Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Icelantic Saba

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,403

    Icelantic Saba

    Hey,

    Anyone have info on specs for the new 2020 Icelantic Saba? I know it’s full rocker, 117mm waist but but that’s all I can find.

    Lengths? Tip and tail width?

    Thanks,

    K
    _________________________________________________
    I love big dumps.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,610
    sources:
    https://www.skimag.com/.image/c_limi.../img_2066.webp
    https://gearjunkie.com/skis-outdoor-...020-first-look

    dimensions:
    Saba: 177 and 187 -> 147 - 117 - 137
    Nia: 169 -> 135 - 105 - 125

    Especially the Saba in 177 is really quite wide in the front and back with pretty minimal taper, especially for being a take on 4FRNT's base design. They do not print the sidecut on the top sheet unfortunately. If the Saba is any indications, then it seems like the dimensions are static across the range. Icelantic skis often gain girth as the they gain length, so a bit of a surprise move there.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    305
    Icelantic is also known for deviating from stated dimensions(Nomad 105 measures 111mm for instance), so actual dimensions may well vary between sizes. It would make sense for them to given the matching sidecut & rocker radii.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    FR&CH
    Posts
    300
    Interesting. Unfortunately I guess it will be a twin tip banana like their 125 and not a narrower Renegade.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,403

    Icelantic Saba

    Thx kapow,

    Don’t get the sizes....177 and 187? I would think more like 181 and 191?

    Radius is 20m on 177 and 23m on 187.

    Found this at a ski shop:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2351.JPG 
Views:	148 
Size:	387.2 KB 
ID:	317726

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2352.JPG 
Views:	127 
Size:	383.2 KB 
ID:	317727
    _________________________________________________
    I love big dumps.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,610
    ah - look at that. I dunno, they are probably a hoot in dry snow. I am not so sure about that geo/shape in moist/dense snow though, with its wide shovels/tails and full rocker. I wonder where the mount point is though.

    I kinda get the sizing, but odd that the largest one tops out at 187. With it being full rocker I would imagine bigger folks easily handling that shape in 19x something.

    At 23m radius and full rocker the 187 should probably be very loose and fun, if perhaps not a speed demon in denser snowpacks. I dunno - not for me, but it will be fun to see reviews/user feedback tickling in over the next year.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Warm parts of the St. Vrain
    Posts
    2,459

    Icelantic Saba

    I wonder when did the “full rocker” change to being much flatter under the foot and bindings? Here’s a pic of some Gypsies maybe 13/14? Walrus topsheet. which is the same side cut as the new nomad 125 “full rocker” but there is no flat area under the foot. I wonder how that changes they way it skis. if that helps drive them a little better maybe in a chop? These below will work you pretty good as it gets packed and choppy. I like the “low camber” idea like on praxis BC maybe the flat section is kinda like that as opposed to full on banana?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2243.jpg 
Views:	128 
Size:	998.1 KB 
ID:	317935
    If we're gonna wear uniforms, we should all wear somethin' different!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,610
    a more gradual/progressive rocker should make the skis a fair bit more versatile. It should make the ski stronger on edge and feel longer/more stable (at speed), as opposed to a full rocker ski with deep rocker lines and lots of splay that would probably ski short. The should pivot easily regardless - due to them being full rocker and all.

    I dunno - my experience with deep rocker, high splay skis is limited. The only full rocker pair I plan on keeping in the quiver - BMT176s - ski short in spite of limited splay and a traditional mount point. For inbounds skis I much prefer deep rocker lines mated with limited camber or flat parts underneath the ski, in skis that are 115+ (ON3P type rocker/splay lines are pure bliss in soft snow imho). In narrower skis I am preferring a bit of camber.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,480
    Anyone ski these yet? Is the 187 more like a 183?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    305
    I’ve got two days demoing the 187s. Didn’t measure em but they didn’t seem short. I liked them a lot, and will probably pick up a pair next season. They’re smooth, predictable, and easy to ski, but still have a decent top end. I could see them being a daily driver somewhere that doesn’t get icy regularly. They’re not wildly surfy or loose in deep snow because of their low splay and substantial side cut, but they load up and pop nicely between turns. Skied back to back with my Chipotle Bananas, I was impressed with how much better the Sabas handled firmer and more variable snow. Just a generally smoother and damper ride, and quicker edge to edge. Good on groomers once you get up to 20mph or so.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    at work
    Posts
    1,199

    Icelantic Saba

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_pretzel View Post
    Is the 187 more like a 183?
    Re sizing- Not sure. However, From my experience with Icelantic; they measure long. (Keepers & Nomads) Give them a call- they have always been super helpful on the phone when I have talked to them. (If you cannot find first hand info)
    Last edited by mn_teleswede; 02-14-2021 at 06:53 AM.
    "What moves men of genius, or rather what inspires their work, is not new ideas, but their obsession with the idea that what has already been said is still not enough."

    -Eugene Delacroix

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,098
    Quote Originally Posted by MegaStoke View Post
    I’ve got two days demoing the 187s. Didn’t measure em but they didn’t seem short. I liked them a lot, and will probably pick up a pair next season. They’re smooth, predictable, and easy to ski, but still have a decent top end. I could see them being a daily driver somewhere that doesn’t get icy regularly. They’re not wildly surfy or loose in deep snow because of their low splay and substantial side cut, but they load up and pop nicely between turns. Skied back to back with my Chipotle Bananas, I was impressed with how much better the Sabas handled firmer and more variable snow. Just a generally smoother and damper ride, and quicker edge to edge. Good on groomers once you get up to 20mph or so.
    Interested to hear more about the Saba ability to handle chop and any trade offs for weight vs stability/dampness.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,098
    Anyone have feedback on the 117 Pro?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,403

    Icelantic Saba

    Quote Originally Posted by 54-46 View Post
    Anyone have feedback on the 117 Pro?
    Fondled a pair of last year’s 117s in the shop near the university where I teach.

    They are really really rockered. Will try to get a pic next time. They make Renegades look cambered. I’m sure they would be great in pow.
    Last edited by kc_7777; 02-07-2022 at 09:23 PM.
    _________________________________________________
    I love big dumps.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    The wrong side of the Atlantic, the wrong side of the Channel...
    Posts
    103
    Does anyone have any additional input on the Saba 117? Still seems to be very little out there about this ski in terms of user experience...

Posting Permissions

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