or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2011 Icelantic Shaman

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
 Ok, let me start out by saying that Icelantic does not make skis for my demographic, a 47 year old, professional business person.  They know their target market, and I'm not it! I demo'd the 2011 Icelantic Shaman's in 173 cm.  Conditions were a fresh 5 inches of wet spring snow.  These skis have a really wide tip, 115 underfoot and a short 15M radius. The rep did tell me to stay really forward on these skis, and they'll hook-up and carve, get on the back, and they're squirley.  When I first started out on these skis, I thought I was balanced over the skis, but they just slid around, and I felt I had minimal control, I shifted my weight forward and pressured the tips a little more, still not much better, no way could I get the edges to set, just slip and slide.  Than, I went way forward, and these things hooked-up and just threw you right or left,like you were making a 90 degree turn.  I wouldn't call it carving, but it does go from squirley, slip and slide to super hooked-up sharp turns. It felt as if the skis forward of the bindings were from one ski, and from the bindings aft, a completely different, and unrelated ski - they look that way, feel that way, and ski that way.  I'm much more used to - and comfortable with, highly engineered skis like the latest from K2, Head, Blizzard, Volkl and the like.  The Icelantics don't seem like engineered skis but more like 'stream of consciousness" (or semiconsciousness) designs.    Now, they did seem like they could ski over anything like a tank with those super wide tips.  Now for the graphics......for the 2011 Icelantic Shaman's, when you put the 2 skis together there's a funky sketch of some freaky circus looking guy with long grey hair, half of his face on each ski - I guess he must be the Shaman!  It follows the typical graphic style of Icelantic.  You know the kid in middle school, who always sat in the back of the class, never paying attention, but always drawing pictures on his books, jeans and sneakers....not really an artist, but liked to draw anyway - the kid you always wondered what he'd end up doing when he grows up  ?  Well... he got hired as the Icelantic graphic designer !  Designing graphics for skis sounds like a pretty cool job - congratulations to that kid with the pen drawings on hes jeans and sneakers - even though it's not my style.  Now, it begs the question, who are these skis designed for ?  I was half way down my first run, and I wanted to take them off and walk down the rest of the way, but I fought the urge, and fought these skis ,and made it back to the base area to turn them in.  When I got to the demo tent, there was a guy there, in his mid 20's, dread locks, kinda slurred speech, absolutely raving about these skis and planning on buying his second pair of Icelantics "Woooow man, these are soooo coooool man - hahaha I looove the picture of the dude on these skis maaaaan!"  Like I said at the very beginning, Icelantic is not designing skis for people that look, act or ski like me.  They know their target market, and they do a great job of making skis for that market!  I just can't figure out how to ski these things...I almost want to try them again, to take up the challenge and figure out how to ski these things ...um, nah, maybe not.  So, if you think they look cool, and you've heard some good things about them, than they're probably for you.  If you look at the graphics, and like me you just shake your head, they're probably not for you - but  If you come across them in a demo tent at your local demo day - what the heck - give'em a try.  And, I can not end this post without a big Thank You to Icelantic for doing the free demo's this Friday at Stevens Pass !  Even though they aren't for me, there are people out there that fall in love with a pair of skis during a demo and subsequently end up buying a pair of skis they may not have otherwise considered!
post #2 of 23
AS a 46 year old business owner who loves Icelantic boards, - All I can say, is these are just not your skis....  but glad you tested them. the folks at Icelantic are very cool people who are passonate about their boards.  Maybe the Pilgrim would be a better choice for you. 90 underfoot, mellow flex, very easy to ski.
post #3 of 23
Check out this short video.  It's my 67 (!!) year old patrol director laying down some arc's on his 173 Shamans on 2-3 inches of new snow on a black diamond groomer (pay less attention to the second skier who is an older  newbie having fun..and turn the volume down as my inane comments are annoying!).

My director never yells "Dude!", he's a pretty focused technical skier and thinks the 173 Shaman is as good a soft snow ski as ever was made.  What he likes about them the most is that he doesn't have to adjust his skiing technique but approaches them the same way he would any carving ski.

http://www.vimeo.com/9937236
post #4 of 23
Thread Starter 
You're right - these are just not my ski.  I'm not  trying to bash them, or Icelantic - just trying to be humorous with my experience on these skis.  Of the 2011 skis I demo'd this weekend, my favorites were (in order): Fischer Watea 94, Head Peak 88 Fluid Ride.  The Head Supershape iTitan's were also a great ski - but not really designed for the conditions this weekend.
post #5 of 23
Bremerton/Ski cruiser  demo Day?
post #6 of 23
This 38 year old managing partner loves them. I went +2 on the mount with the 173s so the front of my skis are getting more force than a BC. Probably would go +1 if I had to do it all over again. Your humor aside, I think the issue you were having is probably one part terrian and four parts expectations. The skis you are comparing it to are not in the same league in terms of front side performance. Ya, they'll carve and carve nicely once you get the hang of it but won't ever match those others. To really appreciate them you need some good fresh snow (to make you appreciate those 160 something tips) a good tree line (to enjoy the 15m radius) or some gnarly steeps (beefy "I will break you" design). Otherwise, ya they're fun and all but can't compare to more all mountain-ish mass market skis. I have the year with the whale graphic. My girls love them for the Nemo connection. Go figure - Nemo skis.
post #7 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liam View Post

Check out this short video.  It's my 67 (!!) year old patrol director laying down some arc's on his 173 Shamans on 2-3 inches of new snow on a black diamond groomer (pay less attention to the second skier who is an older  newbie having fun..and turn the volume down as my inane comments are annoying!).

My director never yells "Dude!", he's a pretty focused technical skier and thinks the 173 Shaman is as good a soft snow ski as ever was made.  What he likes about them the most is that he doesn't have to adjust his skiing technique but approaches them the same way he would any carving ski.

http://www.vimeo.com/9937236


Liam,
Thanks for the video analysis. One might argue that your director is making GS not SL type turns, but, it's  nice skiing for sure.

Living Proof that it's the skier not the ski! Surprised???, hell no. Not a great advertisement for the Watea though, and, that should be a fine  ski in those conditions.

Those Shaman's are on a short list of skis I'd like to demo in the right conditions. Ya just can't hang around Finndog and hear him hoop and holler about these skis.


 

Edited by Living Proof - 3/31/10 at 10:27am
post #8 of 23
As a 59 yo somewhat ? gravity challenged ? (230lbs) owner of 2008, 173 Shamans I found none of the uncertainty you reported and with a centered to slightly forward stance blasted through waist deep, trees, chutes and powder bumps. Carvable on groomed but not the intended target terrain. For deep dump days and spring corn these are my boards of choice. The graphics are funky but I bought and will keep them due to their outstanding performace for deep snow / spring conditions.

My are mounted BC (boot center) and perhaps the skis you demo'd were not which would change the ideal body postion and resulting ski behavior.

Do a search and check out Finndog's reviews of the Shaman.

Just my $0.02

Falcon_O aka Charlie 
Edited by falcon_o - 3/31/10 at 12:06pm
post #9 of 23
Thread Starter 
 That's why there are so many ski brands and models out there - the 'old guy' did look pretty good on the Shamans. I, on the other hand, had to pressure sooo far forward to get anywhere near close to that (but never reaching that goal) - that it was ridiculous, uncomfortable - and for me, completely unnatural. I also demo'd the Watea 94's last weekend and just ripped on them - they felt perfectly balanced, natural and easy to ski. 
post #10 of 23
 sorry icelantic is more than just pretty graphics. Their skis rip, although the shaman wasnt my cup of tea due the huge tip that REALLY hinders bump skiing, the Nomad SFT and Pilgrim are both amazing skis I would encourage people to buy them.

FYI Keeper comes out next year which is their first rockered ski.
post #11 of 23
bwpa is dead on. AS much as I like that ski, I dont like it for bumps at all, the 160 stiff-ass tip can be challenging  especailly to less than expert skiers like myself.  However, as a pow ski, broken, they just frickin' rip.  The Nomad SFT is still my favorite ski for anything soft or especially fresh. They also rip soft groomers very nicely.

Keeper: I have ot fondled one yet but 150-119-140 ( not positive) with some rocker, I beleive the tail is slight, should be a fun ski, 179 and 189. It would be a fun one for a big day. They need a 95-100 ski.   the Nomad is really 111 underfoot.

Come on Mike....... I am selling my Pilgrims......... 
post #12 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

Come on Mike....... I am selling my Pilgrims......... 

Hey Finndog, sorry for the hijack, but maybe you can answer this question. (I emailed Icelantic, and got an ostensible reply to my question, but it was kind of a politician's non-reply, so I'm still looking for the real answer.) Question is, why is there such a huge gap in the size range for the Pilgrim: 151, 169, 179?  What's wrong with 159?
post #13 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post




Hey Finndog, sorry for the hijack, but maybe you can answer this question. (I emailed Icelantic, and got an ostensible reply to my question, but it was kind of a politician's non-reply, so I'm still looking for the real answer.) Question is, why is there such a huge gap in the size range for the Pilgrim: 151, 169, 179?  What's wrong with 159?

A question that has been asked over and over. 
 
post #14 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

A question that has been asked over and over. 
 

Is that your way of saying, "use the search engine first"? Because I did, and did not find the answer. Or are you just saying that people are asking and not getting an answer?
post #15 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Que View Post

This 38 year old managing partner loves them. I went +2 on the mount with the 173s ....

I did a dumb thing and bought a pair of Shamans without ever skiing them because they were available at a good price last summer and I wanted something that was wide enough for powder with a short radius for trees. (though in my defense there's nowhere to demo them round here )

First time out on them I thought I'd made a huge mistake - they were really squirly.  However I noticed that when I went aggressively forward with my stance they were better.  So since I had Railflex HD14's on them I thought I would move them forward from BC to the +15 position and it was night and day.  They were responsive, fun, as nimble as my Nomads and carved well on the groomers.

However where they really shine is of course on powder.  I consider myself a gaper on powder, but those huge tips, together with the narrower tail tend to force you into a sort of waterskiing stance and they are a blast. I hit Al's run on a powder day with an instructor friend who said it was like watching  a submarine breaching out of the water.  I don't know if that's good style, but it  sure as hell is fun.

Bottom line: I'd recommend trying to move your bindings forward before giving up on them.

(PS I am a 54 year old school teacher and my students give me crap about skiing on short fat skis with teenager graphics, but I like the skis and they sure do start conversations on the chair)
post #16 of 23
Qcanoe, i will be at Icelatic on Wednesday and I will try to remember, but when Phil says its a queston asked over and over, he means that he's asked them the same question as well. Annelise is usaully perusing around here, if she see's this maybe she will chime in but I don't have and answer but I agree it's an obvious gap in the size range. My honest thought is that Icelantic is a small company and can only build so many ski's, the molds are expensive, but there is a need. I beleive there's a gap in the Nomad lenghts as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post




Hey Finndog, sorry for the hijack, but maybe you can answer this question. (I emailed Icelantic, and got an ostensible reply to my question, but it was kind of a politician's non-reply, so I'm still looking for the real answer.) Question is, why is there such a huge gap in the size range for the Pilgrim: 151, 169, 179?  What's wrong with 159?
 


I always mount my Icelantics +1 or 1.5  the only ski one I ever went with BC was the 168 nomad, but all others are forward. What legnth did you get? FUN ski, look to demo the Keeper for next season. I should be able to get on a pair this coming week.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TaosMath View Post




I did a dumb thing and bought a pair of Shamans without ever skiing them because they were available at a good price last summer and I wanted something that was wide enough for powder with a short radius for trees. (though in my defense there's nowhere to demo them round here )

First time out on them I thought I'd made a huge mistake - they were really squirly.  However I noticed that when I went aggressively forward with my stance they were better.  So since I had Railflex HD14's on them I thought I would move them forward from BC to the +15 position and it was night and day.  They were responsive, fun, as nimble as my Nomads and carved well on the groomers.

However where they really shine is of course on powder.  I consider myself a gaper on powder, but those huge tips, together with the narrower tail tend to force you into a sort of waterskiing stance and they are a blast. I hit Al's run on a powder day with an instructor friend who said it was like watching  a submarine breaching out of the water.  I don't know if that's good style, but it  sure as hell is fun.

Bottom line: I'd recommend trying to move your bindings forward before giving up on them.

(PS I am a 54 year old school teacher and my students give me crap about skiing on short fat skis with teenager graphics, but I like the skis and they sure do start conversations on the chair)

 
post #17 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

 

I always mount my Icelantics +1 or 1.5  the only ski one I ever went with BC was the 168 nomad, but all others are forward. What legnth did you get? FUN ski, look to demo the Keeper for next season. I should be able to get on a pair this coming week.


 

I got the 161 Shamans ( I prefer short skis).  As I said, there isn't anyone round here (Taos) that Demo's Icelantic in Alpine  (our only local distributor only demos tele) so I doubt I'll even see any of the 2011 skis.  I've asked Logan and Ashley a couple of times about coming to the demo days in Taos ( I thought Icelantic would be a good fit for the Taos ethos), but it hasn't happened yet.
post #18 of 23
Let me see what I can do for next season! PM me with your info if you are interested.
post #19 of 23
I hate to be the Negative Nancy of the thread (after the OP), but IMO the Shaman is pretty dated. I'm pretty sure I was the first one (or close) here to review the ski. And the Scout and Nomad for that matter. And, if I recall correctly, I took a fair amount of crap from the more conservative crowd because I reviewed them favorably. And because I held them up as examples of innovation at the time. 

But once the Pontoon & its relatives hit the mass market, the Shaman (and Nomad) just fell behind the curve. Doubly so since it took Icelantic so long to get the longer versions out. 

While I have not skied it, I have some related skepticism about the Keeper. Despite the tip rocker, the camber profile seems pretty conventional & runs pretty far back on the ski. 

Love the construction & the art. But given the vast numbers of innovative skis based on what are IMO more modern designs, I just do not see these guys being on the field at the moment. Of course different strokes for different folks, so YMMV... I'd just suggest playing with things like S7s, Pontoons, Kuros, Praxis, etc, etc. before throwing down for these.
post #20 of 23
I can't disagree that the Shaman has been around for a while, it has as most of their line. It still performs well and still sells well. The nomad SFT is a season old now and if you get a chance to ski it, I would be interested in your feedback on that. I think it skis much differently than the regular Nomad. Icelantic didn't want to rush to the market with "just another rocker design" so they waited a season before bringing them to market. There are actually new 2 rockered ski's for next season: In addition to the Keeper, the Oracle (100 underfoot)  is also rockered.The keeper is new and untested by the mass's, I haven"t been on them yet. I think the design is a little different than the S7's & JJ's, ON3P' BG and such with a cambered 150-119-136 early rise tip/tail rocker,(18m TR in the 189) it's doesn't have nearly the amount of rocker in the tip and especially the tail as many pow/soft snow boards. Final production tip profile hasn't been set (as of last month) but it will be a bit higher than the current interation. So in that respect, I think they are ahead of the game in making a big board a little more versitile. I think it's been pretty much shown most don't want a lot (if any) tail rocker and most don't need a full-on 20/40 tip rocker either. I cerrtainly respect your opinions especially given your history and experience out there, so feedback is good. I will be taking the Keeper to Chile this August, and put it to the test.  But your point is dead on, demo and ski what you like best; there area lot of excellent choices out there! May the best ski win!
post #21 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

I can't disagree that the Shaman has been around for a while, it has as most of their line. It still performs well and still sells well. The nomad SFT is a season old now and if you get a chance to ski it, I would be interested in your feedback on that. I think it skis much differently than the regular Nomad. Icelantic didn't want to rush to the market with "just another rocker design" so they waited a season before bringing them to market. There are actually new 2 rockered ski's for next season: In addition to the Keeper, the Oracle (100 underfoot)  is also rockered.The keeper is new and untested by the mass's, I haven"t been on them yet. I think the design is a little different than the S7's & JJ's, ON3P' BG and such with a cambered 150-119-136 early rise tip/tail rocker,(18m TR in the 189) it's doesn't have nearly the amount of rocker in the tip and especially the tail as many pow/soft snow boards. Final production tip profile hasn't been set (as of last month) but it will be a bit higher than the current interation. So in that respect, I think they are ahead of the game in making a big board a little more versitile. I think it's been pretty much shown most don't want a lot (if any) tail rocker and most don't need a full-on 20/40 tip rocker either. I cerrtainly respect your opinions especially given your history and experience out there, so feedback is good. I will be taking the Keeper to Chile this August, and put it to the test.  But your point is dead on, demo and ski what you like best; there area lot of excellent choices out there! May the best ski win!

you never 'needed" rocker. IMO the rocker being used on the Keeper should be used on the Nomad, and the Keeper should be alot more extreme. Who cares about hard pack performance from a knee screaming 119mm wide ski anyways. With that said rockered big skis are much less pain full to ski on soft hardpack due to the fact you dont need to follow the turn radius.
post #22 of 23
Bush, again, I don't disagree and I would like to see a early rise on the Nomad with no tail rocker (just tt) I would encourage you to wait to evaluate the final design on the Keeper until the final production model is available.  I dont' think the intent was to make it a groomer rippin board but to make it more inbounds- side-county resort friendly ski- as well as a rippin pow board. something useable for pow days and the 10 minutes afterwards when the lines are tracked.   I can see where there's a question regarding dulication/overlap here on the Shaman and Keeper, but they really appeal to 2 different skiers.
post #23 of 23

I am a 73-year-old man that had bilateral knee replacement last July. I have a pair of 184 cm Shamans (2011 model with wild graphics) that I bought two years ago. I live in NY and Whiteface is my home mountain. We don't get a lot of powder but did get 18 inches a couple of weeks ago. I mounted Marker Griffon demo bindings on the Shamans. Put them 15 mm forward of boot center and have skied them every day since I brought them out. They are fantastic in powder, crud, groomed trails, and bumps. I did hit some ice and was quickly taught to avoid the hard surfaces. I have not skied them yet without people commenting on them and wondering how they perform in Eastern Whiteface conditions. The Shamans are a terrific ski, stable at speed, forgiving, and the most versatile ski I have ever owned minus hard pack, and ice, Additionally they don’t fit in the WF gondola ski holders and are too long to stand up in the gondola cab. I would rather ride the chairs anyway!   

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