EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Elan M666 Ski Dimensions?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Elan M666 Ski Dimensions?

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
I'm hoping that someone can verifiy the ski dimensions for the Elan M666.

The Elan web site is showing them as 116 / 76 / 102
But these are the same dimensions as the Magfire 12 and the original M662.

These dimensions also don't make sense if you consider how Elan named the rest of the M Series skis:

Elan M777 is 117 / 87 / 107 (notice how all the measurements end with a "7")
Elan M999 is 129 / 99 / 119 (notice how all the measurements end with a "9")

So I have a feeling that the dimensions of the M666 could actually be 116 / 76 / 106 (note that the tail dimension is changed)

Is there anyone out there with a set of M666 skis that could check the actual measurements?
post #2 of 21
Noodler,

The nomenclature is not specific to the dimensions. A ski with a 116 / 76 / 106 sidecut would be impossible to skid and would hold a skier in a carved turn until he was heading uphill!

Barrettscv
post #3 of 21
Thread Starter 
Interesting thought, but I would have to disagree. Let's look at the dimensions of a few other skis currently available:

[167cm 16m 41|31 109-68- 99] K2 Apache Crossfire
[168cm 15m 42|29 111-69- 98] Blizzard Sigma AXP Ti
[170cm 17m 40|29 114-74-103] Head Monster i.M 75 Chip Super Railflex II

Now here is the "modified" version of the Elan M666:
[168cm 16m 40|30 116-76-106] Elan 2006 M666

You'll notice that I have a "special" set of measurements in there that I use to gauge sidecuts between different skis. The numbers in the form xx|xx show the difference between the tip and the waist and then the tail and the waist. Looking at these numbers shows us that an M666 with an additional 4mm of tail width would not be considered "bizarre" since there are plenty of other manufacturers with ski sidecuts that would be similar.
post #4 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler
I'm hoping that someone can verifiy the ski dimensions for the Elan M666.

The Elan web site is showing them as 116 / 76 / 102
But these are the same dimensions as the Magfire 12 and the original M662.

These dimensions also don't make sense if you consider how Elan named the rest of the M Series skis:

Elan M777 is 117 / 87 / 107 (notice how all the measurements end with a "7")
Elan M999 is 129 / 99 / 119 (notice how all the measurements end with a "9")

So I have a feeling that the dimensions of the M666 could actually be 116 / 76 / 106 (note that the tail dimension is changed)

Is there anyone out there with a set of M666 skis that could check the actual measurements?

the tail is 102. the '05 Magfire 12 is the '04 M666 Fusion is the '02 M662 Mantis, as dimensions go.
post #5 of 21
Thread Starter 
Gonzo - I did see your review of the M666. Do you own these skis? Did you actually measure them or is this what's printed on the ski? I just want to be sure of what your source is.
post #6 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler
Gonzo - I did see your review of the M666. Do you own these skis? Did you actually measure them or is this what's printed on the ski? I just want to be sure of what your source is.
I'm just repeating what I've seen from every source, including the ski's topsheet.

no, I didn't measure them.

yes, I did own them and skied them for a few days, but sold them because I don't like the amount of ramp angle in the Fusion Tyrolia binders. loved the ski, didn't like the posture that the Fusion bindings put me in.

I'm trying to find an M666 flat.
post #7 of 21
Thread Starter 
Yeah, I don't think I want the Fusion binding system either. I've found the M666 flat here in Denver and couple places online, but the price isn't anything special for a pre-season deal.

When hand flexing both the Fusion and Flat versions in the store, the flat version felt smoother and more uniform with more snap, but of course hand flexing is hard to use as a judgement of on snow performance. Plus I don't like the Tyrolia binding that Elan chose for its Fusion system - it's based on the Tyrolia LD12 that has the cheaper toe piece - it's not the all-metal Race Diagonal toe like in the HD14 and Cyber Carbon D9 series.
post #8 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler
Interesting thought, but I would have to disagree. Let's look at the dimensions of a few other skis currently available:

[167cm 16m 41|31 109-68- 99] K2 Apache Crossfire
[168cm 15m 42|29 111-69- 98] Blizzard Sigma AXP Ti
[170cm 17m 40|29 114-74-103] Head Monster i.M 75 Chip Super Railflex II

Now here is the "modified" version of the Elan M666:
[168cm 16m 40|30 116-76-106] Elan 2006 M666

You'll notice that I have a "special" set of measurements in there that I use to gauge sidecuts between different skis. The numbers in the form xx|xx show the difference between the tip and the waist and then the tail and the waist. Looking at these numbers shows us that an M666 with an additional 4mm of tail width would not be considered "bizarre" since there are plenty of other manufacturers with ski sidecuts that would be similar.
I wanted to point out that a 116-76-106 sidecut with the sandwich construction of the M666 would be unusable as a recreation ski. The models you provide for comparison are built with a more forgiving construction method.



The trend in design is towards Pintail sidecuts with broad tips. Both Volkl and Salomon made a few wide tail models 5 or more years ago. The skis were not stable, and would not track well; they also “skied the skier” since turn release was difficult.



Deep sidecuts are also difficult for more relaxed skiing. A wider tail would reduce the natural turn radius to near slalom sidecut levels. This kind of design feels great when the user gives it the required effort, but will become unforgiving when the user relaxes. Also, high speed stability would suffer. These skis can test-drive well during demo runs, but are less fun in normal use.



Barrettscv
post #9 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv
I wanted to point out that a 116-76-106 sidecut with the sandwich construction of the M666 would be unusable as a recreation ski. The models you provide for comparison are built with a more forgiving construction method.


The trend in design is towards Pintail sidecuts with broad tips. Both Volkl and Salomon made a few wide tail models 5 or more years ago. The skis were not stable, and would not track well; they also “skied the skier” since turn release was difficult.

Deep sidecuts are also difficult for more relaxed skiing. A wider tail would reduce the natural turn radius to near slalom sidecut levels. This kind of design feels great when the user gives it the required effort, but will become unforgiving when the user relaxes. Also, high speed stability would suffer. These skis can test-drive well during demo runs, but are less fun in normal use.
Obviously, Elan doesn´t think so, cf:
"The Reflex Sidecut cares for effortless handling and control, perfect for women who don´t want to have to push it too hard."
Elan My Spice fusion, 113-70-113.
They seem to still be in love with the original Parabolic sidecut.

I am also not fond of those wide tails although they have some virtues. Remember the horrible Salomon retail GS 97-66-100?

BTW, there used to be a (somewhat demagogic) saying that wide tails were good for skiers who can´t finish the turn themselves.
post #10 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by checkracer
Obviously, Elan doesn´t think so, cf:
"The Reflex Sidecut cares for effortless handling and control, perfect for women who don´t want to have to push it too hard."
Elan My Spice fusion, 113-70-113.
They seem to still be in love with the original Parabolic sidecut.

I am also not fond of those wide tails although they have some virtues. Remember the horrible Salomon retail GS 97-66-100?

BTW, there used to be a (somewhat demagogic) saying that wide tails were good for skiers who can´t finish the turn themselves.
Yes, I should realize that wide tails are out there. I just think they should be saved for slalom skis and hyper-carvers. It’s like a car with overly-fast power-steering, great for parking, but not wanted at higher speeds. I also remember an early shaped ski from Volkl with a tail wider than the tip; good for reversing, I guess.



Barrettscv
post #11 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv
Yes, I should realize that wide tails are out there. I just think they should be saved for slalom skis and hyper-carvers.
I believe these are targeted towards users not familiar with the high edge angles of slalom and hyper-carving. Increased tail width for these users might equate to better edge hold and tail response/rebound at finish. Possibly also the thinking behind the early Volkl.
post #12 of 21
We did come to the conclusion taht this 666 ski is really the old 662 and does in fact have a 102mm tail right?
Later
GREG
post #13 of 21
Thread Starter 
The ski is printed with 102mm as the tail width. I'm going to go by a shop and double-check though.
post #14 of 21
Once we get someone to measure their 666's, the question may arrise: What really are the 662's?

I don't own the 666's, but I do own the 662's, and in a 176cm, I measured 117mm - 76mm - 102mm for one ski and 117mm - 76 - 101mm for the other. When I put the tails of the two skis back to back, there is a small (~0.5mm) difference in the width.
post #15 of 21
Thread Starter 
Dave - Do both skis have the same serial number? The main reason I ask is that Elan supposedly matches them at the factory (flex and dimensions) and then ships them out as a set.

Anyhow, I have measured actual 2006 M666 skis in the shop. All of the 168cm boards I measured come out as 117-75-102.
post #16 of 21
Noodler -

About the serial numbers - I left that info out to make my post brief. They do not match as I checked while I was measuring the skis.

The funny part of the serial number thing is, when I bought the skis (2 years ago this coming December), the shop had three pairs of the skis in a 176cm and all the serial numbers were mixed up for each pair. I convinced a gal at the shop of the problem, and thought we had corrected the problem by swapping the skis around until each pair had matching serial numbers. With that in mind, I have no idea why my pair does not have matching serial numbers (how could the shop have screwed that up after we sorted everything out???).

Dave
post #17 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier
We did come to the conclusion taht this 666 ski is really the old 662 and does in fact have a 102mm tail right?
Later
GREG
Right, give or take 1mm here and there.

I have the M662 and mine are 116-76-102 and 168cm. By the way, I think the M666 is a damper ski (I could be mistaken). I only demoed the 2004 Fusion M666 and that was definitely more damp than my M662. The M662 is super lively for a mid-fat and can handle hardpack very well (more of a GS ski than SL ski, but at 168cm, short turns can be had easily).
post #18 of 21
Fusion plate makes the ski more damp than the 662. I think the 666 probably carves better, but the 662 is better in chopped up stuff if the pilot can handle them. I'd ski on either if the price was right - both are great skis.
Later
GREG
post #19 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave86
About the serial numbers - I left that info out to make my post brief. They do not match as I checked while I was measuring the skis.

The funny part of the serial number thing is, when I bought the skis (2 years ago this coming December), the shop had three pairs of the skis in a 176cm and all the serial numbers were mixed up for each pair. I convinced a gal at the shop of the problem, and thought we had corrected the problem by swapping the skis around until each pair had matching serial numbers. With that in mind, I have no idea why my pair does not have matching serial numbers (how could the shop have screwed that up after we sorted everything out???).
Dave
Dave - I'm sorry to hear that your shop didn't get your matched pair straightened out for you, but know that you're not alone. When I pointed out the "matched pairs" issue to the salesman at the shop here Denver he looked at me like I was speaking Chinese. I showed him that although the skis were all individually wrapped there were "pairs" with matching serial numbers that Elan had matched at the factory before shipping. I could tell that he was totally clueless that he had to be careful that the "pairs" they sold had matching serial numbers. You'd think this would be common sense.
post #20 of 21
I was disappointed to discover the mismatching serial numbers the other day when I measured my skis for this thread.

Good news: I absolutely love my 662s! We had a horrible snow year in the Pacific Northwest last season, so I ended up traveling just to get in 18 days of skiing at Taos & Lake Tahoe on them. I've never had a pair of skis (including my K2 Mod-X) that I've enjoyed as much or been so passionate about skiing.

More good news: I don't ever remember telling the difference in rebound, dampness, stability, turn radius, edge grip, etc. between the two skis in my pair - I can't tell the differance. So far the mismatched serial number thing hasn't been an issue for me.
post #21 of 21
Thread Starter 
I'm not surprised that you can't feel any difference between your skis. I doubt I would either nor most skiers.

If you can tell the difference in skis that are ever so slightly different (within a few millimeters) in dimensions then you should go get a job with a ski manufacturer! That was kind of my point regarding the Legend 8000 - some times I get so wrapped up in the numbers, that I create unrealistic expectations (or assumptions) about how a ski will perform. It doesn't always play out that way due to there being so many variables.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Elan M666 Ski Dimensions?