New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Icelantic Keeper

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 

A quick note on me...5'10" 240lbs.  20 years of skiing 30 days ore more almost every year.

 

Last year after skiing a foot of the Midwest's finest powder on my 2009 Gotamas that I wanted to try a seriously fat rockered ski.  After reading reviews and pouring over specs I ended up picking up a pair of K2 Hellbents in a 189.  I decided on them because they had decent reviews, the 26m turn radius was much tighter than a lot of the powder boards out there, and I found a good deal on them.  After skiing a bit on them at home I took them to Breckenridge last March.  They definitely ripped in powder but they skied like wet noodles on everything else.  I was OK with keeping them but I wasn't 100% satisfied.  

 

Flash forward to a few weeks ago went I stumbled across some deals on last years Icelantics.  I like the idea of skiing something not everyone has and then I found out about the Promotive benefit for being a supporter.  I pulled the trigger on a pair of Keepers in 189.  I mounted them with Dynastar/Look PX14 XXL's.  I couldn't wait until a meaningful snowfall to try them out so I immediately hit the local hill.  My first impression is WOW!  I think i finally found what I am looking for.  I got mix of snow conditions over the last 2 days including fresh groomed, sun softened re-frozen man made, and what could be best described as mashed potatoes.  They handled it all relatively well.  They will carve a turn on most everything and they get up on top of the junk snow with ease.  I can't wait until I get a chance to ski them in powder.

post #2 of 29
Thread Starter 

I logged a bunch of runs at the local ski hill with the Keepers yesterday.  They has 6-12" of new man made snow that hadn't been groomed and was like skiing wind blown powder.  The cliche of "like a hot knife through butter" comes to mind.  With the tight turn radius, slight tip and tail rocker, and extra wide girth the Keepers were an absolute blast yesterday.  Now I just need to get my Pilgrims mounted.

post #3 of 29
Thread Starter 

with any luck at all I will be able to post up a review of how these ski in powder tomorrow.

post #4 of 29

my 5'11 140lb roommate has 189 at stowe and loves them.  He also owns the 181 Nomad SFT, and the 169 Pilgrim. Supposely in soft snow they ski shorter than the 181 Nomad SFT.

 

post #5 of 29
Thread Starter 

They don't seem even remotely close in size to the 189 K2 Hellbents that they replaced which should prove to be a good thing.

post #6 of 29
Thread Starter 

I got a chance to ski my Keepers in some fresh crud....I would say powder but when you don't get out to ski until 2:30 there isn't anything that hasn't been touch.  Earlier in the week we went through a thaw-freeze cycle with a bit of rain and then yesterday 4-6 inches of new snow.  The man made base below was rock hard but it wasn't impossible to avoid the hard stuff.  The Keepers charged through crud like nothing I have skied before.  They didn't seem to be phased one bit the mounds of new snow.  Now I am anxiously watching the weather forecasts for Utah in hopes that I will get a chance to ski some powder on them next week.

post #7 of 29
Thread Starter 

Last week I finally got to ski the Keepers in some powder.  I was at Powder Mountain in Utah on Tuesday and Wednesday.  They received 3-5" of new snow on Tuesday morning and the wind did a nice job of redistributing it in to some areas of knee deep fluff.  The didn't float as well the Hellbents that they replaced.  In fact they skied more like wide traditional ski which is essentially what they are.  When charging hard I was rewarded with adequate flotation and carve turns through just about anything I encountered.  The only place where I really felt the ski suffered was in the trees.  Between the long length (189) and beefy construction they became a real handful as my energy dwindled.  I still love the ski but after skiing a few inches of soft snow on my Pilgrims I wonder if a little less weight and a little softer flex my increase the fun level exponentially. 

 

I would also add that I would have been completely happy leaving the Pilgrims at home because I am even more impressed with how versatile the Keeper is when the snow isn't so deep.  For such a wide ski their groomed snow performance is outstanding.

post #8 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

my 5'11 140lb roommate has 189 at stowe and loves them.  He also owns the 181 Nomad SFT, and the 169 Pilgrim. Supposely in soft snow they ski shorter than the 181 Nomad SFT.

 

I'd love to hear your or your roomate's opinions on all three of those skis in those lengths.  I own and love the 181 Nomad soft as my powder, east coast tree and slushy ski.  I have been thinking of grabbing the Pilgrim 169 as a Patrol and bump ski.  I haven't spent much time on rockered skis-but I know you have and I'd be interested in your thoughts on the keepers.  Big advantages over the nomad soft? Or just different?
 

post #9 of 29
Thread Starter 

I would love to try the Nomad's.  I am thinking they might actually be a more well rounded soft snow ski than the keeper.

post #10 of 29


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liam View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

my 5'11 140lb roommate has 189 at stowe and loves them.  He also owns the 181 Nomad SFT, and the 169 Pilgrim. Supposely in soft snow they ski shorter than the 181 Nomad SFT.

 

I'd love to hear your or your roomate's opinions on all three of those skis in those lengths.  I own and love the 181 Nomad soft as my powder, east coast tree and slushy ski.  I have been thinking of grabbing the Pilgrim 169 as a Patrol and bump ski.  I haven't spent much time on rockered skis-but I know you have and I'd be interested in your thoughts on the keepers.  Big advantages over the nomad soft? Or just different?
 



I got to ski a couple runs on The Keeper. its a freaking tank in tracked snow, really floaty  with untracked and heavy untracked, skis GS turns on groomers fine and its stable and damp at speed in groomer. Feel slightly chore like skiing bumps and really tight places, i was on my katana which are quite frankly one of the quickest turning soft snow skis I have ever skied so my opinion is really biased.

 

I have luckly skied all of his skis there is a Nomad SFT review on here, and quite frankly its one of the best non rockered skis I have ever skied in trees, its has 80 percent of the performance of a katana off trail while being much better on hard snow. IMO the Nomad SFT is currently the best east coast tree skis in the their line up.

 

The pilgrim his 169cm felt toy like, I could spin 540s off of cat tracks. Felt stable carving, quick in the bumps but a twin that short makes me feel nervous about really pushing it.

 

If you want a huge step up from the Nomad SFT in the icelandtic line up  Id wait till the Gypsy's come . 125mm underfoot with a full continuous rocker very much like a Volkl.

post #11 of 29
Thread Starter 

I would feel the same way about the 169 Pilgrim.  I use to ski frontside carving skis that short but they were more or less detuned race skis.  I would like to try the 169 but I doubt it would suit my size and skiing style.  The 179 is great in the bumps though.

 

I did get a chance to try the Keeper in the bumps.  Most of my friends didn't think it was possible but the motored right along.  I wouldn't want to do it all the time but now I know it can be done. 

post #12 of 29

Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liam View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

my 5'11 140lb roommate has 189 at stowe and loves them.  He also owns the 181 Nomad SFT, and the 169 Pilgrim. Supposely in soft snow they ski shorter than the 181 Nomad SFT.

 

I'd love to hear your or your roomate's opinions on all three of those skis in those lengths.  I own and love the 181 Nomad soft as my powder, east coast tree and slushy ski.  I have been thinking of grabbing the Pilgrim 169 as a Patrol and bump ski.  I haven't spent much time on rockered skis-but I know you have and I'd be interested in your thoughts on the keepers.  Big advantages over the nomad soft? Or just different?
 



I got to ski a couple runs on The Keeper. its a freaking tank in tracked snow, really floaty  with untracked and heavy untracked, skis GS turns on groomers fine and its stable and damp at speed in groomer. Feel slightly chore like skiing bumps and really tight places, i was on my katana which are quite frankly one of the quickest turning soft snow skis I have ever skied so my opinion is really biased.

 

I have luckly skied all of his skis there is a Nomad SFT review on here, and quite frankly its one of the best non rockered skis I have ever skied in trees, its has 80 percent of the performance of a katana off trail while being much better on hard snow. IMO the Nomad SFT is currently the best east coast tree skis in the their line up.

 

The pilgrim his 169cm felt toy like, I could spin 540s off of cat tracks. Felt stable carving, quick in the bumps but a twin that short makes me feel nervous about really pushing it.

 

If you want a huge step up from the Nomad SFT in the icelandtic line up  Id wait till the Gypsy's come . 125mm underfoot with a full continuous rocker very much like a Volkl.



Hi, I'm the roommate. Most of what Bushwacker has to say about my skis reflects my opinion, except for it being a chore in tight places. Here's video to prove it.

 

post #13 of 29

Alright. first of all im definatly gonna pick up a pair from the SKIERSHOP in Stowe, and were are all these woods at stowe? Off the main mountain quad, spruce, where. Please fill me in because ive been searching for some wide open woods like in your vid all season//!!!!

post #14 of 29

Were those the 189 keepers? I have been thinking aobut getting an EC tight woods ski (most of the lines I ski side-country are similar to your POV) I was leaning toward the 179 keeper or the 168 Nomad.  I have 186 Prophet 100's with Barons but wantedsomething with a tighter TR. Thoughts?

post #15 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyGoatin View Post

Alright. first of all im definatly gonna pick up a pair from the SKIERSHOP in Stowe, and were are all these woods at stowe? Off the main mountain quad, spruce, where. Please fill me in because ive been searching for some wide open woods like in your vid all season//!!!!



haha these woods look wide open but they aint!

post #16 of 29
I agree. i ski a lot in the Catskills i
post #17 of 29
Whoops hit send... I ski a lot around Belleayre and Plattekill so I am all too familiar with snug lines. How do you think the 179 Keeper would be for a slower speed, tight-line ski? I want good float and a tight TR.
post #18 of 29

I recently stared a thread on the Ross S7 vs the Keeper.  I have skied neither, but according to the responses I received, the S7 would float and turn quicker than the Keeper at slow speeds.

post #19 of 29

very different skis!  The keeper is quite stiff, considerably lower profile (much less run/rise) less taper and the 189 measuring straight line was more like a 190!. So it will ski much longer than a 195 Super and there's no real comparison when comparing a 188 standard 7. I did not ski the keeper but comments I have heard/read are also that it likes speed and a bit more room but it's a crud and windblown buster; high speed ripper.

post #20 of 29

My roommate disagrees with me...

 

but I think you can do alot better than the keeper for an eastern tree ski in any size.

 

In icelandtic's own line up you have the Gypsie and the Nomad SFT. The Gypsies is a killer tree ski and skiershop has pair for demo.

post #21 of 29

The gypsy has a huge rocker profile but I wonder about the very wide tail, I prefer much more taper with a narrower tip widening out at the shovel; I think 145 is plenty wide enough. These seem to be more intended for switch skiers?  Thoughts?

post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

The gypsy has a huge rocker profile but I wonder about the very wide tail, I prefer much more taper with a narrower tip widening out at the shovel; I think 145 is plenty wide enough. These seem to be more intended for switch skiers?  Thoughts?



i skied it, your reading into ski dimension to much and not actually skiing it. Could it be better maybe? is it better than the Keeper to ski EC tree? for me is so much better its not even comparable.

 

 

post #23 of 29

fair enough but I think the taper issue is important. 


Edited by Finndog - 9/29/11 at 2:02pm
post #24 of 29

I keep reading that the Keepers are generally a stiff ski.  The tips and tails are pretty soft, which makes is hard to flex the middle cambered section in the shop, but they don't seem that stiff to me. Once they are decambered it increases the length of the tip and tail rocker another 20%.  I'd be interested in everyones' thoughts on whether they think the Keeper skied like a stiff ski in deep snow.


Edited by mudfoot - 9/29/11 at 5:38pm
post #25 of 29

Everyone, including Icelantic describes the Keeper as being a stiff ski, but the descriptions of how it performs (i.e. easy to do any turn shape, bouncy, etc.) do not sound like a stiff ski. In addition, flexing it in the shop, it does not feel all that stiff in the middle.

 

So does it feel planky at anything less than "charging" speed, or not?  BwPA's use of adjectives like "tank" have me a little scared.

post #26 of 29

I'm new to this thread and I'm trying to decide between the Nomad 181 SFT and the regular flex. I'll use here in upstate NY

but will mainly use on western trips.  From this thread , it seems I should rule out the Keeper.  I'm 5'('' and 200lbs.

Recommendations?

post #27 of 29

At 200lbs I'd say definitely go w/ the regular flex. 

post #28 of 29

Since nobody responded to my question regarding the Keepers' stiffness, I'll answer it myself.  I ended up buying a pair of 189s (me 6'5" and 215 lbs.)  I've only got two days on them. The first day included lots of 8" to16" of fairly light powder. I have also now been on some windblown, crud of various depths up to a foot, groomers and bumps.  None of it was really hard snow, but I thought they carved incredibly well on the groomers, considering they are 119 mm waisted and I have them flat mounted with Look Pivots.

 

Their flex profile is really pretty soft in the rockered tips and tails, and I did not think they were very stiff underfoot, although the camber adds some beef to the feel in the middle of the ski.  Overall I would not call the Keepers stiff skis, but then I am a pretty big guy.  My concern was that the flex differences, sharknose tips, and deep (for this kind of ski) sidecut of 18 m would create a ski that did not have a uniform feel. I have always liked skis with an even flex from tip to tail, and my experience with tip rockered skis is that they feel like completely different skis depending on where you weight them, which was definitely not my experience with the Keepers.  I found the Keepers to be stable, forgiving, playful and incredibly easy to ski from the first turn, and consequently confidence inspiring, which led to skiing faster.  I do not have much of a basis of comparison with full rockered skis, but it is hard to imagine liking a new ski more than the Keepers.  They are just flat out fun in every condition I have encountered.  I am not sure what is going on, but they really do make any radius turn on demand.  As least for me, they handled snow and terrain changes as smoothly as any ski I have ever been on, so I would say the flex is not an issue.


Edited by mudfoot - 11/19/11 at 7:25am
post #29 of 29

Just spent the last four days on my Keepers at Solitude during which time I've skied frozen spring conditions, 9" of wet very heavy snow, 13" of light powder, windblow tracked, and everything in between.  I know there are those that consider the Keepers as having "old technology," but I still consider them an incredible all arounder.  In powder they rock going fast or slow, and when the going gets weird they can't be beat. Just an update to confirm my belief that the Keepers are anything but outdated.  icon14.gif

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