New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Core Material

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
Advantages of a Densolite Core like on the Atomic Sugar Daddys which Atomic puts out over a wood core ski like the Elan m777?
post #2 of 17
weight, although probably less durable and a shorter life
post #3 of 17
I recall another thread where we were all "corrected" in that the Densolite isn't really a foam core like many other lower end skis. I think that it's a version of polyurethane that is much lighter than wood cores, but doesn't break down as quickly as crappier foam type cores. It's still probably not as durable as a good wood core though. I love my Elan M777s - are you considering them?
post #4 of 17
Thread Starter 
I am considering the 777. I have a carving ski right now which is race stock and 65mm underfoot so want a real all mountain ski. Ski mostly up at Killington so not always great chances to get off the trails but whenever there is I take it and want a more maneuvarable ski in the trees and that's better in more snow. Only concern is that the width might be a hinderance in the bumps or on the groomers.

You found any drawbacks to them?

Other option is probably the Sweet Daddys, not the Sugar Daddys, among others. Prophet 80s.
post #5 of 17
I have had no problem with my Atomics- 4th season on my R:ex's without signs of "breakdown" of the core. I think that this is a non-issue.
post #6 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsa2299
I am considering the 777. I have a carving ski right now which is race stock and 65mm underfoot so want a real all mountain ski. Ski mostly up at Killington so not always great chances to get off the trails but whenever there is I take it and want a more maneuvarable ski in the trees and that's better in more snow. Only concern is that the width might be a hinderance in the bumps or on the groomers.

What you describe makes the M666 a better choice in my opinion. It's more of a 50/50 (on/off piste) ski, while the M777 is about a 30/70. The 76mm waist of the M666 will still be great off-piste compared to your carvers, but not too wide that it becomes cumbersome on groomers (plus, it's a spectacular cruiser ski when you want to chill). You can certainly carve wider skis like the 777, they just respond slower edge to edge and take a little more effort to edge. In other words, not as fun.
post #7 of 17
The only thing I'll say regarding the M666 and the M777 is that for me they felt like 2 completely different skis - not just 2 skis that were different dimensions and lengths. Although Elan's site shows the construction of these skis as being almost identical there really was no comparison in feel (I skied them back to back many times this season until I got rid of the M666s). The M777s have a very quiet smoothness to them that I really can't attribute to the length difference alone (the M666 was a 168cm and the M777 is a 176cm). The M666 transmitted much more of the slope feel into my legs (read that as vibrations) and I don't like that. The analogy is that I prefer the smooth performance of a BMW or Lexus over the intense responsiveness of a Ferrari. I find the latter type of ski to be tiring day in and day out.

Also, I was actually able to crank out tighter turns on the M777s that the M666s. I know it doesn't make any sense - it didn't to me either, but it was kind of the final straw that convinced my to take back the M666s and pickup the M999s.
post #8 of 17
Thread Starter 
I haven't been on a pair of skis over 80mm underfoot so am anxious to trying out the Elans. My main decision is to go with an 80mm or go larger and if I do go larger will go with the 777.

Outside the fact that the wider the better in powder and powering through crud, what would be a con against going with a wider ski like the m777 over the m666?

With that said I do have a pair of skis for when I want to stay on the groomers and just carve turns so though it's important it's not my top priority with my next ski. Those priorities are to be maneuverable off piste but also be a ski that is ok when getting through the bumps (race stock rossis are HORRIBLE). Is the m777 not the right ski for me?

With that said am 6'4" 205 so would be going with the 184s, got a good price on them of $390 but just holding off a bit to pull the trigger.
post #9 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler
The only thing I'll say regarding the M666 and the M777 is that for me they felt like 2 completely different skis - not just 2 skis that were different dimensions and lengths. Although Elan's site shows the construction of these skis as being almost identical there really was no comparison in feel (I skied them back to back many times this season until I got rid of the M666s). The M777s have a very quiet smoothness to them that I really can't attribute to the length difference alone (the M666 was a 168cm and the M777 is a 176cm). The M666 transmitted much more of the slope feel into my legs (read that as vibrations) and I don't like that. The analogy is that I prefer the smooth performance of a BMW or Lexus over the intense responsiveness of a Ferrari. I find the latter type of ski to be tiring day in and day out.

Also, I was actually able to crank out tighter turns on the M777s that the M666s. I know it doesn't make any sense - it didn't to me either, but it was kind of the final straw that convinced my to take back the M666s and pickup the M999s.

But I think we already determined in another thread that you skied the M666 too short for your height/weight. You really would need to try them in a longer size to make a fair comparison. Mid-fats and fats should not be skied short like many people do on carvers.

I know compared to my really narrow carver skis (RX-8, 180cm) the M666 (184cm) are buttery smooth and very comfortable to ski. While the RX-8 transmit a lot of information from the snow to my foot as shock and vibration, the M666 do it as a more subtle flex/pressure. I think they read the snow much better as a result.

One big difference between the M666 and M777, all else equal, would be weight. The 777 will feel even more heavy, damped, and solid because of extra weight. In fact, if you compared a short M666 to a long M777, the 777 couldn't help feeling a lot more solid and smooth just because the weight difference is even more exagerated.

Even though the M666 and M777 have a similar construction, the wider waist of the 777 is ultimately going to make it slower edge to edge. It's a physical reality you just can't get around. I don't think it's necessarily a problem (since I can crank nice carves on 87mm waist skis -- my Karmas) but it's something to consider, especially coming from carver skis.
post #10 of 17
Thread Starter 
That extra weight going to make them too difficult to get around quickly in tight spaces, like in the trees?
post #11 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsa2299
With that said I do have a pair of skis for when I want to stay on the groomers and just carve turns so though it's important it's not my top priority with my next ski. Those priorities are to be maneuverable off piste but also be a ski that is ok when getting through the bumps (race stock rossis are HORRIBLE).

I have found that width is a little cumbersome in bumps, just because you need a slightly wider stance to accomodate wider skis, and you're overall footprint on the ground goes up. It's not a lot between the legs -- less than an inch on the ground for the kind of ski change you're talking about -- and only about 2 inches overall (outside edge to outside edge) but it's noticeable at first. I think I have adapted to it on my Karmas, but when I go back to my 666 or even RX-8 they are definitely easier to pivot. If your new wider skis feel a little less maneuverable at first, take some time to adjust to it.

Also -- can you demo any skis before you buy?? Some of these basic questions make me think you should demo first, so you know what you're getting into. When I demo'd the M666 and skied them back to back and interchangeably with my RX-8, it was a real educational experience and I learned the pluses and minuses of each ski very quickly.
post #12 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsa2299
That extra weight going to make them too difficult to get around quickly in tight spaces, like in the trees?
I don't think so, but it will make the heavier ski feel smoother and more solid on the ground when cruising and blowing through crud. My M666 are quite a bit heavier than my RX-8 and Karmas, but I really only notice a downside when carrying the skis around. In all other respects, the weight is a neutral or good thing. I actually like the heavier M666 in bumps better -- for the semi-lousy bump technique I have, they work well. I pretty much try to keep both skis in contact with the snow all the time, and the weight may actually even be a plus there, who knows. So I don't think weight impacts maneuverability at all.
post #13 of 17
Thread Starter 
I'm going to try and demo next weekend but this late in the season a couple shops have told me that they may not be demoing by then due to conditions. If they are will certainly try and get the 666 and 777 and compare the two.
post #14 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219
But I think we already determined in another thread that you skied the M666 too short for your height/weight. You really would need to try them in a longer size to make a fair comparison. Mid-fats and fats should not be skied short like many people do on carvers.

I know compared to my really narrow carver skis (RX-8, 180cm) the M666 (184cm) are buttery smooth and very comfortable to ski. While the RX-8 transmit a lot of information from the snow to my foot as shock and vibration, the M666 do it as a more subtle flex/pressure. I think they read the snow much better as a result.

One big difference between the M666 and M777, all else equal, would be weight. The 777 will feel even more heavy, damped, and solid because of extra weight. In fact, if you compared a short M666 to a long M777, the 777 couldn't help feeling a lot more solid and smooth just because the weight difference is even more exagerated.

Even though the M666 and M777 have a similar construction, the wider waist of the 777 is ultimately going to make it slower edge to edge. It's a physical reality you just can't get around. I don't think it's necessarily a problem (since I can crank nice carves on 87mm waist skis -- my Karmas) but it's something to consider, especially coming from carver skis.
I don't want to sidetrack the original intent of this thread, but I must respond to this post. Although we did seem to arrive at the conclusion about the M666 being skied too short in the other thread, I have since deduced that length couldn't possibly be the whole story. I absolutely love my Machete Sins in 165cm and that's shorter than I skied the M666. The feel is totally different, but in this case it can easily be attributed to the difference in construction.

The issue is that I'm still not sure sure that a shorter M777 (in a 168 if they made it) would feel like the M666 or a longer M666 would feel like the M777. Forgot for a moment anything about turn radius or the width of the skis. For me just running straight on these skis across hard crud felt different (with more vibration from the M666). I just can't attribute that to about 6-7cm difference in contact length.
post #15 of 17
Yeah, I don't think the length would make them feel the same, I just think you could have gone longer on the 666. Length buys more directional stability and would drive the natural frequency down, with more damping. So a longer 666 would definitely ski smoother. How much smoother remains to be seen. The 777 has even more structure and heft, so it probably feels longer than the 666 just on that alone.
post #16 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219
Yeah, I don't think the length would make them feel the same, I just think you could have gone longer on the 666. Length buys more directional stability and would drive the natural frequency down, with more damping. So a longer 666 would definitely ski smoother. How much smoother remains to be seen. The 777 has even more structure and heft, so it probably feels longer than the 666 just on that alone.
I hadn't considered how length would drive down the frequency of the vibrations - so you're onto something there. I'm definitely going to test drive the M666 again in a longer length to investigate my suspicions.
post #17 of 17
Thread Starter 

666 v Sweet Daddy

Anyone have any insight as to the comparison of the 666 to the Atomic Sweet Daddys? Similar width at least, 76mm and 80mm underfoot respectively.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion