ON3P Wrenegade Review

[Professor Chaos]

Been a long time coming and now that I have to take a few weeks off due to a knee injury I might as well do a write up for these.

Ski Stats:
191 ON3P Wrenegade
141/113/128
Running Length = 162cm
Tip Rocker = 15cm x 1.5cm
Tail Rocker = N/A
Mounted -8 from centre with 916s. I prefer a forward mount.
Standard lay-up.
One of the stiffer(will be same as production) flexes.
Iggy scale: 240/250/245. Flex index rating feels pretty spot on. A hair softer than my LPs, but that is probably due to the twin.

Me:
Height: 186 cm.
Weight: 165-170 lbs naked. Add about 10-15 lbs(estimate) with all gear.
Previous skis(liked): 194 LPs, 190 Explosives, 189 Seth.
Level 10 Billion skier.....

Ive had about 25-30 days on these ski so far this season and despite the less-than-stellar conditions weve had thus far Ive had them out on some damn good days and some days that they werent really meant for.
Despite enjoying bigger skis, the Wrenegade's were my first venture into a ski this wide. The widest I had previously skied to this, minus my Praxis, as an everyday ski was my LP/Seth, so a fair difference.

Powder
Straight to the goods. These skis simply rock in powder. At 113 underfoot, 13mm of taper and some tip rocker there is just no sinking these tips, even at a -8 (1cm forward from recommended) mount. They surf SOOO fucking fluidly thats its just insane. I had them in both wetter, heavier PNW pow as well as some drier interior-style pow and they excelled at both. There were moments when I was skiing the drier stuff that they actually smeared like butter. I had some expectations with this ski given its shape, a narrower Seth is what I compared them to, but this ski didnt behave at all the way I was thinking it would. For me it was the tits in pow. Stomping anything/everything was a breeze. The stiffness never once hindered pow performance and allowed for harder charging with no ill-effects. They initiate and turn on a dime, and with the minimal camber throughout, pivoting in tight trees - and I got into some tight shit - was a breeze.
Powder was one of the main things these were designed to manage, but they dont just manage, they conquered. I know want some Great Scotts..

Tracked/Crud
Skiing tracked out pow is the same as skiing pow with these, minus first tracks. The stiffness makes any worry of deflection a non-issue. They just steamroll through anything and everything. Changing conditions of snow, tracked vs. untracked, is not a problem. These are a damn plush ride.
As mentioned, these were on the wider side for me and it took a run or two to get into a good position on these. However once on them, and this is my point, edge-to-edge quickness is spot on. Along with being fun, playful and maneuverable, these initiate, as mentioned, like a breeze and fun-factor instantly shoots up 200 points(..yeah my scale is big).
Through crud, mank and non-ideal snow they just haul. Edge hold on these is superb despite the nearly full twin. The stiffness definitely helps keep everything where is should be and allows one to just focus on the having a blast on the way down and not worrying whether the ski will be able to handle whats thrown at it.

Groomed
Simply put; they work, have no speed limit, hold an edge and just simply rail.
Im not a huge groomer skier, who on TGR is, but we must all make that trek back the chair at some point. During those lovely end-of-the-run groomers these can be either playful and fun or just mean and rail. Even with the stiffer flex of these I found myself either mach-ing straight to the lift or having some fun and playing on side features with these. These skis have a lot of life to them, probably the most in any ski Ive had, and playing around on them is fun. At the same time, if you want to just b-line it to the lift, the no-turns, mach-looney option exists and these wont flinch until you do.

Overall opinion
Scott, Alex, and whoever else had input in this ski did a fantastic job design-wise.
If I were to describe this ski using others, however hard it is as they are in a class of their own, they would be, to me, like a Seth made fatter but with the flex of my LPs and some tip rocker thrown in... Yeah I know, hard to describe.
One of my favourite skis Ive ever owned were my older 189 Seths(shape wise), however they never really did it for me as I found them on the soft side. When I saw the Wren design I was instantly intrigued, and am now a very happy and proud owner of a pair.
For me they have turned into my #1 ski. I sometimes bring out something skinnier on really bad days, but these are usually was a pick up on my way out.
They do everything very well.
Power/open alpine/bowls=the tits.
Trees=pivot like crazy.
Stomping airs=a breeze.
Chewed up=is really fun.
Crud=makes it its bitch.
Fun-factor=through the roof.
Moguls, yes moguls=work surprisingly well.
Groomers=haul.

Strength, Quality and Durability
Should make a note about general quality of these homemade skis.
Scott seems to have his shit together, not that he never didnt, in regards to making skis.
Other than the fact that I added a second layer of epoxy to the sidewalls the skis are just bomber.
I havent had any single problem whatsoever with these, and there have been days that I really abused them.
I held off skiing them in anticipation for more coverage at Whistler, but my patience ran out. Ive skied some bare areas and Ive hit rocks, stumps and other random thing with no ill effects. Mind you I havent taken a large drop onto anything exposed, but that would damage any ski regardless.
So far I have no edge damage, no base damage, no chipping, peeling or cracking of the the topsheet and the sidewalls have held great.

Im not much for reviews so I cant stand typing up anymore about this ski as it just makes me want to go ski them instead of talking about them, but to wrap it up, kudos to Scott and to all who helped in design, production and any other affiliation with ON3P.

Feel free to ask if I completely missed something.

[iggyskier]

Standard lay-up minus any carbon.

Just for clarification. Every ski has carbon in it, but there were varied widths and layups used (sometimes one stringer, other times two, and stringers were anywhere between 1.5" to 3" wide). We also varied the core thickness to alter the flex on similar pairs.

Anyway, thanks for the review.

[Professor Chaos]

No shit, eh.

Edited.