2019 Fischer Ranger 102 FR Ski Review: // Ski Reviews
The Fischer Ranger series has gained enormous popularity over the past few years. They've re-defined the freeride nature of their skis, and the results have been largely successful. Recently, the Ranger 98 and 108 have been the focus of the line, but this year, Fischer is introducing the FR subdivision of the Ranger series. With three different widths, the 115, 102, and 90 (simply called "Ranger FR"), this new category has something for everyone. This piece focuses on the 102 FR, but similar performance characteristics with the other two models are to be expected. At 102 mm underfoot, the 2019 Fischer Ranger 102 FR is aiming at a more freeride/freestyle contingent with the addition of a twin-tip. Whereas the regular Ranger series has more of a flat tail that leads to better on-trail performance, the Ranger 102 FR has a turned up tail to assist in softer snow, woods skiing, and increasing the overall playful nature of the skis.
There's general consensus in the ski manufacturing world that Fischer makes some great skis. From their race room success all the way down the line, the Austrian-inspired construction exudes quality and performance. At the core of the Ranger 102 FR is a beech/poplar core. This is pretty firm and stout wood that is going to give the skis some really strong edge hold and a pretty stable ride. Reinforcing that core is a Titanal layer, Carbon Fiber Tip, and Fiberglass Laminate. The Titanal layer adds stiffness to the ski and creates a damp feel, while the Carbon Fiber Tip reduces swing-weight, ensuring quick-turning performance regardless of conditions. Holding it all together is the Fiberglass Laminate which adds another layer to ensure snappy and lively performance. Additionally, they're on the heavy side for a freeride ski of its dimensions, but don't let that turn you off, they feel lighter than they weigh.
As far as the shape and profile are concerned, Fischer has taken a turn toward the playful nature of the sport. At first glance, you'd think you were looking at a Fischer Ranger with a different topsheet, but upon further review, the differences do alter the way the ski performs in both soft and firm conditions. In comparison, both the Ranger 108 and the 102 FR have moderate taper in the tips, while the Ranger 102 FR has a good deal more tail taper. As a result, the 102 FR will be able to release from turns a lot easier, creating a playful and fun feeling. From the middle of the ski to the tip, the skis are quite similar, but from the center back to the tail, the differences are pretty apparent. That's not to say that they lack in the carving or on-trail aspects, but rather the skis act surfier and easier to control.
When flexing the skis, they are noticeably stiff. They are built for performance, after all, and while the shape and profile lend to a playful feel, the construction means business. With a 19 meter turn radius, the skis are expected to carve and hold an effective edge, and the full sidewalls with the stout flex pattern ensure that this is the case.
So that's how they're built; now how do they ski? In a word, awesomely.
The Fischer Ranger 102 FR is one of those products that when you first click in, you feel instantly connected to the skis. From an intuitive standpoint, they feel natural and easy. Starting off on groomed terrain, it's easy to find the radius in the first few turns. They're not balky and they don't talk back. They are straight-shooters with a no-nonsense attitude. You can lean into the turn and the skis will hold and bring you back. The rebound into the next turn is tremendous. For a 102 mm underfoot ski, they certainly act and perform like a much more trail-oriented product. The tail taper is hardly noticeable when the ski is under pressure and at full-carve. When you slow it down and skid and smear a few turns, whether scrubbing speed or seeking terrain, they don't grab or hook, making speed and direction change easy and fun. You can shorten up the turns if you wish, and they'll do that, but they're certainly happier at medium speed and higher making medium to longer radius turns.
When you get the Ranger 102 FR's into the soft snow, they really light it up. From the rockered tip to the boot, they are stout, solid, and stable. From the binding back to the tails, they are fun, playful, and entertaining. The width of the skis is enough to keep them afloat of any fresh or broken snow and the turn radius is appropriate for making a multitude of turn shapes and styles. The skis have a great combination of maneuverability and stoutness. They can blast through piles of snow and not skip a beat, and if you wish to make these natural features into your own personal terrain park, so much the better; the Ranger 102 FR can jib it up with the best of them.
In moguls and trees, the quickness of the Ranger 102 FR stands out, no doubt. Despite the weight and stiffness of the skis, the frisky character of the 102 FR jumps to life the moment you put some energy into the skis. If you drive the tips of the skis into the front of a huge mogul, you'll get some resistance, but completing and linking turns in the bumps is a snap, and you won't get locked into the turn thanks to that turned up tail. Skiing in the medium-angle woods we have at Stowe, the 102 FR had no trouble navigating the unevenly spaced hardwoods. When you have to make a series of quick turns, be sure to unweight the center of the ski to maximize the pivot effect. You'll get the quickness you need, as long as your input is confident and true.
Fischer has done a fantastic job at blurring the lines between a true twin tip and an expert level freeride ski. If fun and performance are your jams, the Ranger 102 FR will sync up with you nicely. The intuitive and natural feeling of the skis cannot be understated. Despite the fact that they lean towards the stiff and heavy side of competing products, they are nevertheless exciting and entertaining skis that will satisfy each and every one of your freeride needs.
Great review as always and I really liked the shape when I first saw it too - comparisons to Enforcer 100? Particularly with respect to carving groomers and tree skiing?
Interested in this ski and the Rustler 10. Looking to fill a space in my quiver between my Fischer Pro Mtn 86's and my Blizzard Cochises. Want something that is maybe a little easier on the legs, fun, playful, but still will satisfy an expert skier with a reasonably directional feel. I would anticipate this ski as something to use in soft snow conditions - maybe 2"-4" of fresh.
Unfortunately, Fischer skis are almost impossible to demo out here in Colorado.
Thanks!
Hi Jeff!
The Enforcer 100 is an obvious ski to make comparisons to with this new Ranger 102 FR. In my opinion the Enforcer 100 has the edge when carving groomers. A little more stability at speed, edge grip feels a little better, and the tail feels stiffer, which gives it a little more energy and pop out of a turn. On the other hand, I would rather ski trees on the Ranger 102 FR. I think it's a little easier to release the tail edge in tricky terrain and it just feels a little more playful overall, a feeling which I really like in the trees.
Hope that helps!
SE
Hi Scott!
I think the Rustler 10 is a really close comparison to the Ranger 102 FR. In a sense they're both designed to do the exact same thing: offer a more playful alternative to an existing ski in their line (Ranger 98 Ti, Bonafide). They both accomplish that, for sure, share the same waist width, etc, but they do have a different feel. The tips and tails of the Rustler 10 are softer than the underfoot section, almost giving the ski two different personalities. On firm snow you can rely on the torsional stiffness and stability underfoot, then the softer, lighter tips and tails give it a more playful feel when you're in soft snow. The Ranger 102 FR feels more consistent in terms of flex from tip to tail. The tip is definitely thinner than underfoot, but in my opinion it feels like a more consistent flex pattern. I think the Rustler 10 is a little more forgiving, or as you put it a little easier on the legs.
Jeff, below your comment, was comparing it to the Enforcer 100. I think a good way to think about where the Ranger 102 FR falls is somewhere in between those two skis. Not as powerful or stable as the Enforcer, not quite as easy to throw around as the Rustler 10, but has a nice combination of both performance characteristics.
Hope that helps!
SE
Hello im interested in this skis but i wanna know what the diferrencies with nordica enforcer 100,
the fischer its more stiff or less than enforcer?
works better in groomers?
works better in powder?
im looking for a 177 102 fr and enforcer 100 177
im very interested in know the diferrences and deep characteristics between this two skis. Thanks
Hi Xavi!
In general the Ranger 102 is designed a little more for freeride/freeski use than the Enforcer 100. In my opinion one of the things that sets the skis apart the most is the twin tip on the Ranger 102. While it doesn't change performance a ton by just having a twin tip, it's a nod to the ski's intended use. Your questions:
I would say the Enforcer feels a little stiffer overall, but it's closer. The Enforcer does feel like it has a stiffer tail.
Works better in groomers? I'd give it to the Enforcers. A little quicker, a little more responsive, and holds an edge a little better.
Better in powder? I'd prefer skiing the Ranger 102 on a true powder day. It has a nice rocker profile for skiing powder, and while it's not a drastic difference, it is a little wider.
How would you describe yourself? Directional skier? Or would you utilize the twin tip of the Ranger? Are you aggressive, playful, somewhere in between, a combination of both? Let me know, I'd be happy to point you towards which one feels more appropriate to me.
SE
Hey haha excuse me for your name, my mistake 🙂
Ok you definetly convince me i will go for fischer ranger 102 FR, i think will be my katana this year 2019
thanks for your experience and for your comments you are a great professional and a good comparator 🙂
thanks!
Hi scott thaks for your reply you are very professional!
Well i have a good level of ski, i love powder but i also skiing on grommers and i like go fast i like push turns and i dont want that the ski dont hold edge. im a bit affraif if the tails of ranger will be work well on gromers wehen i push it hard.
Im a directional skier, but twin tip its a plus maybe i can start to go swith and something in park. but usually is directional ski
im agressive? well i like ski hard but not all day, i like long days from 9 to 16
this year i will go to japan on febreruy so im looking for a good weapon to ski there and also in spain, andorra, frecnh alps.
its important for me tthe ski works well also in grommers.
what do you think enforcr or ranger ? 🙂
i really love the shape and look of ranger i think is a good austrian quality ski right?
well let me know your opinon
my mesures
178 cm anf 75 kg.
Hi again Xavi!
My name's not Scott, but that's fine. That was another skier like yourself asking us a question that you're seeing down below. Anyways, back to the Ranger.
It's no slouch on groomers. I really wouldn't worry about that at all. You can ski it fast and aggressively and it does hold an edge quite well, the Enforcer is just a little more powerful. Since you asked me to compare, I gave it to the Enforcer, but realistically the Ranger 102 isn't far behind in terms of edge grip and performance on firm snow.
In my opinion, since the shape of the Ranger 102 looks like your kind of ski, go for it! It has an awesome blend of performance. Super fun in powder, rips on trail too, you'll be able to play around in the terrain park a bit, and more! It's a very high quality build, all of Fischer skis are very high quality.
In my opinion the 177 cm length is probably most appropriate for your size, ability level, what you're looking to do, etc.
What do you think?
SE
How does this ski compare to the new QST 106? Also, would this be a better 50/50 ski? Finally, would the new Shift binding be a good option for this ski?
Hi Jon!
The Ranger 102 is beefier, burlier, and more stable than the QST 106. If you're planning on touring (which by your Shift binding inquiry, I feel you are), the QST will have better uphill performance. But on the downhill, width not withstanding, you'll get better all-around downhill performance from the Fischer. I would definitely put it in the 50/50 class, especially with a versatile binding like the Shift. Not to nerd out, but the binding would look great on this ski, too. If you're 70/30 or more in favor of touring, the QST might be a better option, but 60/40 or less, I'd recommend the 102. Have fun!
SE
Hey SE,
I really appreciate the detailed reviews on the 102 FR.
At 6'2" and 187 lbs, what are your thoughts on the max size of 184cm? I'm used to skiing something closer to 188-190 cm so I'm a little concerned that they'll ski too short.
Thoughts or recommendations?
-Jon
Hi Jon!
I think you'll find the 184 cm is stable enough for your size. With the metal in the Ranger 102 FR it is a relatively stable ski overall with great vibration damping. You're really not dropping down too much in length, and considering the performance of the Ranger 102, I expect you'll have a lot of fun on the 184 cm length.
We've had quite a few guys around your size (and bigger) on the Ranger 102 FR and none of them have complained about stability.
Hope that helps!
SE
Hi Jeff!
Good review. I'm interested in this skis for a single ski quiver. But the problem is the size, I'm 174, 68kg and advanced-expert skier. What lenght do you recommend for me? I think that 1,70 its too short and 177 too long, or being a twin tip the 177 its ok? I can go for the line sick day 104 or the blizzard rustler 10 in 172, but I think that the Ranger have better carving performance. What do you think?
Thank you!
Hi Kevin!
At your size, as an advanced-expert skier, I think you'll be just fine on the 177 cm length. With the twin tip shape and rocker profile I don't expect you'll have any issues maneuvering it, and you'll get that much more float, edge grip, etc. I describe myself in a similar way as you do, and if I were your size (I'm not actually far off...) I would want the 177 cm length.
Hope that helps!
SE
Hi ES.
I´m interested in one new pair of skis to alternate with my piste skis.
I´m searching a ski for powder and soft snow, but also have a good performance in groomers and with the typical spring days with ice snow in the morning and soft snow in the afternoon.
I am considering several models, but overall: fischer ranger 102 fr, blizzard rustler 10 or salomon qst 106.
This models are good but i´m afraid if they are softer and don´t have good performance in ice or harder snow and is possible that the ti series in fischer are more appropiate or the bonafaide in blizzard.
Whats your opinion?
I think that those are good options but i´m not sure al all.
I´m a good skier with good level, i used to skiing in europe, in pyriness, in steeps terrain and forest.
My sice is 1.84 cm and 74 kg.
I think that my apropiate size for this type of skis are betwen 184 and 188.
What are you think?
Thanks for all
Hi Carlos!
First, I want to mention that the construction of the Ranger 102 FR and Ranger 98 Ti (or other Ti skis) is very, very similar.
So, with that said, I think a 184 cm Ranger 102 FR would be a great ski for you. The QST 106 and Rustler 10 are both great skis too, but I think the Ranger 102 FR has slightly better performance on really firm conditions. Similar torsional stiffness to the Ranger 98 Ti, and they both hold an edge quite well. The tips and tails of the Rustler 10 are a little softer, which takes away from its groomer performance. The QST 106 does really well, but is a little slower edge to edge and doesn't quite have the same stability and vibration damping of the Rangers. I think the Ranger will allow you to do everything you want, so much so that you might find yourself skiing your narrower, on-piste skis less than you think you will.
Hope that helps!
SE
SE - Thanks for review. I'm interested in the Ranger 102 FR and 108 Ti as a all around resort ski. I have a dedicated touring set up, BD Helio 116, so I don't expect to be touring on these but we do a fair amount of inbounds hiking at my home hill, Alta Utah. I have a couple old race skis that I use if I plan to only ski groomers. Curios your thoughts on these two to fit that bill. I'm 5'10" 160 lbs. Expert skier but also 50 years old :-). Size?
Thank you!
Matt
Hi Matt!
Both are great skis, that's for sure. That said, in my opinion you get a little more versatility out of the 102 FR. You can release the tail edge a little more easily, and it's also a little quicker edge to edge for those days when you don't have deep snow. I would be psyched if I was skiing Alta and has a Ranger 102 FR. From everything I know about your terrain, it will be super fun. It loves natural hits, and I know you guys have a lot of those out there. You can probably stay with the 177 cm and be just fine. I'm about your size and like that length for most applications. Sure, you get a little more float out of the 184 cm, but I don't expect you'd need it, especially because you have a wider ski in your quiver.
Hope that helps!
SE
ski test: "straight 4's out of 5 for all categories"
review and answers sound like straight 6's out of 5 for all categories...
Hi,
Thanks for the great videos and reviews! I'm looking to buy a new pair of skis and is looking towards the ranger series. I really like the more playful approach of the ranger 102 fr but is a bit unsure regarding the 184cm length. With the tip and tail rocker perhaps the effective edge will be too short, perhaps I should go for the 188cm TI model instead? I'm 180 cm tall and ski tree runs, groomers and soft snow when I find it.
Thanks!
Hi Marcus!
You'll be just fine on the 184 cm length! It's not super pronounced rocker, so as long as you're achieving a high enough edge angle it doesn't lack edge grip or edge contact when you need it. I know a lot of skiers around your size and even bigger who really like the 184 cm. Go for it! And you'll get much more playfulness out of the 102 than if you went with the 98 or 108.
SE
Hi SE,
I am an advanced skier (not expert, but definitely not intermediate). Looking at getting a new pair of skis that I can use for my annual trip to Montana, as well as a daily driver when I am skiing Alta/Snowbird. I was looking at this, and the Salomon QST 106.
I really enjoy spending my time in the trees and in the moguls, and I would like my ski to have energy when I am in those areas of the mountain. I will not be touring at all with these skis
Hi Matthew!
Both of those skis are awesome. In my opinion it comes down to your skiing style and what you prefer. If you like speed and value stability, I would go with the Ranger 102 FR. More metal in that ski, so you get a little more stability at speed. If you value maneuverability, energy, and playfulness , I'd go with the QST 106. Both skis are intended for the same thing, they both love off-piste conditions and terrain. Handle soft snow really well, but both can carve too. They're overall fairly similar, it's just a matter of whether you prefer a ski that relies more on carbon (QST) or metal (Ranger).
Hope that helps!
SE
Hi Matt,
I got a pair of 184 / 102fr and think they are Great for all conditions.
Just come back from Austria after a week of all conditions and the 102s did a Great Job in all of them.
Thanks for the review which made me Buy These great Skis.
I Love them.
Looking forward to my next Trip to Ischgl in April.
Greetings from Germany
Olli
Thanks for the review,
I bought a pair of Salomon QST 99's last year based off of your reviews of that ski, I found the ski to be exactly how you guys reviewed it. I am 6' 4 " 260 and I felt it lacked confidence inspiring edge hold at speed, hence I'm in the market for a similar ski with more edge hold at speed. Looking at the new Mantra M5 but these Fischer's have me curious. I live out west, 85% on piste 15% off. Advanced intermediate. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Keep up the good work
Hi Drew!
The M5 would give you better edge grip, and really would be a better complimenting ski to your QST 99 than the Ranger 102 here. Considering you already have the QST and how well it performs in soft snow, you could also consider going narrower to a ski like the Blizzard Brahma, Volkl Kendo, etc. The Ranger 102, while it is a little more stable at speed than your QST, isn't drastically different. A little more metal and slightly better edge grip, but if I were you, I'd go with the M5 or something narrower like the Brahma.
Hope that helps!
SE
I'm basically deciding between this ski and the 4frnt msp 99. I know you guys don't carry or have a review of the MSP. But I was hoping you might be able to tell me (obviously not in length) what the differences between the two are. Sounds like MSP might have more edge hold and better for hardpack? I ski in NH, because of weather I ski a lot of groomers and on-piste, so I want something that does great there, but what I have been missing in my quiver is something that works well in the New England trees and backcountry, so I want it to help me in that area, hopefully without sacrificing my ability to beat all my friends back to the lift. Thanks for any help you can provide.
Hi Shawn!
I can't speak to the 4frnt, but I was pretty impressed with the overall performance of the 102. You'll definitely get tremendous soft snow performance, and when on-trail, it held a decent edge, although certainly not race-worthy. Everything's a compromise, right? Another option is the Fischer Ranger 98 Ti if you're looking for more versatility. They're not quite as playful in the soft snow, but they certainly hold a great edge! Hope that helps!
SE
Hi from Australia. I ski Japan (Niseko) Canada (Whistler)for 10 days per year, where I will chase powder and tree lines off piste as much as possible. This may include some hiking and Heli occasionally. But I need to also cruise around with the wife and kids onpiste as well.
In your summer (our winter) I spend a few days at local Australia resorts which are more icey and variable in snow quality. But on the right pow day are still fun.
I currently ski line prophets 98 from 2013. I'm 5ft 9, 140 pounds and am tossing up between Rustler 10 (180), Enforcer 100 (177) or Fischer 102 FR (177).
Great to get your thoughts on best one ski option and length. Thanks
Hi Brad!
Those three skis on your list are all great choices and it'll be harder to choose the wrong one than it will to choose the right one. The Enforcer is your more "trail-oriented" ski of the three, mostly due to its flatter tail and dual metal laminate. The Fischer is super fun and although it has some heft to it, is still pretty light in the swing. The Rustler 10 is probably your best powder performer, but not by much over the Fischer. Anything in the 175 range I think would work fine. Happy skiing!
SE
Hey, I liked the interview and am almost pretty sure that I would like these, I just have a few specific questions...
I'm around 180-190 lbs and am 5 10' . I was thinking of getting the 177 length. I like to carve groomed blues and blacks, but have started to venture into the trees and can proficiently go down tree-ed in double blacks at a slower pace.
My first question is how do these skis perform in the tight trees and larger moguls. I need a ski that can still pivot when in really tight situations. Would these skis be good for that? Some other reviews have commented on the stiff tails causing some hang-ups.
My other question is if these skis can still float in moderate powder. The last time I rented, I was put on 95 armadas Invictus that sank really quickly and could not turn in anything deep.
Thank you!
Hi Jack!
I'd say the 177 is the right length for you. Yes, the tails are stiff, but they're also turned up so they do release pretty easily when you want them to. I found them to be very versatile in the trees and moguls, and they happily went wherever I pointed them--I found them to be very maneuverable. At 102 underfoot and with a nice, wide shovel, you will certainly get better float than the Invictus, which is a pretty heavy ski. I'd give them up to about a foot at which point I'd want something wider. Have fun!
SE
Contemplating these skis to replace my invictus 108s, just can't deciced on what length to go with, I tend to ski trees out here in Colorado which can be on the narrow side, but I also like to rip the bowls at many ski resorts. Between the 177 and 184, I ski a 178 in the invictus 108 which I love in the tree but I also have a pair of sick day 104 in 186 as my touring ski which I don't mind in the tree but at times can seem some what of a handful. I and 5'11. Wondering how the tails of these skis compare to either in my quiver in the reviews they seem like they would release better than the invictus which is why I go back and forth if I should get 177 or 184
Hi Ryan!
For tighter trees, I'd go with the 177. I am 6/2 215 and I skied the 184 and found them to be pretty perfect. The tail does release nicely, I wouldn't say early or easily, but rather nicely. Hope that helps!
SE
Hi,
Thanks for the detailed reviews. I am in the market for a new ski that I would use in the front (70%) and back country. I am 5'10" and 140 lbs and would categorize myself as an advanced skier who likes to mostly ski off trail (moguls, trees and powder/crud) I used to have the Sin 7s which were very playful in untracked powder but would throw me around in crud. I would like my next ski to have a bit more "plowablity", while also being somewhat nimble enough for having fun in trees and moguls.
I am looking at a 4 options right now: 177cm Fischer ranger 102, 177cm Nordica enforcer 100, 180 cm Head kore 105 and 178 cm Faction CT2.0 (102mm underfoot). I demoed the enforcers on a soft moguls day and really liked it. I am concerned that the Rangers and the Kores might be too stiff for my weight while the CT2.0 would be a bit too playful.
Any thoughts or other recommendations?
-Vivz
Hi Vivz!
The Kore is certainly stiffer than the Fischer--I thought the Ranger was a totally fun and approachable ski that had a high performance ceiling. The Enforcer is a pretty burly ski and excels at higher speeds but isn't quite as playful as the Ranger, and certainly the Faction is at the more playful end. Overall, I like the Ranger for you and I agree with the 177 size. Have fun!
SE
Hi, thanks for the review! I'm thinking about getting the 102 FR (in 184cm, I'm about 6′1″) and mounting my Fritschi Tecton for some backcountry touring and was wondering about your comments on that? Have any of you tried this? Do you think it would be okay weightwise even for longer days? I'm not that concerned about weight and it would be great to have that extra stability on the downhill! I was also thinking of the Atomic Bent Chetler 100 as an (lighter) alternative...Thanks!
Hi Peter!
I actually know plenty of people who have put a touring binding on the Ranger 102 FR! It's a great ski for touring. A bit heavier than some super-dedicated touring skis, but drastically outperforms those skis on the downhill. As you're already aware, there's always a trade-off between lightweight and downhill performance. I would actually prefer touring on the Ranger over the Bent Chetler. The Bent Chetler is lighter, but doesn't have the same confidence-inspiring feel when going down. In tricky backcountry spots, I would rather put my trust in the Ranger.
SE
Hi! Thanks for your comment! I'm pretty convinced that going for the Ranger will be the right decision. I have one more question though: Is it true that there will be a Ranger 94 FR for 2020? I saw some posts about that on the Internet. Since I'm also planning to get a dedicated powder ski (something in the 110 - 120 range) in the future, wouldn't the 94FR be an even better option? My guess is, that the 94 would surely outperform the 102 inbounds on groomers and probably also in firm & variable snow conditions. Also it's probably a bit lighter which isn't the worst thing on the uphills 🙂 It would be great to hear your thoughts on that. Thanks again, I think what you're doing here is really cool and it's great seeing you take your time to answer all the questions around here! cheers, Peter
Hi Peter!
Glad we can help! The 94 FR looks to be a pretty fun ski. We haven't gotten on it yet, but it's certainly on the list. Yes, that makes your decision a bit different with this thing on the wall. Ideally, you're looking for at least a centimeter difference between on and off-trail/powder skis, so if you were to get the 94 for an all-mountain ski, I'd look for at least a 104 underfoot ski for deeper pow days. I bet the 94 will be an adept touring ski as well. If I were to have only one, I'd get the 102, but knowing the 94 exists certainly would complicate things, but in a good way! Great options all around!
SE
Hi, that sounds great, I think I'll go for the 94 and get something wider for the deep days! Thanks a lot, you really helped make my decision easier! cheers, Peter
How about the Fischer Ranger FR 90? I am short and light, 5' 4" and 135 lbs respectively. On the video you mentioned the 102 as more of an advanced skier, which I am not. I mostly ride groomers with my daughter though we always seek out the soft stuff on the edges. I live in Colorado and don't have a lot of flexibility with time, so ski conditions are what they are, sometimes I luck out and other times it is packed powder. I am looking for an all mountain ski, something to upgrade from 20 year old ski technology. I think I like the playfulness of a twin tip, tip tail rocker, and I don't need something super powerful since we are just cruising.
Thanks! Enjoying your videos and reviews, and maybe I should kick you some business in return.
First, this review led me to get a pair of these... and boy I'm happy you talked me into it! These skis are incredible! Every pair of skis I've owned had problem areas/weaknesses you had to work around or fight through. So far these skis have done everything I have asked. So much fun!
But I have a question... I would like to get into touring. Not in a big way, at least yet, but I would like to start doing some small trips. I bought these with a demo binding, so I am looking to replace the binding anyway. Are these too heavy for an A/T binding? Too heavy for touring? I have the 184cm length. I can't afford to get another pair of skis at this point. I would probably get a frame binding. What are your thoughts? Would that work, or would I be better just getting like an attack 13 binding and holding out until I can get a dedicated A/T setup?
Thanks!
Hi Jon!
Sounds like a winner to me!
I loved the 102, but I also prefer a narrower ski, so that sounds just about right. Just to throw a wrench in your system, for 2020 they're making a Ranger FR 94 so that's something to consider. I also really like the Nordica Soul Rider 87 as an all-mountain twin tip, so check that out as well!
SE
You're not the first to wonder about this, Shawn!
The skis are not the heavy part, the frame binding will be. If you're not committed to touring, I'd recommend keeping the Fischer the way it is and getting a dedicated touring setup with light weight stuff. When you try to tour on your alpine stuff, it's just really heavy. It's expensive, yes, but I'd hold out and get a separate setup for tour. Have fun!
SE
Hi- thanks for the review. I'm 6'1", 155 lbs... advanced skier that skis trees, super steep stuff in Colorado. I'm not sure if I should get 177 or 184 but want to pick up a pair for next season. What size would you recommend?
Thanks
Hi Bill!
By height, I'd recommend the 184, but by weight, you're more of a 177. How aggressively to you ski? If you're hard charging and going fast, go ahead with the 184, but if you're on the mellow side and prefer shorter turns, I'd recommend the 177. Hope that helps!
SE
I'm 5'8, 155lbs, and advanced but not expert, spending about 80% off trail, including a fair amount of time chasing my kids through the tress and moguls. We ski Tahoe almost exclusively, with occasional trips to Colorado and Utah. After a bit of research I'm leaning towards the Fischer 102 FR and Pinnacle 105. I feel I'm in between the 170 and 177 on both, though a bit more confident that the 177 would work with the Fischer 102 twin tip. Can you recommend sizing for each? Is the rocker profile and performance of the Pinnacle 105 similar to the 102 FR?
Thank you!
Hi Brandon!
Both are great choices. As far as sizing, your stats combined with the fact that you're skiing with kids in trees and bumps steers me slightly to the 170 over the 177. If you're skiing fast and aggressively, you could go with the 177, but it sounds like you're making more turns? If this is the case, the 170 will be easier to steer and turn over the duration of the day for sure. Between the two skis, the tip rocker profile of the 105 is more pronounced than the 102. The 102 feels like an all-mountain ski while the Pinnacle feels more like a powder-specific ski. If you're getting one pair for your application, I'd go with the Ranger. Hope that helps!
SE
I've demoed both the Fischer Ranger 102 FR and the Nordica Enforcer 104 Free. Absolutely loved them both. I enjoy the steeps, moguls, trees, love powder when we get it and carving up groomers, and playing around on jumps, skiing switch, and doing simple tricks (not a terrain park person). Will you help me understand which of these skis is better at what? I'm trying to decide between the two, but due to the time between demos and each was at a different resort with different conditions, so I don't really have a sense of which ski is better at what. Tks.
Hi Richard!
You'll find a lot more similarities than differences between those skis. The biggest difference, however, is the dual metal laminate of the Enforcer 104 that makes it stiffer from tip to tail than the Ranger, which does not have full metal laminates. They're both equally as good at everything, but they feel different. The Ranger has more of a woody feel while the Enforcer is certainly more metallic. As a result, the Ranger will feel more playful while the Enforcer will feel more damp and will require more of your attention. It's a bit easier to relax on the Ranger. Hope that helps!
SE
What skins would you use for this ski? Thank you 🙂
Hi AK!
Something like a Black Diamond Ascension skin would work great. Make sure you get a wider width than your 102 so that you can trim to fit. Have fun!
SE
Hi,
Thanks for the detailed review. I would like to know exactly where should I mount my binding. The mounting point is -9.9 cm from the center. I want to jump and play with this ski but I still want to ski powder without much compromise.
Thank you,
Hi Dominik!
Unless you're quite sure that you want it forward of recommended, I'd stick to the line. Maybe a +2 at most. Have fun!
SE
Hi guys,
Firstly, thank you so much for all your detailed and extremely informative reviews and comparisons, they are really helpful and it’s great to get a real idea of what all the skis are like.
I’m really asking this question too late as I’ve just purchased some 102fr skis with Marker Jester bindings but I’m nervous I might have gone for the wrong size...I’m 39 years old, 6 foot tall and weigh 78kg. I mainly ski in France and If the snow is good I’ll ski off piste wherever I can and if not then I like to ski fast on piste. I also ski in the trees for fun or if the vis is poor. I still ski aggressively but I guess as time goes on this might change?! I purchased the skis in a 177 length but now wondering if the 184 would have been a better bet? Do you need to size up with this ski? I think ideally I’d be between sizes 177 and 184, in the past I’ve always hired skis and something like the Brahma (which I hired last year in a 180 length). I know they are different skis with different characteristics but will the 102fr in a 177 feel similar or much shorter? I note in the reviews that some people thought the ski ‘skied short’ and that there is a fair amount of rocker in the tip. Whilst I don’t really have any concerns about the skis performance off piste I do want the ski to feel really stable and solid when going fast on piste and not chatter or feel skittish, I know it’s pretty stiff so I’m hoping I’ll be alright on the 177. The ski comes up to my eye level.
I appreciate it’s probably quite a difficult question to answer but it would be great to get your thoughts, worst case I’ll try and sell the 177s and get some 184s!
Thanks again and keep the reviews and comparisons coming, they are excellent!
Adrian
Hi Adrian!
I think you're going to be just fine on the 177. Unless you know that you prefer longer skis, and value stability at speed above all else, I think the 177 is correct. I'd ski that one. The rocker profile isn't dramatic enough to really affect the length (or the feel of the length), so it skis pretty true to size. Thanks for the kind words, have fun!
SE
Many thanks for the reply guys, it’s great to have a second opinion from people who have so much experience of the skis and it’s hugely appreciated. I do value stability at speed but not above all else and the ski needs to perform in all other areas and essentially be an all rounder so basis your advice and personal recommendation it’s nice for me to have piece of mind that I chose the right length! Hope you all have a great rest of season and thanks again Jeff and Bob 🙂
Hello, my name is Adrien, I’m looking for a new pair of skis, the Fischer Ranger 102 FR
I already have a pair of race skis Rossignol Hero All Turn, but I’m looking for polyvalent skis which I can do carving and also ride in powder with.
I’m in love with the Ranger 102, but I wonder if 102 mm isn’t a bit too wide for a polyvalent ski...
I also would like Look pivot bindings with the Ranger 102, but I hesitate with Attack 13 .
Look pivot bindings give me the feeling that in powder, making turns is easier, but what about carving...
Every test I read on the internet about the Ranger 102 is combined with marker or griffon bindings (like Attack 13).
Or may be should I have a look with the Ranger 99 TI ?
I’m a good skier, love to go fast, but I’m not Bode Miller lol , I’ve always skied on piste, but I’d like to begin to Go outside and in real powder...and I’m always looking to improve myself
Thank you for your time !
Hi Adrien!
We pair skis with the Attacks for cost purposes mainly. I'm personally a Pivot skier myself, so I know where you are coming from. The 99 is certainly a stronger carver, with a stiffer tail and a more directional personality. Not as playful as the 102, but if you're looking to do it all with an emphasis on carving, the 99 is a strong choice. They're pretty good in powder, but are a bit stiffer and heavier than the 102, so you do lose out a little bit in that department. Hope that helps!
SE
Hi, Thanks for reply.
Concerning bindings, what’s your advise ?
For a polyvalent use (i will of course try to go more in powder) whether I choose the Ranger 102 or 99, what can you tell me about Look Pivot, the feeling you have riding on piste and in powder ?
Even with tall skis and quite fat like the 102, isn’t it easier to turn with the skis ?
Do we feel well hold in those bindings ?
What about the attack bindings ? What is specific with those bindings ? May be more polyvalent than the pivot ?
Thank you again !
Hello thanks for your answer.
Concerning bindings, what can you tell me about the Look pivot ? Isn’t it easier to turn especially in powder ? What’s your feeling when riding on piste and in powder ? Does it feel good to be very close to the ski ?
And what about the Attack ? What is specific which those bindings ?
I think I will choose between the Ranger 102 in 177 cm and the 99 TI in 181 cm
I Don’t know yet since I already my Rossignol Hero for every day, I’d like something more specific I can go as well on piste and powder
I’ll see
Thank you again for your professionalism!!!
I appreciate, keep going, I watched a lot of your videos and read your articles, very interesting
Hi. Love your reviews and comments to your subscribers. Thanks for the service. I’m looking at a free ride ski that, like many skiers want it to do it all. My choices are 2021 Enforcer 100 or 104, Ranger FR 102 (pink of course) and Blizzard Rustler 10. Demo’d the Enforcer 100 in 172, Enforcer 104 in 179, and no one in or around my area (Tahoe) demo’s Ranger 102s, especially this year. I’m always looking for good snow in the steeps and trees but need something that can carve and hold on firm snow when that’s all there is. When it’s steep and narrow and you gotta hop-turn quickly I’m worried that too long of a ski will be challenging but a 172 seems so short. Coming off a Kastle BMX 105 HP in 181 length. Skied on it 10 days and sold them. Stable and fast for sure but just too much ski for me. Tough to turn in crud unless going faster than I want and just not quick enough edge to edge. Plus felt really heavy under foot. I think if the BMX was a size shorter, they would have been fine. Thoughts on which ski might be the sweet spot? Thanks in advance.
HI Chip!
Other than being a bit sluggish in tight bumps, I haven't found a weakness with the Enforcer 100. The Ranger 102 is certainly more playful, but in softer snow and at higher speeds, it does deflect in the crud and chop. Great for fresh snow and smooth groomers, though, but not quite the carver of the Enforcer skis (100 or 104). Rustler is a bit of a mix of the Enforcer 104 and Ranger 102, but like the Ranger, relies more on carbon to do the lifting, while the Nordica's have the two sheets of metal. At the end of the day, I think the Enforcer 100 is the way to go. I think 179 in that ski is proper sizing. Have fun!
SE
Hey guys - I’m a 5’9” 175lbs advanced skier. I like to spend most of my time in variable terrain in Tahoe, so some Sierra cement in the trees and bumps, as well as powder in the bowls when I can get it. I also like popping little side hits and shiftys whenever possible. I’m currently skiing a pair of Rossignol Sky 7 HD in 172cm, which I enjoy in trees and bumps but they tend to be a little spooky in steep stuff. Looking for a replacement and considering Enforcer 100/104, Rustler 10, Ranger 102 FR, or QST 106. I’ve got a pair of 80 waist Volks for when the snow is hard, so looking for this to round out a two-ski quiver. Which would you recommend to have fun popping, hitting trees, and taking on some powder (when available) and in what size? Thanks so much for the help guys 🙂
HI Will!
I'd think either the Rustler or Ranger would be best from the skis on your list. There's some metal in both, but not a lot, and the freeride twin tip shape of both are great for what you're looking to do. At 102/104 mm underfoot, these two skis offer a nice complement to your narrower skis. If anything, I'd say the Ranger has a bit more playfulness and freestyle character than the Rustler. New 2023 Ranger 102 follows suit with both of those skis if you're looking for an alternative. I'd stick with the low to mid 170's in any of these skis. Have fun!
SE