New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Icelantic Nomad

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
Height: 5’9”
Weight: 200
Previous season skis: Head Monster 77, 82, 88
Level: ~8 (bump skiing needs work)
Dimensions: 140-105-130 156cm
Bindings: Tyrolia LD 12, adjusted -15mm
Conditions: All as I have been on them a few days now (except no East coast ice here in the Rockies )

I read about these on the internet and thought they looked interesting and totally different than anything out there. I figured it would be fun to demo them but I was content going into this season deciding between my Monster 77/82s and not buying a new ski for awhile (I bought those two last season and demoed the 88s). I have to admit, I was a little unsure of the width because when I skied the 88s last season, I could not get them to do short turns on the frontside/groomed conditions. In fact, I wasn’t sure if I should try the 143cm Scout or the 156cm when I stopped by the demo tent at Vail. It turned out I shouldn’t have worried at all. Anne and Sam put me on the Nomads and away I went…

The first run was a blast! Not even a quarter of the way down the first run I was laughing out loud and yelling in disbelief. Skis could perform like this?! They did whatever I asked of them. I was flying down with complete confidence – the snow that day was displaced powder and I cruised. I even jumped onto a soft mogul field and kept on flying, undeterred by the conditions. My friend will testify as to how bummed I was when the demo was over and I had to go back to the 82s I had brought for the day.

Needless to say, I was hooked. I subsequently demoed the Shaman and found the Nomad fits me to a T. It has a wonderful combination of stability, maneuverability, speed and stiffness. I have now taken it to the backside of Vail many times and can hardly believe that 156cm can keep me afloat in the Inner Mongolia Bowl! I’ve taken it into the bumps, the trees (my new friends) and Nastar – wherever I wanted to go. I feel the Nomad is the perfect combination of the three Head skis I was on last season: the float from the 88s, the stiffness from the 77s and the stability/speed cruising of the 82s, hence for me it is the perfect 1-ski quiver.

A note about the bindings: The Railflex bindings can be adjusted 15mm front or back from center. I moved them 15mm back (simple adjustment with a screwdriver) and found that improved the stability and powder performance. I am quite pleased about this adjustment.

I’ve learned through this process of finding skis that there are many variables that influence performance and how unique skis truly are. I highly recommend demoing Icelantics, they are like nothing else out there. And it is cool that Ben, the founder, and the crew took time to talk about them when I visited their gallery in Denver.

The bottom line: I have never tried a ski that gave me so much confidence, power and maneuverability. My philosophy with skiing is that you should be deciding where to ski not what to ski.
post #2 of 21
I met Anne last Sunday at the ISPO in Munich where I also got to see next season's line-up in real life for the first time.
Those ski's look so terribly cool!!!

For all those wanting longer boards, your wishes will be attended to with three models in the 180 range :
post #3 of 21
 x
post #4 of 21
The Icelantic range looks very interesting. In August 09 at Treble Cone NZ, I watched a lady skiing on a pair of Icelantics (for a few days) and she was skiing everything very nicely. She was only small person and the skies looked like large snowboards but I was very impressed with how they were performing for her. What impressed me the most was there stability, low speed maneuverability, float, and she didn't appear to be wrestling with the ski regardless of the snow condition or terrain.

Does anybody have anymore news about this range of skies?
post #5 of 21
Full details of the range are at http://www.icelanticboards.com/

I have Nomads 156cm and I love them.  I am 5'10, 160# level 8/9 & I find the Nomads very nimble for my preferred terrain (steeps/bumps/trees).  I ski them on center ( I also use Railflex)   They're good in the groomers as well even when it's firm, but I haven't used them when the snow gets really hard.  I was mildly disappointed when I tried them in 8" of fresh last season as I got some tip dive, but that could well be because I am a gaper in powder.

I managed to get my hands on a pair of Icelantic Shamans (161) for a great price in the off season and so I took a gamble & bought them without ever skiing on them.  I was disappointed at first, thinking they were only so-so & not as good as my Nomads.  Then I noted that I was seeming to do better on them when I took an overly aggressive forward lean  so I moved the binding forward +15mm (more Railflex) and they sprang into life - it was night and day.  Now they were responsive, agile and very similar handling to my Nomads.

Now I'm just waiting for a good dump when I can try them out in a foot of fresh  & see if the huge tip they have, can overcome my powder gaperism
post #6 of 21
KL- as far I know Icelantic will be introducing a new Rocker design for the 2010/11 season. I don't think there are any changes expected to the current roster of skis other than Travis Parr's incredible designs for tops.  Schuss- did they introduce the ricker there? I havent spoken to Annelise in a few weeks so I am not sure what the status is, but I can promise you that I have my name on the list already for a pair

toasmath, glad you like the Mad's. At your weight, did you try going up in length?  My favorite setup on all Icelantics are Griff's or Jestors or going to to a Baron for hiking. The RF binding is very heavy and the 12 lacks some of the safety features i prefer on the Griff/jester. They are also very good tele boards. If you like the mad' you need to try the Pilgrim. This is a super versitile 90mm underfoot all mountain ski.  Great in bumps.

Regarding the dims, I haven't checked the dims at that length but at least from tjhe 168 and up the actual dims are 146-111-136. I would also suggest trying the Nomad SFT. 30% softer, more versitle for varied terrain, bumps and trees.
post #7 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

toasmath, glad you like the Mad's. At your weight, did you try going up in length? 

 
Finndog,

I did consider the 168 but after speaking with Anneliese for a while (who said I could go either way) and the fact that I tend to ski short (my hard snow ski is a 163 head) I went with a 156.  As for demos, I'm SOL here - I have bugged Ashley a couple of times to do demos in Taos (it's the tree huggy, granola-eatin',  hippy sort of place that an indy company would go down well in - plus I always get comments on the lift lines about my skis) but no avail.  I am scared to try the 168 SFT somewhere in case I liked em so much I couldn't live without them - Shamans plus TWO pairs of Nomads would incur serious quiver thinning demands from the wife.

Did you ever write up a post-Chile trip review of your 168 SFT ?
post #8 of 21
yes, its in there but I ski the 181 sft. I am 6' 168. I really like that length although I wouldn't mind a 168 sft for steamboat trees. I prefer the SFT to the regular. With the softer flex, it absorbs a little better especially n varied irregular terrain, downed trees, rocks and such, does better in the bumps too. Not that its a bumps ski but its pretty good in big soft bumps. Don't get down on Ashley, its still a small company with a tiny footprint. It takes a lot o cash and personnell to have demo days all overt the country. If you ask, you may be able to get a local dealer to let you demo a pair.

do a search on Icelantic
post #9 of 21
Finn
I ski the Icelantic Shaman with dynafits. Would you recommend the Nomad reg or sft as a better backcountry ski. I'm most interested in icy conditions/edge hold. I suspect the reg would be better in this regard.
post #10 of 21
Reg, yes, the SFT is 30% softer than the reg.  It still does OK but go regular IMHO. You may even want to play around with throwing a 1:3 edge on there. Not trying to push you otherwise but icy hardpack, frozen crud?  Not sure if that's the best tool. 146-111-136...
post #11 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaosMath View Post

Full details of the range are at http://www.icelanticboards.com/

I have Nomads 156cm and I love them.  I am 5'10, 160# level 8/9 & I find the Nomads very nimble for my preferred terrain (steeps/bumps/trees).  I ski them on center ( I also use Railflex)   They're good in the groomers as well even when it's firm, but I haven't used them when the snow gets really hard.  I was mildly disappointed when I tried them in 8" of fresh last season as I got some tip dive, but that could well be because I am a gaper in powder.

I managed to get my hands on a pair of Icelantic Shamans (161) for a great price in the off season and so I took a gamble & bought them without ever skiing on them.  I was disappointed at first, thinking they were only so-so & not as good as my Nomads.  Then I noted that I was seeming to do better on them when I took an overly aggressive forward lean  so I moved the binding forward +15mm (more Railflex) and they sprang into life - it was night and day.  Now they were responsive, agile and very similar handling to my Nomads.

Now I'm just waiting for a good dump when I can try them out in a foot of fresh  & see if the huge tip they have, can overcome my powder gaperism
 

Maybe a little longer ski for powder??
post #12 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post




Maybe a little longer ski for powder??
 

these do ski long at least the 181 Nomads had alot of float for a 181. not as much a 183 katana though.
post #13 of 21
Ice and hardpack are just not that fun on the Nomad-I've taken the Nomad sft out on a number of ''firmer' days.  Man, does it gets chattery an balky when tipped on edge in those conditions.   Itt runs better with a lot 'flatter' running surface.  However, It just needs a little bit of soft snow to come alive. 

IMHO if you want a very hard snow capable backcountry ski you'll need something with a lot more metal in it that the Nomad.

That said, it's a great, light,  soft-snow backcountry ski, great in trees, and equally at home with carved turns (mid-radius) as it is with slarved turns.
post #14 of 21
Liam, yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say above, great input.

Tog, yeah, 181- good call!  

BWPA, maybe not as much float per sei, (the SFT has a bit more float than the regular due to a softer tip that will rise up a bit easier) but it handles better in more conditions IMHO.
post #15 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

Liam, yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say above, great input.

Tog, yeah, 181- good call!  

BWPA, maybe not as much float per sei, (the SFT has a bit more float than the regular due to a softer tip that will rise up a bit easier) but it handles better in more conditions IMHO.

if by more conditions you mean hardpack then youd be right, I skied the SFT for a half dayand its super good ski but the Katana is better everywhere else.
post #16 of 21

Hi all

 

I realize this is a fairly old thread and the last reply was over 6 months ago, but I have a couple of questions regarding these skis and I didn''t think my questions deserved a whole new thread .

 

Anyway back to my questions. I am 5 11?(180 cm) and weight around 140-150 lbs?(70kg). I have been skiing a couple of weeks every year the last 15 years and I took a season a year or so back, so I have been skiing for some time. I have just recently discovered my love for powder, trees and off piste all together, and I have been looking to purchase a pair of twin tip skis suited for powder for a while now, have mainly been skiing on carving skis from Head and Atomic... Then I stumbled upon the Icelantic Nomads(the 09/10 version) and I really feel this ski is for me, from what I read its a great powder ski that can also perform well on moguls/groomers, which is just what I want.

So we've finally come to my question(s)! Which length should I go with? I see many here around the same height as myself (but with some lbs on me tongue.gif) and most seem very happy with the 156s. I am thinking they're a tad too short and I have been looking at the 168. Should I go with 168 or get something shorter or bigger? And what are some of the main concerns of having a super short ski(156)? I don't want to have the feeling that I'm on a  pair of snowblades, because I'm most likely going to be spending time out on the groomers as well and I would like to have some speed under my skis.

 

Anyway any advice on which ski length to get would be highly appreciated.

 

Kind regards,

Ragyn

post #17 of 21

this one's failry easy- go with the 168's. these are the regular flexed Nomads? they are pretty beefy skis (in a good way), you will find them a ton of fun. Don't go shorter

post #18 of 21

Super! Thanks for the reply, Finndog

I just ordered a pair and they should arrive in a 3 days time, cant wait to take them out for a walk !

post #19 of 21

Awesome!  you will love the energy and pop to them.

post #20 of 21

Ragyn: So, what do you think?

 

I got the Nomads this year - my first fat(ish?) ski.  I love them.  I got them with the intent of making them my powder / recent snow ski, but they instantly became my everything ski.  I call them my "cheater" skis.  Bumps, crud, groomers, powder - they do well for me in all of it. I'm female, 5'5, 175 lb, and have the 156cm Nomads.  I'm not much good at characterizing skis, but reading these comments about the stiffness and pop of these skis - maybe that's the difference.  I've been on women's models the last few years, and I think ski manufacturers tend to believe that all women are pretty light and need a soft ski that's easy to turn.  Maybe that's not so true for strong women carrying a fair amount of weight.

post #21 of 21

I haven't been out yet. I live in Denmark, we have had lots of snow but no mountains so I have to go to Norway/Sweden or Austria/France/Italy to ski, which is too expensive to do for me at the moment. I'm planning on going between Christmas and newyear though and then some time in the new year, am super excited.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews