EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Snoop Daddy vs. Monster IM-77 vs. Icelantic Nomad or Shaman
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Snoop Daddy vs. Monster IM-77 vs. Icelantic Nomad or Shaman

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Advice and other suggestions please.

The ski I am looking for should be very turny, excellent in powder and trees, good in crud, acceptable in moguls. The skis will be setup with Dynafit binders. I want to be able to carve short radius turns on the steep with this ski.

Me: 5'7", 150 Lbs, Master's Racer, 70% of skiing is on SL and GS race stock.

The ideal ski would be 140/90/110, (note the 50 mm tip to waist drop, similar to B5 Metron but wider and softer desired), torsionally rigid, longitudinally soft, About 160 to 170cm in length.

The following are considered skis with my comments:

Snoop Daddy 163cm-125/88/110, 37mm is not enough tip-waist drop
Head Monster IM-77 163cm-118/77/103, Too narrow, more drop desired
Icelantic Nomad 156cm 140/105/130, 35mm is not enough tip-waist drop
Icelantic Shaman 161cm-160/110/130, Too big for my size, too slow, a bit too specialized
Prior Doughboy 167cm 140/103/118, 37 mm not enough drop, too expensive

Any other suggestions?
Seems like this is a market left unserved. Maybe I should start a ski company?

At my light weight, the Monster IM-77 may give me all the float I need in powder. The Nomad seems closest to what I am looking for but the reviews have been mediocre. The Snoop Daddy and the Monster 77 have both had great reviews. Which is the better powder ski for someone my size?

What is your recommendation?
post #2 of 12
The Snoop is the better pow ski and should work very well for what you are using them for...Even at your wieght, I wouldn't be afraid of the 174 size.

I'm trying to understand your methodolgy in regards to the tip to waist drop...Are you looking for a ski that has a radical sidecut for carving? Which is what I'm assuming considering the "carve short raduis turn" portion of your post. You realize that these types of skis don't do well in pow/crud, right?

Just because you get a longer radius ski doesn't mean you cant do short turns in the trees/steeps...You want a ski that you can break out the tail and not have the tip get "locked" into the carve/turn shape, especially in the trees.

Consider my PMGear 188 stiff BRO's...40m radius, just like a fat DH ski. Because of their tail design, among other attributes, despite their long radius, they will turn on a dime and can easily change turn shape at any point in the turn at will. They ski steeps/chutes/trees like the perfect wet dream.

The point is that it's not just about turn radius. It's about the overall design of the ski, but radical sidecut short radius skis, especially in the front portion of the ski, is NOT the answer when it comes to pow/crud/tree/off-piste skis.
post #3 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by memosteve View Post
The Snoop is the better pow ski and should work very well for what you are using them for...Even at your wieght, I wouldn't be afraid of the 174 size.

I'm trying to understand your methodolgy in regards to the tip to waist drop...Are you looking for a ski that has a radical sidecut for carving? Which is what I'm assuming considering the "carve short raduis turn" portion of your post. You realize that these types of skis don't do well in pow/crud, right?

Just because you get a longer radius ski doesn't mean you cant do short turns in the trees/steeps...You want a ski that you can break out the tail and not have the tip get "locked" into the carve/turn shape, especially in the trees.

Consider my PMGear 188 stiff BRO's...40m radius, just like a fat DH ski. Because of their tail design, among other attributes, despite their long radius, they will turn on a dime and can easily change turn shape at any point in the turn at will. They ski steeps/chutes/trees like the perfect wet dream.

The point is that it's not just about turn radius. It's about the overall design of the ski, but radical sidecut short radius skis, especially in the front portion of the ski, is NOT the answer when it comes to pow/crud/tree/off-piste skis.
+1

SJ
post #4 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainsport500 View Post
The Nomad seems closest to what I am looking for but the reviews have been mediocre.
I'm not going to make a recommendation, but where have reviews of the Nomad been mediocre? In general, the negatives have all revolved around shortness (esp for heavier folks like your truly) and the stiffness that challenges smaller people. Search here and at TGR for a range of real-life reviews. As far as the tip/tail "drop" - that happens over a very short distance, so it is a bit deceiving in terms of relative radius. Esp the 156s will carve very tight turns.

I recently skied the 168 Nomad for the first time and would rate it as a fun "all mountain" ski for me. Carves like crazy. However, I prefer something softer for powder/trees.

I've never done the race thing - but I'd imagine someone who is used to major stiffness & torsional rigidity might like the Nomads.
post #5 of 12

all fe'r one??

To cover all the criteria you have set down, it is likely that performance will suffer somewhere.There are many good to great choices out there, but you are in for a two ski quiver for max enjoyment.
I cannot speak in a "multi-brand" language,,but consider this.
Throw down for a pair of Snoops, and follow it up with a pair of SX10's.
That mix will cover when it is white as well as grey. If it does not work, bowling does.
good luck of your quest,,,enjoy.
post #6 of 12
Why do you want a carving ski setup with dynafits? You do know that there exists no dynafit boot that is even close to plug boots in performance right? Why do you want a SL shaped fat ski?
post #7 of 12

Snoop Daddy

I would push for the snoops. i bought a pair of last years model and have skied them 4 times this season and they are INCREDIBLE. No problems going anywhere...and when needed you can really lay into them to carve down the groomers.
post #8 of 12
that's a crazy list.

have you skied any of those on your short list?

you list the Icelantics and Prior and then after you list them you drop negative remarks about them.

why are they even on your list then?

and if you haven't demoed them...

if you happen to live in/near Colo check with Icelantic. they routinely do great demo days where they bring out their whole fleet and let folks take 'em out.

Prior used to do a great North American demo tour, but looking at their site this season they aren't doing as much of a road trip.

the bottomline is that it sounds like you haven't skied any of the planks on your list.

i would at the very least try to demo a few of them if possible.

i've skied the iM88. hated it. felt planky to me (skied it in 2" of fresh powder).

i've skied the Nomad (too squirrely on hardpack and icy bumps, but great in windbuff and boot deep soft) and the Shaman (less squirrely than the Nomad but the ginormous tip was a nightmare in moguls and any kind of hard chop, but they slayed the softness like few other skis i've ridden). also at 5'11" and 180ish they were too short (personally i'dda loved a 178 at the least in the Shaman and a shape that was a hybrid of the Nomad and Shaman)

given your incredibly eclectic list you owe it to yourself to actually try some of the skis on your list as they're all quite different.

and to echo the other posts: why are you so intent on having a powder ski that carves ice? that's kind of like looking for an ice carver that will float powder...



why not just snag the M-Rock (re-badged Mantra) and be done with it?
post #9 of 12
Also, why are you looking for skis in such short lengths? If youare a racer who can drive his skis I would go 170-180, not 160-170. To second dookey, all your comments for all the skis are negative. Why buy anything that you think is not a good ski? So far nothing you psoted makes any sense at all. maybes just start a new thread?
post #10 of 12
FWIW, I've found the Atomic Kailas (tele version of Snoops) to be an outstanding touring/mountaineering ski paired with Dynafits and MegaRides. They do just about everything well, which a touring ski should, and can be easily found cheap. I'm 5'7" 140 and ride the 174.
post #11 of 12
Hi there Mountainsport5000.

I have skied/owned 3 of the 5 skis on your list:
Head IM77 170cm
Icelantic Nomad 156cm
Icelantic Shaman 161cm

From what you want in terms of terrain you want to ski, I would recommend either the Nomad or Shaman. I recently bought a pair of Nomads and will post a review after I gobble up some Blue Sky at Vail on New Year's
My impressions are that the Nomad is a little stiffer and more versatile than the Shaman and that is why I chose it.

The tricky part about skis is that you can read all the reviews in the world, analyze the sidecut, turn radius, surface area, etc. in spreadsheets (as I have done ) but it pays to demo them. I say that because on my first run on the Nomads, I was laughing out loud and bombing everywhere, ecstatic that a ski could do all I wanted. I could take it in the bumps, fly through the trees with confidence and still cruise/carve the groomers. My buddy who I was demoing with swears by the Shamans and couldn't get the Nomads to work for him. So it depends on finding something to suit your style.

For me, the Im77 skis great and is stiff but it is an also-ran compared to the Icelantics in powder/deep stuff. I view it as more of a frontside ski with some flexibility. I also have read great reviews on the PMGear Bro skis but didn't get the chance to try them before I settled on the Nomads.

Good luck with what you decide!
post #12 of 12
Thread Starter 
Thanks all for the replies! Alpyandy was right on the mark with his Atomic Kailas suggestion.

I ended up buying the 163cm Atomic Kailas (Rando version of the Snoop Daddy) because I liked the graphics and got a great price.
Had them mounted with Dynafits and have skied them twice at Loveland.
I haven't had so much fun in years.

My Dynafit boots are TLT Race Pros. Yes, they are nothing like my Fischer plugs, extremely light, soft, warm and comfy. Of course I give up a lot of control on hard snow and ice but I don't really mind. The boot/ski combination requires tremendous finesse to tip the skis up and stay balanced. I think skiing on this setup has already improved my skiing because my body position must be near perfect to properly rail the skis with no possibility of muscling them around like I can with my plug boots.

I have been having great fun tipping the skis up Liggety style without any forward boot pressure. However, I just picked up some Scarpa black tongues I will overlay on the boots which will double the stiffness when I try them this week.

A few people didn't appreciate the "ecletic" list I put together. :
The criteria were wide, softer skis with substantial sidecut (radii < 16m) and torsional stiffness so that I can ski powder but still rail them thru crud, bumps and soft pack and control my speed with tight turns on steep slopes. I can certainly drive a long ski (my GS are 184 cm) but I like the shorter skis because they generally have tighter turn radii for any given model. I really don't like large radius skis that must be skidded on steep slopes to control speed. (It's a racer thing) So far the Atomic Kalais seem to be wide enough and soft enough to ski powder well and they still have enough sidecut and torsional stiffness to make tighter carved turns on steep slopes.

I still have Icelantic Nomads on my powder ski list to demo and have added Salomon Guns and Scott Missions. But for now I am happy with the Kailas.

Happy skiing.
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 › Snoop Daddy vs. Monster IM-77 vs. Icelantic Nomad or Shaman