Did the mount point get moved back for 18/19? For the 17/18 version you have -8.95cm as compared to -10.25cm on this pair. Or is the difference due to comparing two different lengths and the mount point goes further back as the skis increase in length?
Hi, George – it’s the latter; the mount point didn’t get moved back, it just scales back on longer-length models.
although it is curious (to me) that the 184 mount point is further forward by about 1 to 1.5cm relative to the 189.
Based on that and wanting a more powder focused ski I went with similar mount point on my 184’s: so about -1 from the rec line.
How do you like them at -1 from the recommend line?
How consistent do you feel your stiffness measurements are?
These new stiffness estimates are very close to the Monster 88, though a bit stiffer behind the binding. The old stiffness records as softer than nearly every non-park ski I can find a recent review for. Is the change that substantial? The old one less stiff than most other skis you’ve been on in the last couple years, the new one stiffer?
Am I misreading something? Stiffnesses for new/monster below.
New Wren:
Tips: 8
Shovels: 8.5-9
In Front of Toe Piece: 9-10
Underfoot: 10
Behind Heel Piece: 9.5-9
Tails: 8.5
Short answer: quite consistent. We actually verified this last Fall, when we were putting my numbers up against a very sophisticated / sensitive ski flex machine. Turned out, my numbers were very much in line with the machine’s. (The engineer was extremely surprised.)
But then again, I would resist the temptation to stare too closely at any individual number. They are best used when taken overall, to see where the softer & stiffer sections of a ski are located.
(And as for the previous Wren 108 … yes … it was soft. When we called it probably the easiest, most forgiving ski in its class, we weren’t kidding.)
And finally, bigger discussion here, but there are big material differences between the Monster & the Wren, and those materials make a difference. So while I stand by those numbers, again, keep in mind that a mere “8.5” is by no means a stand-in for teasing out exactly how easy it is to get into the flex of the ski, how quickly it stiffens up, etc.
And since nobody is sitting there trying to decide whether to fill their quiver spot EITHER with a Monster 88 OR a Wren 108 … such direct comparisons aren’t very helpful – though getting into some of those details if we were talking Monster 88 vs Blizzard Brahma could be.
So, long and short: I think the most telling and important thing here is to look at the numbers for the previous Wren and this new Wren.
Thank you. And, yeah, I’m obviously not planning to sell my M88s (though maybe my M108s…) for a pair of Wrens, just curious about the substantial difference and points of reference.
Jeffrey, curious your thoughts on your monster 108. Love my monster 88s and always considering picking up one of their big brothers, but don’t like over 25M Turn radius unless open pow. Any thoughts on how hard they are to lay over compared to the 88 which is super easy?
I have only ridden the m108s a few days. This season in Tahoe I’ve been pretty much living on the 88s, since, there has been absolutely no snow. So, take this opinion with a grain of salt. Also, I’m 6’2″, 230#, and strong, ymmv. I like long turn radius skis for everything. I skied the Lhasa Pows as a DD for years, then the 2011 191 BGs whenever there was at least a dusting of soft. For me:
They are workable at low speed, but not a lot of fun. Once you’re moving, they’re easy for their mass. They are entirely as stable as you would expect as well. I wouldn’t take a pair out to practice small radius turns or something silly, they have a purpose. That said, the few days I’ve had them out, they’ve happily done what I wanted.
I’m still not sure I will get much use out of the 108s on a better season. If I’m going to charge chopped up hard snow, I think skinnier heavy straight skis might do as well. If it’s soft, a little bit of float could be more fun.
My selection of potential Bodacious replacements just keeps getting bigger: this, Blister Pro, Devastator, another Bodacious…
I am going to go out on a limb here and say there is no way these would even remotely ski like a Bodacious.
More cowbell, err rocker!
Better have them both in the quiver…..
Good point, Tom. I already have a nice pair of Atomic Atlas 192’s for fresh pow, and they’re plenty playful. I should probably be thinking Liberty Variant/Head Monster 108/Dynastar Legend Pro/Blizzard Bodacious. Most of my days are spent trying to ski chop/crust/weird snow.
thank you for getting this out!!! I have been on the Wren 102s / 186 for the past few 4 years and am now looking to replace them. they no longer make the 102 OR a 186 length, so I have been struggling to figure out where to go next. am thinking the 98? but would be very interested in 2019’s version. I am not psyched at the increase in splay, and loss of sweet spot length at 186. I look forward to seeing how on3p’s 2018-2019 wren compares to the new moment commander series. seems a direct competitor. i am 6’1″ / 250lbs and have loved the silky smooth ride of the 102. at my weight i have no issue bending/carving it, and love the stability / crud crushing feel.
I haven’t skied it, but the W102 is commonly known as a very easy going Wren. I think it’s direct replacement is the Wren 98. At your size, I’d say the 189 is a no brainer. As for the 184 vs 186: Look at a 2cm on a ruler. Now image about half of that is taken off your tip and half the tail of the ski (for simplicity). Do you really think that’s going to make or break your ride? I believe contact length remained the same when the skis went from 186 to 184 (at least on the Billygoat it did…just 2cm off the old full twin tail). The current year W108 in a 189 might be a great replacement for your W102 if you’re ok with the extra width.
“The 18/19 Wrenegade 108 comes in at an astonishing 450 grams-per-ski lighter than the 17/18 Wrenegade 108. Yet ON3P’s Scott Andrus says that zero stability has been compromised, despite the weight loss.”
Gold Jerry, gold.
I know how Scott feels (and I wholeheartedly agree) about the lightweight trend and this will be a huge selling point for ON3P (people still looking for damp and durable). …just my opinion.
When you review the 18/19 wren 108, can you mention how you feel this would work as a resort powder skis. I am specifically interested to know if this can be used as a narrower replacement for a more traditional wider powder ski and how much float it may have compared to wider skis with less rocker.
Yep. :)
interesting. nudges the ski quite a bit to the center of the radar.
any behavior that you think comes from the “bi-raduus” sidecut ?
I can’t say that I noticed anything in particular. Mostly, I tend to get nervous when I start hearing about things like “bi-radius” designs, but these skis just feel quite good. And while I didn’t think it warranted spending too much time on how the Wren 108 carves, for making bigger turns at speed, the shovels of the Wren 108 do initiate a turn nicely and naturally, without pulling you harder into a turn than I’d want from a bigger ski like this. And yet, you can actually engage the shovels in a carved turn, unlike skis like the Dynastar Legend X106, etc., where you’re really just carving from the middle of the ski.
When you do the size comparison in the last section of this article are you speaking of the 17/18 or 18/19 184? I just received my 18/19 184s and they weigh 2300/g per ski, which is more than your stated weight for the 189s. So im wondering if “notably lighter, notably quicker, and definitely has a lower swing weigh” still will hold true on mine…
Hi, George – when I originally wrote that First Look with the sizing recommendations, I was mostly thinking of the 17/18 184 cm Wren vs the 18/19 189 cm Wren.
But see my updated thoughts on sizing in my full review & accompanying Deep Dive Comparisons.
Finally, are you sure your skis weighed 2300 g per ski?? Our measured weights on the 18/19 184s were 2143 & 2194 grams each. So I suspect that something is off with the 2300 g measurement you got?
Hmm.. Well it sounds like the wren 184 is right up my ally. Been looking for something to replace my scimitar 185s (i know they measure like 181~) for my western trips and when i feel like nuking midwest groomers. I’m 5’10 but i’m a really light guy, so i don’t think i need the extra stability the 189 would add. This is an excellent review. Now i just have to decide if that new ski you and folsom (talked about in recent podcast) are working on is a better choice for me since i basically re-learned to ski well on decambered skis (skied in my youth, started before shaped skis, but they caught on as i got older) didn’t ski much in my late teens and early 20s, started skiing again in mid 20s and bought some scimitars and basically learned to be a competent advanced intermediate on scimitars, and just don’t feel the stability at speed i want. I have come to really love gunning it when there isn’t fresh to play in, and the scimitar seems to feel like it loses stablity at 40-45mph, and i’d like another 10-15mph of stability, and better pow performance (basically ability to ski past 10-12″ of fresh). I’ve hit 50mph on the scimitars, would like to hit 60-70 on my next skis..
So Ian, you plan on hitting 60 to 70? Miles per hour? You’re a self proclaimed “advanced intermediate”? This is in a lift serviced ski area? You should adjust your goals a bit.
Great review! Really liking what I’ve heard about the Wren, but unsure if the 179 will be too long for me. I’m 5’6 150 lbs and currently ski the Enforcer 93 in 169; doesn’t feel long. Also looking into the Enforcer 110.
I’d consider myself an aggressive advanced skier and am aiming for a #2 ski that performs well in West Coast deep powder, but also in the occasional variable conditions. (Don’t often do moguls, but do enjoy trees. Enjoy hitting natural features, but not much park and don’t do much spins / not looking for a jibby ski.)
Thoughts?
I’m NOT looking for a frontside carver, but I was wondering if the 18/19 Wren 108s have much rebound/energy out of a turn? You guys described the Wren 96 and poppy and lively with good rebound out of carves. I know the Wren 108 is a much bigger ski designed for a different purpose, but I was wondering if it still had any of the pop that it’s little brother has. Thanks!
Like Rob above, does the 108 have the same “pop” as the Wren 96?
Is this mic on?
In terms of pop / energy, I’d say the Wren 108 is a bit poppier than some metal-laminate skis like the Cochise and Enforcer 110 and reverse-camber skis like the Folsom Hammer, but you do have to “work” to get the energy out of the Wren 108. Like the other ON3P skis I’ve been on (Wren 96, Woodsman 108, and Kartel / Jeffrey 108), the Wren 108 is fairly stiff so you have to push it pretty hard to bend it. But once you do, it does produce some energy and you can get it airborne coming out of a turn. I.e., the Wren 108 isn’t a ski that feels super snappy at slower speeds, but if you drive it hard, it will produce some rebound.
I wouldn’t say that pop / energy is a defining characteristic for the Wren 108 — it feels like a big, strong ski that’s designed to mostly stay on the snow, rather than pop and bounce over it. But I also wouldn’t call it a “dead” ski, and physically strong skiers who are able to bend their skis will definitely be able to get some energy out of it.
Hope that helps, and let us know about any follow-up questions.
Thank you very much! That’s very helpful!
Have you every played with the mount point on the Wren? It’s already a bit short up front due to all the rocker but I was just wondering if you every went +1 or +2 amd see if it had any impact.
Thanks again!
Bill
I did not — to me, it didn’t really feel like one of those skis that would benefit from moving the mount point forward. Given the Wren 108’s strong tail, I don’t think I’d want more tail behind me, and I doubt moving the mount point forward would make it all that much more maneuverable or playful.
Thanks again!
Looking forward to Wrenegade Ti updates in Buyers Guide and upcoming 19/20 on snow tests.
Any plans to compare the ‘Ti’ to the standard? I’m very interested in this.
I asked ON3P about the titanal version, and it is about what you’d guess: “It is slightly stiffer, but much more damp with better edge hold. So it doesn’t require you to ski a ton harder in terms of flex, but it does lock in a lot more.”
Still, I’d love to hear what you guys think if you have had a chance to ski the Wren 108 Ti.
Hey guys – effing love how technical and in-depth your reviews are. Seriously, really good stuff.
I’m wondering – does the 189 Wren108 feel like more or less ski than the 2019/2020 version of the 190 moment wildcat/blister pro? (assuming both have pivot 15s).
I love how maneuverable the 190 wildcats are (especially for a 120 underfoot), and am curious if the 189 Wren108s, given their heavier mass but skinnier width, provide maneuverability that is remotely similar to the ’19-20 190 wildcats. If possible, could you also comment on the similarities/differences between input required by both skis while skiing more “dynamically”? (by your definition of ‘skiing dynamically’)
Did the mount point get moved back for 18/19? For the 17/18 version you have -8.95cm as compared to -10.25cm on this pair. Or is the difference due to comparing two different lengths and the mount point goes further back as the skis increase in length?
Hi, George – it’s the latter; the mount point didn’t get moved back, it just scales back on longer-length models.
although it is curious (to me) that the 184 mount point is further forward by about 1 to 1.5cm relative to the 189.
Based on that and wanting a more powder focused ski I went with similar mount point on my 184’s: so about -1 from the rec line.
How do you like them at -1 from the recommend line?
How consistent do you feel your stiffness measurements are?
These new stiffness estimates are very close to the Monster 88, though a bit stiffer behind the binding. The old stiffness records as softer than nearly every non-park ski I can find a recent review for. Is the change that substantial? The old one less stiff than most other skis you’ve been on in the last couple years, the new one stiffer?
Am I misreading something? Stiffnesses for new/monster below.
Monster88
Tips: 8
Shovels: 8.5-9
Underfoot: 10
Behind the Heel piece: 9
Tails: 8.5-8
New Wren:
Tips: 8
Shovels: 8.5-9
In Front of Toe Piece: 9-10
Underfoot: 10
Behind Heel Piece: 9.5-9
Tails: 8.5
Short answer: quite consistent. We actually verified this last Fall, when we were putting my numbers up against a very sophisticated / sensitive ski flex machine. Turned out, my numbers were very much in line with the machine’s. (The engineer was extremely surprised.)
But then again, I would resist the temptation to stare too closely at any individual number. They are best used when taken overall, to see where the softer & stiffer sections of a ski are located.
(And as for the previous Wren 108 … yes … it was soft. When we called it probably the easiest, most forgiving ski in its class, we weren’t kidding.)
And finally, bigger discussion here, but there are big material differences between the Monster & the Wren, and those materials make a difference. So while I stand by those numbers, again, keep in mind that a mere “8.5” is by no means a stand-in for teasing out exactly how easy it is to get into the flex of the ski, how quickly it stiffens up, etc.
And since nobody is sitting there trying to decide whether to fill their quiver spot EITHER with a Monster 88 OR a Wren 108 … such direct comparisons aren’t very helpful – though getting into some of those details if we were talking Monster 88 vs Blizzard Brahma could be.
So, long and short: I think the most telling and important thing here is to look at the numbers for the previous Wren and this new Wren.
Thank you. And, yeah, I’m obviously not planning to sell my M88s (though maybe my M108s…) for a pair of Wrens, just curious about the substantial difference and points of reference.
Jeffrey, curious your thoughts on your monster 108. Love my monster 88s and always considering picking up one of their big brothers, but don’t like over 25M Turn radius unless open pow. Any thoughts on how hard they are to lay over compared to the 88 which is super easy?
I have only ridden the m108s a few days. This season in Tahoe I’ve been pretty much living on the 88s, since, there has been absolutely no snow. So, take this opinion with a grain of salt. Also, I’m 6’2″, 230#, and strong, ymmv. I like long turn radius skis for everything. I skied the Lhasa Pows as a DD for years, then the 2011 191 BGs whenever there was at least a dusting of soft. For me:
They are workable at low speed, but not a lot of fun. Once you’re moving, they’re easy for their mass. They are entirely as stable as you would expect as well. I wouldn’t take a pair out to practice small radius turns or something silly, they have a purpose. That said, the few days I’ve had them out, they’ve happily done what I wanted.
I’m still not sure I will get much use out of the 108s on a better season. If I’m going to charge chopped up hard snow, I think skinnier heavy straight skis might do as well. If it’s soft, a little bit of float could be more fun.
My selection of potential Bodacious replacements just keeps getting bigger: this, Blister Pro, Devastator, another Bodacious…
I am going to go out on a limb here and say there is no way these would even remotely ski like a Bodacious.
More cowbell, err rocker!
Better have them both in the quiver…..
Good point, Tom. I already have a nice pair of Atomic Atlas 192’s for fresh pow, and they’re plenty playful. I should probably be thinking Liberty Variant/Head Monster 108/Dynastar Legend Pro/Blizzard Bodacious. Most of my days are spent trying to ski chop/crust/weird snow.
thank you for getting this out!!! I have been on the Wren 102s / 186 for the past few 4 years and am now looking to replace them. they no longer make the 102 OR a 186 length, so I have been struggling to figure out where to go next. am thinking the 98? but would be very interested in 2019’s version. I am not psyched at the increase in splay, and loss of sweet spot length at 186. I look forward to seeing how on3p’s 2018-2019 wren compares to the new moment commander series. seems a direct competitor. i am 6’1″ / 250lbs and have loved the silky smooth ride of the 102. at my weight i have no issue bending/carving it, and love the stability / crud crushing feel.
I haven’t skied it, but the W102 is commonly known as a very easy going Wren. I think it’s direct replacement is the Wren 98. At your size, I’d say the 189 is a no brainer. As for the 184 vs 186: Look at a 2cm on a ruler. Now image about half of that is taken off your tip and half the tail of the ski (for simplicity). Do you really think that’s going to make or break your ride? I believe contact length remained the same when the skis went from 186 to 184 (at least on the Billygoat it did…just 2cm off the old full twin tail). The current year W108 in a 189 might be a great replacement for your W102 if you’re ok with the extra width.
“The 18/19 Wrenegade 108 comes in at an astonishing 450 grams-per-ski lighter than the 17/18 Wrenegade 108. Yet ON3P’s Scott Andrus says that zero stability has been compromised, despite the weight loss.”
Gold Jerry, gold.
I know how Scott feels (and I wholeheartedly agree) about the lightweight trend and this will be a huge selling point for ON3P (people still looking for damp and durable). …just my opinion.
When you review the 18/19 wren 108, can you mention how you feel this would work as a resort powder skis. I am specifically interested to know if this can be used as a narrower replacement for a more traditional wider powder ski and how much float it may have compared to wider skis with less rocker.
Yep. :)
interesting. nudges the ski quite a bit to the center of the radar.
any behavior that you think comes from the “bi-raduus” sidecut ?
I can’t say that I noticed anything in particular. Mostly, I tend to get nervous when I start hearing about things like “bi-radius” designs, but these skis just feel quite good. And while I didn’t think it warranted spending too much time on how the Wren 108 carves, for making bigger turns at speed, the shovels of the Wren 108 do initiate a turn nicely and naturally, without pulling you harder into a turn than I’d want from a bigger ski like this. And yet, you can actually engage the shovels in a carved turn, unlike skis like the Dynastar Legend X106, etc., where you’re really just carving from the middle of the ski.
When you do the size comparison in the last section of this article are you speaking of the 17/18 or 18/19 184? I just received my 18/19 184s and they weigh 2300/g per ski, which is more than your stated weight for the 189s. So im wondering if “notably lighter, notably quicker, and definitely has a lower swing weigh” still will hold true on mine…
Hi, George – when I originally wrote that First Look with the sizing recommendations, I was mostly thinking of the 17/18 184 cm Wren vs the 18/19 189 cm Wren.
But see my updated thoughts on sizing in my full review & accompanying Deep Dive Comparisons.
Finally, are you sure your skis weighed 2300 g per ski?? Our measured weights on the 18/19 184s were 2143 & 2194 grams each. So I suspect that something is off with the 2300 g measurement you got?
Hmm.. Well it sounds like the wren 184 is right up my ally. Been looking for something to replace my scimitar 185s (i know they measure like 181~) for my western trips and when i feel like nuking midwest groomers. I’m 5’10 but i’m a really light guy, so i don’t think i need the extra stability the 189 would add. This is an excellent review. Now i just have to decide if that new ski you and folsom (talked about in recent podcast) are working on is a better choice for me since i basically re-learned to ski well on decambered skis (skied in my youth, started before shaped skis, but they caught on as i got older) didn’t ski much in my late teens and early 20s, started skiing again in mid 20s and bought some scimitars and basically learned to be a competent advanced intermediate on scimitars, and just don’t feel the stability at speed i want. I have come to really love gunning it when there isn’t fresh to play in, and the scimitar seems to feel like it loses stablity at 40-45mph, and i’d like another 10-15mph of stability, and better pow performance (basically ability to ski past 10-12″ of fresh). I’ve hit 50mph on the scimitars, would like to hit 60-70 on my next skis..
So Ian, you plan on hitting 60 to 70? Miles per hour? You’re a self proclaimed “advanced intermediate”? This is in a lift serviced ski area? You should adjust your goals a bit.
Great review! Really liking what I’ve heard about the Wren, but unsure if the 179 will be too long for me. I’m 5’6 150 lbs and currently ski the Enforcer 93 in 169; doesn’t feel long. Also looking into the Enforcer 110.
I’d consider myself an aggressive advanced skier and am aiming for a #2 ski that performs well in West Coast deep powder, but also in the occasional variable conditions. (Don’t often do moguls, but do enjoy trees. Enjoy hitting natural features, but not much park and don’t do much spins / not looking for a jibby ski.)
Thoughts?
I’m NOT looking for a frontside carver, but I was wondering if the 18/19 Wren 108s have much rebound/energy out of a turn? You guys described the Wren 96 and poppy and lively with good rebound out of carves. I know the Wren 108 is a much bigger ski designed for a different purpose, but I was wondering if it still had any of the pop that it’s little brother has. Thanks!
Like Rob above, does the 108 have the same “pop” as the Wren 96?
Is this mic on?
In terms of pop / energy, I’d say the Wren 108 is a bit poppier than some metal-laminate skis like the Cochise and Enforcer 110 and reverse-camber skis like the Folsom Hammer, but you do have to “work” to get the energy out of the Wren 108. Like the other ON3P skis I’ve been on (Wren 96, Woodsman 108, and Kartel / Jeffrey 108), the Wren 108 is fairly stiff so you have to push it pretty hard to bend it. But once you do, it does produce some energy and you can get it airborne coming out of a turn. I.e., the Wren 108 isn’t a ski that feels super snappy at slower speeds, but if you drive it hard, it will produce some rebound.
I wouldn’t say that pop / energy is a defining characteristic for the Wren 108 — it feels like a big, strong ski that’s designed to mostly stay on the snow, rather than pop and bounce over it. But I also wouldn’t call it a “dead” ski, and physically strong skiers who are able to bend their skis will definitely be able to get some energy out of it.
Hope that helps, and let us know about any follow-up questions.
Thank you very much! That’s very helpful!
Have you every played with the mount point on the Wren? It’s already a bit short up front due to all the rocker but I was just wondering if you every went +1 or +2 amd see if it had any impact.
Thanks again!
Bill
I did not — to me, it didn’t really feel like one of those skis that would benefit from moving the mount point forward. Given the Wren 108’s strong tail, I don’t think I’d want more tail behind me, and I doubt moving the mount point forward would make it all that much more maneuverable or playful.
Thanks again!
Looking forward to Wrenegade Ti updates in Buyers Guide and upcoming 19/20 on snow tests.
Any plans to compare the ‘Ti’ to the standard? I’m very interested in this.
I asked ON3P about the titanal version, and it is about what you’d guess: “It is slightly stiffer, but much more damp with better edge hold. So it doesn’t require you to ski a ton harder in terms of flex, but it does lock in a lot more.”
Still, I’d love to hear what you guys think if you have had a chance to ski the Wren 108 Ti.
Hey guys – effing love how technical and in-depth your reviews are. Seriously, really good stuff.
I’m wondering – does the 189 Wren108 feel like more or less ski than the 2019/2020 version of the 190 moment wildcat/blister pro? (assuming both have pivot 15s).
I love how maneuverable the 190 wildcats are (especially for a 120 underfoot), and am curious if the 189 Wren108s, given their heavier mass but skinnier width, provide maneuverability that is remotely similar to the ’19-20 190 wildcats. If possible, could you also comment on the similarities/differences between input required by both skis while skiing more “dynamically”? (by your definition of ‘skiing dynamically’)
Thanks dudes