review: icelantic nomad

[Lakelander]

me: 5'10", 165 lbs
ski: icelantic nomad 156 cm, 140/105/130
other skis: 179 sv (park, bumps, groomers, whatever), 183 goat (pow, crud, etc.), 180 explosiv (charging-thanks dfinn)
reason for purchase: mess around in extremely tight trees around my house in the midwest
testing grounds: in-bounds resort trees, chutes, bumps, groomers
snow: range from heavy sun affected pow to frozen chicken heads

review: one can make a reasonable argument these are kids' skis on steroids. in fact i bought them thinking if these things are a joke, i'll pass them on to my wife to be used as her powder sticks. anyway, there's no snow in the midwest so i decided to bring them to co to see what gives. in general, i was not disappointed.

positives: because of their size, they make any tight technical line, no matter how tight, a possibility. because of their flex (round, medium similar to my goats) they held their own in bony, baked out conditions ranging from frozen crud to icy decent sized bumps to groomers. you can lay down pure carves in a variety of snow conditions and terrain. they're build is bomber-i ran over a lot of rocks and stumps with nothing but minimal base scratches and no side wall damage.

negatives: because of their size, they are not chargers and do feel like they have a speed limit. they want to carve, so increasing turn radius by scarving, skidding, smearing, buttering etc. is not in the cards. they do not want to go straight and feel weird when trying. when jumping of stuff, stomp the landing-they have no tail to speak of. i never found anything but really consolidated pow so i have no idea how well they float.

summary: an interesting quiver ski that can be a lot of fun in tight, technical terrain.

[laseranimal]

what do you have them mounted with

I'm really interested in them as a fat ski for EC slides/trees

[Lakelander]

p10's i had laying around +1

[pechelman]

good review
sounds like it skis just how I figured it might
id love to give a shaman a try

[spindrift]

I think the Nomad is a pretty cool little ski. I played around with it for a few half-days and thought it was a hoot. Apparently there will be a 163 version next year - which might be a good choice for the EC tree thing (at least for average sized folks). I found it really handy in tight places and in deeper pockets it had no inclination to tip dive at all. As noted above, it carves well. Not too far off the Phantom in size and shape - but I think it is more versatile. Handles hard/crunchy patches & hard groomers better. And has less tendency to tip dive in heavy snow. When the conditions are right, I'd give the edge to the Phantom - but the Nomad gets my vote for being more versatile while still being very, very nimble.

At 200 pounds, I'd really want a 175 version of the Nomad. I think the "leap" from the 156 to adding a 163 is a cop-out. Just enough additional ski not to matter much (although I'd take the bigger rather than the smaller unless you are a small person). Regardless, if your size/weight is right, I think it'll make a great fool-around all-around ski for a whole bunch of folks. And be very handy for things like dense trees.

I'm not as upbeat about the Shaman. Not that I dislike it, but... Skied it in some ankle to waist deep a couple of times. In the "conventional" tapered world, I think it loses to the Doughboys (which also ski better on groomers under most conditions IMO). And in the "unconventional" world, it gets crushed by Pontoons (the only rc ski I've been on...). Not that it is a "bad" ski - it was fun to play on and it had a surprising amount of float. Just that, at this point, it is not the ski I'm having fantasies about riding if a big storm is rolling in. Maybe I'd love the upcoming 173 version more. Especially since that might add a little more lever and tame the weird angles created by a 30mm taper over the super short length of the 161 - while still staying very maneuverable.

Also, check out this thread on the same topic at epic http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=49877 I posted some pics of me on both the Shamans and the Nomads there. Nothing to write home about, but they give at least some sense of the skis in action (with a very average skier at the helm)

[laseranimal]

thats disappointing to hear about the shamans lack of versatility, I really was thinking in pulling the trigger on a pair for next year.

I tend to find skis that are short fat and stiff work really well in tight technical terrain that I often find on the East Coast where its, turn, turn, slam on the brakes, traverse, turn, turn, slam on the brakes, 4-5' drop off of a rock or waterfall, land, slam on the brakes, turn, turn, traverse, repeat till the bottom

[nick > jesus]

icelantic has done free demo days at loveland, so i have been all their skis a bit. i agree with all that has been said, but when i was on them i REALLY felt the speed limit, it scared me how unstable i felt on them going even moderatly fast through crud. And i secon what was said above, you need to stomp the landing as the have little to no tail

[Core Shot]

I have a pair of these for sale, undrilled $320 shipped o/b/o

[keksie]

A friend of friend of mine has been looking at the new nomads in 181. He's 175lbs and I think a fairly good skier, but from what I gather not a big offpiste ripper and does not know much at all about skis. Probably skis medium speed, no hucking (advanced intermediate?) He tried them in hardpack conditions (mostly groomers I think) and had fun..

I'm now asking for him, has anyone else been on the 181cm long Nomads and how do they compare to 168cm? For someone at 175lbs I guess 181cm length would normally be spot on but in case of ski like that should he maybe even consider downsizing to 168cm?

His last skis were 183cm old Gotamas mounted with freerides, which from I gather he found OK but didn't have as big fun factor as the Nomads.. he destroyed the Gotamas and needs a new all-around ski that he is probably going to mount with Dukes. Would this be something that those of you who have tried the ski would recommend for the person I described?

I know these are broad and kinda stupid questions but maybe someone could still help him out. From just looking at these reviews and dimensions & supposed flex of the 181cm Nomad I think these would most probably make a nice skis for him but I have never tested the 'em. Looks like they sacrifice in the crud-busting & shitty snow conditions (particularly breakable crust and semi-hard stuff where you want to smear instead of carving) but make up for that with being a lot of fun on groomers and in trees.. any comments?

Where did you mount yours (168 or 181 doesnt matter)?

btw.. the first hit in google when searching for "icelantic skis" is an old TGR thread with title "Icelantic = ski-boards or skis??"

[keksie]

bumpppppppppp

[Spyderjon]

I'm 5'9"/200lbs & have skied the 181 Nomad quite a bit (I sell them in the UK). They're pretty forgiving & a great all round ski. At my weight I prefer a slightly stiffer ski (I ski on 187 High Society FR's) but these should be fine for your mate (they ski to about 175cm) unless he's very tall. They've a bit too much sidecut for my preference & I found them a bit too turny in knee deep but my lighter weight mate has them & loves them & finds my FR's too stiff & straight so they'll probably be ideal for your mate.

Note that, contrary to Icelantic's spec, they are actually wider than the other Nomad's, being about 112mm underfoot - so they're a little slower edge to edge but still very manageable.

Bases/sidewalls are bomber but the top sheets are a bit easy to chip. You either love or hate the graphics. All the Nomad's I've skied were all mounted on the line for my 307mm boot & were spot on but I don't ski in the park.

[telelebowski]

Skiied the 181 Nomad tele and alpine at demo day A-Basin. 6 foot 175. Was pretty impressed. Preferred it on the tele setup b/c to my mind they ski pretty damp. With Dukes it's going to be a heavy setup, but I think they would make a good match for the dude you described. I would definitely not do the 168, for what it's worth.

[keksie]

thanks a bunch spyderjon & telebowski, do you know where your pair was mounted and did you find it ok/would you consider going forward or backward? i saw people had been mounting their shamans +1 or +2

[Jivebaby]

Hi are the skis still available? If so what size please?

Thanks

[Jivebaby]

I have a pair of these for sale, undrilled $320 shipped o/b/o

Oh and what model are they 08 or 09? Thanks

[telelebowski]

Sorry keksie, just saw this now. I am not sure where they were mounted since they were demos. If anything I would go forward, with the big shovel out there it would seem to difficult to dive a tip, but only got on them in boot high fresh. +1/+2 sounds very reasonable to me.

[Tele - tubby]

More Finesse, Less Muscle

I just purchased the 2013 Nomad in 181cm. I have them mounted for telemark with the G3 Enzos on medium springs steered by Scarpa T1 boots.

I skied them for the first time at Crested Butte, taking a couple runs on hard groomers to get a feel for them. I'm 6'3'' 205 lbs very aggressive fast skier. I raced alpine for 20 years but started on teles 3 years ago. I'm strong, confident, fast, and agressive, however my technique is not the most amazing.

On the groomers they're worthless for tele turns. I feel like I'm going to go right over the tips and I can't throw my knee down to the deck like I'm used to. There is no tail to speak of whatsoever. They seem to ski very short.

Ive only owned one tele setup before this one: The Volkl M-Rock, which is very similar to the old Mantra design. Stiffer, more even flex, no rocker, not a lot of sidecut, so this is a big change. I just keep my heels planted and alpine them on the hardpack. In alpine mode they're pretty sweet. They carve nice and are fast edge to edge. I can get a good edge on the loud powder (New England for ICE!). In my tele boots I had them laid over carving deep trenches with nothing by lateral pressure. Probably a decent alpine setup for sure and a decent one ski quiver if you know how to ride them.

I later found that I can tele them but I need to keep my stance very compact. A big tall guy like me doesn't need to drop his knee to the deck for every turn. Narrowing up the stance seemed crucial too, letting the skis work together as one. I'm not used to having the finesse required, but once I figured them out they went from worthless to OK on the front side.. The M-Rock is a much more worthy front-side ski if you're a free heeler like myself IMHO.

But the front side is not where I usually hang. Its that annoying strip of snow between the real slopes and the lifts. Lets get to the steeps, the fluffy, the deep, the soft, the crud, tight trees, boulder fields, and bumps.

I nervously took them down the steepest double black expert runs that Crested Butte has to offer such as Funnel, Headwall, Rambo, Banana, Peel, and Flatiron. I was pleasantly surprised. The steeper the terrain the better they skied. I was tearing through the gnar like I was on a nimble slalom ski. They're soft enough for bumps, agile enough for the tight trees, wide enough to surf the crud and not get stuck in the suncrusted 4 day old pow. Just don't get backseated when you pop off a jump or rock because there is no tail to catch you. )Don't get front seated either if your'e on teles!) I would not have attempted that kind of terrain with my M-Rocks, but the Nomads tore it up. I think they're an excellent choice for your everyday backside ski if you like to hang on the double blacks. Maybe not the best dedicated powder ski, but they definitely get the job done on the technical terrain where you need finesse.

Keeping a neutral position with good technique and a very compact stance is rewarded. Aggressive long sweeping turns with your knee to the deck not so much. I had to change my skiing style a bit... I'd say its more of a new school technique. More finesse, less muscle with these puppies.

If you're looking for a New England ski for powder days, this seems to be a good choice.