Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    106

    icelandic shaman

    I am interested in the shaman. I currently ski the mantra in 177 with the 94 waist. I am 5.6 160 lbs. I want a ski with a bit more float but I love the manuverability of the mantra and not sure if the 173 shaman will be too much ski. I guess the real question is which is more critical for float tip
    width or total surface area.any opinions or experience.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    2,220
    Its not to much ski, If you look you can find my reviews on here or go to www.levelninesports.com. My everday ski is a 176 legend pro and my powder ski is a 173 shaman. I am 5,'8" 195. Gereat skis and I highly recomend it, its easy to ski and a lot of fun in powder especialy trees also they are great in spring slop.
    If ski companies didn't make new skis every year I wouldn't have to get new skis every year.

    www.levelninesports.com
    http://skiingyeti.blogspot.com/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Portland Maine
    Posts
    352
    theres a ton of info on here, search around. but i did demo them last week, ther not too much ski and put alot less strain on your knees and thighs than most skis. plus you cant beat the shaman tip float. (160 tip)
    / we live in the garden of Eden yeah, don't know why we wanna tear the whole thing to the ground / NRPS

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Big Cottonwood Country
    Posts
    1,011
    I think FATYETI has a point. I own a 173 Shaman (most surfy ski I have ever owned) and it rocks. You could get away with the 161 if you like the smaller Mantra though. I think you should try to demo them both. The 173 is a lot but very easy to maneuver and use.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Other Side
    Posts
    394
    I have read a lot of the Shaman reviews, I was wondering if anyone has any experience touring on them? They have been pretty much unanimously hyped as the bomb EC tree ski, (which I do a tone of at Jay) I am looking to start touring once the snow gets tracked out. fat yeti? Spread Eagle? Core Shot?...anyone?
    Last edited by Shu Shu; 02-28-2008 at 04:45 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    stuckinutah
    Posts
    939
    I've got a little bro, that wants to get the 161 shamens, he weighs like 120 and has been skiing the Solomon Foils 158's Is the Shamen a quiver ski, or can it take it all?
    live longer to play longer

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    2,220
    It can take most anything its weekness can be real icey conditons and bumbs but soft stuff this ski kills it.
    I have not toured on it but I am thinking of puting some naxos or dukes on my current shamns for next year. PM Shaman or maybe he will chime in he may have some answers on that.
    If ski companies didn't make new skis every year I wouldn't have to get new skis every year.

    www.levelninesports.com
    http://skiingyeti.blogspot.com/

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by SPREAD EAGLE View Post
    You could get away with the 161 if you like the smaller Mantra though. I think you should try to demo them both. The 173 is a lot but very easy to maneuver and use.
    I ski the 177 mantra are you saying the 161 will be similar in feel? For those who have skied the 161 is it safe to say they float more like a much longer ski?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    2,220
    The 161 are great but I would demo them and see what you like better. The 173 is so easy to ski and I have never felt overpowered by it. Its quick in the trees and loves to turn. The 161 is even better in trees but in steeper sitiation it feelt to short for me. I would go 173 they dont seem that big, but try them both.
    If ski companies didn't make new skis every year I wouldn't have to get new skis every year.

    www.levelninesports.com
    http://skiingyeti.blogspot.com/

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Shu Shu View Post
    I have read a lot of the Shaman reviews, I was wondering if anyone has any experience touring on them?
    I've toured with my 173 Shamans a few days (midwinter conditions) and had lots o' fun on 'em. Manuverable & floaty as hell, and short & light. What's not to luv? I have not tried them on a boilerplate traverse and will carry Voile crampons for such conditions. Very fun ski.
    Last edited by Big Steve; 04-09-2008 at 07:03 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Revelstoke
    Posts
    16
    by no means should a 173 be viewed as too much ski...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    4,160
    Just toured on the 161s today.
    The big shovel takes getting used to when skinning (no tip clack, just have to widen stance a bit)
    I really can't say much beside the fact that this is a very easy turning ski.
    Great for EC trees.
    I'm about 190. I would've liked the 173, but 161 sufficed and I had no tip dive at all.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,583
    Update after 10 days (6 lift / 4 BC) on my 173 Shamans: Best wet powder skis I've skied, by longshot. On recent BC trip in 2 feet of wet pow, I was having a ball skiing fall line turns while my buds -- all very good skiers -- were struggling. The wide tips can be a bitch to kickturn in deep snow w/Dynafits, so I drilled some holes in the tips (necessary for crevasse travel anyway) and I'll try rigging a hook on my poles to assist with the kick turns. Amazingly light for such a fattie. As a big guy (6-2, 240) mid-season backcountry ski, Shaman is the tits.

    Gonna machine some HDPE shims and try them with the Scarpa F3's this weekend. Will advise.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Middlebury VT/Oslo Norway
    Posts
    171
    I think I will get a pair of the 2008-2009 184s and put naxos on them.
    Just wondering if I should go with 173 or 184.
    I currently ski a 185 1080 Gun and a 177 AC40… neither feel big or unwieldy to me at all.
    I'm 6'0" and about 215.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    land of the free
    Posts
    7,122
    I told you guys they were fun.

    6'3" and 215 and I skied the first year shaman 160cm a lot. Touring it was no problem except 1) widen the stance to avoid clicking tips and 2) if its a deep icy skin track you are fucked

    I love the 173cm so much more, being a big guy.
    Its not only longer, but stiffer.
    Not sure I would ever want the 184 since this is my east coast tree ski. the idea is that the huge tip and teardrop outline always floats over logfall - you can ski anything anytime.
    Out west, I would go longer, and thats why I love the Lotus 120 200cm.

    YMMV
    PS - I would go Duke instead of Naxo for a better connection on hard pack. These skis are a hoot on the firm and you want a solid connection, not a naxo or fritschi for that wide waist and tip.
    PPS - I mounted both skis forward of the icelantic line and they still float very well. There is a thread on that somewhere here.
    PPPS - I have a pair of 173 Shaman mounted tele and they are just as fun that way.
    "Fakers are Maggots" - T. Hall, 2011
    heh
    only a fake Rasta could make a claim like that

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Arelius19 View Post
    I think I will get a pair of the 2008-2009 184s and put naxos on them.
    Just wondering if I should go with 173 or 184.
    * * *
    I'm 6'0" and about 215.
    IMO, if primarily BC or 50/50 use, go with the 173 & Dynafits; if primarily a lift ski, go with either 173 or 184 and your binding of choice. I've BC skied the 173's with a 25-lb. pack (thus total skier weight roughly 270 lbs.) in varied conditions and it was plenty of ski for BC use, and not even a hint of tip dive. Caveat: I'm in the Andrew McLean/Old Goats' camp of using shorter skis for BC use, so YMMV.

Similar Threads

  1. Icelantic Shaman defeats Lotus 138 !!!
    By Core Shot in forum Tech Talk
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 05-08-2010, 06:45 PM
  2. Icelantic ski review
    By fat yeti in forum Tech Talk
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 08-24-2009, 12:47 PM
  3. 173 Icelantic Shaman (Powder Review)
    By fat yeti in forum Tech Talk
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-15-2009, 10:36 PM
  4. Ok, Icelantic Shaman 173 . . . . . ?
    By Sloafer11' in forum Tech Talk
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-12-2008, 02:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •