or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Elan 777 168cm

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 
Tested these in Val Thorens last week following a dump of snow. They are a new model for next season, to join the 888 etc series of 'all-mountain' skis (although with a waist of 77mm they're slightly over-stating their ability by labelling them all-mountain...)

On piste they were perfectly adequate, although nothing special. They weren't particularly nimble or quick between edges, but could still be tipped on edge. Being a little soft they weren't ones for pushing hard though.

Off-piste they were quite nice - we had shin deep powder (knee deep in a couple of patches) when I tried them and they did a decent enough job, providing enough flotation for me whilst being light enough to easily handle (I'm not, it has to be said, a particularly accomplished off-piste skier).

Overall, I thought they were a reasonable ski, and will be in the back of my mind when I'm looking for a similar ski next season.
post #2 of 10
Skier information?
post #3 of 10
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skisimon View Post
(I'm not, it has to be said, a particularly accomplished off-piste skier)
On-piste I'm generally an aggressive carver (CSCF EL).

175cm tall (5' 10")
85kgs
post #4 of 10
what are the dimensions on the new 777?
post #5 of 10
like 118/77/109 or something like that, the 7/7/7 that you would expect for the name
post #6 of 10
Thread Starter 
I don't know shovel/tail, but they're 77 underfoot.
post #7 of 10
116-77-100
post #8 of 10
By the way, was just checking these out at one of my local shops. Stiffer than the Head 78's. Really cool progressive/gradual shovel on them, much unlike the 888's abrupt short shovel. Might help keep the tips up a bit...at least it looks like it would.
post #9 of 10
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Sizzler View Post
Stiffer than the Head 78's.
Good point, I should have mentioned that I found them soft compared to my normal skis (a selection of very stiff carvers, SL-GS).

I liked the shape of them too (did keep the tip nicely up, worked well as they are nice and light too), although if I went for a pair like these I'd probably go the next step and get something with around an 85 waist.
post #10 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Sizzler View Post
116-77-100
That's unfortunate. I loved the old design. Good thing I have a spare pair I guess
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews