4FRNT Renegade ~ Hand built in SLC.

[Mustonen]

White Room Renegade
186: 135 x 122 x 129
196: 137 x 122 x 131

My topsheets dims are different than published. Anybody else notice this? Already half planning a pair of 196 next year. Curious to see if the topsheets change. And...uh...I'm no ornithologist; are those ravens or crows on the topsheet?

Otherwise, lovin mine. Quick and chargy. Almost too quick in the soft stuff, I'm having to adjust my technique. No float issues to report in the few turns of knee deep I was able to find. So versatile, though - I'll be on them way more than I thought I'd be.

[mtskier]

I managed to squeeze one more pair of Renegades out of 4FRNT.

$799 shipped.

http://www.backcountryfreeskier.com/...eride-ski.html

[gramboh]

White Room Renegade
186: 135 x 122 x 129
196: 137 x 122 x 131

My topsheets dims are different than published. Anybody else notice this? Already half planning a pair of 196 next year. Curious to see if the topsheets change. And...uh...I'm no ornithologist; are those ravens or crows on the topsheet?

Otherwise, lovin mine. Quick and chargy. Almost too quick in the soft stuff, I'm having to adjust my technique. No float issues to report in the few turns of knee deep I was able to find. So versatile, though - I'll be on them way more than I thought I'd be.

The pictures you posted are the 2011-12 graphics from the SIA tradeshow last week. The ones you have now are the 2010-11 white room version (missing the little 4FRNT logo and bases are different).

Still loving the Renegades. Managed to find the balance point to rail GS turns on hardpack with Dukes to boot, fun powerful ski, can be draining doing a full day on hardpack with them though, can't be lazy.

[Mustonen]

The pictures you posted are the 2011-12 graphics from the SIA tradeshow last week. The ones you have now are the 2010-11 white room version (missing the little 4FRNT logo and bases are different).

Still loving the Renegades. Managed to find the balance point to rail GS turns on hardpack with Dukes to boot, fun powerful ski, can be draining doing a full day on hardpack with them though, can't be lazy.

I know what I posted, and I know what I have. The dimensions written on my topsheet are different than the dimensions published on the website (by like a mm or two). I just thought a picture of the upcoming 196s was appropriate for this thread.

Still wondering if there's really no plan to change the topsheets beyond moving logos around (not that it's really too big a deal to me), and damnit, ravens or crows?

Found the same on hardpack. Very doable, but I find myself doing lots of micro-adjustments to my stance due to the reverse camber.

[DudeLebowSKI]

I know what I posted, and I know what I have. The dimensions written on my topsheet are different than the dimensions published on the website (by like a mm or two). I just thought a picture of the upcoming 196s was appropriate for this thread.

Still wondering if there's really no plan to change the topsheets beyond moving logos around (not that it's really too big a deal to me), and damnit, ravens or crows?

Found the same on hardpack. Very doable, but I find myself doing lots of micro-adjustments to my stance due to the reverse camber.

What exactly is written on your top sheet? Mine says 135 122 129 (nope).

Edit: Mine actually say 134 -122- 130 as well.

[Long duc dong]

[QUOTE=Mustonen;3163347]
White Room Renegade
186: 135 x 122 x 129
196: 137 x 122 x 131

My topsheets dims are different than published. Anybody else notice this? Already half planning a pair of 196 next year. Curious to see if the topsheets change. And...uh...I'm no ornithologist; are those ravens or crows on the topsheet?/QUOTE]

My topsheet dims on the regular EHP 186, purchased in January 2008 were off. On the top sheet, it said 124-113-118, which was accurate if you measured on the top of the ski. If you flip the ski over, and measure on the base, the dims on my ski were 129-116-123, which is what they later stated to be the ski dims. I guess they just made a mistake with the measurements on my ski.

[D(C)]

Mine say 134-122-130.

[bigstix]

I got to ride 2 runs on the rens and don't have a lot to add except that it was the most stable 186 length ski that I have ever ridden.

[butterscotch]

Okay, here's the deal: Everytime I ride my 182 Czar's, I think "I love this ski, but I want it to be 'more.' Oh but not the Rocker." In my experience, the Czar's rip like crazy at speed in soft snow, but can slarve and be nimble too. So that's what I want, but I want it to "go to 11". Is the Renegade that ski?

In terms of dimensions, the ski is a match. My main concern is that I ski at an area that has a ton of tight spots and techy lines, and is comparatively short on opportunities to open it up. Any thoughts?

[Mustonen]

They'll turn on a damn dime. Bushwacking, off-balance-one-footed-oh-shit direction changes, etc. I haven't skied similar shapes, and am still in the honeymoon phase w/ these guys, but I'd say these go to 11 and are easy in tight spots.

They do require attention on hard snow. I've also found that they scrub speed a little unpredictably when it's crusty (as in, oh shit that didn't slow me down at all). Trying to come up with negatives here, but having a hard time. The only other thing is that the tip isn't really there for driving turns. It doesn't really engage in any traditional sort of way - that's more something to get used to, though....

[robrun]

Hey Superdigg, how about that gopro vid?
(I´m on the 193 Ehp with NTN)

[whyturn]

Currently my new favorite go fast pow, tree ski. So quick and turn any shape. Great it tight chutes due to -5 mount point but float fine with speed in a foot of Utah fresh. So balanced and stable on groomers. Most stable 186 I have ever seen. Great job 4frnt. I got alot of questions in my last 4 day vacation about shape and topsheet. Best was on a hunting for pow mostly groomed day. "so how are those working today (sarcastic)". They rip

[butterscotch]

cool. thanks for the info, guys. glad to hear so many positive reviews.

[4FRNT]

So, we called around to our shops, and it turns out that there are a few pairs still hanging around unsold.

Four in Montana for sure, and one possibly in CO. If anyone is still looking for a pair, let me know and we can get ship them basically anywhere.

[EEC]

Got some more time on mine and they continue to impress me. As others have mentioned, by far the most stable 186 I've ever been on. There's a good chance I'll be thinning my quiver soon because it's looking like these will be my go to ski for 99% of conditions.

[D(C)]

There's a good chance I'll be thinning my quiver soon because it's looking like these will be my go to ski for 99% of conditions.

I've been doing just that!

[the_teo]

Saw a pair at Straight Line in Fernie last time I was in.

[D(C)]

I started with Dukes at 88 and remounted with 916s at 87, so I thought I'd offer a comparison.

I prefer 88. They're stiff as shit, so float is no better at 87. In fact, I like the way they plane evenly at 88, with the whole ski rising above the snow. At 87, the tails sink a bit more, losing a bit of the frictionlessness that made them so special. At 87, they also lose agility without really gaining stability. 88 seems to be perfectly centred on the sidecut whereas 87 seems more sluggish in comparison, tougher to drive the tips and making them want to wander. Also, I had more trouble controlling the skis in tight spots when pivoting was necessary. I never thought 1 cm would make such a difference, but I guess with such a short running length and sidecut length it's considerable.

When I remounted with 916s, I was hoping to mount at 88 again but went to 87 due to hole conflicts. I will be putting Dukes back on just to be back at 88.

Also, I should note that Dukes are not noticeable. In fact, the extra lift and flatter ramp angle seems to make them better on groomers.

[superdigg]

Hey Superdigg, how about that gopro vid?
(I´m on the 193 Ehp with NTN)

Kind of forgot - sorry!

[JRainey]

I started with Dukes at 88 and remounted with 916s at 87, so I thought I'd offer a comparison.

I prefer 88. They're stiff as shit, so float is no better at 87. In fact, I like the way they plane evenly at 88, with the whole ski rising above the snow. At 87, the tails sink a bit more, losing a bit of the frictionlessness that made them so special. At 87, they also lose agility without really gaining stability. 88 seems to be perfectly centred on the sidecut whereas 87 seems more sluggish in comparison, tougher to drive the tips and making them want to wander. Also, I had more trouble controlling the skis in tight spots when pivoting was necessary. I never thought 1 cm would make such a difference, but I guess with such a short running length and sidecut length it's considerable.

When I remounted with 916s, I was hoping to mount at 88 again but went to 87 due to hole conflicts. I will be putting Dukes back on just to be back at 88.

Also, I should note that Dukes are not noticeable. In fact, the extra lift and flatter ramp angle seems to make them better on groomers.

What if you went forward with your mount, and kept the 916s. I'm at 90 from the tail, I have some float issues when it's too flat/deep, but I doubt it's that much different than you others, it's a stiffness thing. Other than that, they slay pow like a charm. Like I said before, I noticed they got snappier on groomers from the first day I had them at 88 to the second day at 90. No stability issues either, and i've never gone over the bars on a powder landing. If you're clear at 89, I would do it.

Just to add, they are also my 99% go to ski. I think i skinnier version would be the shit though too.

[gramboh]

FYI careful with the tails of there is no tail protection/edge wrap. I was touring last week and while switching skin to ski for last run down, I stuck the skis in the snow tail first (pretty normal move?) and must have tapped a buried rock with one, didn't feel it or even notice the delam at the time. Get back to the car and notice a 2 inch long tail delam. Only other possibility is from skis being loaded into the gondi by WB staff, I load them them myself every time now.

Luckily, the fibreglass under the topsheet delam was fully in tact, let them sit 48h, had them repaired and after another 5 hard days on them, they seem fine. I'm paranoid with them now, had to spend the first day of the biggest cycle of the year on my old ANTs, nowhere near as fun in the pow

[JRV]

Just got on a pair of Renegades, #162. Mounted them with FKS 18s @ 87cm from the tail. AMAZING skis!
Video is from my first runs on them, sweet conditions to test them out in. Check out my review of them for UnofficialNetworks.com

[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.

[Dr.Sih]

has any one around 6'2" and 195lbs skied the renegade? I would be interested in hearing how it work for you?

[whyturn]

With gear probably 200 and I am 6-2. I love it in all conditions so far. So quick in the trees and in tight chutes. Had fine float in 12-18 of Utah fluff. Most stable 186 ever and I have no issues at rec -88 mount point