Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
CT 3.0 vs icelantic nomad 105
Posts: 26
-
Karma: 33
Trying to figure out what to get for this season. Last year I had the 3.0(the ones with no titinal under foot) and absolutely loved them. I'm 185 6' 2", used to compete in racing and big mountain so I want a ski that can spin, butter, charge, stomp, carve, and haul ass(I know it's a lot to ask for). I don't ski anything under a 190, I'll punch front or over drive the tips with the amount of rocker in these skis. My pow skis are faction chapter 116(16/17 made stiffer than other years)
icelantic nomad 105/105 light - probably more durable than 3.0 still very playful. Do the tips and tails hang up weird because they don't have any taper?
3.0 - super playful responsive and likes to speed, so light that can almost be knocked around on firmer stuff at times but not too bad. Durability issues
Posts: 2337
-
Karma: 2,268
Wrote this little excerpt in a review I did a while back that you could probably use to get a better understanding on how the skis ride.
________
The 105s are a great all mountain ripper. The day I tried them was a powder day and we had about 6 inches of snow over the past two days but there were still groomed trails to mob on outside of the fresh. These skis were too fun to handle. The 105s actually have a 140mm tip with allowing for some pretty easy riding when in soft snow. They are definitely on the more playful side of things and love to be slashed around and jibbed on. They feel like they have a progressive flex where it gets softer in the tips to a little stiffer in the tails allowing for effortless landings in soft snow, crud, and hardpack but still are easily able to be buttered thanks to some rocker. On hardpack they are actually very stable. I learned to ski from racers (even though I never raced) and put my skis to the test on hardpack often going too fast for my own good. These skis do chatter just a tad at higher speeds of around 55 +/- 5 but that is to be expected of any ski right?
As for the Nomad 105 Lites, they felt just as good with a little stiffer flex and, of course, being a bit lighter. The Lites would be perfect for an AT setup for the person looking for a more playful ski to tour on that is a bit lighter than the normal construction. I don't have the exact weight difference but it was noticeable when on snow.
________
So for your case, they seem to be really sick big mtn rippers if that's what you're looking for. The lack of taper does affect swing weight a tad but it does give you a little more effective edge on the ski when you're hauling ass and are getting super deep in your carve so its a trade off that was worth it for me. I will say that the mount is about 4 back if i remember correctly so you may have to adapt your style slightly as the skis are only 191 instead of say a 198 or something like that. I didn't overpower the 181s too hard when ripping them but if I was skiing strictly big mtn and mobbing as fast as I think you are, the 191s will be awesome. Hope this helps my dude.
Posts: 168
-
Karma: 148
Get the nomad 105. They are INCREDIBLY DURABLE, and have a 3 year warranty in case you snap them. My dad has icelantics, and he loves them. This is his second season on them, and they don’t have a SCRATCH. I’m thinking about buying a pair of nomads also.
Posts: 358
-
Karma: 1,335
I haven't skied any factions in about 3 years (I liked them when I did), but up until last year I had a set of nomad 105s w/ guardians as a do it all king of ski (i live in SW CO). Thing definitely rips the chunder, holds it's own in the deep stuff, and if you put in the work, will lay over till your 6th toe punch drags. Like you, I'm a big guy @ 6'5" 210lbs. I raced up to J1 (shows my age) and have placed in big mountain comps like FWQ at Taos. I was hard pressed to outski the nomad regularly, but it can certainly be done. I'd describe the flex as a 7/8 in the tips, 10 underfoot (and this runs a good length of the ski) and about an 8 in the tails. The downfall of the icelantics are they are heavier than a sack of rocks, but this helps in the durability department.
I don't share the philosophy of "I never ski anything under 190cm" (and remember I'm a bit bigger than you), but in this case I'd go 191 over 181cm.
If there's any question as to whether the nomad checks all the boxes on your list, check out Owen Leeper's newest edit. No matter what you end up with new skis are always a good way to make you smile!
All times are Eastern (-5)
