EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Need advice: Icelantic Shaman (173 cm) or Rossignol S7s (176 cm)?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Need advice: Icelantic Shaman (173 cm) or Rossignol S7s (176 cm)?

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 

Hello all! 

I am in need of some advice on some skis.  At the moment, I am rocking the Stocklis Stormrider DP Pros (125-94-111, 25.5m TR...kinda like an all mountain GS ski) from a few seasons back, that were generously donated to me by a family friend. And don't get me wrong, these skis are great! But now I'm looking for skis that will suit specifically what I want 

A few weeks ago, Salomon came to my home mountain, offering free demos for the BBRs.  I tested them out and thought they were pretty fun, so I went home and did a little research online and found that the BBRs were similar to the Icelantic Shamans, which seemed almost exactly more of what I wanted, and have been drooling over them since.  But then just recently I've stumbled over the Rossi S7s! So now I don't really know what to save up for.  

My background: I am a tall and light skier, (6' 1", 150 lbs) and consider myself a very strong intermediate/becoming more advanced skier.  (Meaning I can handle just about any slope you put me on, I just need to work on my technique a little more, e.g. avoiding riding in the backseat, using inside ski more...but I'm getting there...and fast too). I don't live far from the mountain, so I am up there literally as much as possible to just keep working at it...and loving it of course biggrin.gif.  I am a teenager, and haven't been able to really ski for about 3 or 4 years, but I moved back home to the west, and this is my first real season in awhile.  Anyway, I am looking for some skis with shorter turning radii, so I can confidently take them into tighter trees and chutes (as well as open bowls and everywhere else). I am also looking at skis with a little bit of girth so I can have nice float in the pow, but I also want to be able to rip the groomers.  Basically, looking for the perfect all mountain ski.  Bump performance does not really matter to me, because I tend to avoid that kind of stuff. BTW, I will be using these up in North Idaho, the PNW is where it's at! 

Ski Specs: 

Icelantic Shaman: 173 cm, 160-110-130, 15m TR 
Rossignol S7s: 176 cm, 145-115-123, 14m (something like that) TR


I understand that these skis are leaning more towards the powder side of things, but if worse comes to worse, I can always use the trusty Stocklis on a groomer day, right? 

Any advice on what ski to get from someone who has skiied either one? Or any suggestions for another type of ski that would suit what I am looking for? 

Thanks so much!


post #2 of 18

If you want something that will do particularly well both on groomers and in powder, go with the Shaman. It will still carve like crazy, despite being so wide.

post #3 of 18
Thread Starter 

That's what I was leaning more towards because of its performance on the groomers.  Plus the handmade in the US isn't bad either! 


post #4 of 18

These are very different skis.  I have Shamans and really like them, so much so that I used them for teaching last season.  I can ski them in just about any condition, although yesterday the Shaman and I finally met something we couldn't handle, snow like concrete.  I have skied them in just about every condition and yesterday was the first time I ever really wished I had my 70mm Volkls.  It just wasn't fun.  It is a fairly stiff ski and can be difficult to handle at low speed.  I tried the S7 last year and while it is probably a great ski in powder, the day I had a chance to ski it we didn't have any.  I hated it on the snow we had which was pretty firm.


And welcome to Epic

post #5 of 18

In this choice, I would go Rossignol for their extensive experience. I think it results in a ski with a more sophisticated flex and feel. The S7 is a really dialed ski.

post #6 of 18

IMO the design of the Shaman is substantially dated relative to the S7 - or any other well regarded modern rockered design.  It can not begin to compete with skis like the S7, Bent Chetler, Rocker 2, etc.,etc., etc... The list would go on and on. Not that it is a bad ski. Just that there are now better.


Regarding "turning radius" - it does not matter if you want to ski powder in the trees. Overall shape and camber (rocker) profile dominate in that medium. Arguably, the most nimble skis in powder - in or out of the trees actually have an infinite or "negative" turning radius. Or some very close hybridized approximation of that. The radius thing comes into play on firmer snow...

post #7 of 18
Thread Starter 

Hm. I'm still wavering alot between the two. I'm just going to have to go demo them

Edited by upinthenorth - 1/29/12 at 10:45pm
post #8 of 18

Just a heads up if dimensions are really important to you Rossi does a very poor job of letting the world know that the S7 tip/waist/tail dimensions change quite a bit (like 5 mm) with each length (even their website doesn't give you a clue).  I'm pretty sure the 178 is 110 underfoot and it will say so on the ski (its the same mold as the women's S7 in that length so those are the dimensions).  My wife and I both have 7's as our powder skis (her's are 105 underfoot @ 168 and mine are 117 underfoot @ 195), and they are versatile enough to use everyday.  We don't spend much time on groomers and that's not what they are designed for but for their size and shape they are surprisingly good.  It's tough to find a powder ski to demo on a pow day but you shouldn't have much trouble finding a 7 to demo on a day when it hasn't snowed in a while; you should try it and see. 

post #9 of 18

If you want an Icelantic option to the S7 the Keeper is a more likely choice.  Similar to the S7 but a little wider and without the pintail, which gives it more of  the feel of  a regular ski, especially when carving.  The Keep also has a little less rise in the tip and tail rocker than the S7.  The Rossi is better at slow speeds and more turny. The Keeper is better on hard snow and probably more like the Super 7.  Check out my thread on Keeper vs S7 in the Tech forum on TGR if you want more comparison info.

post #10 of 18
Thread Starter 

I can't find it there...do you have a link?

post #11 of 18
Thread Starter 

The keeper actually looks like a really good option...I'm sorta leaning that way now

post #12 of 18

Here is a really good review that covers the 188 S7, the 195 Super 7, and the new 188 Super 7. (Be sure and read all 4 pages)




I know the S7 is the current hot powder ski, but I have 5 friends that ski on them, while I am on the Keepers.  The complaints I hear from them are similar to those of the reviewer.  The Keeper has a long tip and tail rise, but not as high as the S7, and it has higher and longer camber section than the S7, as well as a wider tail.  From what I can tell the S7 is a great powder ski, but it is more powder specific than the Keeper, which is as much of an all-arounder as you can get from a 119 mm waisted ski.


Here is the link my TGR thread asking for comparative info.




There are a lot of fans of the Shaman around, but that was their first powder ski and I think Icelantic has progessed past it with the Keeper, and now the new reverse camber Gypsy, which is more powder specific.

Edited by mudfoot - 2/1/12 at 6:21pm
post #13 of 18
Thread Starter 


Wow, thanks! I’ve researched the Keeper more and more, and that seems exactly oriented to what I want.  I would now agree that although the Shaman is probably a great ski, it’s lack of reverse camber makes it not as good as it could be…as said before, outdated.  The Keeper just seems like the more modern and better geared towards anything the mountain throws at you alternative as opposed to the Shamans or the S7.  Despite the fact that review was oriented more towards the Super 7, the S7 will likely still behave somewhat like that, right? Similar to what your friends complained about.  The thread on TGR helps out quite a lot too, with all the praise that the Keepers get.  Keepers: Nice and stable, able to ski everything, not as hookey or hingey as the S7s/Super 7s, and equipped with more modern technology than the Shaman.  I also really like the fact that Icelantic presses their skis in the US.  I think the Keeper will be my next ski! Thanks, mudfoot, for the good info. 

Edited by upinthenorth - 2/2/12 at 10:15am
post #14 of 18
Thread Starter 


Edited by upinthenorth - 2/2/12 at 10:14am
post #15 of 18

Is is my understanding that the S7 and the Super 7 are identical, except for the Super 7 having some metal layers to give it an overall stiffness, but there may some other differences.  I believe the sidecut and dimensions are the same.


Other than the S7 having a narrow tail, it is very similar shape to the Keepers with both having a shark nose tip and quite a bit of sidecut for skis of that size.  Like I said, if you can find a shop that still has a pair of last year's Keepers you may be able to get a deal.  They are identical to the new ones, which are still at almost full retail price right now.

post #16 of 18
Thread Starter 

That's the only difference that I know about the S7 and the Super 7, also.  Any suggestions on the mounting point on the Keepers? I’m 6’ 1”, a hair under 150 pounds, 315 bsl.  I’m reading that BC is perfect for these skis, but other people have suggested +1cm. 

Edited by upinthenorth - 2/2/12 at 10:16am
post #17 of 18

I have my 189s flat mounted on the boot center line, as does my buddy with 178s.  Based on our experience in both over the knee light powder and carving on groomers, I cannot see any reason to move the bindings forward.  I think there are two factors that would rule against it.  Because of the shark nose tip the 18m sidecut does not start until far back on the front of the skis, which results in a pretty tight sidecut (for this type of ski) over a short distance, so moving the binding +1 will have a greater effect than on a more traditionally shaped ski. In addition, since the tip rise is not as high as other  powder skis like the S7, keeping your stance back will maximize float and soft snow performance.  Anyway, that's my thoughts on the mount position.

post #18 of 18

I rode the 173 the first week of March 2012 at Big Sky.  Conditions varied from fresh snow and cold to mash potatoes.  The Shaman could really rip so long as the snow wasn't frozen to concrete.  I could easily lay down a pair of trenches from top to bottom.  The ski is fairly stiff and quite damp.  I tried to run some bumps, but got beat up pretty badly partly due to the ski not being made so much for this application and partly cause I'm not the greatest bump skier.  I didn't get a chance to put these in deep snow, but I believe they should do fine given their overall dimensions. The ski is also very, very light.  This ski really liked long drawn out high speed turns.  Set the edges and hang on.  I had a great time playing on these so much so that I didn't seek out a pair of Super S7's for comparison.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Need advice: Icelantic Shaman (173 cm) or Rossignol S7s (176 cm)?