or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Why do you people say Elan M777 ski short?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why do you people say Elan M777 ski short?

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
I have read some reviews from other bears like Noodler, and said the Elan M777 ski short. I know that's subjected to ski's character/skier's skill/technique/physical etc. Well, I got a pair M777 today in 176. They do look small. stand with my old 171 Metron 9s side by side. The 176 M777s are taller no more than 2cm. In the store, between other mid-fats Karma, 8800, k2 xx enemies..., the Elans were not wide either. However, I noticed the M777s have a much short and less bended tips, the running surface won't be shorter than any other mid-fats in similar spec length. No need to say some true twin-tips K2, Dynastar, even compare with the flat tail 176 Rossi B3, 8800, the M777 has a considerable shorter tip and so, a longer r-surface. Yes, the B3 stands much taller than 777. So I'm wondering why people felt M777 ski short? The store don't have 177 Karma so I couldn't compare them directly, but I felt them similiar if elan's tips are not shorter and lower. The karmas were 06 185.

I was going to buy them from Dawg at first and inquired him the proper length. I was taught by Dawg the 777s are beefy and ski long. I haven't skiied 777 yet, by first impression I agreee with Dwag. The 777 won't be shorter than other skis.

I also tried hand bending these skis, surprised, the 8800s were softest, then Elan, Karma similar, the B3 felt stiffest. That's also opposed to my previous imaginations learnt here, which said the B3 is damp and forgiving, the 8800 is strong and good on hardpacks too, the Karma is good in bumps (among them), while 777 not good there. Karma and 777 are so similar, why one rocks bump, one sucks mogul?

I don't speak english very well, so I must missed and misunderstood something. Could anybody teach this silly newbie?
post #2 of 17
The tips beyond, oh, 3-4 handspans from the toepiece (on a 184cm mounted for 306mm at factory line) flex into the turn quite easily. More so than on some of the Volkl AC series (but less so than some of the Fischer AMCs). Hence, short compared to those.

Of course, Noodler and I may be a bit heavier than you, certainly heavier than dawgcatching.
post #3 of 17
Thread Starter 
Thanks, I understood.

Btw, I don't know if I'm heavier than dawg, but must be a bit lighter than you and Noodler.
post #4 of 17
I vaguely remember reading, and I may have this wrong, that Elan measures length as full ski length along the ski's surface (ie. the measurement includes the tip and tail, and the tail turns upwards a bit as well). This means that the ski has a shorter distance between contact points than most skis of the same 'length'.

Moreover, though, the ski doesn't have a particularly wide tail or a lot of shape, so it doesn't attempt to lock you into a turn the same way a carvier ski (ie. an ac4) would. That's not to say that it can't/doesn't carve, just that it doesn't put you on rails the same way a curvier ski does. That means that the ski is happier skidding and making more traditional turns, which, imo, makes it feel 'short'; it's happy to whip back and forth in skidded short turns in a way that a ski with a ton of sidecut just doesn't like to do.

hope this helps!
post #5 of 17
That sounds about right, length measurements are tricky on those.
post #6 of 17
Thread Starter 
I remember Noodler did some measurement and I can confirm that's correct. The chord length (the height when stand) is short for sure. I just felt the running length (distance between contact points) not shorter than other similiar freeride midfats. My concern is whether the 777s really ski short than others in same category like Legend 8800, Karma. That says, need I consider a longer pair? Dawg suggested the 176 is a right size to me. I believe him. Well, they really look small even standing beside my 171 metron. I need to find some points to balance this feeling.
post #7 of 17
Hmmpfh. You should really be sizing compared to Mantra.

171 M9? You're all right; if you were skiing M11s I might think twice about that.
post #8 of 17
Thread Starter 
All right, I know I'm light, only ~150lb (70kg), but I'm not very short, 5'11".

I don't ski very well too but I ski better than I speak english. That means, in Vancouver, most people speak english better than me, even a 5 years kid, while I ski better than most people in the city if we don't count other bears.
post #9 of 17
Place the skis base to base and find out where they touch front and back and put a pencil mark on the sidewall at each point. I would be curious what the linear distance is between the marks (linear as if you were measuring down an imaginary ski centerline, as if the ski was on a flat workbench with a long pencil line on the bench surface under the ski center). This would be the effective chord length of the ski on hard pack. Other measurements of interest would be the linear distance from tip to tail, the linear distance from the front pencil mark to the tip, and the linear distance from the rear pencil mark to the tail (again, all the linear measurements made along a flat straight reference line). Put together, these measurements can give an idea of how long the ski will behave on harder snow relative to it's quoted length. And the tip/tail shape can tell us how it behaves on softer snow -- if the tips and tails are shallower and ramp up gradually, they will "kick-in" for added length in soft snow.

What I found recently when measuring a bunch of my skis is that many of them have a variable length because of the tip/tail geometry, and this backs up my impressions with them on the snow. The overall length of many of the skis when placed side to side doesn't look different, but their personalities on snow and their detailed measurements do result in different feeling lengths. I think this is an aspect of ski design that makes it difficult to compare skis based only on overall length (so in other words, trust experience with the skis and/or detailed measurements rather than just considering the length or how they look compared to other skis).

As an example, I compared two skis if similar overall length here:


Of the two, the PEs ski a whole lot shorter than the Karmas on hardpack. Placed side to side, the look about the same length.
post #10 of 17
I am not sure about the 777, but the 888 sure skis short. I have demo bindings on mine and I moved them back one size and they are much better. My son skis them in the up position.
post #11 of 17
I have the 192 M777 and I do not think it skis short compared to 191 Mantra, 194 LP, 195 XXX. (All skis that are in my quiver or were in my quiver this year.)

The 192 M777 does stand a solid 1 cm shorter that 191 Mantra.

It does feel quicker edge to edge the other skis listed above. Also, the narrow tip (than the skis above) is noticeable in soft snow. I like the M777 for colder hard snow days w/ colder crud versus warm spring corn or slush. The straighter profile gives it a great missile feel in the crud. It does not get deflected easily.
post #12 of 17
The 777's I have measure short (more like 173 than 176), but they don't seem shorter than say, the iM88 in a 175 when on the snow. The 777's are more stable than the 88's. I think that when mounted on center, the 777's put you closer to the tip, but it doesn't cause a loss in stability. I think length is very ski-dependent: for example, I ski the Head 78 in a 171, but would choose a 177 in the 888 or 178 in the Mythic Rider, and a 170 in the Afterburner. The 777 is unique because it doesn't have much sidecut and isn't turny like a carver, and when combined with it's construction (fairly beefy when compared to the competition) it is more stable than length indicates.

FWIW, the 184 in the 777 is quite a bit more ski. Most of the people who purchase that length are over 6 foot and weigh over 175lbs. Not to say that it won't work for you, but I can't really find the speed limit on the 176's and I am your weight. Plus, they are a bit more nimble (they still like to run straight) whereas the 184 wouldn't do much at all except go fast in a straight line for me.
post #13 of 17
Thread Starter 
I read your excellent review, skier219. I think that's why I would notice the tip shape and "running length". I will try to measure those things, and post later. Upon the impression, maybe the 777 would ski long on hardpacks, ski short in soft snow.

And, I don't want to make you and other friends wrong, I'm a true intermediate skier, a strong intermediate at best. The 176 M777 may not be too shorter to me, at least at this time. But I really want to make things more clear.
post #14 of 17
Thread Starter 
Thank you Dwagcatching, I appreciate you kindness and helpful advice very much!
post #15 of 17
Thread Starter 
I measured them today.

Elan M777s in 176, weighted on flat surface.

Total linear length: 172.5 cm
Side cut: 117-85-110 mm
Effective chord length: 151 cm
Tip length: 13.5 cm
Tail length: 8 cm
Tip height: 4 cm
Tail height: 1.5 cm

Hmm, they are much straighter than PE/Karma.
post #16 of 17
Based on the specs, I would say the M777 probably does not ski short, if anything it skis normal or slightly long. But specs do not necessarily convey how the ski feels (construction, stiffness, etc come in to play as much as the geometry specs). It's been a couple years since I skied on the M777 so I can't really comment accurately, other than saying I remember liking them as a crudbuster in 184cm but they sure did not want to turn real eagerly. They definitely did not feel short to me in that length, in fact I would have been interested in trying the 176cm.

I bought some M666 in 184cm a few years ago, and liked them, but after losing 40 lbs they felt long to me this season. So I downsized to 176cm and have been pleased with that length. I am 6'1" and 185lb.
post #17 of 17
Thread Starter 
Great, now I can set my heart at rest and remove the skis' wrapers, then search the answer of next question: where to mount?

A typo, the side cut is as many people measured: 117-85-107, not 110 at tail.
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 › Why do you people say Elan M777 ski short?