A quick word on blocking ads
It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
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!
weastcoastAnyone know what’s softer?
CalumSKIWets 100 percent
TwigI'd say they are fairly close in terms of flex. The Wet isn't nearly as soft as people make it out to be, it's just super rockered. The Nomad 95 is probably actually a touch softer but it's way less rockered so when skiing, it feels slightly stiffer to me. I haven't spent a ton of time on the Nomad so it's hard to make a good comparison but both are super easy to flex and play around on. To me, the Nomad is a bit more versatile in soft snow thanks to much wider tips and being a wider ski overall. Correspondingly, the Wet feels way lighter when spinning and it's a quicker feeling ski.
KwaasyThanks for the insight, Twig!
CalumSKIwets for all park
nomads for park/all mountain
wets are doo doo everywhere but the park
VISHNUHave you ever actually ridden our skis? If you had you would know this is false.
OP, either ski will work well for you I think. If you like a damper soft ski go Nomad, if you like a springier soft ski go for the wet.
KwaasyAppreciate the feedback! On a separate note, Is the flex profile on the wide similar to the wet just with a bigger base?
VISHNUYes exactly
TwigFor what it's worth, we're going to be dropping in-depth reviews of both the Wet and the Wide in the next week or so.
VISHNUHave you ever actually ridden our skis? If you had you would know this is false.
OP, either ski will work well for you I think. If you like a damper soft ski go Nomad, if you like a springier soft ski go for the wet.
CalumSKImy friend patrick has stated many times that the wets are brutal anywhere else but park
Pat.tThank u calum for the valuable he said she said perspective.
I rode wets last mid season through this mid season and am now on 191 nomad 95s. They are very similar but as stated above nomad in spongier. I am 6'2 and so having 191 has its benefits, but they ride not much longer than the 183 V tbh. V's hold their shape/pop while Nomads slowly bow out/ get progressively more soft
Pat.tThank u calum for the valuable he said she said perspective.
I rode wets last mid season through this mid season and am now on 191 nomad 95s. They are very similar but as stated above nomad in spongier. I am 6'2 and so having 191 has its benefits, but they ride not much longer than the 183 V tbh. V's hold their shape/pop while Nomads slowly bow out/ get progressively more soft
KwaasyGood to know. I’m 5’8 180, would the 183 V’s be too much ski for me? I can’t even imagine the 191 Nomads for my height and if they didn’t seem much bigger I don’t know if 183 would be the best. I’ve heard on NS before for other similar height/weight riders that 183 should be fine but this makes me second guess a bit.
Pat.tI would go for the 183 100% if I were you. Especially if you want more all mtn capabilities. Don't second guess it. Vs and nomads both ride short compared to most skis on the market (given the soft flex and amount of rocker). Out of the two nomads ride significantly smaller than Vs per size. Ive tried 181 nomads and they feel like ski blades where the 183 Vs feel solid. For reference im going to be getting the Wet+ in a 183 but at your height the regular wet 183 would be great.
Young_patty3) nice looking graphics
4) will be a more stable/versatile ski any day than an 83 underfoot 3/10 stiff V any day
weastcoast1. Vishnu’s have 10x better topsheets than icelantics
2. Vishnu’s aren’t 83 underfoot they’re 89, and they ain’t stiff
3. “3/10” and “stiff” shouldn’t be used in the same sentence at all.
CalumSKIIcelantic has better graphics
Ur lying to ur slef
weastcoast1. Vishnu’s have 10x better topsheets than icelantics
2. Vishnu’s aren’t 83 underfoot they’re 89, and they ain’t stiff
3. “3/10” and “stiff” shouldn’t be used in the same sentence at all.
s.buchs143I think he’s talking about topsheet durability not graphic
Young_pattyYeah thanks for the heads up retard, 3/10 is a measurement of stiffness
weastcoastYeah no shit, but if a ski is advertised 3/10 then there’s no way in hell its “stiff”.
weastcoast1. Vishnu’s have 10x better topsheets than icelantics
2. Vishnu’s aren’t 83 underfoot they’re 89, and they ain’t stiff
3. “3/10” and “stiff” shouldn’t be used in the same sentence at all.
skiswerveBOTH OF YOU ARE WRONG there 88 waist by 116 and 116
weastcoastThey posted the other day on their story that they were actually 89 even tho they’re 88 on the site but tbh I don’t think it matters
