EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Elan M666 2006 or Rossi B2 2005?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Elan M666 2006 or Rossi B2 2005?

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
Hi,

Men,
5'11",165 lbs
advanced to expert,
Ski resort:Jay peak,Sutton(Qc.)

I want to buy a freeride/all-mountain ski with:
a minimum of forgiveness,
a great rebound energy,
a good stability at higher speed
and a great capacity to turn.

I don't know what is the best length for me?

Elan M666 :2006 not with fusion(168 16.1m or 176 17m)
(If you have tested these Elan,said me the force and weakness of this ski)

Rossi B2: 2005(170 16m or 176 17m)


Please send your suggestions about these ski or any others great modeles.

Thanks
steph
post #2 of 28
IMHO
a minimum of forgiveness, they're both forgiving skis
a great rebound energy, Elan 666
a good stability at higher speed Slight Edge to Elan 666
and a great capacity to turn
Elan is quicker edge to edge

The Elan666 is also going to have better edge grip and is wood core for more durability. The Rossi B2 will float better in Powder, but the 666 is also good in Pow...

If you're closer to expert and ski more wide open terrain, 176cm.
If your closer to intermediate or ski tight terrain or trees, 170cm.
post #3 of 28
Thread Starter 
Do you have tested the Elan M666 2006?
If yes,do you like him?
post #4 of 28
Elan M662 from '03-04 is essentially the same ski.

same with M666 from '04-05

and M666 from '05-06

so if you have a hard time finding the current M666 you should look at the prior years' M666 and M662 models at www.untracked.com
post #5 of 28
I love the 666, but, in my opinion, it doesn't have a ton of rebound energy. And it's very smooth and forgiving. Doesn't sound like a good fit for you.
post #6 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by moguljunkie
I love the 666, but, in my opinion, it doesn't have a ton of rebound energy. And it's very smooth and forgiving. Doesn't sound like a good fit for you.
true on "a ton," yessir. but isn't rebound a subjective, relative thing? among other skis of similar dimensions, construction, purpose, how does the M666 fare on turn-finish rebound? IMO pretty well. but not from riding the inherent carve, only from loading the tail.
post #7 of 28
I haven't had the good fortune of demoing a lot of skis. Just really going off the Dynastar 8000 as a comparison. That ski had a lot of pop. The 8000 might actually be a suitable fit for the original poster, as long as high speed in crud isn't a priority.
post #8 of 28
Thread Starter 
I understand,it's a great all-around forgiving ski with just a little bit more energy than B2.It's well that?

Thanks for all yours opinions.
post #9 of 28
Thread Starter 
I understand,(Elan M666)it's a great all-around forgiving ski with just a little bit more energy than B2.It's well that?

Thanks for all yours opinions.
post #10 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by moguljunkie
I haven't had the good fortune of demoing a lot of skis. Just really going off the Dynastar 8000 as a comparison. That ski had a lot of pop. The 8000 might actually be a suitable fit for the original poster, as long as high speed in crud isn't a priority.
from my experiences on different skis, most French skis have a more pronounced pop at turn finish, and most of those same French skis tend to be a bit wimpier-feeling in crud and difficult off-piste conditions. but I understand the Legend Pro is an exception to that general rule. I haven't skied the Legend 8000 or 8800 but both would have to be pretty danged good skis to out-perform the M666 in most every condition I can think of. IMO the M666 is one of the best skis in its class if you're not seeking a French ski feel. there are plenty of folks who enjoy that French ski feel and do extremely well on skis that possess that flavor.

++++++++++++++++++++

Steph, I'm more inclined to say the M666 has more reserve power, but about equal energy, when compared to a B2. but don't take my word for it... I'd solicit other comments too, as it's been a while since I spent any time on Bandits and B series skis. the M666 is forgiving in that it has a nice round flex and initiates turns more easily than some skis with the same amount of performance. but the easy turn initiation can fool you, the ski has loads of power and stability and the faster you go and more aggressively you ski, the more its finer qualities begin to show. it doesn't begin to fold up on you like many skis of its category with softer tips, and it plows through heavier crud with excellent power and stability.
post #11 of 28
I own the Elan Mantis 662, which I really like, and it is said to be very similar to the M666. Two years ago I demoed the Rossi B2 and was impressed with it. I found the 662 to have better edge grip, be more stable at higher speeds, and to be more "lively" (better rebound energy). The B2 was damper.

This season I got a chance to demo the "new" Rossi B3 (83cm waist), which I was also impressed with. The B3 was very similar in performance to my memory of the B2 of 2 years ago, but the edge grip of the B3 is much better. If this year's B2 is anything like this year's B3, then this year's B2's edge grip is probably better than the 2003/04 B2's.

I'm 5'10" and 180# and ski the 662s in a 176cm which seem like a really good length. If I lost weight (would like to be 170#), I'd still want my 662s in a 176cm. I demoed this year's Rossi B3 in a 168cm and was left wishing they were the next size longer (for a little more stability in crud).
post #12 of 28

Vote for the 666

I own the 666 and have ridden B2's. The 666's are indeed more lively and I think they do have better rebound energy. The 666's vertical sidewalls make these things carve incredibly well given their waist and what their intended strengths should be. That said, they aren't a carving ski, require slightly different technique (I was coming off of a 64mm waisted Atomic carving ski), but do a damn good job in most situations (moguls aren't much fun).

With West Coast snow, I've been happy to sacrifice only the shortest radius turn performance for this fun, lively, midfat ski that'll plow through crud, float through pow, and turn darn well for its size while remaining stable and damp with a great feel for the snow.

I can't imagine skiing a better 76mm waisted ski for what I'm looking for than the Elans, that is, unless they could turn like a Volkl, which unfortunately, isn't really physically possible. It's also nice to have a non-mass-market produced ski (at least in the US). You'll get a few looks here and there and some questions. Rossi B2's are great skis, but they're everywhere. I only saw two pairs of Elans in 3 days at Breckenridge last weekend...
post #13 of 28
Thread Starter 
Thanks to all of you for the very good council which really helped me to make a great decision ,now i think the M666 is the better choice for me and i try it in 168 cm length for more agility and control.I send you my impression of the elan very soon.

Thanks a lot
Stephane
post #14 of 28
Stephane, I just spent a wonderful week at LeMassif skiing the 666's in 168 intensively for the first time. They are a terriffic all around ski. I do not have a lot of demo experience, and the truth be told, I bought them on a whim ($229 for flats, or something like that). I could not be happier. I do not know how to talk ski lingo. Sounds a lot like wine talk to me. But I do know that these skis shine on everything that I have thrown at them. They scream on packed powder - stable at all reasonable speeds. I had the most fun on wide open blacks and blues carving medium/long turns with a few short terrain turns . I agree with other posters who say that being a mid fat, they do require a different approach than the a true carving ski (like the Fischer RX9's I tried and liked for different reasons). I found using Lito Flores' technique of fully wieghting the outside ski and using the inside as a phantom prompt particualrly applicable. Another attribute of these skis is their unruffled ability to transition from one surface condition to another. Going through patches of powder to packed powder to hardpacked required only slight changes in technique. On hardpacked, they were uttlerly stable and tenacious. However, they do not ski slow very well, perhaps becasue of the width. On the steeps, I found them to be a bit sluggish to turn and required more effort - again because of the width, I suspect, or the "rebound energy" people talk about. It is a forgiving ski. I am your size and am coming off my first pair of shaped skis - Volkl Supersport 6* in 175, which did their best to kill me. One thing I rarely see people talk about is the cooperation of a ski when you get in trouble. With the 6*, if you caught an edge, you may as well kiss your ass goodby. I caught one on the Elans. They did not throw or punish me, and they gave me the time to get my balance back. On the Volkls, I am in the woods. Finally, you can ski they darlings all day with little fatigue. With the 6* I had quad cramps going up the chair. I can not recommend the Elans more highly. They are an absolute delight - a ski that has no ego, is there for you and will basically do what you ask of them. With the Elans, you could be very happy with just one pair of skis. My 6* are fuming in the closet. Tough sh...
post #15 of 28

M 666

D1,

Are you kidding me? No lingo....that might be one of the best reviews I have ever read on epic! Well done! You should post your own thread and copy/ paste it over to the gear review forum.

I am still trying to find a pair of M 666 flat in 176 as a home for my lonesome Marker Logic MRR's. I need to find em at the price you paid(you lucky dog) or less tho. They will be backups to the Allstars. Your post reinforces my ongoing search. XT17's and 666's, that is one sweet rig you have there for sure!!

Cheers to you!

BTW I still love Lito too!! Pull his videos out every year....I currently found the images from the Italian demo team refd in my signature below and the CSIA demo team videos ( I highly recommend you spend extensive time viewing both as I did) more useful for dialing in the new school Allstars, but Lito remains the benchmark. No one has ever done ski instruction vids better. Breakthrough 1 is a classic. HH expert skier 2 has great images, but Lito's presentation is soooo smooth. You really feel like you know the guy.
post #16 of 28
hrstrat57, thanks bud. I am obliged to you. It is really easy to talk so enthusiastically about these great skis. They gave me the confidence back that that skiing the 6* took away. By the third day, I went looking for the steepest I could find - rather unlike me. And I found I could ski the the narrow trail edge so confidently. Part of that, as you correctly point out, is the Tecnica XT's as well. This will kill you - got them used for $75. And kill you even more - I got model Tecnica feet. Even though they are a plug, they fit perfectly with out any grinding, etc. Got a great shell fit. I am a 9.5 to 10 shoe, and got a 8.5 shell (1/2 finger behind heel). I skied them and the Elans for the first time in Quebec. You are right. They are a sweet combination. The feel of a pug boot is so dfferent from even a high end consumer boot, like the Alu Icons I had. They fit like a glove. The boot contacts at every part of the foot. The tolerance between foot and boot is minimal, which is why grinding is common. They are lighter. But mostly, its the flex, utterly seamless. No catching, ratcheting or balking. Pressure to the cuffs is instantaneously transmitted to the ski. I feel so much more connected to what is going on than in my higher volume Alu's. And this is with the blown liners that came with the boots. I did not know if the boots would work, so I skied with them the week as is. After committing to them, I got a pair of leather laced up liners. They are for Nordica Dobies, but they fit the XT's perfectly. Every great shell deserves a great liner. The fit is now even better. They are lower volume than the stock liner and will not pack out. They make your foot feel like it is in a blood pressure cuff. Last week I got aligned. I went prepared to buy custom footbeds, but the fitter, an honest gent, said my "default" alignment with my off the shelf Superfeet greens was what they would hope to acheive with custom beds. He did put some lifters in my heels to bring hips back. I have not skied since getting the liners and alignment done. It is 50 degrees here in Maine and I am staring at fledgling green grass. Will head north tomorrow, and perhaps to Quebec in April. LeMassif had 500cm this year. By the way, a guy is selling new XT's on Ebay for $119 plus shipping. That is a freak'n steal for a boot that will changed the way I ski. I believe that Cupolo's sells them for $150 and Al's Ski Barn for $219. I have to thank this site for turning me on to the XT's, and to the Elans and the great deal I got, as well as the link and advise for the liners. Just reading about skiing here and feeding on the collective enthusiam is a pleasure, and I am happy to make whatever modest contribution I can. Happy trails
post #17 of 28
Nobody is probably going to believe me, but I swear that the M777 is actually a better all-around ski than the M666 (even for you right coasters).

Maybe it was the length or something else (my M666s were 168cm and my M777s are 176cm), but I know that I'm able to pull off tighter quicker turns with my M777s than I ever could with the M666 (I had the flat version). There may have been something else going on that I haven't been able to identify, but don't discount the possibility that the M777 could be an even better pick.

If you're interested, search on the M777 (I just posted in another thread about my experience on the M777 so far and I also have a review of it from when I demoed them early season).
post #18 of 28
Noodler, I believe you. I just don't want to....
post #19 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler
Maybe it was the length or something else (my M666s were 168cm and my M777s are 176cm).

That has a lot to do with it, in my opinion.
post #20 of 28
I've been skiing the M662 (168cm) for 2 1/2 years. Mostly at MRG and Jay. I bought them for woods and ungroomed trails. They work great in those areas. I have been pleasantly surprised how well they ski on the groomers and ice.

I just returned from SLC and will say they worked fine for me on steep powder runs through the trees and open bowls with powder (as long as I kept the speed up). I haven't demo'ed many skis, but for the skiing I do, I have been very pleased with the 662s.
post #21 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219
That has a lot to do with it, in my opinion.
the little ones are made for little people. I'm only 155 lbs and I skied the 176, wouldn't even think of trying the 168.
post #22 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle crud
the little ones are made for little people. I'm only 155 lbs and I skied the 176, wouldn't even think of trying the 168.
Then most likely that was my mistake. So anyone else considering the M666 should consider going longer. I'm 5' 7" 175lbs. and I should've been on the 176cm ski instead of the 168cm. Elan's size guide suggests -5 to +5cm over your height. That would put me at 165 to 175, hence the reason I chose the 168cm.

I won't make another purchase without demoing (at least I'll try not to! ).
post #23 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler
Then most likely that was my mistake. So anyone else considering the M666 should consider going longer. I'm 5' 7" 175lbs. and I should've been on the 176cm ski instead of the 168cm. Elan's size guide suggests -5 to +5cm over your height. That would put me at 165 to 175, hence the reason I chose the 168cm.

I won't make another purchase without demoing (at least I'll try not to! ).
what I'm finding is that shorter isn't necessary, and that the mfr's range on the short side of things is to get less skilled and lighter skiers onto a higher performance (and/or more expensive) ski. a lot of ski buying for the average occasional skier is image-related, IMO. (people want to look like a certain type of skier more than they want to spend the time effort and $$ to actually become that type of skier! but that's human nature I guess.) some people who take gear and their skiing more seriously aren't afraid to be humble and try the mfr's shorter end of the reco scale - I've done that myself. what I've found is that when you ski them correctly, as they want you to direct them I mean, the shorter length isn't helping you very much and might even reduce the quality of your experience on that particular ski.

I found the 176 floated really well for my 155 lbs. I've thought of buying the 176 in that '03 M662 for my AT ski to replace those lousy BD Havocs that I can't seem to like no matter what I do.
post #24 of 28
I'm 160 lbs and have been skiing the 176cm 666 fusion the past few months. I couldn't envision any other length working for my weight & ability.

Today we saw 8" of fresh in Vail with drifts easily over the foot on Red Square, Rasputins & Sugar Mtn. The Elans performed wonderfully for such a "narrow" ski and busted through the day's end chop. I've had this ski in every condition aside from New England boilerplate and it hasn't dissapointed.
On hardpack it carves a nice round arc with just the right amount of rebound in the tail. Not too dull but not a bucking bronco either. Bumps are no problem, nor is fresh/crud/chop. One of the things that I find most impressive is the way the ski handles transtions from one snow type to another.

When things get deep or really cruddy I still go to a bigger ski but the Elan handles the everyday work just fine.
post #25 of 28
Well I definitely plan on demoing them again in a 176cm to confirm my suspicions about the wrong length choice. Thanks for the info.
post #26 of 28
Thread Starter 
Hi everybody,

I buy the 168 length and i find it great for the hardpack of east coast,very good rebound in short turn,the edge handling are fantanstic on any surface but is more difficult to slide the tail of the ski,the agility are awesome for a midfat,he perform very well on soft spring snow,bumps and hard icy snow.The only default i found is the softness of the short tail(168 length),better is skied right in the middle of the ski,not to much weight on the tail.But i think the reason of my problem are the short lenght of the ski (168 cm minus 4 to 6cm for the raised tail).The 168 lenght are more a 164 cm,the 176 are a 172 cm ,will etcetera.
post #27 of 28
You Know from the post I have read here on epic and a few other to be unnamed places I have to say that I get the feeling the 666 and the Legend 8000 are a very close match up. Still haven't been able to find a 666 to demo. I am sure i would like it. It would be nice to see how they stack up to the Ledgend 8000. I Have been really enjoying the light snappy feel of The legends. By the way I bought the 8000 from muguljunkie. By the way what did you get to replace them?
post #28 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utah49
By the way I bought the 8000 from muguljunkie. By the way what did you get to replace them?
I'm on the 666. Definitely a better fit for me. Glad you're enjoying the snappy feel of the 8000s. I do miss that about them. I find the two skis to be somewhat different. 8000s were much easier to ski in powder and had better float, while I think the 666 rips a little more in crud. 8000s also win out in mogul performance but the 666s aren't bad there. The 666 is a better hard-snow carver. Better ski for me in the Northeast.
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 2006 or Rossi B2 2005?