The North Face Up to 40% offThe North Face Up to 40% off

Description

Dig deep into your soul-carves and plunder the untouched stashes.

Like the regal elk, the Icelantic Keeper Ski brings power and strength to the mountains. A monstrously-wide shovel plows through crud while early-rise in the tip and tail float through deep stashes with ease. With lively poplar wood at its core, this ski snaps deep into carves and flawlessly engages the traditional camber underfoot for unmatched control. Couple the Keeper Ski with a slackcountry touring binding or high-DIN alpine charger, and you'll never feel compelled to own an entire quiver of skis again because the Keeper is more than enough.
  • Early-rise tips and tails with some camber underfoot allows you to effortlessly transfer from fresh snow to hard pack
  • Poplar wood core has a lively pop and creates a ruggedly durable chassis
  • Sandwich construction provides torsional rigidity that'll suck up cruddy backcountry obstacles
  • Matte-fiberglass mounting plate provides a steadfast platform to keep your bindings in place
  • Durasurf base and sidewalls fend off damaging hits from rocky shark fins lurking under the snow

Share your thoughts

Review Summary
5
2 4
1 3
0 2
0 1
0

What do you think of the

Icelantic Keeper Ski

? Share a...

Write a review

No file chosen

Rather attach a photo from another website?

Rather attach a photo from your computer?

  • Product review:
  • Share a video
  • Share a photo

How familiar are you with the product?(Optional)

Only jpg, jpeg, png, gif or bmp files please.

Save

Here's what others have to say...

Unanswered Question

In response to Wally Phillips, I'm not at...

Posted on

In response to Wally Phillips, I'm not at all a park skier so this would be used for big mountain days, every day if that makes sense. I want the maneuverability for the trees but also want stability and length for charging big lines and dropping cliffs.

Hey,

Just bought a pair of these at 178....

Posted on

Hey,

Just bought a pair of these at 178. I'm 5'11", 165lbs, anyone think these are too short for me?

Responded on

Hey DonJulio,

It will depend on how you like to ski. I have been on this ski in a 189cm (5'11" 180lbs, Utah freeskier) and I found it to be a bit playful for how stable it is and gave a solid, medium radius turn when given a bit of power. So, the 178cm will probably like turning a bit more, which will keep it nimble, but it will compromise high speed stability. If you are primarily a park skier and plan on using this ski for the big-mountain days, then it'll do great. If you are a bit more traditional and LOVE speed, it might be a little short.

5 5

Booyah

Ski handles it all. Playful in the crud, bulldozes the chopped pow, floats the pow like a champion and straight lines like a champion. Can't do wrong with these champion...

4 5

Great, with one drawback

Got to ski these on a recent powder day up at Brundage. At 6'1" and 190 pounds and a racing background the 189s were the way to go. The folks at the rental shop had two things to say about them: first was that they're great in the fall line, second was that they are slow on the cat tracks. They couldn't have been more right. Once these skis are pointed down the hill they are awesome. You can ski pretty much anywhere with them at near ridiculous speeds. They are by far the fastest powder and crud skis I've been on. My wife is a bit of a speed freak, and even when she was skiing on trail and I was in the trees skiing powder/crud off-trail I could still easily beat her down the hill. The part that was even better, it seemed effortless. On trail, with firm conditions underfoot the edges held very well. At the end of the day I even took them into some moguls and found that they seemed to ski much shorter than the 189 on the side would lead you to believe. Now the downside, as he folks in the shop warned me, they were ridiculously slow on the cat tracks and traverses. And that's even with the shop having reground the bases and experimented with various waxes. My wife was on her Mantras and with the same wax just glided away from me all day. Heck, there were folks eligible for social security gliding past me. The lack of speed on the traverses translated into lines I just couldn't reach in the trees. Two days later I was back on those same tracks with my Kendos and blasted into areas well above anything I could get on the Keepers, though I would pay for that as the Kendos required a lot more energy to ski in that snow, and we're nowhere near as much fun as the Keepers. if I could get the Keepers to gilde I'd have already added a pair to the stable, but for now the search for a powder ski continues.
Skied them for a second time two weeks after my original demo after a good dump of powder at Brundage. Had started the day on a pair of JJ AKs, but found that the Armadas were a) a lot more work in the powder, b) didn't turn as tightly despite the same claimed turn radius, c) didn't handle the crud as well, and d) seemed to be speed limited. Just to be sure it wasn't a difference in the snow from a couple weeks ago I put the JJ AKs back in the truck after a couple hours and grabbed the Keepers again. In everything but glide on traverses and some flotation in the powder the Keepers were way better than the JJ AKs. May need to reconsider these skis.

Responded on

Couldn't agree more with your comment regarding the cat-tracks. There's nothing like a 6-year old blowing past you to wonder what is going on. I am glad to hear that I am not the only one who has that problem, I thought it was a wax issue.

That said, great ski.

5 5

These Skis RULE

These skis rip. period. super stable at speed, super floaty, and they bust through crud like nothing else I've ever skied. I'm thinking about starting my very own Icelantic Cult..

I'm an expert 5' 10" skier that weighs 145...

Posted on

I'm an expert 5' 10" skier that weighs 145 lbs and normally skis a 173cm. I ski a lot of trees, can I get away with a skiing a 167cm?

Responded on

I would go with the 178s if I were you...I'm 5'8" 155lbs, advanced skier. The 178s have been the perfect length for me with plenty of agility in the trees.

Responded on

Absolutely 178cm. I'm 5'8" and wouldn't shy away from the 189 if I didn't live in the East. 350mm tip and 250mm of tail rocker means the actual cambered part of the ski unflexed is only 118cm. Flexed there is more active edge. The 178 is great and turny for the trees and are super trustworthy at speed. These skis wont disappoint.

Just got my new Keeper 178s mounted with...

Posted on

Just got my new Keeper 178s mounted with Dukes - can't wait to try them out.

The last thing I need to complete my new AT setup are some skins. Anybody have recommendations on good skins for these skis?

Responded on

I really like my G3 alpinist skins.

Responded on

I have a pair of BD Ascension STS that I swap between these and my Line Prophet 100's. I'm extremely happy with their durability on east coast crunchy snow. Couldn't be happier with my choice in skins.

See a lot of people here saying go long....

Posted on

See a lot of people here saying go long. At 6-2, 175#, I'm trying to decide between 178 and 189. Primary use resort, probably mount with traditional alpine. I understand Icelantic's vision was to use materials that make a short ski that skis long. I like the idea of a ski that is fun in the trees but I don't want to be disappointed when I let them rip in the open chowder. Any comments?

Best Answer Responded on

I bought the 189 at 6' and 195 and don't reqret it. At this length it is still very agile in deep powder for trees and incredible in bowls (sking Gran Targhee and Brundage). If you are only going to ski tight trees you may want to go with the shorter length. You may have already made a purchased, but either length for your size should work well. I also looked at the Rossi S7 as they both have a similar shape. Decided to buy something made in the USA.

Responded on

These do ski big. Demo if you can. I demo'd a 178 and was hoping for something twitchier than I experienced. Ripping open powder should not be a problem. But demo the ski as the 50th guy down to be sure your satisfied.

Guys, these skis sound incredible. What...

Posted on

Guys, these skis sound incredible. What length would you recommend for someone 5'11, 165lbs., former racer, now lover of the Pacific Northwest backcountry?

Best Answer Responded on

I think you will enjoy the 178. The 189 would be cool to have for bomber open bowl days, but i bet you enjoy the 178 in the trees. Hope this helps.

Unanswered Question

I am most certainly about to about to buy...

Posted on

I am most certainly about to about to buy these skis and a new factor came to thought. Does anyone know if these would be good with a tele setup? Or more specifically, a Rottefella NTN binding?

Curious to know what AT bindings people...

Posted on

Curious to know what AT bindings people have used on the Keeper.
Thanks!

Responded on

I just ordered a pair of Marker Dukes for mine, and it seems like thats what a lot of people are going with on this ski. Like any other ski, it depends if you are looking for strictly backcountry or slackcountry/sidecountry. For backcountry skiing the Duke may be a little too heavy. I will get back to you as soon as I try them out.

Responded on

I will be ordering the Duke for my 178cm Keepers as well. I'm a lightweight skier (130lbs) that needs the durability and performance of a high end binding like this. I have Dukes currently on a pair of Line Prophet 100's 172cm (9.5lb skis), with BD Factor boots. WIth that said its a heavy setup, yet I still manage to squeeze in 10-12K out of my tours with ease and can still have complete confidence in my bindings skiing zipperlines at the resort too. If you have a high fitness level (chances are you do if you are touring anyways), you likely will not have any problem.

If you want reliability in no fall zones and other areas when it really counts, go with the duke. For an alternative if you are planning much longer trips the F12 would be a good option due to the improvements made for the 11-12 season.

Responded on

If you're doing a lot of resort skiing, you may choose a Marker AT binding, but they tour poorly (and are prone to icing, and you have to take your skis off to switch to ski mode, and you can easily break one with a knee fall touring) and are REALLY heavy. While I'm also on BD Factors, I'm putting Dynafit Vertical FT 12's on mine.

To anyone who claims that Dynafit's can't hang if you ski hard, I'd say watch an Eric Hjorleifson video (like this one http://www.earlyups.com/featured/eric-hjorleifson-pov/)

Dynafits don't have the same elasticity in the toe release as an alpine binding, and don't do well in backwards falls. Otherwise, they work REALLY well driving skis hard.

For "slackcountry" or mixed resort-bc bindings, Markers are a reasonable compromise. For (even really agressive) backcountry use, nothing works as well as a Dynafit.

Responded on

Got mine last season,the 189. im 6-3, 230. mounted with the Dynafit Vertical FT12. boot is the scarpa mobe. use BD skins. they tour awesome, u cant go wrong with the dynafits. incredible ski, can tear up everything