New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Icelantic Shaman - 184

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
I'm sure all this has been said before, but I'll just add my 2 cents.

Me: 6', 200, fairly aggressive with crappy technique. Will ski anything I don't have to jump off of but sometimes pretty ugly. Level 7-ish I guess? Never skied on anything fatter than about 84mm underfoot before. I'm not really a gear head, so don't have a lot to compare to...

Conditions: Yesterday at Loveland...blowing and snowing hard, light fluff. Lines would fill back in in about 15 minutes. Skied everything from blown-off hard pack to to thigh deep in the trees. Mostly was in boot to knee deep fluff.

Until lunch was on my Nordica Afterburners. After lunch, grabbed 184 Shamans from the Icelantic demo. My initial reaction to the Shamans was, "These are almost exactly the same," until I realized I was skiing them in boot to thigh deep powder with the same ease I run my ABs on groomed. It almost felt like cheating...but such fun cheating it was. I found myself being much more playful everywhere...just throwing myself around on rollers, lips, in the trees, everywhere. They even made me want to go jump off things just so I could land already turning and just rail out of things. So much fun...with less work. Skied some smallish, very soft bumps and the Shamans were plenty quick for me there as well.

Never buried a tip, never worried about burying a tip, turned when I wanted to, railed at fairly fast speeds in fluffy chop. I really don't have anything bad to say about the skis. Crank them down into tight turns, let them run in big GSing turns, it didn't matter. The trees I skied were fairly thick and weren't particularly steep and the 184 length turned well enough. However, I think for steeper trees I might want to go with the 173 length. But that's for another demo day...

Anyway...it was an amazing day...and the Shamans were part of the reason it was so wonderful.
post #2 of 26
Every thing I have been reading on these skis is as you are discribing!!! Its making me droooooollll!!!! Im in the market and am down to the Seth and the shaman. The Armadas with the reverse camber sound interesting to but these Icelantics keep drawing me closer to a buy. I cant demo up hear so I realy need to do my home work I want a one quiver ski. WELL MAyBE TWO MY hARTS ARE WICKED IF THERES ICE AND THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY PLACE i DONT SEE the Shamans being better but I could be wrong? What bindings were on the demos? I would think the Duke would be good on these to realy make them all purpose. Any thoughs from others on these skis?
post #3 of 26
Try them and you will see.... Don't be afraid to go to the 173 as well. I am 6' 170, the 173 has plenty float. Unless you are screaming down big open terrain, they are plenty stable and fun. However, Icelantics are not for tailgunners. While your at the demo center, grab a pair of Nomads, 140-105-120...
post #4 of 26
correction, the tail is 130 on the nomad.
post #5 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by whipper View Post
Every thing I have been reading on these skis is as you are discribing!!! Its making me droooooollll!!!! Im in the market and am down to the Seth and the shaman. The Armadas with the reverse camber sound interesting to but these Icelantics keep drawing me closer to a buy. I cant demo up hear so I realy need to do my home work I want a one quiver ski. WELL MAyBE TWO MY hARTS ARE WICKED IF THERES ICE AND THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY PLACE i DONT SEE the Shamans being better but I could be wrong? What bindings were on the demos? I would think the Duke would be good on these to realy make them all purpose. Any thoughs from others on these skis?
The demos had some Look bindings on them...not sure which ones. I don't think the Shaman is the ski for a one-ski quiver. I recently tried Nomads (which really are about 110 under foot, not the advertised 105) with Barons bindings on them, and I think those could work as a one-ski quiver if you aren't wanting to bash hard bumps a lot. I had some knee pain from the days on the Nomads...might have been due to either wrong technique on them or a fall I don't really remember.

Anyway, I'm very close to buying Nomads w/ Barons to complement my Nordica Afterburners. If I didn't care about being able to use the skis for touring, I'd be going for the Shamans. Just a couple more skis to demo as due diligence...
post #6 of 26
why BAron's? I have griffon's on my nomads.
post #7 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
why BAron's? I have griffon's on my nomads.
Not planning on a ton of touring, but want the option.
post #8 of 26
Whats the differance in dimentions? There the same but the Nomad is a twin tip right?
post #9 of 26
Thread Starter 
According to Icelantic's literature:

Shaman: 160-110-130 (R=18m @ 184cm length, 8.7 lbs)
Nomad: 140-105-130 (R=20m @ 181cm length, 7.3 lbs)

Check out this thread for a discussion of the real dims of the Nomad: http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=69062
post #10 of 26

Icelantic
"The Shaman" 2008-2009

(160-110-130) 18m radius @ 184cm



Manufacturer Info:

Icelantic Skis
948 W. 8th Avenue
Denver, Colorado USA 80204
Tel: +1 303 670 6804
http://www.Icelanticboards.com

Usage Class:

Forward-stance, cambered powder ski

Your Rating (with comments): (1="get me off these things"->10="I have to own a pair")

9+ for tight turns on demand in powder (tight trees)
7 for casual, lazy powder surfing
8 for mostly soft snow terrain with occasional groomer trips

Summary:

A front-floating "powder carver" with special emphasis on skiing the forebody of the ski, capable of very quick direction changes in powder and perfectly secure carving behavior on groomers when required. Requires vigilance since its shape results in very fast changes of direction in soft snow with minimal input. Quiet on harder snow due to rubber layers. Definite hybrid shape doing what it was designed to do very well. Somewhat different feel than "traditional" cambered powder skis. Not for hard-charging or stomping big landings. Try before you buy. Good tool for tight tree skiers or boulder-dodgers.


Technical Ski Data:


Poplar wood core
P-Tex sidewalls
Rubber foil between core and base
Fiberglass (unilateral and matte)
Nylon topsheets
Durasurf 4001 P-Tex bases
2.2mm edges

Price: $649 retail usd.

 
Pre-Skiing Impression:

This test pair had some miles on them and some scrapes and scratches, but the flex and camber were all still good. Definite adventure-comics graphics and interesting color scheme.  Fairly soft, damp flex and rebound with the wide forebody having some stiffness you might not expect. Moderate torsional strength but not remarkably twist-free. Very interesting geometry with the "spade-like", elongated tip and relatively vibration-free "bang-the-gong" response (pinch midpoint between fingers and bang the forebody with hard rap and feel the reaction to vibration...not scientific but gives a nice feedback about the plank's behavior to being vibrated) due to rubber foil in the construction.

Test Conditions:

Cold, dry, powder snow 1 day old, boot-deep powder, tracked-out boot-deep powder and nicely packed groomers with small bumps on the sides if you look for them. Les Grand Montets - Chamonix, France. January 2009.

Test Results:

I skied these and another powder ski of similar dimensions (155-112-133 21m radius @ 189cm from White Dot Freeride) the same morning, so I will mention the differences between them a bit as the review goes on...First turns immediately told me this was a spunky turner; not a powder plank. You could carve it pretty well on-piste if you roll it up and over onto its preferred edge angles. The Shaman is definitely damp...not quite a "rubbery viscosity", but not floppy either...keeps itself planted nicely on the snow across changes in surfaces, and wants to transmit the density and depth of cut-up snow to the tips because of their massive surface area.  Bumpy surfaces are not a problem for this widebody...it handles them pretty well, just be on your toes because the big tips with lots of edge will grab (or be grabbed) by the surfaces they run into.  Plenty of pop if you want it to leave the ground off any size hump or bump. This makes the Shaman very "responsive" and reactive to the surface you're in or on at any time.  You can make remarkably short, quick, jabby turns if there is any surface depth to use the geometry of the ski.  If you're navigating a field of cut-up powder, you can dance left, dance right and pretty much change directions at will. No pushing, no slurring, cut-and-thrust is easy.  If you pick up the speed and get planing over the cut-up surfaces, the Shaman will go where you point it, but don't get sloppy, because if you tip it slightly on-edge or feed the tip into a pile of snow with a bit of angle, it will pull you in that direction.  Great if you're in tight rocks or trees - maybe a little "busy" at higher speeds in the junk.  Definitely fun and innovative design.  After comparing the White Dot Preacher to the Shaman (since they are very similar dimensions, but different geometries), the "traditional" geometry of the Preacher was more cruising-smooth and less richocet-rabbit.  If I was in open powder fields or in big-radius territory, a traditonal geometry powder ski would be less active, but if I was in trees or navigating boulder fields, the Shaman would be the turning machine of choice.  The Shaman does not have a burly tail or midbody, so I don't think it would be a cliff-hucker's dream or high-speed runout freighttrain. The Shaman is all about floating your tips in the powder, carving through the fluff using trees as racing gates. The design works really well, almost too well at times. The ski is definitely all about being forward and concentrating on feeding the ski into turns from the shovel. The tails feel like their just along for the ride, following whereever the shovels want to go.  I did not get to ride the Shaman in real fluff (I think of "real powder" as at least over my knees-deep...you may differ...), so I couldn't test its porpoise-like behaviors. If you want a floaty turn machine that is easy to drive and will zip left or right by wiggling your ears, the Shaman is the ticket.  It does grip the groomers very well, considering its dimensions, but I found the White Dot Preacher to rail the hardpack with more authority. The tight-tree or short-turn powder crowd on plenty of Internet ski forums definitely likes this design. The wide-open, high-speed fanatics might want something else. Try a pair and see what you think.

Analogies: (this ski is like...)

A powder wheelie machine dialed-in to dart left and right on command.

After Trying This Ski, I Want To...

Try some deep fluff and see if its depth can be adjusted, or if it only wants to surface like a breaching submarine with its nose in the air all the time.

Self-Description of Skiing Style, Ability, Experience, Preferences:

Expert groomed-surface carver, "old-style" race inspired, "foot steerer" with fairly sensitive edging feel who loves the feel of powder floating and banking. Loves to hold long arcs with lots of pressure on the downhill ski (you know the type), but also loves the feel of both skis on-edge leaving tiny railroad track edge tracks. Not an instructor, but 10 year coach for youth race team in New England (bulletproof is the norm).

Photos:

Here is what you see underfoot with the Icelantic Shaman
 
post #11 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExoticSkis View Post

 


After Trying This Ski, I Want To...

Try some deep fluff and see if its depth can be adjusted, or if it only wants to surface like a breaching submarine with its nose in the air all the time.

 

I ended up buying 173 Shamans about a month ago.  Here's a pic of me in about 4 ft of powder...tips well buried...no breaching submarine action...

 

 

 

FWIW, I've been happy on these skis blasting at higher speed big turns even in chopped up conditions...maybe there's something odd about my skiing style, but big turns on these very turny skis don't seem to be a problem.

post #12 of 26

Glad to hear the Shamans work great in the deep stuff! (wish I had deep fluff to play in!)

I didn't think the Shaman's were bad in higher-speed chop conditions really....nicely damp and controlled...just more sensitive than some other skis...which can be a good thing! I found them very responsive in nearly all conditions I could find. Good toys.

post #13 of 26

have you reviwed the Pilgrim yet? Another fantastic ride from Icelantic. The near-perfect 1 quiver ski for softer snow enviornments. (yes I now own shamans, nomads and pilgrims...) 

post #14 of 26

good review mr exotic.  i am trying to decide between a few skis.  i am the wrong side of 40, 6 ft and 180 pounds, but still manage to ski about 50 days a year, and am about an 8/10.  cant get enough powder, but also end up skiing when i can, so i have to deal with all kinds of snow, including chopped up crap and groomers.  i already have 3 different pairs of skis with varying underfoot widths from 75 to 93 mm, and that covers most situations.  BUT for next season i am looking for a crazy pair with at least 110mm underfoot, to cruise in nearly everything except dedicated groomers, but to really have fun on the handful of days i get lucky in powder.  i have been looking at the icelantic shaman 184, the liberty double helix 190, and the pontoons.  i have been reading lots of reviews, but cant seem to get a comparitive idea between these 3 skis.  can anybody comment?

post #15 of 26

Hey just got a pair of the 184 shamans and was wondering if anyone could recommend a good pair of skins for these. Any input on bindings would be awesome to.

post #16 of 26

I iwll get you info on the skins, As far as bindingss go, its your prererence but are you going Alpine  tele or AT on these?

post #17 of 26

Yea im looking into AT, i have been looking around alot both the marker dukes or the black diamond fritschi freerides.

post #18 of 26
post #19 of 26

Anyone thinking about buying Icelantic Shamans without demoing first should definitely DEMO first !  Shamans feel very different than many other skis out there.  It seems like you either love'em or hate'em.  I've seen numerous people demo a pair, than immediately go out and buy them since they love'em so much.  Me, on the other hand - I'm not in the love-em camp.  If it doesn't match your skiing style, very forward and very aggressive, than they seem to be very 'squirley'.  I typically ski in more of a neutral balance stance - so for me, I had to  pressure forward more than I like to to make them work. Try them first, than if you love'em - buy'em.

post #20 of 26

interesting, I like to ski them pretty neutral. It does depend a lot on the mounting point. I have a pair of 173's they are mounted +1, I skied a pair in JH mounted on the BC line, they were fine at the line but I like them a bit forward. I would probably want the 184 at about +1 or 2. Like any ski, you should demo, good advice! The 184 is a lot of ski!  If you don't care for the Shaman, give the Nomad SFT a try.

post #21 of 26

Anyone know anything about the F12 Tour AT Binding by marker?

post #22 of 26

go over to TGR and search.

post #23 of 26

I'm a racer with a very forward stance and got very annoyed with my 4frnt crj's because if i ever leaned forward in about a foot of pow the tips didn't even try to stay up would the shamans stay afloat with a forward stance in up to 2 feet of pow and still carve hard on groomers and whip through the trees and if they would which size would you recommend i have the 4frnt crj's in 164 cm. and armada alpha 1 170 cm and i am 5' 3" 115lb.s

post #24 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by powpow16 View Post

I'm a racer with a very forward stance and got very annoyed with my 4frnt crj's because if i ever leaned forward in about a foot of pow the tips didn't even try to stay up would the shamans stay afloat with a forward stance in up to 2 feet of pow and still carve hard on groomers and whip through the trees and if they would which size would you recommend i have the 4frnt crj's in 164 cm. and armada alpha 1 170 cm and i am 5' 3" 115lb.s

 

 I am 5'10" 155# and I have 161 Shamans (the shortest they make) & I find them plenty floaty enough.  I Mounted Railflex HD14's on mine and found I had to mount them +15mm of the indicated centerline, but in that position I find them so responsive that I ski them everytime there's more than 3" of fresh.
 

post #25 of 26

 

Quote:
 

 I am 5'10" 155# and I have 161 Shamans (the shortest they make) & I find them plenty floaty enough.  I Mounted Railflex HD14's on mine and found I had to mount them +15mm of the indicated centerline, but in that position I find them so responsive that I ski them everytime there's more than 3" of fresh.

  I will prbably get 171 or whatever the next step up is since i like longer skis unless i find some 161's real cheap but is it true that you can have a forward aggresive stance when skiing in powder?

 

post #26 of 26
The review of this ski by the guy in Chamonix is truly wonderful. I ski in Northern BC which is similar in snow qualiity to Chamonix. The review is articulate, colorful,thoughtful and insightful.I wish all ski test reviews were written in the same manner. I spend considerable time reading reviews before I purchase skis and try very hard to read between the lines of differing reviews of the same ski. This review eliminates the need to read between the lines. Nicely done guy from North America spending time in Chamonix!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews