4FRNT Renegade ~ Hand built in SLC.

[codma]

lol i have no idea what i wrote redited, im still laughing

planing to get a pair in next year Renegade or Hoji..
how do u compare with JJ`s these skis?

[whyturn]

No comparison, JJ is 12-14M radius, narrower by 7 mm, shorter by 5 cm and cannot crush anything. Renegade is quicker, more stable, better flex, stiffer, and floats and slarves, and straightlines and just buy it.........

[codma]

@whyturn: thnx Renegade is my chooice for now,,, ill see some more reviewer between Hoji and Renegade

[codma]

by the way 186 is simliar to JJ length? im planing to go with longer skis

[whyturn]

JJ is 185 but measures 182. renegade measures 185.5 or just get 196 like I did. i skiied JJ, S7, bents, R2 and others and now Renegade rules them all

[azzure]

I took Whyturn's advice and got the 196 and could not be happier. They are playful skis in anything soft and do not need to be feared. I don't find them any more difficult to ski then my SuperS7s and the long tail makes them great for snapping out quick fall line turns.

Only issue per Whyturn, I need to ski these in Utah!

[whyturn]

^^^^^^^^^the greatest snow on earth* (*99 out of each 100 years)

[D(C)]

Just a note about mounting point - it's HUGE. Here's my history with my 186 Renegades:

2010/12 - Original mount: Dukes at 88
2011/02 - Then mounted 916s at 87
2011/03 - Switched back to Dukes at 88 because I found they lost responsiveness
2011/08 - Then switched back to 916s at 87 because I had other plans for the Dukes
2012/02 - Mounted Sollyfits at 88

The ski feels DRASTICALLY different at 88 and 87 cm from the tail.

88 - slarvy, likes long and short radius turns, very responsive and manageable, gets thrown a touch more on rough snow, more in the sweet spot on groomers

87 - locked in aircraft carrier type feeling, much harder in tight spaces, feels more like a traditional charging ski, need to drive the tips or they wander

I actually liked them in both mount positions depending what I intended to do. I prefer 88 because it feels more versatile, but those of you looking for a burly charger should mount at 87.

Now my skis have 3 sets of holes, but I can use my beloved 916s and have the Rens under my feet when standing at the top of big lines in the backcountry. I'm stoked!

[auvgeek]

^^Very helpful, DC. Now I just need to decide which ski I want the Rens to be.

[4FRNT]

^^Very helpful, DC. Now I just need to decide which ski I want the Rens to be.

The correct response is "Buy two pairs"

[auvgeek]

If I were to do that, I'd get one 186 and one 196. Not a bad ideer, actually...

Thinking about it more, I think 88 from tip would fit my quiver better. (Maybe 87.5 cuz I can't make up my mind.)

[D(C)]

After my first few turns on the groomer this morning mounted at 88, I turned to my friend at the bottom and said, "I'm back."

[ZekeWolf]

Im thinking of 91 on my 196s. anyone with experience?

[Bird Blaster]

Thanks D(C).

On the birth certificate it says you can mount even at 86cm from the tail. Anybody have any experience with this mount?

[azzure]

I went 92 from the tail on my 196 and think the location is perfect. If I ever get another pair I'll go in the same spot again without question. Very playful for sure.

[DudeLebowSKI]

Thanks D(C).

On the birth certificate it says you can mount even at 86cm from the tail. Anybody have any experience with this mount?

I was mounted at 88 for half a season and then on 86 for the remaining half of last and all of this season. As much as I'd love to believe that the 88cm mount is better, the reality is that quick and nimble is not what I bought this ski for. If I wanted quicker and more nimble, I'd buy something skinnier. Also, in my opinion, the difference in quickness from 88cm to 86cm is barely recognizable. The reason I went back to 86 is because the skis have some trouble floating at 88. Some feel otherwise but it's been pretty widely accepted that deep, untracked pow is not where this ski excels.

Sure, at the resort in tracked pow and variable chop, the 88 mount is great. For a hard charging pow ski in deep, untracked conditions, which is what I bought the Renegade for, my recommendation would be 86.

[|K_M|]

Question on 196 mounting points-

I'm drilling them with inserts for both fks 180s and plums.

Plums will take the preferred mount, I'd love for the plum mount to ski like what was mentioned in a post earlier this page (slarvy, likes long and short radius turns, very responsive and manageable, gets thrown a touch more on rough snow, more in the sweet spot on groomers). They get priority.

Then, I'd like to get the fks mounted on there as well for some resort charging. I'd love the same feel, but idk if they'll fit in or around there, so pretty much as close to that plum mounting spot as possible or the tiniest bit back would be perfect.

any advice?

[wwwllw]

^^^^ Buy the Dyna/look plates.

[|K_M|]

I already bought the inserts and screw kits, but if the plates are a better route I'd go with those- unless there is no way to mount them with both the fks and the plums using the inserts, I'd like to keep those.

If the plates are the only way to get both of my mounts close to the sweet spot, ill do that, just wondering if I could keep the inserts and go that route. God I'm rambling, sorry for the incoherent post.

EDIT

Also, reading over the birth certificate- if I went with plums at -5 from center (93 cm from the tail) , I'd want to mount the fks 180s somewhere between that and -7 from center. Is that doable with the hole patterns? I'd like to avoid dropping cash and putting that plate on them if I can and just stick with the inserts I've got.

[auvgeek]

It is possible to do inserts for FKS and inserts, but it puts the holes ~1.4 cm apart. So you had better be damn precise. IMO, get the plates. You can install the plates on inserts, and then you'll be set for whenever you get another pair of skis.

I actually made my own toe-piece adapter before the plates came out to avoid putting the holes so closely together. Totally possible, but I wasn't confident doing it.

[Island Bay]

Still have a pair of 186 left, and a couple of the 196 left. We also have a 186 Ren mounted for demo as well.

Sweet! Will pay you a visit when we're in Fernie late Feb.

[Bird Blaster]

I was mounted at 88 for half a season and then on 86 for the remaining half of last and all of this season. As much as I'd love to believe that the 88cm mount is better, the reality is that quick and nimble is not what I bought this ski for. If I wanted quicker and more nimble, I'd buy something skinnier. Also, in my opinion, the difference in quickness from 88cm to 86cm is barely recognizable. The reason I went back to 86 is because the skis have some trouble floating at 88. Some feel otherwise but it's been pretty widely accepted that deep, untracked pow is not where this ski excels.

Sure, at the resort in tracked pow and variable chop, the 88 mount is great. For a hard charging pow ski in deep, untracked conditions, which is what I bought the Renegade for, my recommendation would be 86.

Thanks for your thoughts

I am leaning towards an 86 mount myself an it is nice to hear someone who has used it there

[Maker]

I have mine at 86cm for the same reasons as Dude.....88cm is really far forward in my opinion.

6 ft; 185lbs pre-gear

[allTandA]

FWIW I mounted my 186's @ 87ish..... being a bigger guy and thinking the spot they filled in quiver wasn't exactly as a dedicated pow ski(although I was nervous about tip dive after reading the forum disc from last year). I was looking for them to excel in tight conditions with recycled pow and still be fairly stable at speed/in crud and variable. Wasn't really concerned with loosing pivot/slarve-ability by going -1(from 88) and ending up too chargey as they are short and I used to 19x larger sticks. Really pleased with this location and wouldn't change a thing, except dreaming about the 196 when riding open terrain.

After reading D(C)'s synopsis on 88 vs. 87, I find 87 is the best of both, for me. still quite playful and wicked fast turns of all shapes. but also stable and chargey! fucking $$$ really. disclaimer: all this is relative, and I really haven't spent a ton of time on a full reverse w taper before.

cheers.

[auvgeek]

^^Note that D(C)'s synopsis is actually 88 vs 87 (seems hard to believe 1 cm makes that much difference, but I'll take his word for it).

How big of a "bigger guy" are you, T&A? Be nice if people mentioned their height/weight when offering these types of comparisons. I know D(C) is a smaller guy, but I can't remember his stats.