- 468 Posts. Joined 11/2007
- Location: Frisco, CO
- Select All Posts By This User
Anybody tried Icelantic Shaman skis?
Did you go boot center or mount forward a tad?
However, in the bumps, HANG ON!! Yikes; I was bounced around like I was inside a corn popper. And on the flats.....I was back on the cat track with the kiddies, skating and poling for all I was worth, while my friends were down at the base already having beers. Did I say I was back with the kiddies? I meant I was in BACK of the kiddies. It was embarassing. These puppies are not for resort skiing!
And that is the point. The Icelantic Shamans were designed as a dedicated backcountry AT powder ski to turn fast in tight spaces. That is what they are, that is what I got them for, and that is what I'll use them for. They are probably the best ski for backcountry powder that I've ever skied. Absolutely amazing. But these are NOT skis for the ski resort. So, you kids that who like the cool graphics and shape of the Shamans and want to be center of attention in the lift line (which I was) but do most of your skiing inbounds, go buy yourself some Gotamas. Me, I'll be the guy whooping it up out of bounds on my Shammies.
Edited by raspritz - 1/5/10 at 6:41am
The pilgrim is 90 underfoot and a really nice all mountain ski. Check that one out well.
As to relative merits...well, I drive a Porsche 911. I wouldn't want to have to choose between skiing steep and deep, fluffy powder out of bounds versus driving a Porsche fast on a windy mountain road on a sunny, warm day with the top down. Fortunately, the two are basically mutually exclusive forms of extreme fun.
Also, finding someone to do good work on the edges is a total PITA. I go with a 1-2 bevel but have to beg, plead and cajole the tech to really really really de-tune the tips. I keep a diamond stone handy for when my requests fall on deaf ears... The other thing I can see with the 161's are the soft/lack of tails. When I skied the 161's before my purchase that was of concern to me and I overcompensated with my 173's by going +2 on the mount (should have gone +1 IMHO).
Did you skin on them any?
You're killing me with the edgework beta.
- 1 Post. Joined 1/2013
- Location: Estes Park, Colorado
- Select All Posts By This User
Raspritz...you are kidding right??! The shamans are a PERFECT ski for ANYTHING! Powder, bumps, trees, etc. Out of all the Icelantics they have the most turning radius and have no rocker making you have full surface contact with the snow and ski. I have the Shamans and with the dynafits and wont ski anything else backcountry and prefer them in bounce. They are just not a powder ski. To be honest the ski feels the same as any normal ski besides when your in powder the 160 shovel gives you more float. You still have to work just has hard to flop them around in powder because of the no rocker. I'd say no rocker is the way to go personally. Full surface contact and skinning contact. Where as rocker you have the chattering in the front and back those skis are what you don't really want on a no powder groomer day in bounce. Don't get me wrong...I love rocker but I'd say they are a little over rated.
I bought Shamans Nov. 2013, these are my first true pair of powder skis. I was at Saddleback Maine for a week and a blizzard hit hard with over 32" if light powder. This became a religious experience, the skis ate it up and I was laughing all the way down hitting pockets of snow almost 40+" deep with no problem. On the third day we dove into the glades and the short radius was amazing, you can throw these things around just by wishing them to turn. We also skied bumps, they are fine for soft bumps but not the best. Later in the season we closed Sugarloaf on 5/13 and skied really soft but thick, late spring bumps, they excelled in these. I am so pleased that my wife is getting a pair of Oracles for her birthday... don't tell her!
Saddleback Maine is the perfect place for the short Shamans (in fact, I can't think of another mountain that presents such perfect melding of ski design and terrain). I think I have a few videos posted up somewhere around here of my skiing these at Saddleback.
However, that is, for a certain kind of skier.
1. If you spend 70 percent of your day in the Cassablanca glades and the Kennebago steeps
2. You are not a wailing fast skier in these areas (not slow, either, but you value a sort of steady, or even meandering pace in expert terrain)-you value 'fit into any slot' over 'rip the trees'.
3. You have old-dude carving habits
4. You still enjoy a few long groomer cruisers mixed in (like that American run top to bottom)
5. You ski bumps with a drifter-carvy approach
You'll love this ski. I ski it in the 161cm. If that is not long enough for you, you'd probably prefer a whole different style of ski (get the Nomad RKR, Gypsy or a Nordica Patron...all fine models for other types of skiers).
I have skied powder-trees doing comparative runs between this ski and my 186 Skilogik Howitzers....they are both great, and do different things well. You really have to know what kind of a skier you are before you buy a pair of Shamans. For the right sort of East Coast Tree Hound, you'll not ski a better ski. But, there are other east coast tree rippers who hate this ski.
I bought a pair last year and let me tell you, they are amazing. Skied them for three days during/after a 26-32" dump in Maine and again in deep spring corn and in 12" of mashed. These skis are so much fun and so easy to ski. They will also do nicely in soft bumps. I am very, very pleased with them. Just bought my wife a pair of Icelantic Nomad RKR as a Christmas present... don't tell her.
- 3,495 Posts. Joined 9/2010
- Location: Pugski.com
- Select All Posts By This User
Has your wife skied these? The only similarity between the Shaman and the Nomad RKR is that both are made by Icelantic. I own Shamans and they are really great skis. I demoed the RKR at Snowbasin last season and seriously disliked them. The snow was mostly hard so it wasn't exactly prime conditions for them but they were just awful on the packed snow. I made one run and that was all I could stand. I felt like I little or no control over them.
the nomad RKR is a fun and nimble soft snow to powder ski. Its real underfoot width is 110. not 105. Its not a ski for a cruiser type.... It is a very good ski however.
MT- my guess is you were on a ski that had not been base ground and tuned. You will now see they are marketing that all ski's are base ground and edges set. 2:1 Icelantic had a "tradition" of their skis coming out of the NS factory with the bases off; I think they have this QC issue resolved.
The RKR is an excellent ski but it appeals to a very different skier and skill set than the Shaman. I Ioved the old Nomad SFT, the RKR skis very differently even from that ski (which is its direct ancestor).
Finn is right about old 'tune' problems and the 110mm (actually, I think it might even be 111mm) underfoot for the Nomad. Just saying, most women would prefer the oracle (also a great ski for many lighter men and juniors who rip as well…Christmas is still two months away!). THe RKR is pretty 'new school' in feel and design.
The Shaman is the Shaman, nothing else skis like it for better or worse…I think it's for the better, but it is a divisive ski and very reflective of user skier style and culture. And I just bought and will mount up a New 161cm (2013 graphics) Shaman. I am pretty stoked.