New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Elan M666

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
I'm looking for a mid-fat carver, but on a budget since I'm usually a front side ripper, but looking for a crud ski/all mountain ski as I would like to improve my back-side ability.

I'm a level 7 skier- new school carved turns, but just have not spent the time on the back-side much. So in that vain looking for a ski to attempt that trip...

I'm 5'10" 35, and weigh about 155-160...

I've read everything on the Elan M666 on this site and that is skis short. I can get the ski flat from a friend for dirt cheap, but only in a 168cm... is that too short for me? Should I look for a different ski in a bigger size (fischer amc 76 or 79 or similar ski)?
post #2 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by spielerman View Post
I'm looking for a mid-fat carver, but on a budget since I'm usually a front side ripper, but looking for a crud ski/all mountain ski as I would like to improve my back-side ability.

I'm a level 7 skier- new school carved turns, but just have not spent the time on the back-side much. So in that vain looking for a ski to attempt that trip...

I'm 5'10" 35, and weigh about 155-160...

I've read everything on the Elan M666 on this site and that is skis short. I can get the ski flat from a friend for dirt cheap, but only in a 168cm... is that too short for me? Should I look for a different ski in a bigger size (fischer amc 76 or 79 or similar ski)?
I ski'd that ski quite a bit a couple of years ago and loved it in a 176 flat mount. I was close to 190 lbs at the time.

It did ski a little short I thought....184 might have been better, but never tried it.

For you at your weight I think 168 might be ok at the right price....

I would not consider it a true backside ski tho.....used I'd look for for something in 90 width....like my volkl explosivs(95 mid) which you can't have BTW.

Again at the right price I guess I would say pull the trigger....I thought it was a great ski....if I came across a 176 or 184 at the right price the money would fly out of my wallet.

It always is about price, cheap is good.

Free is better...
post #3 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by spielerman View Post
I'm looking for a mid-fat carver, but on a budget since I'm usually a front side ripper, but looking for a crud ski/all mountain ski as I would like to improve my back-side ability.

I'm a level 7 skier- new school carved turns, but just have not spent the time on the back-side much. So in that vain looking for a ski to attempt that trip...

I'm 5'10" 35, and weigh about 155-160...

I've read everything on the Elan M666 on this site and that is skis short. I can get the ski flat from a friend for dirt cheap, but only in a 168cm... is that too short for me? Should I look for a different ski in a bigger size (fischer amc 76 or 79 or similar ski)?
Yes, and no: I am about your size, and like the 176cm. My brother is about my size (maybe 5lbs lighter) and loves the 168cm. It all depends.
post #4 of 12
I am with Strat57 on this one. I am on the 666 flat with Marker Piston 12 in a 168. I am 5'8" 168 lbs.

On the groomed this ski rips with all the frontside gs carvers. I can leave Railroad trackes everywhere with these on the frontside the race wall construction really shine there.

In the bumps you can skid or carver your turns but the two sheets of Ti makes them a little stiff to go straight zipper line unless you possess the skills.

I the crud they just plain plow through. Get low and stay powerful and these skis will not let you down. I would like them better in a 176 though they do ski a little short even in crud.

In true powder they really will make you work unless it is a Black or Double Black. Blue runs on a powder day I find that I am fighting tip dive all the time and I avoid low angle powder when I am on these skis. Here is where they really ski short. I usually leave these in the locker on a powder day and go bigger.

However, all in all they are a great ski for everyday and most conditions. The powder day problems only last so long then this ski will really reward you. I also ski with a very stiff race type boot and my experience on the 666 in a 168 might be different with a more forgiving boot.

I would buy these skis again but longern 176 at least.

Ed
post #5 of 12
Keep an eye out for cheep Blizzard Titans.
post #6 of 12
Speilerman, you may find my review last year helpful:http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=52888
I ski both the 666 and Ripstick, depending on the conditions and my inclination. They are both wonderful skis. I have the 666's in 168 and the Rips in 164. The lengths are fine for what I do. If you can get either for a deal, do it.
post #7 of 12

M666 168

I am about the same height and weight as you are. I just recently picked up a lightly-used pair of M666's in 168 cm. I use them primarily for front-side carving and they are tons of fun. I did get them out in a foot and a half of heavy, fresh snow and they really made me work for my turns. Had to sit over the backs of the skis and stay on the black diamonds. Still had lots of fun. They only time I wish they were longer is when I am trying to keep up with my fast friends on their long, straight skis.

Cheers,
post #8 of 12
AT your skill level and weight, a 168cm should be just fine for most conditions. Sure a 176cm might be better in deep powder but for most applications you will be just fine on the shorter ski. If the price is good, buy it.
post #9 of 12
168 is fine for your size. I'm 6'1, 185, and ski the M666 in a 176, which is just about perfect. I'm not using the ski for deep powder or bumps anyway, so for everything else, 176 is perfect.

I've had my M666's for a few years mounted with Look P12's, and am a big fan.
post #10 of 12
Nice ski, but kind of heavy. It can be skied nose height for a groomer bias, or head height for more of a free-ride bias. I am 6'1", and I had the 176cm and the 184cm. Both nice skis but ultimately I wanted something lighter. But these were by far the best crudbusters I have owned in that 76mm waist range.
post #11 of 12
spielerman -

I have the Elan Mantis 662, which is nearly identical to the M666. The side cut of the two skis is identical. (There has been debate in the past on this forum as to whether or not there is any difference between the 662 & M666. The M666 appeared the season after the last one for the 662. The graphics are different.)

I'm 5'10" and 170# and am using the 662 daily in a 176cm length as my teaching ski (I'm teaching skiing full time this season). While I like the 176 length for my own skiing, for teaching skiing I wish I had the 168 length.

I consider the 662 to be a delightful ski that is good at everything, but not great at anything.

FYI... You can pick up a pair of 176cm 662's at Al's Ski Barn for $300. Go to www.untracked.com and search for "662".

Dave
post #12 of 12

My Thougths on the M666

Quote:
Originally Posted by spielerman View Post
I'm looking for a mid-fat carver, but on a budget since I'm usually a front side ripper, but looking for a crud ski/all mountain ski as I would like to improve my back-side ability.

I'm a level 7 skier- new school carved turns, but just have not spent the time on the back-side much. So in that vain looking for a ski to attempt that trip...

I'm 5'10" 35, and weigh about 155-160...

I've read everything on the Elan M666 on this site and that is skis short. I can get the ski flat from a friend for dirt cheap, but only in a 168cm... is that too short for me? Should I look for a different ski in a bigger size (fischer amc 76 or 79 or similar ski)?
See my post on the M666 at the end of the following thread: http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=35977
My experience is that this ski is a pure short turn carver/bumper with very limited crud and back-side abilities. YMMV!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion