4FRNT Renegade ~ Hand built in SLC.

[shafty85]

Yes. When you get your pair; you'll know I mean. The tails are flat. And you don't need to worry about measuring from the bottom. A mm in difference will not matter.

87 - measure it, mark it, drill it, mount it.

Edit: Here's a shot of a pair I ended up buying. The rocker is so subtle that it might as well be flat.

Thanks. That's a sweet looking ski. You prefer the 196 or 186?

[Bobcat Sig]

Thanks. That's a sweet looking ski. You prefer the 196 or 186?

As a junkie - I have both. The 196 are pure alpine, though they doe have inserts for Plum Guides. I bought them that way. It's unlikely that I'll tour with them because, well ... that's a lot of ski to hump around and there are better/lighter options if you're hunting for pow.

The 186 has plates to run both alpine clamps and Dynafits. The 186s are nice, but can be a bit short and you really need to ski it centered, else you risk going over the bars. Though for tighter stuff on deep days - a la Bridger Ridge - they are a blast.

Truth be told, the 196s saw way more action last year, primarily because I ended doing mostly lift-served because the snow was so good and I spent most of my days at Jackson, Big Sky and Snowbird. At 185#, 6'0" and a racing background, the 196 rips in big, open places where I normally ski. It will become a handful if things are hard, bumped out or chopped. The ski, in small enough accumulation, will ski the bottom. It sort of sinks. It's made for big, deep days.

[whyturn]

For me it's love hate. Had 186. Sold got 196. Back to 186. Where is the 191? For me 186 is fun but a little too short at 6-2. 196 is fun until after lunch. Very stiff also. Maybe I'm just getting too old. It's an amazing design and have had some of the best runs ever on them. Some days they just punish me. I think it has been days when crust under pow Is very hard and I break through and it it hits ice layer like hitting a wall. But in really soft they rock. Best tree killer

[iscariot]

They were delivered today.

I fondeled them a couple of years ago, and they don't disappoint now. Nice stiff round flex. A hair softer in the very tip (still a med stiff), with stiff through the body, and a similar hair softer (still medium stiff) in the very tail.

Wall to wall wood looks killer. Like old school ski construction.

Putting silver or blue pivots on them.

Measured 87cm from the tail and stood on them. Looks like a very similar mount positions to my EHP's; nice and centered. I've espoused the virtues of new school center mounted free ride skis in other threads. The EHP is softer in the very tip, and a cunny hair softer through the entire ski. The EHP does seem to pop back faster, whereas the Renegade seems more damp and controlled on the return.

Again, just hand fucking them at this point, but pretty stoked.

[shafty85]

They were delivered today.

I fondeled them a couple of years ago, and they don't disappoint now. Nice stiff round flex. A hair softer in the very tip (still a med stiff), with stiff through the body, and a similar hair softer (still medium stiff) in the very tail.

Wall to wall wood looks killer. Like old school ski construction.

Putting silver or blue pivots on them.

Measured 87cm from the tail and stood on them. Looks like a very similar mount positions to my EHP's; nice and centered. I've espoused the virtues of new school center mounted free ride skis in other threads. The EHP is softer in the very tip, and a cunny hair softer through the entire ski. The EHP does seem to pop back faster, whereas the Renegade seems more damp and controlled on the return.

Again, just hand fucking them at this point, but pretty stoked.

Which topsheet did you go with?

[iscariot]

Which topsheet did you go with?

Got the blue/grey goats/lines BC.com colab.

They were cheaper than all the other topsheets because of the various discount codes and such. They only made about 20 pairs of these.

[shafty85]

Got the blue/grey goats/lines BC.com colab.

They were cheaper than all the other topsheets because of the various discount codes and such.

Did you get the 186 and the 196? Or two of the same size?

[iscariot]

Did you get the 186 and the 196? Or two of the same size?

They only came in the 186 in this top sheet, so 2 of the same size. I tend to buy backups to avoid discontinuations and to run different set ups (pivots for resort, plum/FT12 for touring).

The 193 EHP is currently my daily driver. Fuck I love the EHP's. Centered mount. So intuitive. Stompmachines. I have a couple pair of 193's and a couple pair of 186's with various binding setups. The 186 EHP's generally only come out for riding with the gf and her friends days.

The 186 Renegade should have some of the chargability/stability of the 193 EHP, with some of the playful flickability of the 186 EHP. And rail the groomers like a fat SuperG ski.

My ideal ski on paper would be a 4.5#190 Renegade EHP, with 118 underfoot and a 38m radius. The shape of the EHP with the flex of the Renegade except in the very tip (5 to 7cm) which would have the EHP flex to enable surfing in single digit pow.

[undertow2]

Interesting take on center mounting... My 196s are def not center mounted and the 186s I have seen at the recommended mount are not center mounted... Def not mounted like a Katana or Wren, but not like a jibby center mounted ski...

[iscariot]

Interesting take on center mounting... My 196s are def not center mounted and the 186s I have seen at the recommended mount are not center mounted... Def not mounted like a Katana or Wren, but not like a jibby center mounted ski...

Not exactly centered. Too literal. To clarify, I mount all my EHPs on the recommended line. Compare that to a more typical big ski, and the line on the EHP is way forward. More centered by comparison. The mount on the Renegades looks about the same.

[Bobcat Sig]

I think the technical term that you're looking for is center-ish.

[shafty85]

#915 Awaiting snow. Inserts for radicals and FKS.

[DGamms]

Some more thoughts on EHP vs Renegades:

D(C) had a comparison thread way back when the Rens first came out. I own the 2012 186 EHP and the 2nd gen 186 Ren. I agree with D(C) on pretty much everything.
- The Rens feel heavier (despite the fact the the EHPs weigh as much on the scale).
- The Rens actually aren't as quick at banging off turns in very tight trees. D(C) thought this was due to a bigger flat spot underfoot on the EHPs, allowing the skier to use a bigger contact point for pivoting with the bases flat. Not sure if this is the reason or not, but for me the EHPs are faster side to side in tight trees
- The Rens are faster in pow. This is the ride quality that I think makes them unique. They have this amazing frictionless feel in deep soft snow, and ski so much faster in pow that I find I have to change my technique a little and make more turns for speed control sometimes
- At 87 cm from tail, the Rens are mounted about -5cm to - 6cm from true center (they measure more like 185 cm straight pull than 186 cm). This is within 1 cm of the rec'd mount point for the EHPs (about -5cm from true center).
- To me, the Rens aren't as damp as the EHPs. By damp, I mean the ability of the ski to absorb vibrations of rough 3D snow. I don't know if the EHP has more rubber in the layup, or if its because they flex a bit softer, but the EHP does a better job of absorbing vibration and thus feel more forgiving in crappy snow.
- The Rens are less forgiving of your fore/aft balance point. This is probably the subtle continuous reverse camber at play. Like others have said, you have to ski it from the center, and you'll know it if you are trying to drive the tips too much or if you end up in the back seat

All that aside, the Rens in soft snow are something special. Like you iscariot, I wish there was a hybrid of the EHP/Ren. Damp like the EHP, rocker profile somewhere in between the two, around 115-118 mm underfoot, 35-40 m radius, 9-9.5 lbs for a 186cm. This was discussed in a Kusala thread too, and Splat may build a skinny Kusala this spring if there is enough interest.

[jrawk]

My daily drivers are EHP 186s (blue and pink mountain year) with FKS. I just picked up some 1st gen 186 Renegades with dynafits so I am stoked to do some comparisons. Bring on the pow!

[Lindahl]

Some more thoughts on EHP vs Renegades:

D(C) had a comparison thread way back when the Rens first came out. I own the 2012 186 EHP and the 2nd gen 186 Ren. I agree with D(C) on pretty much everything.
- The Rens feel heavier (despite the fact the the EHPs weigh as much on the scale).
- The Rens actually aren't as quick at banging off turns in very tight trees. D(C) thought this was due to a bigger flat spot underfoot on the EHPs, allowing the skier to use a bigger contact point for pivoting with the bases flat. Not sure if this is the reason or not, but for me the EHPs are faster side to side in tight trees
- The Rens are faster in pow. This is the ride quality that I think makes them unique. They have this amazing frictionless feel in deep soft snow, and ski so much faster in pow that I find I have to change my technique a little and make more turns for speed control sometimes
- At 87 cm from tail, the Rens are mounted about -5cm to - 6cm from true center (they measure more like 185 cm straight pull than 186 cm). This is within 1 cm of the rec'd mount point for the EHPs (about -5cm from true center).
- To me, the Rens aren't as damp as the EHPs. By damp, I mean the ability of the ski to absorb vibrations of rough 3D snow. I don't know if the EHP has more rubber in the layup, or if its because they flex a bit softer, but the EHP does a better job of absorbing vibration and thus feel more forgiving in crappy snow.
- The Rens are less forgiving of your fore/aft balance point. This is probably the subtle continuous reverse camber at play. Like others have said, you have to ski it from the center, and you'll know it if you are trying to drive the tips too much or if you end up in the back seat

All that aside, the Rens in soft snow are something special. Like you iscariot, I wish there was a hybrid of the EHP/Ren. Damp like the EHP, rocker profile somewhere in between the two, around 115-118 mm underfoot, 35-40 m radius, 9-9.5 lbs for a 186cm. This was discussed in a Kusala thread too, and Splat may build a skinny Kusala this spring if there is enough interest.

That'd be really cool. My super stiff (see: heavy) pure Kusalas are 9lbs. My similarly stiff hybrids are around 10.25lbs. I bet he could hit 8.5lbs in pures for what you're describing. Probably 9.5 in the damp hybrid layup. If softer like the Renegade/etc, maybe 9.25? 9 would be really tough, I bet, without going pure.

[whyturn]

I know it's talk talk but it is the renegade fan club
I have 186 owl top sheet used two days. Mounted at rear mount for fks 310 BSL
Mint not a mark on them for $330 shipped to lower 48

[optics]

PSA: 186 rens $225 shipped at getboards with code cyber50.

[Mustonen]

Got a few runs in on my new to me 196 (Owl).

I like them very much.

Mounted at 92 from the tail with FKS 180. At first somehow felt more forward than my 186 mounted at 87.5. Felt about right after a few runs, though. Haven't gotten them in deeper snow yet, so no real conclusions, but I stopped second guessing the mount about 4 runs in. More work than the 186, but I find the whole reverse camber deal to be less work in general. I didn't find them to be more tiring than my 190 q labs (and the renegade in a 196 is definitely a remarkably big, heavy ski).

[riff]

I just got out on my 186 Owls for a couple of days, deep days. Mercury's/Speed Radicals. They did not disappoint; ridiculous fun in trees, in the open, off cliffs/rocks, off submerged trees, airborne to unplanned landings....
Easy to ditch speed, easy to get it back. All things considered, I could go on at length but I'd be repeating what everyone else said. They're really fun.

[JJChit]

Got a brand new pair for sale. 186 owl ts. Asking, 400. Own a pair of these with dukes and have not been disappointed. Wood to wood sidewalls!

[Judo Chop!]

got back on my 196 Rens for the first time this season for this recent storm cycle. They reminded me how rad they are.

I'm not a particularly great skiier compared to many at WB, with only a few seasons on skis after a lifetime of snowboarding (oops); but I am a very big dude so 'charger' skis act kinda just like 'normal' skis for me. But I do ski with some great skiiers and these these boards make me feel like I can charge and keep up.
It always takes me a minute to remember how to ski them, with the more balanced stance instead of pressuring the shins, but when you find it it's like the skis have a whole new gear.
when you pressure the shin they feel like the tips are a bit soft, difficult to float on lower angle pow between the steeps, and they are a lot of work on the legs to ski. Some days last season they tired me out too early because of this.
BUT as soon as you get that pressure a little bit more evenly through the heels then they freaking rip! Blast through anything with tons of speed & acceleration, super stable, not hooky at all, super solid feeling landings (that makes a rad sound like when you're stacking 2x4s!), good float, more maneuverable, porpoising goodness in pow, good solid edge engagement when you need it, and way way easier on the legs. It's hard to describe the feel but I say it's about skiing the tail of the ski instead of the tips, which is different than just getting in the backseat. they kinda just squirt forward fast or up and over things before you have time to think about it.
I have 2 pairs of the 196 owls now. one for touring and the other with P18s.

anyways... I love my rens. I like it when they remind me of that.

[thedrew55]

I had my first day on 196 '14 Renegades (the ones with buildings and a ship on the tails. They are beautiful). My mind was blown. Prior, I was skiing Motherships mounted 2cm back from recommended.

I'm 6'3" 215lbs and figured since guys half my size are riding 185, 196 should suite me fine. That is absolutely the case.

What blew my mind was how short they skied when I needed them to make tight turns in both low angle pow and steep, tight trees.

I had no trouble putting them on edge on groomers and letting them run while doing my best Ted Liggety impersonation as well as smearing turns in gullies off Gad 2. The huge turning radius is deceptive. They turn where you want, how you want. The reflect tech makes pivots feel natural and engage the turn in a way that feels like your really using the shape of the ski, not fighting it.

Short turns: at the end of the day I decided to try to make some poppy old school slalom turns, they did it. The key was loading the tip to get them to pop you out of the turn and into the next.

Snowbird was a mess as only Gad Valley was open with no Cirque Traverse, so I spent most of my time on Gad 2 and Wilbere before Gadzoom and Gad 2 opened. I can't wait to get these on the Cirque, Rasta Chutes and other steep, wide open spots.

[guzman]

drew55 above has basically written what I came on here to write from the technical side of things.

so all that remains to say is that:
1) There are few skis that make me laugh like a madman. This is one of them.
2) If you are searching for the 'perfect turn' then these can get you there.

I have the Escher model in 196 mounted at recommended (92cm from tail) with fks 185. Wouldn't change a thing.
I test for a magazine and have skied lots of big skis in the longest lengths e.g. Bodacious, Spurs, Squads, Big Dumps, the big Chams, Squads, Atlas, Two's, Shiros etc. and these are just better. 3D snow like nothing else.
I run 195 Hojis for short tours but these are even more fun than those in bounds.
I've also tried to break them and they are bombproof.
Well done 4frnt and Hoji, and thanks.

[BushwackerinPA]

loving my 186 for northern Vermont assuming there is any amount of non packed down snow on what I am skiing.

[Ggreenie]

Bloody good when the snow is soft, when it turns into massive, icy, tracked out moguls the 196 are a handful and a half...