2010 Icelantic Nomad (Telemark)

Length: 168cm
Dimensions: 140-105-130
Sidecut: 17m
Weight (per pair): 7.11 lbs
Binding: 22 Designs Hammerhead
Boot: Garmont Ener-G

I had the opportunity to demo the 2010 Icelantic Nomad back in February at the Maine Telemark Festival at Sunday River. I spent the entire morning getting back in the swing of things on my K2 Work Stinx (08 Vintage, 174cm) mounted with BDO1’s, as I had not been fruit-booting in a couple of weeks. My intent was to demo some skis after lunch and then take a bump skiing clinic until the closing bell. Naturally I lost track of time, and made it over to the demo booth moments before the start of the clinic to pick up a pair of Nomads. What better than to bash bumps with strangers for a couple hours on a pair of skis you’ve never ridden and are the antithesis of traditional bump ski dimensions, especially for the day’s notably firm conditions.

I’ll have to admit, I had scoffed at Icelantic’s surface area centric sales pitch; writing it off jokingly as a byproduct of not having a large enough press at the Neversummer snowboard factory where the skis are manufactured. Even still, I was intrigued and had always wanted to get on a pair, as Icelantic has been steadily building a cult following among the throngs of east coast bark bashers. My first impression of the ski while fondling it in the demo rack was very positive. There is no question that this is a well made board. It was extremely light, with a noticeably high build quality that included features like a silky smooth top-sheet bevel, fat edges and bomber p-tex sidewalls.

I’ve been tele-skiing for only a few seasons and while I feel that I have progressed rapidly, I still prefer my telemark skis a good 5-10cm shorter than alpine but at 168cm, the Nomad was still the shortest ski I’ve been on in my adult life. That being said, I’ll go ahead and drink the Icelantic koolaid: they were a surprisingly stable platform. Not a comfortable straight running ski, but I turn a lot more when I telemark, so it was both accommodating and acceptable to me. An acquaintance of mine had tried the 181 and found it to actually be too much ski for him, citing it as difficult to get around with unforgiving stiffness. They say 105 under foot but this ski felt wider at first and took a little getting used to coming from my work stinx. Once I got used to transitioning the extra width, I found them to have excellent edge grip on ice and hardpack for a ski that wide, and really fun in the tight bumps. On the hard pack it was really fun to make extremely angulated turns with my uphill knee in the snow. The clinic instructor made a comment about how surprised he was to see me getting edge to edge so quick with that width underfoot.

If I had to complain about anything, there was one moment where I was getting cocky in some worked/wind-smashed chowder and was able to bury a tip and face plant nicely. It was primarily operator error, but it highlighted the need for one to stay more alert when skiing it in this length, as I am certain a longer board would have blown right through and kept my face off the ground.

Bottom Line:

A very fun ski, and at 168 its a perfect east coast tree/pow killer that you could ride every day. I bet those 173 shamans are the tits too. I also really miss skiing hammerheads.

GS Rating: 4/5