New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Elan M999 spotted

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
129/99/119 at 181cm

check out that flex!



(sorry about the blurred pic)
post #2 of 16
Maybe you can help me out...have you heard how they ride? And do you know how i can get ahold of a pair and for how much? thanks for the help....
post #3 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by skierjke
Maybe you can help me out...have you heard how they ride? And do you know how i can get ahold of a pair and for how much? thanks for the help....

I can get them...not sure about the price yet...
post #4 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching
I can get them...not sure about the price yet...
dawg, have you seen or tried them? Is that 3 points of different bending stiffness in the tail or just wacky camera angle in combination with a turned-up tail?

It looks as though camber stops at the second E in M Series for a Zag-style nose at the tail?





(woof!)
post #5 of 16
Thread Starter 
price was $999CAD

very stiff underfoot, soft on the edges. definitely try before you buy.
post #6 of 16
that picture looks like an M01, not a 999.
post #7 of 16
Thread Starter 
check the bottom of the ski, 999 clearly visible:

post #8 of 16
whoa! I stand corrected.

thanks!

but doesn't the camera view make it look awfully skinny for the given dimensions? looks skinnier than the M666.
post #9 of 16
Thread Starter 
yes, the black colour at the cant makes it look thinner than it is, but it really isn't very thick anyway. a sandwitch construction, with the center part (the one that doesn't flex) visibly thicker.

my guesstimate is 15-17mm at its thickest part, maybe more.
post #10 of 16
I meant sidecut profile wise, not base-to-topskin

but now that you mention it...
post #11 of 16
Thread Starter 
oh, those.. i copied them off the ski itself. definitelly fatter than the 777.

i'm hoping to get the width dimensions for a 190 pair, i'll post them if i can
post #12 of 16
f2f, if you were to repeat Pierre's test for running surface, how far back along the tail would your mark be?
post #13 of 16
Thread Starter 
i don't have the skis in front of me (took the pics at the store) so i won't be able to give you anything meaningful...

the mark on the top sheet for the binding is clearly visible on the first pic, but whether that's a good indication is debatable
post #14 of 16
Thanks for the help f2f. If any of you hear how they ride or get to ride them yourself, let me know how they work.

Thanks!
post #15 of 16
I rode the M999 at snowbasin demo last week. Very soft, turned well but it got a bit squirlley at speed. My bet is that it would be a load of fun in the deep. However, it would not be good as an everyday fat, even compared to other fatties. The waist was somewhere around 99, If i remember right it had the same demensions as the atomic sugar daddy. Fun ski, not my favorite.
post #16 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by f2f
oh, those.. i copied them off the ski itself. definitelly fatter than the 777.

i'm hoping to get the width dimensions for a 190 pair, i'll post them if i can
Tele Ho!

the skis are great, IMHO. measurments are 129/99/199, sidecut is around 29m/by 192 cm lenght.

quite soft, carves impresivly on hard (manmade snow), but when it's in powder it is a beauty.

I do not mention that I do telemark on them did I ??? :-)

br
3g
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion