I have heard that before....Thats why I always demo.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Best All Mountain Ski?
- Thread starter bzrperfspec77
- Start date
MadMadWorld
Active member
They were marketed as an All Mountain ski though they are anything but. On hard pack/groomers and bumps they do very well. Try and bring them in the trees or ski them on a powder day and they can be a headache to say the least. It kind of got a bad rap because it was targeted at the wrong market but I think it's a great advanced intermediate ski.
Puck it
Well-known member
I bought mine the first year out. They were considered a midfat then. I think it was '06 when purchased. The guys at the shop were raving about them. I overpowered the ski, it just did not release in a turn for me. That was my complaint.
MadMadWorld
Active member
Haha that's really funny. No one would ever look at that ski now and think it was considered a midfat. It sounds like the ski shop just failed to match the right ski to your ability.
Puck it
Well-known member
At the time I was looking for a one ski quiver and this ski got this rating from all reviewers. The shop guys loved the ski though. It was just not for me. However, the H&B is the same all wood construction and it is night and day compared to the Recon.
Yeah, the Recon is definitely not a one ski quiver...What size did you have? I first demoed the 174 and did not like them much but the 181 felt a lot better....although I wish they made a 186 at the time. I was worried I was going to overpower the Rictors but at 181 love it.
Puck it
Well-known member
I thought they were 180's but you may be right. They were just too soft in tails. They just would not release.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
True.
In fact, if people truly wish to be helpful it would be best to post your height and weight when posting what you think an "amazing" ski is, because that "amazing" ski in X length might suck for someone with a different profile than you.
When evaluating these sorts of posts, I consider most of them useless unless the poster says, I'm "X" tall, weigh "Y" pounds, have this ski in "Z" cm, and use it for all-mountain (or bumps, or trees, or groomers, or you-get-the-picture).
When people include all those facts so that a representative picture can be formed, it can be a valuable post.
Puck it
Well-known member
Ok, I am 3' 5" 275lbs. and I love my Icelantic Shamans in 145cm.:grin:
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Coincidentally, Icelantic Shamans are the ski I'm most considering adding to my quiver.
Sadly, however, I'm much taller and weigh much less than you! My debate will be over the 161s or the 173s, and I'd like to demo them both.
Bene288
New member
I like my Theories. I've had much success in the trees and on the crud. Very responsive and poppy. No problem getting on edge and shredding some groomers, they actually carve quite nice for a wider ski. I'm about your height and weight, but we could have totally different styles and form. I opted for the 186cm and have not regretted it. Good luck to you!
gmcunni
Active member
i know nothing of the icelantic and hardly anything at all about skis in general but 161 sounds incredibly short to me for any adult male. is the icelantic shaman meant to be skied shorter than "traditional" skis?
Riverskier
Active member
I thought the same thing. He mentions being taller than Puck It at 3 feet 5 inches (and 275 lbs
), but can't be much taller if looking at a 161.
gmcunni
Active member
ah, now that i stare at the specs, is this like the salomon BBR where the asymetrical tip/tail result in shorter turn radius?
Puck it
Well-known member
Gullible, I say. Icelantics when they first came were all short. They had one size for each size were the ones at the lower side now. They said the added width of the skis made up for the length. They were said to be a Western made ski for East Coast Trees.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Yes.
When they first came out, they were all short. As their company grew, they soon learned that this is not a great marketing concept, especially given the perception that many have that longer = better (which for some ski applications is correct).
This would be to become my new "tree specific" ski if I got them, for days when I'm 100% in the n.VT woods from 8am to 4pm, and for this application, surface area and quick turns are more important to me than length and MachIII speeds. For instance, even though they're only 161, due to the design of the ski they'd have about 10% more surface area than my all-mountain skis (179 Line Prophet 90s), and 25% more surface area than my 186 icy condition and groomer skis. I will have to demo to see if 161 feels too short for me, but given Icelantic's "tree reputation" and the fact there are plenty of people who are taller and heavier than me that use the 161s as their tight tree ski with rave reviews, I'm hoping I'll like it.
If he is a good skier then he can probably handle the extra length..What Length does he ski now?
he got his old skis when he was 13 and they are Gotama juniors at 148, but he grew almost 6 inches since last season. he only weighs about 130.
MadMadWorld
Active member
Can you elaborate on "good"? Things like skiing style, what is the type of skiing is he progressing towards, etc. Generally, you want to give a kid room to grow but not so much that it hampers him from improving right now.
Similar threads
- Locked
