New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Icelantic Skis

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
Does anybody anything about these? Why are they so short? What would be the best length for me?

East Coast with a trip out west.
220lbs hoping to lose some
Will ski anything.
post #2 of 14
I got to skis these at a demo day last year at Atla.

Really enjoyed the 173cm Shaman in trees and making tighter turns on slushed groomers, lots of float(duhhh). Its the second easiest normal camber and sidecut ski I have got to deep spring mank. Heck it made ii fun. IF yuo looking to deep snow/slush/crud/off trail ski that doesnt totally suck on groomer and are ok with slower speeds, this would be a great ski.
post #3 of 14
Thread Starter 
What size and model do you recommend?
post #4 of 14
Originally Posted by Puck it View Post
What size and model do you recommend?
He said the 173 shaman was recommended. Will ski anything doesn't give much to work with. Where do you ski again?
post #5 of 14
Search for previous discussions here or at TGR. You don't say what you want them for (mainly on or off-piste, quiver ski or main ski, etc), so it is hard to make a suggestion.
post #6 of 14
I was told by someone close to the company in some capacity or other, I forget, that I should look into them because they (Icelantic) made shorter lengths than other manufacturers were producing currently, and that they made these shorter lengths to fill the niche/needs of the smaller skier. the ski is wide and stout, so I don't know that the shorter lengths are only suitable to shorter skiers.
post #7 of 14
They aren't made specifically for 'short skiers' (even though Ben, the owner, is fairly small) they are meant to be AT (All terrain) skis for skiing in trees and such. They are intended to be extremely maneuverable, sorta like a snowlerblade, yet still a real ski due to their wide profile (surface area gives stability). They are short for quickness yet they have a lot of surface area for stability. They are indeed real skis that are short yet fat. They aren't designed as a 'short person ski' they're something different. A new toy.

If you like short carving skis (or SL skis) on piste, you might really like an Icelantic off-piste.
post #8 of 14
Like I said, lots of prior good, informed discussion here and at TGR. Whiteroom is correct... They are short, fat and burly as hell. Hardly focused on the smaller skier in terms of construction and handling. Weight wise I tend to bounce between 210 & 220 and I skied last year's Scout, Nomad and Shaman. I'd say that "stout" would an understatement - especially in terms of something so short. IMO. probably too stiff for most average smaller skiers to ski well (hence the Scout SFT model this year). They carve like crazy - so despite the fatness, the Scout and Nomad play well on the frontside IMO. Last year's were too darn short though.

The Nomad 168 might be getting in the range for lots of people -- although I wish they'd made a 175-180 version...

The Scout is like a blade on growth hormone and steroids. I find it a very fun groomer toy. Carves like crazy.

FWIW, ptex1 is (or will be) selling them this year. Unless you have a local supplier you trust, ping him & give him the biz...
post #9 of 14
Levelnine has last years models fairly cheap. They only have limited sizes for the 2007 models.
post #10 of 14
I stumbled upon a Icelantic demo day @ Loveland last year. Ben, the owner/founder, is really cool and I picked his brain/interviewed him casually for a good 45 minutes.

I got out on a pair of Nomads and Shamans. Both handled windbuff off of Chair Ocho with considerable aplomb. They are both fairly stiff and burly skis. The only problem I found is that they were a bit rough on the moonscape and icy moguls, of which there were quite a lot down lower on the mountain. I actually got the tips of the Shamans hooked up in the harder stuff (they are HUGE, btw). I also found the lenghts to be a bit too short for my taste. If you were only skiing powder and the trees 100% of the time, then they rip fantastic. But if you're skiing 50/50 conditions (i.e. pow up top, mank and ice down low) they aren't optimal in my opinion.

I told Ben all of this and then added if they made the ski in at least a 178/180, I'd be down with them in a heartbeat.

Have you checked out their website:

They are very responsive to inqueries and host a ton of local (Colo) demo days. Heck, the day I demoed they even gave me a beer for trying out their skis and providing feedback. That's customer service!

Other'n that, i would say to definitely demo them before you buy because they are not for everybody (like a lot of the smaller, boutique ski companies out there, they are making a superior product that fills a specific niche and is not intended to appeal to every type of skier).
post #11 of 14
Originally Posted by dookey67 View Post
If you were only skiing powder and the trees 100% of the time, then they rip fantastic. But if you're skiing 50/50 conditions (i.e. pow up top, mank and ice down low) they aren't optimal in my opinion.).
I second this post... My Bro-in-law let me ski his 156 Nomads last year on a 14" pow day and I've never had so much fun ripping tight trees in my life.

Didn't ski any mank or ice, but the length on groomers took a little getting used to. I ended up buying a pair at the end of the season and am really looking forward to this year. I'll definitely take them on pow days, but they won't be the only ski in the quiver...
post #12 of 14
Thread Starter 
Ordered a set of 168cm Nomads with LD12 railflex bindings yesterday.
post #13 of 14
Originally Posted by Puck it View Post
Ordered a set of 168cm Nomads with LD12 railflex bindings yesterday.
Congrats!!! You'll love em'.
post #14 of 14
Thread Starter 
Went up to Mt Sunapee in NH. It is only about 1.25 hours from the house and they were predicting 6-8" of freshies. I arrived about 9:30AM(a little late for me) usually get the front row but not today. So here is the review.

The ski has LD 12 on the Railflex 2 on them with the 1115mm brakes. I skied the first run down a lower mountain travel to catch the HSQ. The skis tracked well on the first section of the run. I lean them over on edge a little and they started to hook up very well. The bottom part of the run is a gentle slope and some what tracked up. I let the skis run at this point and they were very stable. They rode through the pile of powder without a hiccup. I then rode the HSQ to hit the Sun Bowl. This was the pay day. I was able to find untracked areas here. They floated through the untracked powder very well about 10" here. As the day went the runs were getting tracked out and piles were starting to emerge on the runs. They blasted right through mounds and also rode over them. My Recons would not have done this. I did get to them done a run that did not have very much powder and with a decent pitch. They were absolutely awesome on it. They were very stable at the high speeds I was at on this run. The ski definitely does not mind setting an edge and running. It was actually decent a making GS turns and does ski longer. I also set the LD12 back on the railflex too and did feel much better after that adjustment.

I may sell my Recons now that I have these.

The only down side was there were some areas of hard packed man made. They did not do very well. I do not think this would be an everyday ski for the EC skier, but will be a fun ski to pair with a narrower waist ski and make a two ski quiver.

I will update more when I get to ski it in trees. I could have the other day but I did not want to ruin the bases of a brand new pair.

The Nomads were the right choice over the Pilgrims for me and the length is right. I will post pics next to the rest of the quiver soon.

My recommendation is you have to get a pair of these.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion