Earhart skis arrived Thursday. Wow, they were not kidding about speedy delivery! Waiting for the bindings and should be skiing them Wednesday. Snow conditions will not be the greatest as my area has not had fresh snow on the mountain recently, but may snow just a bit the day I go. I'll take my old Nordicas or the Z-77 if the snow is just crazy frozen, and use the new Earharts after conditions soften up a bit. May not get too soft though with predicted temps in the 20s.
-
Women skiers, this is the place for you -- an online community without the male-orientation you'll find in conventional ski magazines and internet ski forums. At TheSkiDiva.com, you can connect with other women to talk about skiing in a way that you can relate to, about things that you find of interest. Be sure to join our community to participate (women only, please!). Registration is fast and simple. Just be sure to add [email protected] to your address book so your registration activation emails won't be routed as spam. And please give careful consideration to your user name -- it will not be changed once your registration is confirmed.
Renoun Earhart ski
- Thread starter badger
- Start date
Skied the new Earhart yesterday. Temps were low 40s which were not the greatest for trying a new ski as the snow was quite grabby--not slushy-- by 12:30. No fresh snow .
Stats: 5'2 @ 92 lbs. Can get up to 98 now and then! Prefer mostly groomed or chop on blue or black trails. Love making lots of turns.
I ordered the ski in a 149. Choice was based primarily on my weight, and I am still wondering of this is the best length. The rocker profile appears identical ( on the tips ) of the Black Pearl. I compared them as there was one next to my skis in the rack. The Black Crows I have are also 149, but are a bit longer. My intended use of the Earhart is where the length choice is now an issue.
Skiing it on groomers yesterday I felt it was quite short. Not often would I be one to say a ski is feeling short, but there you have it. Earhart is not a bit unstable, chattery, or demanding. I think my sense of it being short was when I took it to steeper sections with some speed. I was afraid there was not enough ski under me to feel totally confident, but perhaps this is purely psychological. Every now and then the tips would almost slide away from me letting me know I needed to add more pressure to prevent that. For skiing groomers I believe the 156 would be the better choice. However, for everything else the 149 seems perfect. Again, back to intention.
Side note: I have been skiing a lot this season with a friend at my local mountain. His comment yesterday after the first run was, " did you take lessons on your trip to Jackson? You look amazing on those skis." LOL
The ski: Incredibly stable. Featherweight light. Satiny smooth.
I have skied superlight Head Joy skis (different models ) and could not stand them. For me, they were so light that I felt every single bump and rut, and would get tossed around.
The Renoun Earhart felt totally different even at such a low weight. The ski is so very maneuverable and in touch with the snow that I felt confident at any speed making any type of turn I wished. I had to trust them when I felt the rocker was a problem.
I will hang on to the 149 and hopefully have the opportunity to get it on some fresh and chopped snow. This is where I know the shorter length will shine. Then I need to decide if an future exchange to a 156 will occur. Dilemma.
Stats: 5'2 @ 92 lbs. Can get up to 98 now and then! Prefer mostly groomed or chop on blue or black trails. Love making lots of turns.
I ordered the ski in a 149. Choice was based primarily on my weight, and I am still wondering of this is the best length. The rocker profile appears identical ( on the tips ) of the Black Pearl. I compared them as there was one next to my skis in the rack. The Black Crows I have are also 149, but are a bit longer. My intended use of the Earhart is where the length choice is now an issue.
Skiing it on groomers yesterday I felt it was quite short. Not often would I be one to say a ski is feeling short, but there you have it. Earhart is not a bit unstable, chattery, or demanding. I think my sense of it being short was when I took it to steeper sections with some speed. I was afraid there was not enough ski under me to feel totally confident, but perhaps this is purely psychological. Every now and then the tips would almost slide away from me letting me know I needed to add more pressure to prevent that. For skiing groomers I believe the 156 would be the better choice. However, for everything else the 149 seems perfect. Again, back to intention.
Side note: I have been skiing a lot this season with a friend at my local mountain. His comment yesterday after the first run was, " did you take lessons on your trip to Jackson? You look amazing on those skis." LOL
The ski: Incredibly stable. Featherweight light. Satiny smooth.
I have skied superlight Head Joy skis (different models ) and could not stand them. For me, they were so light that I felt every single bump and rut, and would get tossed around.
The Renoun Earhart felt totally different even at such a low weight. The ski is so very maneuverable and in touch with the snow that I felt confident at any speed making any type of turn I wished. I had to trust them when I felt the rocker was a problem.
I will hang on to the 149 and hopefully have the opportunity to get it on some fresh and chopped snow. This is where I know the shorter length will shine. Then I need to decide if an future exchange to a 156 will occur. Dilemma.
Yes, I had a great opportunity to get them in 10" of powder and all that residual chop . My reason for not yet reporting is due to my desire to try the 156. I will be skiing a 156 Earhart this Wednesday, but snow will just be spring-like as it was the first day out on the new skis.
When I used the ski on the fresh snow and chop it was buttery smooth. At 149 skiing chop was a breeze---this coming from someone who is not skilled at crud and powder---and quite stable. I did not feel a fear of getting bucked around either. I found myself seeking piles and powder as I was totally enjoying the experience while gaining confidence.
The 156 will surely put more ski underfoot for groomed and powder. I will have to decide what I really want from this ski . The Earhart is a truly nice instrument, and I am excited to give the 156 a go!!
@ski diva has a pair of 156 that she will probably review soon.
When I used the ski on the fresh snow and chop it was buttery smooth. At 149 skiing chop was a breeze---this coming from someone who is not skilled at crud and powder---and quite stable. I did not feel a fear of getting bucked around either. I found myself seeking piles and powder as I was totally enjoying the experience while gaining confidence.
The 156 will surely put more ski underfoot for groomed and powder. I will have to decide what I really want from this ski . The Earhart is a truly nice instrument, and I am excited to give the 156 a go!!
@ski diva has a pair of 156 that she will probably review soon.
@Bluestsky , I skied the 156 yesterday. Unfortunately the conditions were about as bad as a rockered ski could encounter. As if a cluster of snowboarders had access to the mountain the previous day, there was very little soft snow. I said in a previous post about the Black Pearls that I'd never want those in icy or similar as above conditions. Same with the Earhart. I could not control the skis. there were some good moments, but I switched them out for my Kicker Filibuster skis, which are 155 @ 73 wide and cambered. Lucky I had brought those along. It has been a few years since using them and I had wanted to ski them again for yucks. They were great as the snow warmed.
Next week my region has the potential to receive some decent snowfall and I will once again try these 156 Earharts in the conditions for which they were designed.
Next week my region has the potential to receive some decent snowfall and I will once again try these 156 Earharts in the conditions for which they were designed.
Bluestsky
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Thanks @badger. Bummer about them being so bad in those conditions. From the Renoun site: "With best-in-class edge hold, smooth turn initiation and a playful personality, it makes skiing feel effortless again. Rocker in the tip & tail add versatility in soft or variable snow while camber underfoot allows you to carve hard on the groomers. With plenty of stability thanks to two partial sheets of titanal metal and 8 inlays of our patented non-newtonian HDT™ polymer, you will never feel so confident on a pair of skis."
Now this is interesting. I've been skiing these all week in Maine (Sunday River and Sugarloaf) in some really icy conditions, and I never felt like they weren't performing well or that I couldn't control them. Just goes to show, different strokes for different folks. Or maybe the 149 is really too short for you, after all? I'm going to post a review on my blog on Tuesday (hopefully), so stay tuned.
It is indeed interesting. I was actually skiing the longer length , not the 149. I simply could not get the skis to turn without a lot of effort. I almost thought something was off with my feet or the skis, which was why I switched back to a non-rockered ski as a "test". The Kicker was easy to ski , although some slopes were difficult to manage due to conditions. As I said, the snow was weird, and felt like a road bike trying to make a hard turn on sand.
The 156 length as I stand with the ski upright is perfect; rocker shape just where it needs to be. On the 149 that shape is pretty low to my height, but incredibly fun on chop. I will take the 156 out again with the incoming snow and see how I feel about them. Yes, they do carve well for 88, and are stable and smooth. That's a given with Renoun.
The 156 length as I stand with the ski upright is perfect; rocker shape just where it needs to be. On the 149 that shape is pretty low to my height, but incredibly fun on chop. I will take the 156 out again with the incoming snow and see how I feel about them. Yes, they do carve well for 88, and are stable and smooth. That's a given with Renoun.
Bluestsky
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Most skis are good on soft snow. Look forward to hearing more about Earharts where conditions are anything but perfect.
I own the non metal Yumi. Last year I demoed the new Yumi (with metal) and felt the difference was insignificant to justify a change. Demoed them again yesterday and experienced much less ‘terrain input.’ Soft snow conditions last year, an uneven early morning crust this year.
I own the non metal Yumi. Last year I demoed the new Yumi (with metal) and felt the difference was insignificant to justify a change. Demoed them again yesterday and experienced much less ‘terrain input.’ Soft snow conditions last year, an uneven early morning crust this year.
SallyCat
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
The old thread is here. I don't recall the criticism being of Renoun not offering a women's-specific ski, but rather for advertising that was dominated by men and depicted women in more ornamental, non-skiing poses. Cyrus made some fair points about the gender-related logistics of being a start-up, but he also doubled down in some clumsy ways about sponsorship and made some ill-advised comments about women not being as interested in or knowledgable about gear as men. If I were Renoun's PR director, I would consider his post to be a regrettable misstep.
Good to see they're taking women skiers more seriously, though. (But does Renoun have the same graphic design team as the US Post Office? Ugh.)
kiki
Angel Diva
Nice article @ski diva so you say it’s a good ski for east coasters, what about the west coast? Personally love my z-90s and have no plans to switch anytime soon but curious all the same. Also, I like the solidity of the z90 and you mention the Earhart is lighter, how does that impact skiing on groomers or in bumps?
It's fine for anyone who wants an 88 waist ski; it's been my experience that western skiers prefer a wider all-mountain ski, but whatever floats your boat. Also, I do not think the lightness is problematic on groomers or bumps; in fact, I think it's better in bumps because it's so light.
Last edited:
