When you go skiing in Colorado, that makes perfect sense, you see a lot of them around.
The interesting thing is the apparent versatility of these sticks.
However, two things really surprised me about the 105.
The first, small surprise is that its pretty stiff.
The tail in particular, is pretty solid.
But the biggest surprise is in a 181 length, it isnt even close to a 105mm ski.
As such, I was expecting a performance more akin to an ARV 106 or Sir Francis Bacon.
So when I first tried them, I thought the Nomad 105 was pretty disappointing on groomed snow.
They gripped fairly well but they felt slow and unresponsive.
But with false expectations, the skis felt slightly underwhelming.
They dont have a lot of camber or energy, but they are solid.
Slush/Crud:
Again, I liked these skis a lot in slush and crud.
They cut through bumpy, crud pretty nicely, and powered through the (deep) slush.
The big difference is the flex pattern.
They feel light but solid and the edges seemed as good as most without being remarkable.
I didnt get any edge cracks but I wouldnt expect them because I only hit a few rails.
The way the sidewall is profiled doesnt do anything to reduce chipping and the topsheets themselves seem fairly thin.
The Bent is more versatile but the Nomad is a better charger and line skiing ski.
Conclusion:
Like the Nomad 95, I think the Nomad 105 could be due an update.
That said, the Nomad 105 is a top-selling ski for a reason.
It’s a super predictable and accessible ski that looks stunning on the rack.
Compared to many freestyle backcountry skis, I think these are more of a charger.
And there’s plenty of tail rise for all the freestyle maneuvers you could wish for too.
For me, they were a useful stiffer addition to my roster of mostly soft skis.
Finally, a note on mounting point.
I found -3 a little too far back in the park but it was nice everywhere else.
