4FRNT Renegade ~ Hand built in SLC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maker

I moved mine to 86 and now frickin love them. I think 88 was just too far forward for me. so fast, can shut down on a dime. destroy crud and are actually pretty fun on groomers.

I also got some time on 187cm mx108s....for another thread, but those are unbelievable...stable, so predictable. super quick though edge to edge.

---

That does it. I'm moving mine back to 86. I have 10 days on mine now and although I have many great runs on them, I have more than a handfull of so-so runs and I too think it may be due to the 88cm mount paired with my particular technique. When I concentrate on skiing more centered the 88cm mount is great but, I find myself automatically reverting back to more of a driving/forward stance all the time. Especially when things get hairy or the snow type surprises me.

Will report back after the weekend. Thanks Maker.

Okay, I might be beating a dead horse but..

I moved back to 86cms from the tail. Loved it. It is a much better fit for my ski technique. The ski felt amazing in everything except....2ft of -20c blower pow. What the hell?? Maybe nothing really planes in snow that deep and light? Sure it was still fun on the steep stuff but when trying to slay long sweeping turns in open terrain, I just couldn't seem to get the ski to plane.

Because Hoji and others seem to have no problem with float at all I beg 2 questions:

1) Does the type of snow matter THAT much?
2) How does boot stiffness affect float? I am about Hoji's size but I'm skiing Nordica Hotrod 125's. He's on his Franken boots which I would guess would be nowhere near as stiff?

Anyone? I really want these skis to be 'THE SKI' for me.

^^^
I think it depends what you want 'THE SKI' for you to do. These are not ideal in really deep, soft snow but they gain SO much in exchange. I've kind of accepted that these are more of a Squad than an S7. At high speeds in soft and variable conditions they're simply unbeatable. I have some CRJs on their way to me to use when speeds are lower.

Regarding your comment about Hoji having no problem with float, would you say that you struggle in deep snow on these? In my own experience, these are fine and very skiable in deep snow, just not ideal. They require more balance and attention than softer skis and maybe aren't quite as fun and playful in blower. So to answer your question, I think Hoji skis these in all conditions and doesn't worry about it, even if these are slightly less than ideal in blower or when skiing a day of groomers. He built these for skiing lines at speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D(C)

^^^
I think it depends what you want 'THE SKI' for you to do. These are not ideal in really deep, soft snow but they gain SO much in exchange. I've kind of accepted that these are more of a Squad than an S7. At high speeds in soft and variable conditions they're simply unbeatable. I have some CRJs on their way to me to use when speeds are lower.

Regarding your comment about Hoji having no problem with float, would you say that you struggle in deep snow on these? In my own experience, these are fine and very skiable in deep snow, just not ideal. They require more balance and attention than softer skis and maybe aren't quite as fun and playful in blower. So to answer your question, I think Hoji skis these in all conditions and doesn't worry about it, even if these are slightly less than ideal in blower or when skiing a day of groomers. He built these for skiing lines at speed.

---

Hoji skis alot in AK. I bought the Rens hoping they'd be good for my trip to Haines. The problem is that a ski that isn't completely dialed kicks your ass up there. Not alot of people are accustomed to skiing 3500-4000 feet of untracked...blower pow...top to bottom...every run... no matter how in shape they are. As incredible as AK is, crashing, stopping and exhaustion from having the wrong ski makes it shittier on everyone in the group. Having the right tool is half the battle. I just want to make sure I take the right tool for the job.

To answer your question about if I struggle on these skis in deep pow? In short, steep bursts... No. In long, open, fast terrain with flatish aprons? Absolutely, along with many others it seems. This is why I am confused. I am forcing the issue because I love the shape and the guy who designed them kicks ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maker

DC, did you get this year's CRJ with the stiffer tail? Definitely want to hear how they ski...was looking at them hard.

---

Yup, 2011s. I don't have them in my hands yet but I will review when I get time on them.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying Dude. We built the Renegade for powder and big mountain skiing, but it really only functions up to it's potential at speed. Just like the EHP, it really comes into its own when you get on the gas.

Part of the reason we're making the 196 next year is so bigger guys like Sterbenz and some of the guys on here who are 6'+ can have a little more float when it gets deep. That being said, we haven't see anyone have floatation issues at speed. They do really want to plane up to the top once they get moving.

PS- I ride the 10/11 CRJ as my every day ski. The stiffer tail is money. Exactly what the ski needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4FRNT

Yeah, I hear what you're saying Dude. We built the Renegade for powder and big mountain skiing, but it really only functions up to it's potential at speed. Just like the EHP, it really comes into its own when you get on the gas.

Part of the reason we're making the 196 next year is so bigger guys like Sterbenz and some of the guys on here who are 6'+ can have a little more float when it gets deep. That being said, we haven't see anyone have floatation issues at speed. They do really want to plane up to the top once they get moving.

---

Thanks for addressing this. I actually think it's more of a steepness factor than a speed factor. When the ski which is angled less perpendicular to the force of gravity (steeper) it floats perfectly and totally kicks ass, no arguement from me there. However, I feel like I have tried straightlining into flatter sections many times (just to test the speed theory) and as soon as the terrain flattens out, the more perpendicular force of gravity sinks me. It's all good. I love the ski in every other aspect. I am just a bit worried about blowing out the quads on the long haul, flat pow cruisers that the guides make you do to get back to the heli. Oh POOR ME hey?

I'm going to take them to Haines and I'll let you know what happens.

curious.

I have been eyeing this stick since it's inception. really want but my quiver of 3 is full up.

Love the CRJ's ('09), especially for post storm day stash/sidecountry hunting. not really being a jibber it was the hybrid versatility that attracted me.....and the playful slashiness that got me.
They share time with some 192 bros, for harder and faster days, and some 192 praxis for really deep days.

Thing of it is this: being a larger dude the 188 CRJ's are often a bit small when not it really tight tress and don't have much stability for me when "pointing". I have been known to just piont it from time to time. heheheh. but i do really love most of the attributes of the stick

Suffice it to say the CRJ's and the bros's are at opposite ends of the fat ski spectrum. Maybe the Ren is a good compromise? or is it really just a compliment to the above quiver?

thoughts from those experience on both much appreciatted.

cheers

@ 4FRNT. you probably skied the 186 EHP and the 186 Renegade extensively. I know the shapes are different.
but how different do they ski and what do you see as advantages to both shapes ?

^^I can chime in here. I have had 2 pair of EHPs. I bought the Renegade, thinking the continuous rocker would be that much more "slarvy". The thing I found out, is they are 2 totally different skis & shapes. I love the way the EHP skis, for my style(lazy). The Renegade skis longer to me,(probably due to the tail being a real gradual rocker) a little hard to slash, get around. They want to go fast, & have some wide open space. They are a "big mountain" ski, where the EHP is more of a resort ski. Hope this makes since. I'm 5'4'' 150lbs for reference.

^^interesting comparison. I wanted the Renegade to be a wider EHP as well. But it definitely is more of a beast.

4frnt - read make a renegade with the flex of an ehp (particularly in the nose so we can drive it more)...i think that would solve everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maker

^^interesting comparison. I wanted the Renegade to be a wider EHP as well. But it definitely is more of a beast.

4frnt - read make a renegade with the flex of an ehp (particularly in the nose so we can drive it more)...i think that would solve everything.

---

But if you do that, make sure you keep the current model for those who like it... like me...

One thought I had about those who are having serious issues in pow - where do you ski?

My experience on them is limited to Whistler. Its wetter coastal snowpack may be better for float with stiffer skis. In the light, fluffy stuff, I could see more of an issue of these finding the bottom, with the snow not generating enough resistance to deflect the tips to the surface.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slashy

@ 4FRNT. you probably skied the 186 EHP and the 186 Renegade extensively. I know the shapes are different.
but how different do they ski and what do you see as advantages to both shapes ?

---

I think AR is right about that. I'm a little bigger than he is, so as long as I stay on top of it they are really responsive. I notice the big difference with the two is that I spend a lot more time on edge with the Renegade than with the EHP. With the EHP, I'm slarving a lot more due to the flat camber underfoot. The rocker/sidecut match on the Rens lets the edges work more.

The EHPs are more at home in big straight lines while the Rens I feel do better in tighter more chopped up stuff. Both do their absolute best when you're charging, though. They are not really slow speed skis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maker

^^interesting comparison. I wanted the Renegade to be a wider EHP as well. But it definitely is more of a beast.

4frnt - read make a renegade with the flex of an ehp (particularly in the nose so we can drive it more)...i think that would solve everything.

---

Just soften the tip ever so slightly and add 1cm of tip length with 1cm of additional splay.

DC, I think you are bang on the money with the snow scenario and that's what one of my questions was. Where I live, you don't get alot of deep powder skiing. In fact, the last REALLY deep powder I skied before this past weekend was the coastal style pow in Haines last April. Then, the first deep POW I skied this year was 65cm of -20c cold smoke. I think trying to lay down long, fast, planing style turns in snow that light was definitely PART of the problem.

mmmmmm.....196

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allTandA

curious.

I have been eyeing this stick since it's inception. really want but my quiver of 3 is full up.

Love the CRJ's ('09), especially for post storm day stash/sidecountry hunting. not really being a jibber it was the hybrid versatility that attracted me.....and the playful slashiness that got me.
They share time with some 192 bros, for harder and faster days, and some 192 praxis for really deep days.

Thing of it is this: being a larger dude the 188 CRJ's are often a bit small when not it really tight tress and don't have much stability for me when "pointing". I have been known to just piont it from time to time. heheheh. but i do really love most of the attributes of the stick

Suffice it to say the CRJ's and the bros's are at opposite ends of the fat ski spectrum. Maybe the Ren is a good compromise? or is it really just a compliment to the above quiver?

thoughts from those experience on both much appreciatted.

cheers

---

The renegade is a much better ski for "pointing" it than the CRJ. It is much more stable. I was also surprised how light and playful the renegade felt in the air. I think the stiffness gives it some pop to get off the snow and the more forward mounting makes it feel very balanced when off the snow.

Holy Crap....the Ren blew my mind on Sunday. I am 6'4", currently 225 (should be 210).....and ski the original 193 EHP on powder days.

I went to Squaw for weekend, and didnt expect snow, so only brought Explosives which proceeded to completely delam on Sat. On Sunday it snowed maybe 5-6 and it was super SUPER wet. It was snowing, but I came in just dripping wet....so it was almost rain.

I got on a pair of 186 Ren (thanks to Christian from Elite Feet), and I was just crushing it......full speed mashed potato charging. I couldnt believe how awesome they were.

I think I need the 196 next year. :)

Hmm contemplating changing my daily driver for the EHP 193 to said 196 Renegade...
Huckwheat, how would you say that the 186 Ren and 193 EHP compares?
My main concerns are edge hold on harder snow/steeps and nimbleness, because I have no doubt that they will rock in pow and crud...

Been debating that in my own mind since I skied 186 Ren.
--Do you have current EHP or original EHP 193 (which used to be different from other sizes too).

The no camber, early rise 193 (132-112-118) is a ski I have learned to love on big powder days at Squaw. I think the no camber is rough though when you get out of the deep. I love what a charging ski it is, how you can rarely go over the bars, and how the stiff tail helps you just STICK the s@#$ out of cliffs.

With the Renegade, I thought it railed groomer (granted it was still with some fresh around), and through choppy mank it was just amazing. I did need to make sure I was staying forward, as the slight rocker tail will let you get backseat and take a ride......but if you stay centered is is just awesome.

The above 2 facts have me questioning if I want a 186 or 196 Renegade......providing I kept the 193EHP for big days (straightlining and hucking). If the Renegade was for more average, or skied out snow, or just trees (which EHPs can be a bit much for)....the 186 could make sense.

The question I keep asking myself is IF I would end up just loving the Renegades for everything, and therefore want a bigger ski to charge big days too. I havent really reconciled how I would use the 2 skis and which are best for which.
---Would love more discussion from folks that have skied both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DudeLebowSKI

Just soften the tip ever so slightly and add 1cm of tip length with 1cm of additional splay.

---

I guess I should mention that for next year we've raised the tip height just a bit, which I think should work to do some of the same things here.

I think more tip splay would end up being detrimental in crud. More snaggy.

I've got some mounting point insight though. 4frnt just replaced my proto pair with a production run because of binding rip out number two. Big props.

I had mounted my original pair at 90cm from the tail do to the initial rip out I had on my first day.I had kind of noticed that the skis were more lively at 90cm, but it was hard to tell because I had like 4 hours on the original 88cm mount.

Fast forward. I mounted the new ones at 88cm and I can confirm they are less lively for sure. As an all around ski I liked the mount more at 90cm. The could carve a tight radius when you wanted and tracked straight fine. It was almost the best of both worlds. At 88cm the ski whats to stick to it's radius more.

BUT... In powder it's way better. And because these are powder skis I'll get used to the decreased nimbleness. If i was always skiing steep, denser powder, then I would like 90cm more. Even big faces (pucker face, no-name) they were perfectly fine. But I tested them out in 18" of fluff on sunday and they plane a lot better and want to porpoise more at 88cm (duh).

Now they ski more like chargers, where before I cheated and got the best of both worlds (except in powder). They were snappy in their turns but would straightline with the best of them. I do feel them putting me in the backseat more now, but that's stuff you adjust to (i did at the other mounting point anyway).

Because I don't get denser, non-crusted, steep, untracked pow all the time, I happy with original mount point. I'll adapt to the loss in snappy in crud and hardpack.

I can't imagine going further back though, but i'm a little guy. Maybe 89cm is my sweet spot, but i'll be damned if i remount these new ones.

^^ that sounds awesome 4frnt....same stiffness underfoot and in the tail....little more splay and slightly softer tip to bring back the porpoising effect of the ehp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maker

^^ that sounds awesome 4frnt....same stiffness underfoot and in the tail....little more splay and slightly softer tip to bring back the porpoising effect of the ehp.

---

Sounds good to me too 4FRNT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by otto parts

the shape is money, do wish they were 4.5 lbs and maaaaybe a bit more tip rocker.

---

Glad to help with the product dev 4FRNT, halfway there!:biggrin: