different reasons).

[Benny Profane]

The two "stereotypes" I am continually fed about EC skiing is lottsa ice and tight trees (and these stereotypes are coming from the mouths of East Coast skiers, so who am I do disagree).

This is true - another mouth added. I always smile when I see some fool on big ass Pistols or something like that because they were told they were cool.
I'd like to try the Shamans, maybe my next trip to Colorado. Now, all we need is a little coverage in the trees here.

[spindrift]

I have both, and I disagree. The Crystals ski stiffer, and, yes, have a low tip more prone to getting bitten. I think the originals are quicker turning in the trees, but suck monkey balls on hardpack. The Crystals are much better out there getting back to a chair.

I mounted my Crystal Ships pretty far back in the range suggested by Dave. I used Neoxs so I could tweak 'em. If I set them anywhere near the center of Dave's range, I was over the bars all the time. Set near the back, things were much happier -- but you noticeably lost some responsiveness out of the powder. The short/low tip rise combined with the super flexiness (they are indeed soft) definitely seemed to contribute to going over the bars - if they got into a downflex in heavy snow, nothing was gonna bring those tips back up.

I loved them for what they were when there wasn't much else that fat, but I think the newer designs are more versatile. That said, I'd still rate them as fun toys.

[couloirman]

Lotus 138 is a 9 in the EC trees, but its a 2 or 3 on hardpack, so its overall score might be only 5.

Not bad review, but why would you weigh hardpack performance that heavily on a ski like the 138? Anyone who owns that ski owns several others also, so if its soft, bring them out, if its not don't. Why complain about the cat track/groomer back to the ski lift when you just had more fun than anyone else skiing powder less than minutes before hand?

[Benny Profane]

Why complain about the cat track/groomer back to the ski lift when you just had more fun than anyone else skiing powder less than minutes before hand?

Because, it can be somewhat miserable slip siding down the ice runs, and who wants to be miserable. And, it's tiring, too. I waste a lot of energy on those groomers just surviving if I can't get a bite.

[dookeyXXX]

"I'd like to try the Shamans, maybe my next trip to Colorado. Now, all we need is a little coverage in the trees here."

Hey Benny:

The Icelantic folks are top-notch.

The day I demoed them at Loveland this past April was a total fluke. I had been out skiing in Colo for a few days with a large group and took a day off to ski with some other friends. Long story-short, they didn't make it up to Loveland, so I skied the day solo. Stumbled upon the Icelantic demo after a tele head and I had a run-in with some idiots who persisted in stopping right in the middle of the cross-traverse and he and I almost took them out at different intervals. At any rate, while we bonded over having almost killed some folks without half the sense to stop on the side, not in the middle of a run, we started talking about skis and he mentioned that Icelantic was down at the base demoing (I'd been riding up in the Ocho all morning so was pretty clueless about any happenings down below). I decided to take a break and head down to check it out.

First thing I met the founder, Ben. Talked to him for a quick spell and then took out some Nomads. Did 4 runs on 'em off the Ocho and then headed back to snag some Shamans. These were out so I hung around and "interviewed" Ben for about 45 minutes learning about the company and his philosophy and just talking about skis. The Shamans finally came in (with Dukes, no less) and I took those out for 4 runs.

When I got back it was the end of the day (4pm). I shared my impressions of the skis with Ben and his posse and then they bought me a beer.

Nice folks and totally down to earth.

I believe they do quite a bit of demos at Loveland and elsewhere in Summit County throughout the season.

[fat yeti]

I will be using the 173 shaman this year at snowbird. I am going to take it out on the first big powday they get just to see how it does. I had the chance to demo all the icelantics last year the only ski I have not been on is the 151 pilgrim. I realy like there skis I had the chance to ski the 173 shaman last year on a realy heavy spring day, at snowbird. I loved this ski it floated well in the junk an is a blast on soft groomers I am glad I had my own pair, after ridding it that is all I wanted to ski this last spring. I would love a bigger size but the 173 works well and is stable for its size saying that stritlinning on these was a bit scarry.
my stats
5' 8"
190
If your in Salt Lake in want to see a pair stop by levelnine and check them out.

[laseranimal]

core what BSL are the dynafits mounted at?

I'd LOVE to get a demo

I've really loved my reverse camber Pow Plus in EC trees, but the icelantic boards have always piqued my interest

problem is I just can't see where they'd fit into my quiver, if you don't mind me asking what is your everyday ski?

[Doremite]

This is true - another mouth added. I always smile when I see some fool on big ass Pistols or something like that because they were told they were cool.

Not trying to thread jack here, but my only point in my initial post was to dispell the rumor that shorter skis are better for east coast trees. Personally, disagree and am uncomfortable on anything under 180. ...as are most folks I ski with here in the east. Prefer to have something that can attack all aspects of the mountain and I sub-180 ski isn't cutting it. 5'11, 185 (ish). Might consider the 173 Shamans for a tele board, but I can't imagine something that short for alpine - even in the east. All comes down to personal preference though. It's the "you need a short ski for the east" comments that kill me. Broad generalization that I find inaccurate and disturbing.

[fat yeti]

These are deffinatly a quiver ski, I have 180 first bloods, 186 dynastar big troubles, Ninethward 187 and prophet 130. I will use the icelantics on powder days with the wife, skiing trees, and spring skiing when the snow is soft. If they had 180 to 185 it would probably be my pow ski all the time. I have my fingures crossed for longer lengths for the 08-09 season. If that happens I may just have a mostly icelantic quiver.