Love the Renegade but man am I glad that I didn't wait for the new graphic. Just my opinion. As for the sidewall edging, looks awesome. Maybe I'll take a sander to mine to see if I can replicate it slightly.
Printable View
Love the Renegade but man am I glad that I didn't wait for the new graphic. Just my opinion. As for the sidewall edging, looks awesome. Maybe I'll take a sander to mine to see if I can replicate it slightly.
Bestskier- you're already in the soup, dood- any dimension or rocker changes?
And the fukn crows still rule.
Dude, how did they work for you in Haines? I pussed and went with 138s again.
They were fantasic in Haines. I still maintain that for deep days on less steep lines there are better tools. Floatation seems to be more of a factor on more moderate slope angles. That being said, I don't want 4FRNT to change the Ren one bit rather build a new model pow ski dedicated to the less god-like skiers. Kinda like a reverse Hoji project. Same basic shape but scaled up slightly, same reverse camber profile and a slightly softer front end? Pretty please?Quote:
Originally Posted by otto parts
The rocker will still be the same as 12/13 at this point in production
yup you are wrong;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
I don't want to cunt up this thread but...
After 20 or so days my beloved Rens have lost a good amount of tip rocker and developed camber underfoot - basically eliminating any tail rocker. Last years 196. To me, they now ski/feel/look more like a 193 EHP than the slarvy fully rockered ski they initally were. Anyone else experience anything of this sort?
Will post pics when I have some time.
interested to see pics, i don't even know how that would be possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreal
Looks sweet. Especially with that Beast 16 on them. Anxious to hear what Hoji has to say about the binding.Quote:
Originally Posted by turkeyUP
New top sheet looks.... interesting. I'll wait to make my full judgement on seeing them in person.
I'm also a bit surprised about the change to the sidewalls but if they work the same except with better durability I'm down.
Found a good line on a pair of 186s in Euroland.....
Trigger = Pullled
Knees = Shaking
I'm a firm Explosiv/RC112 rear mounting kinda guy. I guess I'm shooting for 86cm then? Or do I just sack it up and give in to the 88cm? Decisions decisions.
There is a middle option...:rolleyes2Quote:
Originally Posted by ulty_guy
How are you storing them? I bought a pair of 196s from GS and it looked like the owner had stored them with a Voile strap or something around the tip and the tail because that's where the contact points were. I wouldn't say they had camber underfoot, but it was some weird triple camber, Praxis Concept/Moment Deathwish thing going on. No idea how they ski compared to my 186 Rens. I was able to get some of the rocker back by stacking some textbooks on the ski and leaving them sit for a few weeks. I wrote this problem off as an issue with the way they were stored, but maybe it's bigger than that?Quote:
Originally Posted by foreal
I wonder if this issue is isolated to the 196? That extra few inches doesn't seem like it would make a huge difference in the scheme of things...
87 if you like a more traditional feel. 88 if you still like to charge but want something a bit looser and more slarvy. I tried both spots and found the difference to be dramatic. Personally I probably wouldn't go 86 as these have a very precise sweet spot and are quite mount-sensitive. Bear in mind Hoji designed these around an 88 mount.Quote:
Originally Posted by ulty_guy
Hoji now skis them at 87.Quote:
Originally Posted by D(C)
Storing base to base (without a strap) and standing against wall. Just wish the tail rocker was still there.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
i've got 95s and do not have this issue. i bet they still retardedly awesome though!Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
You could try what I did: put them between two chairs and put something heavy in the middle. Just a thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by foreal
The skis were an xmas gift to my brother, so I can't comment on how they compare to my 186s, which have held up just fine for the past 20-30 days.
Yeah very excited, guess I'll give 87 a go then. Definitely that they're going to be a bit sensitive to mounting.
Of course the next new Ren owner dilemma is Dukes, 916s or p18s, but it's a good dilemma to have :-D
If you are coming off the RC112 and Explosive and are a "rear mount guy", the mounting point on Renegade is going to feel super weird. I'd start with 86 which is still within the recommended range and then you have room to go all the way up to 88 once you 'figure them out'.Quote:
Originally Posted by ulty_guy
I'd guess they were left wet on a roof top ski rack for a period of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
and you shouldnt be able to do this to a ski without it changing its characteristics? Seems odd to me that this would change simply with the pressure of a ski roof rack. i'd also imagine (though i have not handled the ren) that the ski rack wouldnt really be near the tail rocker more just in front and behind the bindings.Quote:
Originally Posted by DudeLebowSKI
Well my thinking was that the Ren is full reverse camber so that any clamping done closer to the ends of the ski are going to create opposite tension on the core of the ski. Pair that with the fully exposed wood core sidewalls and the 4FRNT recommendation to dry the skis off after each use...my guess still stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidog
Yeah, I've accepted they'll be a bit weird but want to challenge myself a bit so excited bout them. My biggest worry is gonna be 'delicate' turns on hard crappy snow which tend to pop up round Cham.
The Rens do this quite well, actually, IME. The centered mount allows you to get over the tips, and lack of sidecut makes the edge hold quite good.Quote:
Originally Posted by ulty_guy
I wouldn't worry about it till you've skied them.
Just had a look at my 196s and I've got something similar happening. It's very minimal but there's definitely less tail rocker and a tiny bit of camber when they're held together in the middle. Picked them up at the end of last year have maybe 30 days on them. Always stored inside bases together leaning against the wall. No straps used.Quote:
Originally Posted by foreal
Just had a look at my pair of 186 before I skied them today (first time I looked at their rocker profile this season). foreal -- you're right, same thing is happening on mine (11.12 vintage). Compared them to a newer pair today (same vintage, but fewer days on them), and it's quite obvious the differences in the rocker profile. No camber yet, but just a huge flat spot along most of the length. But there is a definite place where the bases meet near the tip and tail; similar to the pair of used 196 I bought and described above, though less dramatic. I bought them new, so I know it's not the way they were stored or anything. Always brought them inside after skiing and never had them on a roof rack (just a ski box). Prolly 20-30 days on them.
Anybody have this issue on the owl topsheet version? Heard they were holding their shape a bit better coming off the press, IIRC...?
Yikes,
Not cool.
Maybe this is why 4FRNT is bringing in the semi-cap/sidewall for the Rens next year?
Glad I bought the Hojis vs Rens at this point.
K
It's been too gradual for me I actually notice a difference in the way they ski but visually it's noticeable. Just noticed today at kicking horse so I've got them in a garage over night to see if they look better when they're warm in the am.
Ya this is probably why they're switching to the cap. Maybe this whole white room thing isn't that cool after all.
Really? I mean really?Quote:
Originally Posted by pow314
My guess is that the wood wants to straighten out over time, and the wood sidewall exposure exacerbates the effect.
Will compare never skied 11/12s to my used pair.
You bite your tongue!Quote:
Originally Posted by pow314
Seriously...fickle group we are.
I have well over 100 days on my 10/11s - I don't take any special care of them and I ride 'em hard and put 'em away wet (inside, albeit; and I don't seriously ride all that hard). They have held up great, and even still look great. No noticeable change to rocker, flex, etc. I love them a little more every time I ski them.
I'll compare and contrast mine to TurkeyUPs 11/12's; and am interested to hear more about this rocker/camber issue. The rocker profile is pretty specifically one of the features of the ski, they even have a marketing buzzword for it - Reflect Tech. If that degrades over time without the ski being abused I would think that would be a warranty issue.
Ya I realize that I shouldn't make such statements yet but if this Is a common issue then it's a pretty good reason not to buy the ski. I've talked to a shop owner who has told me the camber profiles of almost every order he receives vary from ski to ski. If there really is variation like this and people are reporting completely loosing camber than I think there might be something wrong with production. If I'm wrong ignore me, but it's just something to think about.
Well, a few people have reported a change in camber over time. I have #845, '13 Owls. They're still perfect after 15 days on them. I'll keep an eye on them. But having nearly (?) a thousand pairs of these skis out in the wild, everyone well aware of this thread, I wouldn't let these few reports get you down. We haven't even seen any pics yet to support any reported camber changes. Not that I don't believe it, but let's take a deep breath.Quote:
Originally Posted by pow314
Ottoparts PM'd me requesting I measure the splay from tip-to-tip when the skis are base-to-base. His 10/11s measured the same as my 12/13s.
I also highly doubt the lack of sidewalls would allow enough moisture to penetrate deep enough to actually warp a ski. We're not water skiing. You'd literally have to set a ski in a puddle of water for a lengthy time for the water to penetrate deep enough to warp a seasoned hardwood core that was milled and set to prevent warping.
Not saying it's not possible, but it's definitely not common with this production line.
Anyone remember the first generation of Rossi's S6 a few years ago? Thousands of skis in the wild with different camber profiles. And that's from the claimed Oldest Ski Factory in the World.
Right on, your probably right. Just scrutinizing everything before I buy a pair.
+1, even though mine a losing rocker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustonen
I don't doubt that we must be in the minority, and I will buy another pair even with this issue. These are my favorite skis by far.
I hope to post pictures tonight. The problem is anywhere you press the skis together will change the rocker profile. It's honestly hard to capture the subtleties with a picture -- if anyone has any suggestions, please post up soon. I'm thinking I'll band the brakes out of the way and then put a voile strap around boot center. But the problem with this method is that the subtle camber that may or may not have developed will be less evident. I'll also put two straps where I think the contact points have developed (but this will create camber). I hope that between these two methods, it should be fairly obvious how the rocker has changed.
^^
can you get a picture base to sidecut to show how the rocker matches (or doesn't ) sidecut or "reflex"
^^Sure, but it never matched for me (rocker was always too shallow).
My 196 have done that. But they still kill it so does it matter? Very unique ski
Same here, 10/11's with about 100 days on them and the profile looks pretty close to what it did the day I got them (although I haven't done a close inspection, they ski fine).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustonen
Also I thought the ski is staying white room for 2013/14, it's not a cap construction just the topsheet is stepped down to reduce chipping?