Page 3 of 54 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 1326
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    20
    Finally mine arrived! Going to mount them tomorrow but after reading here am having second thoughts about the original 88cm mount. As of now im 170lbs and around 5'11. Any suggestions/advice would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    norcal
    Posts
    1,169
    87.5 imho
    Life of a repo man is always intense.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mostly in a bad dream
    Posts
    563
    Quote Originally Posted by Mwood View Post
    Finally mine arrived! Going to mount them tomorrow but after reading here am having second thoughts about the original 88cm mount. As of now im 170lbs and around 5'11. Any suggestions/advice would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
    Mwood, you are from Edmonchuck. 88 cm will be perfect for the amount of pow they get at Rabbit Hill. JK.

    Where do you plan on skiing? If you aren't planning on traveling farther than Fernie, I'd stick with 88. If you are going cat/heli skiing or are going to be in knee deep most of the time, I'd go with 86.
    First 360 mute grab --> Andrew Sheppard --> Snowdrifters 1996

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by DudeLebowSKI View Post
    Mwood, you are from Edmonchuck. 88 cm will be perfect for the amount of pow they get at Rabbit Hill. JK.

    Where do you plan on skiing? If you aren't planning on traveling farther than Fernie, I'd stick with 88. If you are going cat/heli skiing or are going to be in knee deep most of the time, I'd go with 86.
    Hehe im not going to lie, within the next week rabbit hill may see a pair of renegades.. I was planning on using them as the whistler/revy/kickinghorse plank. But thanks for the advice, im thinking of putting them at 87 so hopefully the best of both. Also a jong question here, does 1cm really make all that much of a difference?

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    OR
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Mwood View Post
    Also a jong question here, does 1cm really make all that much of a difference?
    No, but some here may tell you otherwise

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mostly in a bad dream
    Posts
    563
    Quote Originally Posted by klauss View Post
    No, but some here may tell you otherwise
    I hear what you are saying but if you were balancing on an inflated Swiss ball, a 1cm difference in your fore/aft foot position would make a HUGE difference. Extrapolate that into a shortish, fully rockered ski, it's probably way less but still measurable in my opinion. Extrapolate that into a longer traditionally cambered ski and I'll agree with you that 1 cm won't matter much.
    First 360 mute grab --> Andrew Sheppard --> Snowdrifters 1996

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Schruns
    Posts
    527
    I disagree a little bit, just because the rocker under foot is so mellow and the ski is so stiff. It's not a hellbent or a jj type of ski where the tips and tails don't count as a part of the stable base under your foot. The renie's tail is there if you need it all the way to the end because it's essentially flat, with just the minor rise from the reverse camber. I don't think you'll see much difference in 1cm back mount. I'm at 2cm forward and I get less and less concerned every day about changing it back to recommended.

    The more I ski it the more I realize it's not a nimble rockered ski. It's a big mountain charger, which get's nimble when you need it to be. I caught a glimpse at someone else's production model and they seem to have a little more upturn in the tip than mine, regardless this ski is for charging. I've been using it as my only ski and its more powerful than any ski i've ever ridden. Fluffy pow, it won't float like a dedicated powder ski. Dense pow and steeps it'll almost flip you over with the rebound. Today there was about six inches of super dense but dry wind packed snow and I was exploding out of my turns, no gooey-ness just pure snap. Airs are the same, stable as all hell, true stompers. Even with a breakable crust under the new snow, there was no snaggy-ness or catching landing with a forward stance.

    I just think there weakness is super deep snow that you sink into. They don't porpoise with a forward stance because the tip's too narrow and stiff. What can you do. I just hope we keep getting this dense, dry, hero snow because these skis rip the shit out of it.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    354
    ^^^exactly my thoughts at this point.
    60% of the time, it works every time.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    FERNIE
    Posts
    12
    Straight Line in Fernie has a pair of Renegades (and 186 EHPs) for demo if anyone wants to give them a shot.

    Thanks

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    AR/SLC
    Posts
    687
    J--I think you nailed it. My thoughts exactly. This ski does not ski like the EHP. It is a big mountain charger.
    "... when I turn, I just hope it hits me in the face."--Shroder Baker/Under the Influence

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Banff
    Posts
    18,631
    skistop in banff has a demo pair too. well, they are the owners ski, but other people have used it.

    Email me at dave@fatskideals.com for boot fitting questions,
    read where I'm skiing at http://www.fatskideals.com/blog.html

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    354
    fyi...I was just trading PMs with Superdigg who said Endre's reco mount is 84, not 85 per earlier in the thread. I gues this is where a few of the Norweigan team riders have them mounted as well.
    60% of the time, it works every time.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mostly in a bad dream
    Posts
    563
    What did you end up doing with yours Maker? I still haven't got mine on bottomless blower but everything else has been awesome. I am starting to think that maybe the lack porpoise feeling is actually by design.
    First 360 mute grab --> Andrew Sheppard --> Snowdrifters 1996

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    3,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Maker View Post
    I just think people should note these aren't pow skis in the sense most people think (lazy, forgiving floaters).....like Rainey said, they are big mountain chargers.
    I'M not a lazy, forgiving floater so these seem to be a good match for my style

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    20
    Thanks for all the help here, all much appreciated! Went with 87 and it feels perfect. Has anybody with a phone smarter than mine tried scanning the barcode?

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    379
    Been drooling over mine for about a week now, waiting for my sollyfits to come in so I can mount them. Whyturn, i believe i actually grabbed the pair you returned earlier in the month...thanks!
    I'm thinking at 165lbs and from the feedback I've heard so far, 87 should work pretty good for me. D(C), would you keep your 88 mount if you re-mounted yours?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maker View Post
    Just to note if Seths boots are a 25cm and mounted +4 then any boot sized {up} from 25 say a 28 would make the mounting boot center +1 accordingly. A boot for instance that mesures 29 would {big Foot} cancels +4 and there for be on the line to be equivelent to were Seths mounting point is on a 189. Just sayin if this needed any more clarity. Im going Dukes on 189,s with a big foot 28.5 Fulltilts and mounting on the line. My extra wieght over Seths will make up the other .5cm I hope!! 6ft 225. I might have the oportunity to try the ski as a demo with Schizos on hopefully before i mount to verify the right position. Best case. Then I can try + or -3 first. Any big guys find a great mounting point with dukes on the 2011,s?
    Since the mounting point is measured from boot center, not the toe, this is not true (if I am indeed correctly understanding you). If you took seth's skis and adjusted his bindings to your big boots, then yes you would be skiing further back than +4 (1 cm for every 2cm increase in BSL). But if you mounted the skis for YOUR boot at +4, then.....well you'd be at +4. Hope that made sense.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    3,244
    Quote Originally Posted by EEC View Post
    D(C), would you keep your 88 mount if you re-mounted yours?
    I like them at 88, though I still have yet to get them in some seriously deep, fluffy pow. In the conditions I have used them in (cream cheese, dust on crust, chopped pow, groomers), 88 feels great. I actually remounted with 916s because I wanted to put my Dukes on something else and had to go to 87.25 due to hole conflicts. We'll see if I notice a difference, though it will be hard to know what's the mount and what's the different bindings.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Arctic North
    Posts
    83
    I'm 5'8'' and 160-165 lbs. Mounted mine at 87cm (sollyfits, sth16) and I'm happy about that. Haven't had to many days on them yet, but had one day with light powder (not utah-light though) and tree runs. Skis and mount felt very good, easy to maneuver and no float issues - as long as you keep your speed and balance on the skis. Not sure how much I would feel 1cm on these though.

    I have two slightly bigger friends both mounting at/closer to 86cm. One his happy, the other has been complaining that it feels to much backwards and he says it's difficult to get full forward pressure. He's been considering moving forward. He's on f12 tours though - don't really understand why he went with those.
    Cold water stoke

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    my own little world
    Posts
    1,747
    5'9", currently 160. Mounted at ~87.5 with Look ZRs, 295 bsl. The other ski in my quiver is a 185 Mothership. Have owned and loved 196 Lhasa Pows, Armada ANTs, DPS Lotus 120s, Kneissl T@nkers.... These are my first reverse camber ski, though.

    Only had a few hours of groomers and set up, skied out garbage on them so far at the local hill - but happy with the mount. Took a few runs to get used to the whole reverse camber thing - but I got more comfortable with them every run. Conditions definitely weren't ideal for them, but I was amazed at how much fun they were on everything except ice. Poked into a few trees and found some "fresh" and they were super quick and pivoty - then the next run I could haul ass down half-assed, crusty mogully shite with no problems. Big grins by the end of the night. I found I definitely had to stay on them and couldn't relax, was never too big a deal as the skis were absolutely unambiguous about that, you never felt like maybe you could just sit back and half ass it. Can't wait to put some more time on them and get them in some fresh snow. I'll report back if I can get them in some deeper stuff.
    focus.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    my own little world
    Posts
    1,747
    Quote Originally Posted by EEC View Post
    Since the mounting point is measured from boot center, not the toe, this is not true (if I am indeed correctly understanding you). If you took seth's skis and adjusted his bindings to your big boots, then yes you would be skiing further back than +4 (1 cm for every 2cm increase in BSL). But if you mounted the skis for YOUR boot at +4, then.....well you'd be at +4. Hope that made sense.
    Is it really that simple, though? Just spitballing here.... When skiing, our feet/legs act as levers. Bigger feet are longer lever arms, i.e. with the same boot center, somebody with a size 32 boot is going to be engaging the lever from a further point back (and may be able to apply pressure to points further forwards) than me with a 25.5 boot. Not sure how or how much that changes the dynamic of WHERE force is actually being applied, but it seems simplistic to assume that boot center is the only relevant reference point - especially when we're talking about centimeters making worlds of difference.

    I think there's a COG dynamic there too, that I'm not sure I could even pretend to talk about.
    Last edited by Mustonen; 01-28-2011 at 08:11 AM.
    focus.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustonen View Post
    I think there's a COG dynamic there too, that I'm not sure I could even pretend to talk about.
    Haha, yea I'm not gonna venture there either. I get what you're saying though, I could see bsl having an effect on leverage/driving the ski.

    3-5 inches in the forecast for sunday....praying my sollyfits show-up in the mail tomorrow so I can finally review these myself

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Smithers
    Posts
    81
    So they're coming out in a 196 next season.

    That is exactly what I was hoping for.

    Me and my roomate last season discussed our dream ski, and this pretty much was it, minues the length. Now that a 196 is going to be available....

    I'M SO STOKED!!!!

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    379
    Mounted mine at 87 with 916s on sollyfits, 5'11 165lbs. Took them out today for a foot of fresh snow over the top of a hard/icey layer.
    At high speeds these are super stable and encouraging. High speed turns are incredibly easy to shape any size you want and there is no tip hook at all. In the beginning of the day I had a few issues in lower angle terrain with float through heavier snow. I didn't get tip dive, but the snow was heavy and when my skis sank and I got awful boot drag. I discovered that you simply cannot forget what these skis are for, going fast. When you get towards the bottom of your run and things start to get flat, these aren't the skis you go turn off into the woods for a few quick turns through the trees. Instead just straightline as much as obstacles allow. If you have to kill your speed on low angle, just be ready for it and lean back a bit.

    That being said, on steep terrain or at high speeds this ski really shines and that's why I bought it. I like that I can pressure the front of my boot and not feel like I'll over power the ski, an issue i've found in other reverse camber skis. I also love the way the sidecut and rocker complement each other. You get the smooth, hook free turning of a fully rockered ski, but on traverses or sketchy/icey steep terrain I was able to get awesome edge hold.

    Unfortunately, I can also vouch for the fact that the sidewalls are bomber. I smoked a rock in the middle of a large right hand turn right on the edge of the ski, putting a solid coreshot on the edge. I am shocked that I didn't compress the edge, besides a super light burr that a file will fix in 2 seconds, the edge is perfect.

    I should add that after the coreshot, I decided to put down the renegade's for the day and switch to nordica 91.ffs. Holy fuck was the snow hooky. Took me three runs to re-adjust and realize had much finesse I needed on these compared to the Renegades. I'm definitely loving the high-speed stability of these.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skipunk View Post
    So they're coming out in a 196 next season.

    That is exactly what I was hoping for.

    Me and my roomate last season discussed our dream ski, and this pretty much was it, minues the length. Now that a 196 is going to be available....

    I'M SO STOKED!!!!
    I agree, I think the 196 will be perfect. Until then though, I love my 186's.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Noreg
    Posts
    174
    Finally got enough time on #049s to put up a review.

    Me:
    Stoopid free heeler at 176cm, 80kg. NTN w/blue springs at 2.5 and Crispi Evo BSL 287.

    Mounting:
    A much debated issue and me mounting - as far as I know the only pair - tele didn't help. After riding the EHPs for a day some time ago and talking to other people riding this ski tele most find it best mounted a couple of cm back. Renegades are even more forward and with Endre Hals recomendations of mounting at 84 I ended up mounting at 85cm. Mounting NTN makes for moving the binder forward/back by 1.4cm to be insanly accurate.

    Day 1:
    Had som runs before this but nothing to conclude on - anyways... Conditions, well it was in the middle of a storm cycle so lots of fresh but very bad visibility. Moved the binders to 86.4. Pow here in the middle of Norway isn't superfluffy so you want to be in it or on it. As EEC wrote a few post ago they needed speed to work as I got some tip dive/boot drag at slower speed.

    Day 2:
    Post storm cycle and 30-40cm of fresh but flat light and red flags made for another tree skiing day. Love tree skiing anyway so no problem Moved the binders to 83.6. This is back 2.8cm from the day before and what a difference it made! My Rens turned into the best pow ski I have ever been on! The tips were unsinkable and I could shape turns at any speed totally effortless. Tree skiing were just the best I have ever had as the skis were extremely confidence inspiring and stable as hell (put up GoPro vid later).

    Comparison:
    The only pow ski I have been on for longer periods of time is the 08/09 HellBent. Construction wise they are totally different where the 'Bents are much softer and have big tips and the Rens fairly stiff with a lot of taper. In pow they behave differently as well. The 'Bents being that soft you could easily decamber, tips rising and pop to the next turn - this isn't possible on the Rens (maybe at 120kg) but the tip design and continuos rocker makes up for this.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •