Icelantic ski review

[fat yeti]

Me 5'8" 185ish depending on the day
advanced to expert skier,
Skis I have owned original big daddies, stockli ateroids, rossi axioms, k2 seth pistols and seths, mojo 105 ina 191, praxis and ridden quite a few others.

I like big skis or I like a skis that feel stable and I don't like a lot of side cut.
I was real hesitant to get on these skis but thought what the heck, we had these from the rep to demo on our company outing to powder moutain. The first run I took was on the Shaman 161 in length dimensions 160-110-130, the first run was a soft grommer I thought these would be squirley, I was wrong they were very stable and handled the soft sunbacke snow incredibly well. I was realy impressed, this was my favorite skis of the day it skied spring muck as good anything I have been on. My favorite spring ski before this was my big daddies, the big daddies were better at speed, but these were easy to skis and plowed the muck and floated throgh the heavy cut up snow. I was blown away by how much fun this ski was and how stable they are despite there size. They turn incredibly easy and floated well through the muck. I know powder mt is not snowbird were i nomaly ski, and I would love to try these out there. Next year this ski come's in a 173 and I am considering adding them to my quiver. These skis don't like ice to well or maybe they just need a fresh tune is was tuff to tell. The next ski I rode was the nomad its 156 140-105-130 I liked it as well, it was easy to ski and was stable for how short is was it however was not quite a stable as the shaman, but was more playfull. I also rode the 143 scout same dims as the nomad and I was impresed I took one run on these at the end of the day through the trees, the floated well through the slop and loved to turn.
Over all I know these are not for every one out there I did not think they would be for me either i normaly like bigger skis but was impressed with these, I think and 173 shaman would be a great ski and is at the top of my list for next year. Like I said these are not for evryone but if you get a chance to ski them do it. I know not all of you may like them but I realy did despite what I thought. The nomad will also come in a 168 next year I know still short but they are a blast to ski. Yes the graphics are some of my favorite I have seen, they have a bucnh of are work on there website by the artist. Spread eagle and I both wanted to ride these all day but we had to share the shaman and the nomad with the other guys in the shop. I liked both ths shaman and the nomad for spring slop more than my 179 seths.

[dookeyXXX]

right on!

i just rode these over the weekend at Loveland. I gotta give Icelantic props for a sweet demo day.

not only did they let me try the Shaman and Nomad free of charge, they bought me a beer at the end of the day! it was like they were thanking me for the opportunity to ride their planks for free!

i also got to talk up Ben, the owner/founder for a good chunk of the day (waiting for some Nomads to come back in). nice kid.

i liked the skis, but what i told them is that i'd totally buy a ski with the shape of the Nomad and the dimensions of the Shaman if it came in a 180 length.

the Shaman was sweet in the pow off of Chair 8, but i kept clacking the tips in the bumps (yeah, i know it ain't meant for the bumps, but when that's what you gotta manover through on the way back to the lift it can't be helped). The Nomad was a bit more forgiving in the bumps, but chattered and was skittish when you opened it up.

from talking to the guys, i think what they have on tap is just the beginning and they've got some other designs in the pipeline.

anyway, first rate peoples and great customer service (free beer? hell yeah!)

PS
I forgot to mention that the Nomads i rode were mounted with Dukes, so that was an extra bonus. i've only ridden a pair of Fritsches in-bounds in terms of comparison, but from what i could tell the Duke is much more low profile and felt like a solid alpine binding, only light years lighter.

[fat yeti]

I am glad to see someone else liked them I think I am in for a pair of next years 173 shaman, I think if more people tried them they would like them, its a diffrent conecpt going that short but it sure was fun.

[dookeyXXX]

i still ain't 100% sold on the short length, but they were fun to try.

i think i'd need a whole day on either the Shaman or the Nomad to truly dial them in (I only did about 4 runs on each and navigating Loveland from the base over to Chair 8 takes for-freaking-ever!)

still, i liked the enthusiasm of the Icelantic Team and actually felt that they took my humble suggestions to heart. Plus getting to ride the Nomads with Duke binders was sweet and the free apres beer only sweetened the whole day.

[nick > jesus]

cool company for sure, but i cant stand the skis, i spent allot of time on them on Saturday (nothing better to do, snow kinda sucked). I just them to be super unstable at speed through chop, crud, anything not perfectly smooth, and even on smooth stuff they had a rather low speed limit,

dookey, i thing i saw you, i was the kid fondling the duke either right before or right after you went out on them

[dookeyXXX]

Right on.

Those Duke bindings were kinda sweet. Granted I've only ridden a pair of old Havocs mounted with Freerides on ice (sucked) but the Duke felt just as burly as my Mojo 15's only lighter than hell.

I had fun on the Icelantics up at the top of 8 in the windblown soft serve. They were a little more work on the windblown death cookies at the bottom run out back to the chair and then they were a chore and some change in the icy bumps down below Chair 4. I kept crossing the tips on the Shaman and I actually threw myself out of a turn on the Nomads (funny thing was I ran into 3 locals who own the Nomad and one of them waited til his buddies skied away and told me quietly that they were pretty chattering and I probably wouldn't like 'em much).

I honestly think they have something with the skis, I'd just like either of those in a 180 for a bit more stability.

I also just loved being able to pick the brain of the owner and then being rewarded with a beer for riding their skis. Like you had to bribe me to take some indie planks out for a few runs for free!

[Kya]

How's the weight? Good AT ski for my lady it seems.

[spindrift]

The skis are reasonably light (subjectively). Well built - word is that they are pressed by Never Summer for Icelantic. Don't mistake small for soft though. Both the Nomad and Scout are pretty burly little boards. As is the Shaman, but I'm not so fond of that one.

I'm a fan of the Nomad - but it is too damned small for a bigger person. And I'm skeptical that the 168 will fully address that. I've been sending them whine-o-grams asking for a 175-180 Nomad. Personally I'd love to see how that would stack up against a 183 Gotama...

[Core Shot]

I think most of you, and Icelantic as well, are missing the true value of these skis - Low to medium speed EC tree skiing.
Why someone from the Rockies would invent them is a bit of a mystery.
Clearly they are not going to be stable at speed compared to longer skis.

Great benefit of the monster tip and small tail of the Shaman = guaranteed tip float for skimming over EC treefall. And I mounted my pair FORWARD of the mark. (I think their rec. mounting point is way too far back).

For you West coasters that have never been inthe EC trees, they are tight - twig and branch snappage is a regular occurance, and there is rarely enough snow to completely cover all the logfall and other ski tip hooking/season ending snags.

I think if some of you tried the Shaman with a more forward mount you would like it better. It would still not be super stable in speed through chunky crud, but you would find it more versatile and enjoyable.

Def. A+ on construction layup. Very solid, no delams. Super thick edges and hard bases.

PS - I weighed my Shaman/Dynafit setup and it is just under 10 pounds !!

PPS - a longer Shaman would be great, but at some point they will not need or want such a wide tip.

[dookeyXXX]

^^"The skis are reasonably light (subjectively). Well built - word is that they are pressed by Never Summer for Icelantic. Don't mistake small for soft though. Both the Nomad and Scout are pretty burly little boards. As is the Shaman, but I'm not so fond of that one.

I'm a fan of the Nomad - but it is too damned small for a bigger person. And I'm skeptical that the 168 will fully address that. I've been sending them whine-o-grams asking for a 175-180 Nomad. Personally I'd love to see how that would stack up against a 183 Gotama..."

1. THey are indeed being pressed in the Never Summer Factory (got that from the owner/founder Ben himself as we chatted for about 30 minutes while I waited for some Nomads to come back in to try out).

2. I'm with you on the Nomad (i'm 5'11" and 178lbs). But like i posted earlier, I'd love a ski shaped like the Nomad with the dimensions of the Shaman and in a 180cm length.

3. They are NOT soft skis. They had a pretty stiff flex and feel (I ride fairly stiff sticks: King Salmon, Titan 9, Mantra, Karma and they felt a little stiffer than some of those).

i told 'em as much and they all looked intrigued and at least gave me the impression they were taking comments to heart.

According to Ben, he said they have a lot of designs on the board and are not ruling out anything for the future (more or less what he said as truncated and filtered through dookey speak).



Again, cool peoples with an interesting product. And yeah, funny how a kid from Colo is making a ski tailored more toward EC tree skiing. Go figure. He's filled a niche, that's for sure!

[fat yeti]

Dookey what lenghts did you get to ski? I will hopefully get to ski the 173 shaman and the 168 Nomad. I talked to spread eagle today and he rode the 173 at the demo today and said it was great. I skied the tight trees of powder mt on these and thought this was one of the funnest tree skis I have been on. I will be interesting to see how the 173 skis, if I like it I will probably get them for next season. I think some bigger lengthes would be great.

[nick > jesus]

the place i had fun on them was in super tight trees where 188 bros are, to say the least, difficult

[dookeyXXX]

rode the 173 Shaman and the 168 Nomad.

most of my quiver is in the 180ish range (180 No Ka Oi, 180 King Salmon, 181 Titan 9, 185 Spatula), which seems to be my "sweet" length. I really don't want anything longer or anything shorter. of course that may change if I ever demo some 188-190 skis!



the shortest ski i have ever ridden other than the 168 Nomad, is a Titan 8 in 175, but since it's so stiff it feels a lot longer than it looks.

[Lakelander]

core shot has it right-the nomad is great in super tight, technical terrain. i've ridden the nomad this year in a fair amount of "tear-the-shit-out-of-your-clothes" terrain. the nomad allows you to pick just about any line you want-just not at fast speeds (does get squirly and not great huckers unless you stomp the landing). the construction is bomber too-rocks, trees and even ridden over retaining walls without anything more than base side scratches. i've looked at next year's line up and as reported, the line will include longer lengths (for icelantic). the skis are definitely quiver city and not an every day ride, but are really well designed for their intended purpose.

[SPREAD EAGLE]

.02 -

I went up and shralped Deer Valley yesterday on a cold semi-icey/dust-on-crust day and rode the Shamen 173, Nomad 168, and the longest Pilgrim they had. Like Yeti I was unable to complete my analysis because of the shit tune job that the ski's had on them but I will say this.

The Shamen - is super stable at speed and is much more turny and fun in deeper snow (I know it was Deer Vally). Like some other Big Ski's I have ridden it has a dead spot under the bindings when there is lack of snow or downward inclination (steeps). It wants to be pushed and charged well for the conditions we were skiing yesterday. On the ice it took a few runs to gain confidence in the them but even the BOSS could lay 'em out on some somewhat variable Ice/Crud. I would still love to charge it on a deep, deep, snorkel day, but I claim that it would be a playful A/T ski or rando set up.

The Nomad - Fun with the shape and great for many things but not as turny or floaty as the Shamen. It was fun in the smaller size last weekend w/ Yeti at Pow Mow, but I think the Shamen would call my name - opinion strictly

Pilgrim - we compared it to the Mojo 90 as an equal rival but stiffer than the head. Fun to jump, switch, spin, and carve somewhat. It is marketed as a park ski and I believe it would shine as an all-mountain Jib - and the Nomad as a Big Mountain Jib

Who else has ridden them???? I can't wait to try them out when there is some deep to find out if they are worth investing into personally. Without a doubt they are fun during the spring as my regular ski's felt long and bulky in mash potato like conditions and in the trees.

We fought over the things last weekend "I want to the shamens-'NO, I want the shamens!!!" _ The Nomad was kick ass too. YOU DECIDE

[Jonathan S.]

I think most of you, and Icelantic as well, are missing the true value of these skis - Low to medium speed EC tree skiing.
Why someone from the Rockies would invent them is a bit of a mystery.
....
For you West coasters that have never been inthe EC trees, they are tight - twig and branch snappage is a regular occurance, and there is rarely enough snow to completely cover all the logfall and other ski tip hooking/season ending snags.

Agreed! I have the 143cm Scout -- full review is buried in here:
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=26030
But in summary, these are so well-designed for EC trees that I was surprised the design was coming from a western company.

[fat yeti]

I had the chance to ride the 173 Shaman this weekend and loved it, it floated well the the heavey slope in mineral basin and handled the cirque fairly well, they are more stable than the 161 but not as turney, with saying that they still turn incredibley easy. I will definatly be picking this up in a 173nest season. I realy liked them and let my frineds take runs on them and wish I had not, these things are great in the soft snow and love to turn. They also will stay sraight when you want to point them, and thats when they could use a little more length for comfort at speed but maybe if I was not so fat they would feel better. Overall I think these skis are great and will make a great additon to the quiver, as something fun and diffrent to ski. Next season I will give a powder review on these things. Next year levelninesports.com will be selling these becasue we liked them that much from the demo's so if any of you are interested we will have some next year. Sorry for the plug but I like these skis, and think others will to.

[fat yeti]

bump www.levelninesports.com will be carying these skis next year in every length they have all of this years on sale if anyone is interested.

[fat yeti]

I thought I reviewed these two skis but I did not.
Icelantic 169 Pilgrim.
This is a great ski it carves nice and was not to bad in the spring crud, I would buy this ski if it was a 180 plus it had a nice flex to it and was just ok at speeds more length would be better
168 Shaman
This ski was more stable than the pilgrim and floated better. I would want this ski if it came in a 180 + It would be at the top of my list. It floats nicely throught the spring slop and was a lot of fun. I used this ski my last two days at snowbird this season and realy liked them, If I could justify it it would be fun to own in this length. They handled speed well and felt great but to be a great ski for me at Snowbird a 180 plus would be ideal.
Over all I am impressed with Icelantic skis. These skis in the sizes that are available are ideal for smaller skiers, or lower angles, and tight trees, and if you like shorter skis. The 173 Shaman is an exception to this it does not feel as short as it looks. Rumor is that next year they will have some longer lenghts. I hopefully will give a powder review of the 173 shaman in the comeing weeks.

[allenataylor]

Anybody know why Icelandic only makes their skis in such short lengths? I ski EC trees full time and the shortest thing I ride is a 180 CMH. The skis seem sweet but I wish they would make a high 180 version.

[angler99]

I thought they were marketed as "AT" boards. That's why they are so short. Supposedly with the shape, you don't give up performance and float of a longer ski, but it is better for skinning and such.

[kingsalami]

I demo’ed a pair of 173cm Icelantic Shaman’s last weekend at Wolf Creek, CO. I initially wanted to check out the Volkl Gotama or Mantra, Line Prophet 100, or Fischer Watea 94, but nobody in the area had any of these skis in longer lengths. The guys at Wolf Creek Ski & Sport in South Fork brought out the Shaman and told me that customers really liked them. I almost balked when I saw how short & fat they were (173cm; 160-110-130), but since snow conditions @ Wolf Creek were still pretty nice, I decided to check ‘em out.
I’m 41 years old, 6’5”, 215 lbs. I ski pretty fast and prefer to stay away from groomers, hardpack, and moguls (I won’t ski ice or rock-hard moguls). I’m a pretty decent skier for not getting very many ski days per year. I like a relatively stiff & poppy ski w/ a medium turn radius, but it must be able to handle relatively high speeds & dense choppy snow without chattering or getting squirrelly.
Conditions on the mountain:
– 22-32 degrees
- 4 days of relatively cold temps & cloudy conditions after a week of 20” dumps
- 2’- 3’ of power in the trees w/ 2’-3’ of windblown on the upper faces
- Sunny skies throughout the weekend softened the snow & made it a little heavier in the afternoon
I thought the wide waist on these would take some getting used to, but I was completely wrong. They were very easy to link any radius turn I wanted in the soft stuff. They had a great, poppy flex in the untracked & blew through choppy powder effortlessly. I found myself in a very relaxed, neutral stance – it definitely helped keep thigh fatigue at bay. I could either straightline or link sweet S’s down the untracked patches. The wide shovel & thick waist let me rip through the windblown & tracked powder with ease. What a fun ski! I was really surprised at how stable they were at higher speeds in the softer snow, especially for such a short, poppy ski. Off the headwall cornice, they offered a great, stable platform in the windblown pow. I could crank ‘em down the steeps with confidence. The tips simply will not dive unless you do something stupid (I only went over the bars once – due to stupidity on my part!).
When I ducked into the trees for untracked & “semi-tracked”, the Shaman’s really shined! They can crank very tight turns between the trees. A couple boarders I was skiing with had trouble following me through the woods. I’ve never had so much fun in the trees! The shorter length really allowed me to save my energy - I didn’t have to muscle my skis around as much as my older, longer boards. At a resort with great tree skiing like Wolf Creek, these skis are the heat!
On Sunday, the snow was pretty tracked & much denser than Saturday. I flirted with the softer snow on the edges of the groomers & bombed down some of the less-tracked trails. For such a short, fat ski these were surprisingly stable on the packed-out groomers, and were pretty easy to ski through wider, softer moguls. At higher speeds on hardpack, they don’t bite as well, but much better than I expected. The tails are relatively stout – if they weren’t twin-tipped, they would probably hold better while maching on harder snow. They don’t like staying flat on hard cat tracks – the tips tend to wander quite a bit. But they arced some nice high-speed turns on the sun-softened groomers without chatter. I was pretty impressed as a 215 lb guy on a 173cm ski. Obviously, you wouldn’t want these for screaming down hardpack. But for the conditions I generally ski in (soft snow, 85% off-trail, 15% groomer), these fit my needs for a fun all-mountain ski. I liked them so much, I plan on demo’ing these again when I take my family back to Wolf Creek next month.

[skibum.roberts]

hey so i demoed the shaman 173 the other day.
conditions,
50 ish, bluebird, with ice in the shade and somewhat soft on groomers.
i'm riding at baker and if anyone knows baker, its not made for a icey, groomer day.
i wanted to test these skis out in the worse conditions i could find, a race ski would have been what you would want to be on.
i'm 5'8", 180 pound. i'm a strong skier, i can go fast but i like to turn, i do a lot of back country but love inbound groomers.
i was amazed at the shamans ability to carve on ice. it took me two runs to get use to the way they moved, being 110 under foot and i was riding a 94 underfoot.. but once i got use to it, amazing. i could move from turn to turn so fast, realease and enagaged. they were newly tuned and not detuned on tip and tail so they tracked like no ones business. once i got on edge i put as much of my force into the tip and i could hold it and then realease and quickly go into the next turn.
this ski is stiff, stiffer than i thought, it felt like my 161 race ski. really lay out on the ski with all my force and it didn't break. one thing being that it didn't like to slid, when i needed to dump speed, most likely due to be tuned all the way through.
i took it on some black diamonds that were pretty bulletproof. had to make the ski work in this due to wanting some speed so i can bend it, but being short i could get it around by doing some hop turns. etc.
after a couple hours, i put my lib tech skis on, they are 179, 94 underfoot. first run i felt like someone completely detuned my edges, every turn on the shade/ice. i would slip out, super scary. i was like, fuck this shit, give me the shamans, they hold an edge and turn faster.
so overall i'm stoked on them
but i'm wondering how they handle in deep pow, or choped up heavy pow, being so stiff, what does that do for powder. if anybody know let me know
thanks
adam

[skibum.roberts]

pilgrim ski 168, review
so two days after i tried the shaman i got the pilgrim to try out. pretty much same conditions as day before, sun like 55, but still icy in shade, bulletproof on steeps, in sun getting softer.
my first run i ended up going out of bounds, skiing down a chute that was maybe around 40-45 degrees. top part was pretty ice, with old avalanche debrise in it, and bottom was sun baked, about 6 inches of soft.
skis did great overall. i skid it a lot better than the ppl i was with.
this ski is stiff, so on the ice, it doesn't want to bend, so i felt i was turning/jump turn to skid, kept an edge but i don't kow if little softer in tip would help bite into ice a little bit or not.
when i got down to the soft, it was great fun, i was worried, that i would just die cause it was 90 underfoot, but i loved it, could turn really easy, skid center and linked nice rounded turns together. really stoked on that
went back in bounds and skid some groomers. now this was the weekend and it was a fuckfest of ppl, so i had trouble opening it up, but i could lay on edge, yet i felt this ski skid more like a 179 or something. seemed compared to the shaman that it didn't stay engaged as well, seemed a little slower to get around, of course 90 under foot and shorter i got turn quickly but didn't seem to track as well, or in a way when i wanted to run, it seemed was as connected and sometimes, one ski didn't want to start turning right away? also on ice, i felt a little slipping, strange i thought.
i took it down some steep icey shitty as runs, i was the only one on them all day. it did alright, got it around fine, but again, stiff so just kind of slid on each turn cause wasn't bending it and i'm not sure if i bend the ski if i could hold an edge better and realease into next turn easier. but overall handled fine for what it was and held edge fine for ice.
so question, if anyone knows why the shaman ski seemed to turn better, track harder, is it due to bigger sidecut? seems that being a 168 with 90 underfoot would mean this ski turns on a dim, and would due anything i thought. but maybe i need to try it some more
overall i like it, think it would be a great bc spring ski, or climbing mountain ski,etc. great for those days when the shaman isn't what you want.
let me know what you all think
adam

[skibum.roberts]

hey you all, if you are looking at this and have a pair of shaman at 173, i would love to buy these.
let me know
skibum.roberts@gmail.com