Is 105 too wide for park? - Icelantic Nomad Question

skierman_jack

skierman_jack

Active member
I’ve been eyeing up some Reckoner 102s for a good while but a good deal has popped up for some Icelantic Nomad 105s in my size. My brother has some nomad 95s and I envy the amount of playfulness and stability they have. With that said is 105 too wide for a park ski? How different are the Nomad 95s and 105s other than width?
 
Went from 90's to 110's this season with little to no issue. I could see where the width might suck if you like swaps on rails but some including myself like the stability from the wider ski.
 
topic:SkylineGTR_R32 said:
I’ve been eyeing up some Reckoner 102s for a good while but a good deal has popped up for some Icelantic Nomad 105s in my size. My brother has some nomad 95s and I envy the amount of playfulness and stability they have. With that said is 105 too wide for a park ski? How different are the Nomad 95s and 105s other than width?
Click to expand...

You're on 102s correct? That's 3mm difference, look at how small 3mm is. The Nomads are significantly heavier than the reckoners I believe.
 
14223527:mystery3 said:
You're on 102s correct? That's 3mm difference, look at how small 3mm is. The Nomads are significantly heavier than the reckoners I believe.
Click to expand...

I think OP meant he was gonna buy the Reckoners, but found a deal on the Nomads before he bought the K2s.
 
14223575:animator said:
I think OP meant he was gonna buy the Reckoners, but found a deal on the Nomads before he bought the K2s.
Click to expand...

I see, I read that too quickly, my mistake.

Still think he should just go for it. 105 is not that wide.
 
14223593:mystery3 said:
I see, I read that too quickly, my mistake.

Still think he should just go for it. 105 is not that wide.
Click to expand...

I agree.

OP, the Nomads are fun and definitely not too wide! Unless you’re trying to future spin they’re a ton of fun
 
I might just send it. Worst that happens is I don’t like them and I sell them

14223597:animator said:
I agree.

OP, the Nomads are fun and definitely not too wide! Unless you’re trying to future spin they’re a ton of fun
Click to expand...
 
2018 line chronics and they suck. I went to 185s from 171s last season and because of the length the stiffness is way more overpowering. I’ve also skied them for 4 weeks and the edges and sidewalls are pulling.

14223725:animator said:
What are you skiin on now?
Click to expand...
 
14223861:SkylineGTR_R32 said:
2018 line chronics and they suck. I went to 185s from 171s last season and because of the length the stiffness is way more overpowering. I’ve also skied them for 4 weeks and the edges and sidewalls are pulling.
Click to expand...

Hurd. That’s a big jump for sure
 
Yeah it will be. I took my 120s K2 Pettitors into the park yesterday for a run just to see and I could feel the difference on rails but honestly it wasn’t bad at all. And those are 15mm fatter

14223868:animator said:
Hurd. That’s a big jump for sure
Click to expand...
 
14223952:SkylineGTR_R32 said:
Yeah it will be. I took my 120s K2 Pettitors into the park yesterday for a run just to see and I could feel the difference on rails but honestly it wasn’t bad at all. And those are 15mm fatter
Click to expand...

I rode Pettitors as my only ski for a few years and they’re so fun
 
You'll love them in the park. The 105 have been my go-to park & everyday ski for the past 5 seasons. Icelantics are built like tanks, so they shouldn't start delaming and edge cracking as soon as you start beating them up.

If you prefer a more centered mount I would suggest -1.5cm from the "CC" mark (+7.5 from the recommended "BC" line if I recall correctly). They are ALMOST symmetrical, so they still ski great almost everywhere, even being that far forward of recommended.
 
What was the weight like? From what I’ve seen in a 181 they weight ~1860 which is pretty light. What is your opinion on the weight/swing weight?

14224074:closeyetfar11 said:
You'll love them in the park. The 105 have been my go-to park & everyday ski for the past 5 seasons. Icelantics are built like tanks, so they shouldn't start delaming and edge cracking as soon as you start beating them up.

If you prefer a more centered mount I would suggest -1.5cm from the "CC" mark (+7.5 from the recommended "BC" line if I recall correctly). They are ALMOST symmetrical, so they still ski great almost everywhere, even being that far forward of recommended.
Click to expand...
 
keep in mind the nomad 105 actually measure to about 111mm underfoot.

With that said, that ski is so easy to ski I doubt you'd have any issues.
 
14224213:SkylineGTR_R32 said:
What was the weight like? From what I’ve seen in a 181 they weight ~1860 which is pretty light. What is your opinion on the weight/swing weight?
Click to expand...

I've never thought of them as overly heavy, even with p18s mounted on them.
 
14224436:.nasty said:
keep in mind the nomad 105 actually measure to about 111mm underfoot.

With that said, that ski is so easy to ski I doubt you'd have any issues.
Click to expand...

Do they scale up and down with lengths?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top