• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
43,827
Location
Reno, eNVy
UnUgmTNFR+iJ8Bdm0V0TWw.jpg
czAFjiu4SnKuWlPtD8FEYQ.jpg
Dimensions: scaled
Radius:
16m@160cm (125-98-119)
17m@169cm (126-98-120)
18m@178cm (127-98-121)
19m@184cm (128-98-122)
20m*@191cm (129-98-123) *estimated​
Design: All New

Much has been written about the Renoun Endurance 98 since its original incarnation two or so years ago. Back then, it was bordering on being a short-wheelbase twin tip; Version 2.0 kept the same 121-98-115 dimensions and 20.5m turn radius but had somewhat less rise in the tip and significantly less in the tail. And now we will be talking about Version 3.0. Yes, the Endurance 98 is still evolving, with a new shape, flex, profile, and scaled sizing for 2019.

While I liked the first two versions of the Endurance 98, I wasn’t smitten with them like I am with the Z-90. Not that the ski was bad, it just wasn’t for me. I prefer less taper and more traditional shape than a five-point-ish sidecut delivers. I liked the Endurance better than some of the reference skis in the category such as the Kästle FX95, but not as much as the Blizzard Bonafide or Nordica Enforcer. With the type of feedback that we (and I am sure others) have given Cyrus over the years, we are seeing a new Endurance.

How it started. A few months ago, a box from Renoun arrived at the door. It contained two pairs of Endurances, and since we didn’t have any in the test fleet, I assumed they were sent to fill the holes. I took them out of the box and stood them against the wall and didn’t think much about it. As I walked past them a few times, though, I realized something was different with the one pair: the tip had a different shape. Then I noticed the tail did, too. Not only was one pair different, they both were. I immediately started to smile and said to myself, Thank you, Cyrus.

OLi3SAx4RFihVMf+AmOf9A.jpg

We will call the first pair V2.5; they were the same mold as the original but with less tip and tail rise. That was better, but it was the second pair that was the real eye-opener. Version 3.0 had much more flare in the tip and tail and, like V2.5, much less rise in the tail, for a better connection on snow. Just looking at the new shape (127-98-121 with an 18m radius) and all of the attributes, I just knew this would be the one I liked. But I also knew I would have to give V2.5 a fair shake on snow.
DadEhUY7R3Sb69kw99OXcg.jpg
Mounting. This is where Renoun still needs needs some work. The “center” mark on the Endurances looked too far forward by a significant amount. I put both the V2.5 and V3.0 next to a Blizzard Bonafide, and their center points were a good 4.5 cm farther forward. I went with my gut and mounted both skis up to where I felt they should be and quite frankly, I am happy. I even played with moving the binding up and back one from where I thought, and that is also good.
fullsizeoutput_604d.jpeg fullsizeoutput_6050.jpeg
Left: Blozzard Bonafide Right: Nordica Enforcer 100

woV%ksZ+ThmWZ+KA%fPaOQ.jpg

Tuning.
Because they were pre-production skis, I didn’t want the tune to sway any perceptions of the design, so I sent them to @smoothrides before I even put them on snow. Coop set both skis up with a 1°/2° tune and a nice "bell" base structure.
WsrIX1PJQSG9UCwYfIGs3w.jpg
Cosmetics. The pair I have just has the V2.0 graphics with the semi-cap and matte finish for durability. I am told that the production graphics will be an evolution and that there will be a white special edition but with even more limited numbers than in the past.

OLi3SAx4RFihVMf+AmOf9A.jpg fg8P6jS0S2WUxldUmDK1ww.jpg
Left V2.5, Right V3.0

On snow. I took V2.5 out first because I wanted to experience the evolution of the Endurance design. Simply put, it is better than V2.0. With a lower tip and tail, V2.5 has a much better connection to the snow without losing V2.0’s best attribute, its 3D snow performance. If Cyrus had stopped here, I would have been satisfied, but just being satisfied is not what Renoun is about.

IMG_0109.JPG

I can usually touch, feel, and smell a ski and have a pretty good idea if it will work or not. Sure, I have been surprised, but after being on hundreds of skis over the years, it just comes with experience. Looking at the shape of the new V3.0, I immediately saw a few skis in it that I know work well. I saw some Bonafide, some Enforcer, and a few others in the design -- which is good. I am not saying there was blatant copying, more like similar design philosophies. Flexing the V3.0 was a pleasant surprise, as it was extremely balanced and a bit softer (per Cyrus, 6% softer). All of this translates to a more balanced on-snow experience over the V2.0 or even V2.5. V3.0 is a much more versatile ski, especially when the ski is on the snow and not just in it.

Where the earlier skis released easily out of a turn and had to be held on firmer snow, V3.0 holds much better on hard snow and windpack; with the tail following the tip smoothly, it can be released at will and do what the previous versions could yet not be as susceptible to wheelieing out of a turn. The Endurance 98 V3.0 could be that Western one-ski quiver that many believe the Z-90 is for the East.

What about HDT? Like any technology, the more transparent it is, the better it is doing its job. Yes, due to Renoun’s Hyper Damping Technology, the Endurance 98 V3.0 is one of the smoothest skis in the category.

So far I have at least a dozen days on the new Endurances, and while the 178 ski is a tad short for me, I never felt that I was over-skiing the length. I do look forward to trying it in a 184.

I will be looking to get other members and reviewers out on these, so stay tuned.
  • Who is it for? Chargers (this ski will run); those who want a 98ish one-ski quiver.
  • Who is it not for? Like most premium boutique skis, the price of entry is high.
  • Other skis in class: DPS Alchemist Cassiar 94, Kästle FX95 HP, Kästle MX99, Stöckli Stormrider 97.
 

Attachments

  • fullsizeoutput_6b0f.jpeg
    fullsizeoutput_6b0f.jpeg
    115.3 KB · Views: 93
  • fullsizeoutput_6b10.jpeg
    fullsizeoutput_6b10.jpeg
    118.8 KB · Views: 89

Tom K.

Skier Ordinaire
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Posts
8,639
Sounds like a great evolution for this ski.

Enforcer vs. Endurance Cage Match needed, but of course you knew that.

Great to see "official" 2019 reviews beginning. Thanks!
 
Thread Starter
TS
Philpug

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
43,827
Location
Reno, eNVy
We are currently down here at Mammoth and spending even more time on the new V3.0 and using my "Steadfast Rule", there is no other ski I would rather have been on in the Mammoth wind buffed chalk. If you have ever skied Mammoth, you know how the conditions can change from the top to the bottom, not so much in they type of snow but from the wind buff chalk at the top to the groomers at the bottom and the soft bumps inbetween. I am fortunate enough to ski this mountain for a few days every season when we come down here for our WWSRA on snow tests so I am testing dozens of skis here in these condtions and I know what skis are best suited for this mountain. While there are many skis that would have been fine, the V3.0 just excelled...something that I just would not have said about the V2.0. Where I felt the V3.0 was better, was in the turn initiation and control, there was just more confidence in the steeps like Wipeout Chutes where the tip would start the turn with authority but it was the tail that followed through creating conficence that I never felt the 2.0 had...that 6mm addition with in the tail is significant.
 

SlideWright

aka Alpinord
Industry Insider
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 24, 2015
Posts
682
Location
Upside down in the San Juans
I missed this yesterday while asking questions in one of the Endurance 98 threads. I did not realize the tighter radius (18 from 20.5, IIRC) and the ski evolution. Now, after pulling the trigger on the 178s, I'm wondering about the 184 vs 178...and whether or not there is more overlap with my 180cm Z90s which reduces their need? What about in deeper snow and bumps?

Edit: Having said the above, here in sunny SW Colorado (Telluride, Purgatory, Silverton, Wolf Creek, plus San Juan BC) we do get a wide range of temperatures (30° per day) and conditions (relative aspect, temps and moisture), including springlike (similar to eastern) conditions....especially this year. This past week went from spring corn, to frozen/bulletproof, coral reef to boot high cold powder on top in 3 hours. The Z90s were fine throughout. Then there's the deep days. So keeping both handy sounds ideal depending on the day, season, mood, mojo, terrain, ski companions....and wallet. You can't have too many choices in this short life.

Also, Blister was at Telluride a couple weeks before I was this weekend and the reviewer had issues with the 184s and inconclusive. He said he could get them to turn and stated the 178s might be better for him.

Edit2: Which version will ship in the fall? 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 or 3.5.1? ogwink
 
Last edited:

DrGT

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Oct 18, 2017
Posts
37
We are currently down here at Mammoth and spending even more time on the new V3.0 and using my "Steadfast Rule", there is no other ski I would rather have been on in the Mammoth wind buffed chalk. If you have ever skied Mammoth, you know how the conditions can change from the top to the bottom, not so much in they type of snow but from the wind buff chalk at the top to the groomers at the bottom and the soft bumps inbetween. I am fortunate enough to ski this mountain for a few days every season when we come down here for our WWSRA on snow tests so I am testing dozens of skis here in these condtions and I know what skis are best suited for this mountain. While there are many skis that would have been fine, the V3.0 just excelled...something that I just would not have said about the V2.0. Where I felt the V3.0 was better, was in the turn initiation and control, there was just more confidence in the steeps like Wipeout Chutes where the tip would start the turn with authority but it was the tail that followed through creating conficence that I never felt the 2.0 had...that 6mm addition with in the tail is significant.

Well. My 100 days warranty is over since march 3. Reading this, I definitely think V3.0 would be better for me. Cyrus seems to have corrected what I liked less about V2.0.
 

PisteOff

Jeff
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Posts
1,331
Location
Las Vegas
Agreed. Kinda wishing I'd waited to pull the trigger.
Yea, I am thinking the same thing......but I've been happy with them. Getting them to really hook up consistently has been a challenge but I think that is more me than the ski. I've had some really good days on them and some mediocre days on them but I feel that it is more "me" than anything else. I had mine tuned to 1*/2* as well some weeks ago. I will take a good look at the mount on them now. I have a pair of Attack Demo's I may put on them and play with the center. I don't have these issues with other skis in my quiver. Most of them are in the mid to high 170's for length. I have the Endurance in 184. I love the weight of them, I love the dampening. The skis will run full out without issue. My only issues have been with turn initiation on groomers/pack and getting a good consistent hook up. I also can relate to the "wheelie out of the turn" statement @Philpug made. I've had a couple high speed hip slide/hip spin wipeouts on these coming out of a turn. Happened a couple times at the Gathering. @ChunderBlunder was like, "what the hell dad?" I couldn't explain it. It wasn't the normal compression/acceleration throwing you in the back seat that you can feel as it gains force and get on top of it. It was more of a sudden see you later bye. Maybe it's an HDT thing and they just rebound faster than a metal ski??? I need more time on them. Again, I think a lot of it has more to do with me than the ski. When I get tossed by my pursuits or my redsters it's a skis hook up way more than anticipated and end up going airborne on a trajectory you weren't intending and you're on your ass kind of wipeout. Whats happening here is different, or maybe not so different, but it sure feels different.
 

Andy Mink

Everyone loves spring skiing but not in January
Moderator
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
13,179
Location
Reno
Yea, I am thinking the same thing......but I've been happy with them. Getting them to really hook up consistently has been a challenge but I think that is more me than the ski. I've had some really good days on them and some mediocre days on them but I feel that it is more "me" than anything else. I had mine tuned to 1*/2* as well some weeks ago. I will take a good look at the mount on them now. I have a pair of Attack Demo's I may put on them and play with the center. I don't have these issues with other skis in my quiver. Most of them are in the mid to high 170's for length. I have the Endurance in 184. I love the weight of them, I love the dampening. The skis will run full out without issue. My only issues have been with turn initiation on groomers/pack and getting a good consistent hook up. I also can relate to the "wheelie out of the turn" statement @Philpug made. I've had a couple high speed hip slide/hip spin wipeouts on these coming out of a turn. Happened a couple times at the Gathering. @ChunderBlunder was like, "what the hell dad?" I couldn't explain it. It wasn't the normal compression/acceleration throwing you in the back seat that you can feel as it gains force and get on top of it. It was more of a sudden see you later bye. Maybe it's an HDT thing and they just rebound faster than a metal ski??? I need more time on them. Again, I think a lot of it has more to do with me than the ski. When I get tossed by my pursuits or my redsters it's a skis hook up way more than anticipated and end up going airborne on a trajectory you weren't intending and you're on your ass kind of wipeout. Whats happening here is different, or maybe not so different, but it sure feels different.
I've noticed on some of the wider, more "all-mountain" oriented skis I've been on that they prefer to be skied more neutral. As a narrow ski guy getting used to the more modern shapes and widths I tend to try and drive the tips. That's not always what the ski is looking for. I really noticed this on some of the DPS offerings in the Cassiar Alchemist/Foundation line. Totally different ski when skied neutral or even a little tail weighted. When your knee is better give it a try.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Philpug

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
43,827
Location
Reno, eNVy
Edit2: Which version will ship in the fall? 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 or 3.5.1? ogwink
I believe 3.0 will be shipping in the fall...with updated topskins...Retail will be $1099.00 Right in line with the other premiums offered in this range from DPS, Kästle and Stöckli.
 

Jed Peters

World's Most "Okayest" Skier
Skier
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Posts
979
Location
Placer County
@Philpug how does this handle waist deep blower powder? Does it make you stop short and check your speed before you have a little 10' chute to straightrun?
 

Ron

Seeking the next best ski
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Posts
9,282
Location
Steamboat Springs, Co
I was only on the V 3.0 briefly at SIA but the difference in the tail was evident. however, I have been more critical of the tip engagement and willingness to remain on edge more than the tail. I was on the 178 and would still prefer the 184. Would like to get more time on it to fully assess. Conditions at Copper were not in the wheelhouse of this ski. The V 2 is still an excellent off piste ski so I am ok with it not being the best carving ski at 98mm. For off piste, I like a 20-23m tr.
 

Unpiste

Booting down
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 15, 2016
Posts
593
Location
California
I had a few runs on the new Endurance 98s today at Squaw Valley (followed by the all-new Citadel), and while I haven't had the chance to try the earlier revisions, I was thoroughly impressed.

Conditions were mostly corn with a few areas still frozen, plus about 1/4" fresh overnight collected into drifts (which had become heavy with the sun and warm weather). I think I was on the V3.0 at 178cm. (Graphics, as pictured, were V2.0, so @Philpug, please correct if wrong.)

The Endurance 98s were completely stable at speed, yet felt quite nimble even in the relatively heavy snow. Turn initiation was easy, and I didn't experience any unexpected hookups or washouts. The tails in particular felt just right to me. The ski seemed to like a balanced stance, and while 178 length certainly didn't feel short, I think it might be a hard decision between those and the 184s.

These skis definitely reminded me in terms of feel of the Blizzard Bonafides. (I own the 2015-17 model in 180cm, which is one of my favorite all-round west coast skis. I haven't tried the 2017-18+ model yet.) The two are certainly similar (with the Bonafides, I think, preferring a slightly more forward stance and slightly longer turns), but the Endurance 98s feel glued to the snow in a way that the Bonafides can't quite match. The boost in confidence and controllability this offers at speed and in chopped up snow should not be understated.

In a category I'm quite familiar with — skiing the Tahoe area regularly — I would happily make this my primary ski.
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
Philpug

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
43,827
Location
Reno, eNVy
Conditions were mostly corn with a few areas still frozen, plus about 1/4" fresh overnight collected into drifts (which had become heavy with the sun and warm weather). I think I was on the V3.0 at 178cm. (Graphics, as pictured, were V2.0, so @Philpug, please correct if wrong.)
Good catch. Yes, the graphics are indeed from the V2.0, not uncommon for a brand to do to hide a future product. The graphics also show the dimensions from the earlier designs too.
 

2Balls

In the parking lot (formerly "At the base lodge")
Skier
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Posts
2
41861-2f14766e54f335bbf96e7e65c4d5fbb7.jpg
41860-caa6fdd8e1ceb2cc9eb23209edcf3bfd.jpg
Dimensions: scaled
Radius:
16m@160cm (125-98-119)
17m@169cm (126-98-120)
18m@178cm (127-98-121)
19m@184cm (128-98-122)
20m*@191cm (129-98-123) *estimated​
Design: All New

Much has been written about the Renoun Endurance 98 since its original incarnation two or so years ago. Back then, it was bordering on being a short-wheelbase twin tip; Version 2.0 kept the same 121-98-115 dimensions and 20.5m turn radius but had somewhat less rise in the tip and significantly less in the tail. And now we will be talking about Version 3.0. Yes, the Endurance 98 is still evolving, with a new shape, flex, profile, and scaled sizing for 2019.

While I liked the first two versions of the Endurance 98, I wasn’t smitten with them like I am with the Z-90. Not that the ski was bad, it just wasn’t for me. I prefer less taper and more traditional shape than a five-point-ish sidecut delivers. I liked the Endurance better than some of the reference skis in the category such as the Kästle FX95, but not as much as the Blizzard Bonafide or Nordica Enforcer. With the type of feedback that we (and I am sure others) have given Cyrus over the years, we are seeing a new Endurance.

How it started. A few months ago, a box from Renoun arrived at the door. It contained two pairs of Endurances, and since we didn’t have any in the test fleet, I assumed they were sent to fill the holes. I took them out of the box and stood them against the wall and didn’t think much about it. As I walked past them a few times, though, I realized something was different with the one pair: the tip had a different shape. Then I noticed the tail did, too. Not only was one pair different, they both were. I immediately started to smile and said to myself, Thank you, Cyrus.

41858-6889bf1f4b3821fbb114a19730860ca5.jpg
41859-3704cdc1f915fd87abf1ebf73d91c9d0.jpg

We will call the first pair V2.5; they were the same mold as the original but with less tip and tail rise. That was better, but it was the second pair that was the real eye-opener. Version 3.0 had much more flare in the tip and tail and, like V2.5, much less rise in the tail, for a better connection on snow. Just looking at the new shape (127-98-121 with an 18m radius) and all of the attributes, I just knew this would be the one I liked. But I also knew I would have to give V2.5 a fair shake on snow.

Mounting. This is where Renoun still needs needs some work. The “center” mark on the Endurances looked too far forward by a significant amount. I put both the V2.5 and V3.0 next to a Blizzard Bonafide, and their center points were a good 4.5 cm farther forward. I went with my gut and mounted both skis up to where I felt they should be and quite frankly, I am happy. I even played with moving the binding up and back one from where I thought, and that is also good.

41857-04c299d3e964acadb058429ad08cf176.jpg
41855-ec763f7710f697bc742eb9d6314920bf.jpg
41856-52fc224a89e83a77cf51e2fce1876370.jpg

Tuning.
Because they were pre-production skis, I didn’t want the tune to sway any perceptions of the design, so I sent them to @smoothrides before I even put them on snow. Coop set both skis up with a 1°/2° tune and a nice "bell" base structure.

Cosmetics. The pair I have just has the V2.0 graphics with the semi-cap and matte finish for durability. I am told that the production graphics will be an evolution and that there will be a white special edition but with even more limited numbers than in the past.

full

Left V2.5, Right V3.0

full


41851-07e411dbf9e419fcf6b05cb17d3b577e.jpg
41852-8a7e2e1ba05471f4e0c9d9fd11c9de18.jpg


On snow. I took V2.5 out first because I wanted to experience the evolution of the Endurance design. Simply put, it is better than V2.0. With a lower tip and tail, V2.5 has a much better connection to the snow without losing V2.0’s best attribute, its 3D snow performance. If Cyrus had stopped here, I would have been satisfied, but just being satisfied is not what Renoun is about.

I can usually touch, feel, and smell a ski and have a pretty good idea if it will work or not. Sure, I have been surprised, but after being on hundreds of skis over the years, it just comes with experience. Looking at the shape of the new V3.0, I immediately saw a few skis in it that I know work well. I saw some Bonafide, some Enforcer, and a few others in the design -- which is good. I am not saying there was blatant copying, more like similar design philosophies. Flexing the V3.0 was a pleasant surprise, as it was extremely balanced and a bit softer (per Cyrus, 6% softer). All of this translates to a more balanced on-snow experience over the V2.0 or even V2.5. V3.0 is a much more versatile ski, especially when the ski is on the snow and not just in it.

Where the earlier skis released easily out of a turn and had to be held on firmer snow, V3.0 holds much better on hard snow and windpack; with the tail following the tip smoothly, it can be released at will and do what the previous versions could yet not be as susceptible to wheelieing out of a turn. The Endurance 98 V3.0 could be that Western one-ski quiver that many believe the Z-90 is for the East.

What about HDT? Like any technology, the more transparent it is, the better it is doing its job. Yes, due to Renoun’s Hyper Damping Technology, the Endurance 98 V3.0 is one of the smoothest skis in the category.

So far I have at least a dozen days on the new Endurances, and while the 178 ski is a tad short for me, I never felt that I was over-skiing the length. I do look forward to trying it in a 184.

I will be looking to get other members and reviewers out on these, so stay tuned.
  • Who is it for? Chargers (this ski will run); those who want a 98ish one-ski quiver.
  • Who is it not for? Like most premium boutique skis, the price of entry is high.
  • Other skis in class: DPS Alchemist Cassiar 94, Kästle FX95 HP, Kästle MX99, Stöckli Stormrider 97.

Hi Phil
Thanks for the great review. I have bought a pair of Endurance 98 V3 on the strength of it. I am a first time poster, based in Christchurch, New Zealand. Our ski season is in full swing. I have recently taken delivery of my Endurance 98 skis in the 191cm length and am waiting for delivery of my Atomic Shift bindings which are due in a couple of days. With mounting immanent, I thought I'd check in on your mounting recommendation. I'm 192cm tall and weigh 86kg. I prefer to ski off-piste whenever conditions permit and tend towards fast longer radius turns. This is my first ski upgrade in 15 years, the outgoing skis being Atomic Beta Ride 9.22 Hyper-Carbon in a 190cm length (106-72-98). When I put the old and new skis together I found the boot centre recommendation on the Endurance 98 is 85mm forward of the Atomics! I should add that I am not a great driver of my tips, as years regularly riding blades has tended to centre me fore-aft.

I recalled your review and your preference to move your mount point back. Did you go back 4cm per the blue line in your comparison photo? Would you recommend I do the same?

I'm really excited about getting this ski/binding combination in action. While waiting for the bindings I have been out on a few demo skis. Most notably the Nordica Enforcer 100 in 185cm length which I found powerful but a little heavy for my taste and the Fischer Ranger 102 FR which felt lighter and more agile in a similar length. The Ranger didn't seem to give up too much in stability, although the snow conditions were more favourable. Hoping the Endurance 98 will ski as well as these in an even lighter and more versatile package.

I'll be sure to report back after some time on them.

Regards,
Alex
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
Philpug

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
43,827
Location
Reno, eNVy
Welcome Alex (@2Balls), I haven't mounted up a 191 yet..I haven't even seen one...let me look at what I have here and do some quick calculations. I will get back to you a little later.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top