Elan M1111

**fat yeti** · 05-19-2007, 08:29 PM

I tried a search and can't find a good review on these things, I am going to pull the triger on a pair but want some info on these. I don't care if it skis short I like a shorter ski. How stiff is it and how much versitiliy does it have how well does it float? I rode the 173 Icelantic shaman a realy like the shape they both have similar dimensions the M1111 is just bigger any imput would be great.

Thanks
Fat Yeti

**boar2m** · 05-19-2007, 11:01 PM

Come on, $275 is a good deal on radical boards like 1111. It's like getting two for the price of one! ...oh, wait, them are skis? ...just ski like Dobbs and you'd be happy!

**pechelman** · 05-20-2007, 12:06 AM

never skied, only hand flexed a few different times

pretty stiff throughout
infact if you look at endre's ski flex chart, it places it right around a 6 or 7 on marsh's scale. Its definitely softer in the tip though.

i want to say i remember the tails being dead flat and the swallow being pretty small and very beefy and thick toward the ends. The edges extended all the way back, so id imagine it wouldnt ski *that* much shorter due to the swallow. Id probably estimate more like a 178-180 vs the 184 its measured at.

Its got a TON of shape at 20m, but a lot of it is in the tip. While the rear half of the ski does have a generous cut, Id think it wouldnt be too hooky, but its definitely no dp120 or ehp193 in that regards. Float wise you dont have much to worry at 121 and a softer wide ass shovel.

Initial impression was that they were very light and pretty stiff. Id bet they ski pretty lively, although not like a volkl (explosiv). I want to say camber was about the same as what dynastar and volkl put on their normal boards.

sounds like you snaged them from ptex1.
Ill bet you will be stoked when you see them.
Id considered them for a bit to throw some dynafits on there, but decided to enjoy summer before buying more winter toys

**fonixmunkee** · 05-20-2007, 07:36 AM

I loved the old Triple 8's just for turning in the Midwest. I know the 1111s probably are completely different, but I guess I'm just tossing some support behind Elan's skis.

That topsheet is pretty bad-ass too.

**Shredhead** · 05-21-2007, 09:00 AM

I skied the 888,999 & 1111's at Alta's spring demo day. I liked both the 888 & 999's better than the quad. But it was full blown spring conditions, not really the quads element. With all that surface area, the quads were slower than shit in the slush.
But I think it will make a great specialty powder ski and at that price, major score!

**ubertele** · 05-21-2007, 06:35 PM

Haven't skied them but I do know that if you get a pair don't mount them off the center line they put on the ski. It's way to far back for some reason. Elan recommends about 3 inches in front of the line. You'll see what I am talking about when you get them.

**fat yeti** · 05-22-2007, 08:11 AM

Thanks for the info on the mounting I will keep that in mind.

**Steven S. Dallas** · 05-22-2007, 08:43 AM

here is a vid with mostly the quad 1. i'm pretty sure he's on 9's for the shot with the dog chasing, but the rest of the shots he's skiing on the quads.

they sure look fun.

http://adventurefilmworks.com/Videos/Jason.mov

edit: this is basom, not ssd. (posting, not skiing, thats jason dobbs, he's cool)

**fat yeti** · 05-22-2007, 06:30 PM

Thanks for the vid it made me want these skis more.

**stuckathuntermtn** · 05-22-2007, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas

here is a vid with mostly the quad 1. i'm pretty sure he's on 9's for the shot with the dog chasing, but the rest of the shots he's skiing on the quads.

they sure look fun.

http://adventurefilmworks.com/Videos/Jason.mov

edit: this is basom, not ssd. (posting, not skiing, thats jason dobbs, he's cool)

link crashes my firefox

**fonixmunkee** · 05-22-2007, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn

link crashes my firefox

Looks like someone needs Quicktime Alternative!

**heyyyou** · 05-24-2007, 09:20 AM

Buy these skis! I own a pair. They are definately out of their element on hard snow but do well in mank and powder. Due to their extreme sidecut, initiating turns is effortless and they work great for bumps and tight tree skiing. I had doubts about the effectiveness of the swallow tail but after using them awhile there were times I noticed the tails sinking as they are supposed to. They're touted as a big mountain ski but I don't think they're particularly fast and they seem better for making short radius turns.

The only gripes I really have is their weight and the fact that the huge shovel tends to deflect powder which will accumulate on your legs, boots and topsheets. The weight issue seems to mitigated by the decreased energy required to handle such a montrous sized ski.

**fat yeti** · 06-01-2007, 05:08 PM

Thanks for all the info can't wait to get them from ptex to add to my quiver. Any more info on mounting would be great as well.

**heyyyou** · 06-01-2007, 06:35 PM

There is a line crossing the topsheet that indicates the boot center. It will look awfully far back on the ski but anecdotally it seems correct (though I have them mounted tele). Originally I mounted Bomber Bishops about a cm forward of CC but felt that they needed to be moved back to chord center which placed my boots very close to boot center.

**heyyyou** · 06-01-2007, 07:00 PM

I just noticed ubertele's post. The pictures I've seen of the M1111 with bindings mounted has them centered over on the reference line. I don't know if Elan has revised their mounting suggestions or not. The ski techs in my area were clueless about this ski and because of its atypical shape and the fact that it has a swallow tail pretty much excludes it from normal mounting rules. All I can really say is that by trial my boots more or less centered over the boot center mark (but maybe that's just a tele thing).

**fat yeti** · 06-01-2007, 08:08 PM

Thanks for the info I have heard a few diffrent things and will try to email elan and see what they say. I can't wait to get them and hope next year we get more snow than this year.

**jasondobbs1** · 07-20-2008, 02:46 AM

I think those skis seem like absolute beasts. What fifty-mile-per-hour bulldozers they are!

**muchocacao** · 09-10-2008, 04:20 AM

you still have your m1111s?
what you think about them? in terms of fun, versatility, durability and mounting?

**lukc** · 09-10-2008, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by muchocacao

you still have your m1111s?
what you think about them? in terms of fun, versatility, durability and mounting?

i never USED these skis, but i've had them pass through my hands. the mount point DOES look stupid far back. i would try a BOF mount on these, given that you won't be stuffing the 161mm tip.

martinknolz · 11-11-2009, 07:28 AM

i got a pair last season of the Quad1!

I mounted the binding on +4!

But now, after i skiied them, i would mount them +2 (max +3), because you can go faster on them! It will help you, to hold the line more stable! Because they are, for a powder ski, quite hard, their speed limit is beyond any "normal" powder freak!

My problem at the +4 mounting position is, that the tip does come out, but not enough to go fast! There does not much of the tip come out of the snow! Thats because of the normal camber, similar to the Dynastar XXL, and because its stiff!!! So i think if i mount them at max +2, the tip comes out like many soft powder skis, like 2007 K2 Seths!

What for? I think if your tip has more "air", you can go faster, because there is not as much contact to the snow, and so there is not so much attrition! But you still won`t have problems to make small turns, with the 161 mm tip! In turns you get more pressure to the ski, so the ski dives more into the snow, so the full 161 mm gets contact, and you just have to let the ski turn!

Greetings Martin