Groomers
Paul: Mt Bachelor has some super fun, swooping, rolling groomers and almost everything I said above applies to groomer skiing. The Wrenegade 108 held a strong edge in the soft groomers and had adequate rebound for dynamic turn transitions. In the morning when the groomers were a bit firmer, the 184 cm length felt great to me, as I wasn’t worried about having enough fore-aft support like I was on other places of the mountain where I know I could encounter soft spots in the spring snow. I would also reiterate from above that the heavily rockered tips are a little harder to engage early in the turn than those of less rockered skis.
Overall, the Wrenegade is fun on groomers, and is at least in the middle of the pack of the skis I’ve used in this 105-110 category on groomers. I need to try them on some cold winter groomers to get more assessment than that.
Jonathan: On soft groomers, I really like the Wrenegade 108. Paul is right that the tip engagement isn’t mind-blowing on these skis, but the shovels are so easy to bend and the ski is strong enough through the midsection and tail that I found it really fun to sink into a longer turn and ride big arcs. On soft groomers, those tails would finish turns well while also providing decent / good energy at the finish of the turn.
For mobbing late-day groomers when the snow has been pushed around and piled up, the 184 cm Wrenegade 108 won’t win top-end-stability awards. But if you’re willing to slow it down a little, you’ll be totally fine. And if you want to slow it down a ton, this ski is very happy to make slow, shorter (more bases-flat) turns on your way back to the lift. Again, this ski just never gets weird or unpredictable.
Spring Slop / Hot Pow
Paul: Unfortunately I haven’t had the chance to ski the Wrenegade 108 in deep powder, which is a shame because I believe it would do very well for its width in deep, soft snow (and also because I love powder skiing more than just about anything in the world).
I did get to ski them in quite a bit of deep, sometimes sticky, hot, soft snow. Unsurprisingly, the fatter skis we had along on the trip did better in these conditions, but the relatively large tip rocker of the Wrenegade 108 provided very good flotation and allowed them plane up and be driven from the tips as much as some of the bigger boards. Again, this makes me think that they’d do quite well in pow for a 108 mm ski, and I could see them being a great choice for someone who wants a strong ski for firmer days that could still stay on top during a powder day.
Jonathan: Paul is using more cautious language than I am tempted to when talking about the Wrenegade 108’s powder performance. In short, in the category of directional chargers, I think there are very few skis that will outshine the Wrenegade 108 in this respect. We’ll say more about this in our upcoming Deep Dive on the Wrenegade 108, but for skis in this class, the Wrenegade 108 will be among the best in class.
The Length Question
Paul: At 195 lbs and 6’ tall, I had a great time on the 184 cm Wrenegade 108 and would put it in the same category as the 185 cm Cochise. I suspect that I might prefer the 189 cm version for the open terrain and frequent maritime storms of my home mountain of Alyeska Resort, but that’s purely speculation. The 184 cm Wrenegade does ride like a shorter ski than the 189 cm Volkl 100Eight or the 188 cm Salomon QST 106, but the Wrenegade 108 provides noticeably more stability than a ski like the 185 cm DPS Wailer 106 Foundation.
In firm but carvable spring conditions, I think I would have preferred a little less tip rocker for more aggressive turn initiation, better suspension, and an even longer effective edge in front of my boot for going really fast. It’s possible that the 189 cm Wrenegade 108 would provide the extra support while still incorporating the tip rocker that gives them well-above- average float for this width (more on this below) but skiers who like to feel the tip of the ski engage early in the turn might find the tips of the Wrenegade feeling a little vague.
Jonathan: Paul’s thoughts on length are good and quite interesting. The primary reason we opted to review the 184 cm Wrenegade 108 is so that we could put it up against the large number of ~185 cm long, ~108 mm wide skis in the directional charger class.
And as Paul has been pointing out, the Wrenegade 108 — despite its significant tip rocker — doesn’t feel crazy short. I.e., the 184 Wrenegade 108 feels like the correct comparison to a 185 cm Cochise (keeping in mind that the Cochise is a heavier ski with metal).
But for those who like the sound of what we’re describing here but would like a bump up in stability, I don’t think Paul or I would have serious reservations about bumping up to the 189 cm model. As I wrote in our 16/17 Winter Buyer’s Guide, the 184 cm Wrenegade 108 is a really nice, easy ski for the category of directional chargers. And I think it will blow away many of the skis in this class in terms of deep snow performance. We believe that you’ll lose nothing in terms of deep snow performance by going up to the 189 cm model, but you will almost certainly gain some firm-snow stability.
Long and short: we’re not saying that everyone should size up on this ski, but hopefully this helps clarify who (and why) you might want to.
Bottom Line (For Now)
Paul: Based on my time skiing in a variety of conditions at Mt Bachelor, I’d call the the 17/18 ON3P Wrenegade 108 a fun, versatile option in category packed with well-designed skis. What sets the Wrenegade 108 apart is a strong, supportive tail and a smooth flex pattern with good suspension, coupled with a tip / shovel that we think will provide more float in deep snow than most skis in this category.
Jonathan: Yep, and I’d want to emphasize again that, in the class of “directional chargers,” the 184 cm Wrenegade 108 is one of the easiest-going skis in the category. It’s not the best option for those concerned with best-in-class stability in mixed conditions, but its blend of stability and forgiveness is going to appeal to a broad range of skiers.
NEXT: Rocker Profile Pics
Sounds like my 184 devastator?
Hmmm, not really. (And I’m kind of tempted to add, “at all”). But we’ll put that 184 Wrenegade 108 vs. 184 Devastator in our Deep Dive article.
I stand corrected. Just thought there was a similarity in the way they ski: both float well (my 184 Dev pair have softened up a bit and float pretty dang well), ski super easy but can still charge to a certain speed. Different mount points of course. My guess is wren charges more in the traditional sense. 184 Dev ain’t much of a charger but is so manuverable it is pretty easy to ski relatively fast in soft conditions. So was thinking different ski , design but similar outcome on snow. Looking forward to your direct comparison. Appreciate the reply.
All makes sense. But emphasis with 184 cm Devastator is: “soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo maneuverable.”
Thanks for the insights guys. As an owner of a 179cm Wren 108 I’ve been waiting on this one for awhile now. However, I am intrigued by the Enforcer 110 and though I am sure you will touch on this comparison in your deep dive, would you mind shedding some light on how which one of these two skis (184cm Wren 108 & 185cm Enforcer 110) offers a more stable, damp ride with better suspension? Thanks!
Good question. We’re putting together the Deep Dive now (and I was just on the Nordica Enforcer 110 again on Monday), so we’ll be sure to address this. (And I’m curious to see how similarly Paul Forward’s answer will line up with mine.)
I’d be interested in a comparison to the Line Supernatural 108! Especially for people who are looking for a replacement for the SN 108, since it’s getting discontinued.
Yep, will do.
I’ve noticed the terms ‘suspension’ and ‘chassis’ used in ski reviews lately. Can you define these please?
Hmmm, you’ve seen the term ‘chassis’ in one of our ski reviews? I can’t say that I can recall that (so please correct me if I’m wrong). But you’re certainly correct that “suspension” is a term that we are using more and more — and it’s a quality that has become increasingly important to me, personally, when evaluating skis.
But rather than have this topic / question get buried in this particular comment section, I think this would serve as a good Topic of the Week / Ski 101, so we’ll put something together and try to post next week, if that’s okay.
Right. ‘chassis’ is term used in a review of the Wrenegade 98 on exoticskis.com. It seems like a subjective way to talk about the construction of the ski: “ON3P Wren chassis [is] best described as a quiet, controlled envelope around a springy, spunky core”
Any chance of a comparison to the Moment Belafonte in the deep dive? Thanks!
Yep, I’d forgotten to include the Belafonte in our initial list of Deep Dive comparisons, so good call Jamie.
Is that Deep Dive article still coming?
Did you ever release the deep dive article for this ski?
Long story short, My wrens ended up mounted about .5cm or so ahead of recommended. I know ON3P is very particular about their mounting spots, so I’m wondering if I should be concerned. Anyone able to weigh in?
Email ON3P and ask them. They have really good customer service and will write you back.
Hey Jonathan, quick question on size…
I know these guys are some of the ONLY ones in the game that are actually true to size, Im 5’8, 155 and an aggressive skier, do you think at my weight the 179 would be the better bet, or would the 184 still be doable for an every day ride? I see that both of the reviewers are upwards of 6ft and are riding the 184.
Thanks!
Hey Pat,
I’m about 5’9” 165 and the 184s are fine. Go for it.