4FRNT Renegade ~ Hand built in SLC.

[mikdes26]

Somewhere between on the line and -1 works well IMHO.

Ya I'm now thinking -1. Good info from all. Thanks!

[gaijin]

'13 Owls in a 186 handle tight trees quite well...
Me: 5'8", 155lbs

[Lantern]

Those trees aren't tight! And snow looks perfect...
Don't get me wrong, my 196 owls handle great in tight trees in pow. It's just the newer ones are quicker...

Me: 6'5 165lbs geared

[reckless toboggan]

Me: 6'5 165lbs geared

Somebody get this guy a sammich.

[skinipenem]

'13 Owls in a 186 handle tight trees quite well...
Me: 5'8", 155lbs

I'm sure the 186 rens whip the shit outta trees... but we are talking about the man's 196.

[gaijin]

I'm sure the 186 rens whip the shit outta trees... but we are talking about the man's 196.

Right on!

[DGamms]

Skinepem, you are the only one I know that has skied the same 4Frnt ski in pre and post VibeVail versions. Do you think it makes a significant difference? I sold my OG Rens 186 cm because I felt they did a bad job absorbing vibration in firmer 3D snow. With the VibeVail addition, I'm wondering if the new ones do a better job of this.

Like you, I own 184 cm Devastators with VibeVail. Those are damp skis that do a great job of crushing variable 3D snow and staying composed at speed.

If I am being totally honest, the InThayne gets me more hot and bothered than the current Ren as a resort pow crusher. The marketing makes them sound like a Devastator/Ren hybrid. Heavier core layup than the 2017 Ren + VibeVail + semi twin tip tail (instead of the Rens almost pintail shape) = awesome on paper.

[rewbn]

I've skied both the Owls and this year I replaced them with 15/16 Rens with Vibe Veil and I wouldn't say it makes a huge difference. Maybe a little bit but nothing major honestly.

[Bobcat Sig]

Hey Judo and Bobcat, any beta on how you like the 91cm as opposed to the 92cm mount point? I've been skiing the 196cm - latest model, and while it's awesome in untracked I wouldn't mind a bit less tail when things get tracked out in tight situations.

Depends on your skiing style. I skied my Raven 2.0 at 92 (still for sale) for some time. They worked well enough, but I like to drive my ski and as I would push the skis, I'd go over the bars, especially in the really deep. Part of that is that the Ren requires a more neutral or centered stance.

I'm on a pair of owls at they're mounted at about 90 or 90.5 and I like them much better.

[mikdes26]

Where do you have your Devastators mounted? I'm eyeing a 184 as a "not sure what the conditions will be" travel ski. I'm pretty directional, fwiw.

Forgive me for quoting my own post...

Anyone have any feedback on the Marker Griffon Schizo binding? That might be my solution and I found a good deal on some at the same place that has the Devastators. I'm slightly concerned about their weight, though.

[Supermoon]

I would mount them on the line if you like to ski it more centered and/or want more tail for switch stuff. -1 possibly if not.

I personally don't like Marker but YMMV.

[mikdes26]

I would mount them on the line if you like to ski it more centered and/or want more tail for switch stuff. -1 possibly if not.

I personally don't like Marker but YMMV.

What is it that you don't like about Markers? Personally I've never had problems with them, but am always interested in varying points of view. What is your brand of choice?

[Supermoon]

I always felt like they were a bit plasticy and got sloppy over time, but I haven't been in any in years.

I am almost always on Tyrollia/4FRNT bindings.

[skinipenem]

Skinepem, you are the only one I know that has skied the same 4Frnt ski in pre and post VibeVail versions. Do you think it makes a significant difference? I sold my OG Rens 186 cm because I felt they did a bad job absorbing vibration in firmer 3D snow. With the VibeVail addition, I'm wondering if the new ones do a better job of this.

Like you, I own 184 cm Devastators with VibeVail. Those are damp skis that do a great job of crushing variable 3D snow and staying composed at speed.

If I am being totally honest, the InThayne gets me more hot and bothered than the current Ren as a resort pow crusher. The marketing makes them sound like a Devastator/Ren hybrid. Heavier core layup than the 2017 Ren + VibeVail + semi twin tip tail (instead of the Rens almost pintail shape) = awesome on paper.

I have still yet to back-to-back the OG and vibeveil devastators. I might get a chance this Sunday and will report back. So far I think the new devastators are damper and smoother; however, the OG skis are still great skis. The tip and tail height are lower on the new ones.

Note: gonna post a review of 2016 kye 120 189 cm and compare to renegade in separate thread now.

I only have two days on them so I am still getting dialed in... These have vibeveil but not the 15% weight reduction of the latest version. They kick ass! You should try them.

[Dshack89]

I just moved the pivots on my 196 Rens from 96.5 from tail (prior owner) to just under 92. I took the Rens out before the remount and was frustrated with tip dive. I'm 6'3" 215 and charge, so I was hoping the remount would help. Now they are skiing so much better! I had a blast throwing down variable radius turns in creamy pow/slush today. My go to ski had been my Moment Governors but the Rens may take that spot in the quiver.

[Supermoon]

Bump.

Picked up a pair of 2016 196 Rens. Plan is to mount them @ 91 with Pivots as long as the holes match up. I'm 6'1", 205, old, washed up and overconfident. Should be a good time.

#prayforsnow

[Ghetto.Creek]

My Inthaynes came in today. Inthayne is basically the renegade but with a turned up tail. Still has the 35m radius, 122mm underfoot, reflect tech, etc etc.

First, just hand flexing them they feel pretty stiff. That gets me excited.
Second, stoked that 4FRNT is doing 3/4 edges on a lot of their skis now.

Im curious to how these things will handle as a mostly ever day ski, besides when it is super icy and hardpack. From the reviews on the Ren, it sounds like these will be okay on hardpack, but not a go to ski.


Recommended mount point on these is 89 from the tail, or -4 from the center. 4FRNT is pretty good about those things, but does that sound like a good idea to you guys? seems like some of you have played around with the mount on the Ren

[Vitamin I]

...Inthayne is basically the renegade but with a turned up tail...
Recommended mount point on these [Inthayne's] is 89 from the tail, or -4 from the center. 4FRNT is pretty good about those things, but does that sound like a good idea to you guys? seems like some of you have played around with the mount on the Ren

My 196cm Renegades (flat tail, but reverse camber) are mounted at -5.5cm from true center. They are fine there, but sometimes they feel almost too pivoty and playful that far forward (especially because reverse camber delivers tons of pivotability even if you DON'T mount it forward). For that directional ski, I'm pretty sure my fave position would be -6.5cm, to increase the rotational inertia (angular stability) a bit, and I figure the shortened tail (by merely 1cm) would still be supportive enough for me.

But for a twintip ski like Inthayne, the twin-tip reduces tail support, so it makes sense to mount Inthayne more forward than a Renegade, to increase tail length to retain tail support. So manufacturer recommended -4cm from true center on the Inthayne sounds reasonable. Inthayne's reverse camber will be plenty pivoty no matter where you mount it.

Do you know where you usually like to mount other playful twin tip ski models? Go more forward if you like a more upright stance, pivoting all the time, more symmetric for skiing switch, etc. Or mount more afterward if you want to lean forward and drive the tips (which might defeat the purpose of the Inthayne design?).

.

[Ghetto.Creek]

My 196cm Renegades (flat tail, but reverse camber) are mounted at -5.5cm from true center. They are fine there, but sometimes they feel almost too pivoty and playful that far forward (especially because reverse camber delivers tons of pivotability even if you DON'T mount it forward). For that directional ski, I'm pretty sure my fave position would be -6.5cm, to increase the rotational inertia (angular stability) a bit, and I figure the shortened tail (by merely 1cm) would still be supportive enough for me.

But for a twintip ski like Inthayne, the twin-tip reduces tail support, so it makes sense to mount Inthayne more forward than a Renegade, to increase tail length to retain tail support. So manufacturer recommended -4cm from true center on the Inthayne sounds reasonable. Inthayne's reverse camber will be plenty pivoty no matter where you mount it.

Do you know where you usually like to mount other playful twin tip ski models? Go more forward if you like a more upright stance, pivoting all the time, more symmetric for skiing switch, etc. Or mount more afterward if you want to lean forward and drive the tips (which might defeat the purpose of the Inthayne design?).

.

Think I might go with the -4. Other playful all mountain/pow skis I have been on are mounted -2/-2.5 at the closest, and about -3.5 at the furthest. I like it there, but I think with the reverse camber I don't want to get closer than -4. Gonna be my first time on a full rocker ski though.. so we'll see how it goes

[Supermoon]

I would trust the recommended line.

[shafty85]

Check the thread on the raven or hoji, can’t remember which, but there’s a link to where hoji recommends you mount based on your bsl. Not sure his theory is 100%, as I think his theory assumes uniformity around bsl and foot length among all brands of boots, whereas I think he’s more talking about foot length, but still informative.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Lantern]

Blister podcast hoji did talks about mount point. He likes the idea of the old toe line mount point. But it’s also assuming average height/weight and incredible balance.

Being really light, I don’t have any tip dive on a renegade at 92 with a 306 bsl. Using hojis recommendation I should be at 90.5 or 91 but I have never once felt like going back would be an improvement.
If I had less tail I would go at least 2 forward so the -4 makes perfect sense.
Skis similar to the inthayne are generally even further forward. Chetler, YLE, magnum opus etc.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Ghetto.Creek]

Lucky for me I have a 25.5 boot as well as Hoji I am just wondering how much Thayne had a say in the mount point, since it is his ski... But for a more jibby Ren and after reading through this thread a bit, -4 from center or 89cm from tail doesn't sound too far off. Thayne spent a lot of time on the Renegade and Devy before making this ski, so I bet I can trust the mount point, as of now, I'll be going -4/89 from tail.

Here's my concern though. 4FRNT States it's a 186cm.. I measured it out to be 184.15 ish give or take. Should I adjust the mount point from that? Or are those few cm lost too minute?

Also, why are the dimensions on my ski different than the ones listen on the website?? I've heard that has happened with other skis as well from 4F?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Lantern]

Top sheet measured before pressing. Length measured along base. Straight pull top sheet pressed measurements are rare as fuck.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Ghetto.Creek]

Top sheet measured before pressing. Length measured along base. Straight pull top sheet pressed measurements are rare as fuck.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

So does every ski have a slightly different dimension printed on the top sheet? Or just the white room skis? Lol.

And yeah, I know the process they use the skis come out a bit shorter than stated.