Thread: icelandic shaman
02-28-2008, 12:17 PM #1Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
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.
02-28-2008, 12:42 PM #2
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.
02-28-2008, 03:41 PM #3
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
02-28-2008, 05:10 PM #4
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.
02-28-2008, 05:42 PM #5
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 05:45 PM.
02-28-2008, 05:54 PM #6
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
02-28-2008, 05:57 PM #7
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.
02-28-2008, 07:53 PM #8Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
02-28-2008, 09:56 PM #9
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.
02-29-2008, 11:09 AM #10
Last edited by Big Steve; 04-09-2008 at 08:03 PM.
03-01-2008, 01:22 PM #11
by no means should a 173 be viewed as too much ski...
03-02-2008, 03:13 PM #12
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.
04-09-2008, 08:13 PM #13
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.
04-09-2008, 11:03 PM #14
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.
04-10-2008, 04:27 AM #15
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.
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
only a fake Rasta could make a claim like that
04-11-2008, 11:36 AM #16
By Core Shot in forum Tech TalkReplies: 34Last Post: 05-08-2010, 07:45 PM
By fat yeti in forum Tech TalkReplies: 32Last Post: 08-24-2009, 01:47 PM
By fat yeti in forum Tech TalkReplies: 18Last Post: 04-15-2009, 11:36 PM
By Sloafer11' in forum Tech TalkReplies: 9Last Post: 02-12-2008, 03:31 PM