2024 Fischer Ranger 96 and 102 Ski Review with SkiEssentials.com and Bonus Ranger 108!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лип 2024
- This past season was Emily's first experience on the new Fischer Rangers, so we thought it was worth revisiting them!
Written Review: www.skiessentials.com/Chairli...
0:00 - Intro
2:00 - Construction
3:50 - Shape
6:25 - Ranger 96 Performance
11:55 - Ranger 102 Performance
15:10 - Ranger 102 Off-Piste
18:20 - Skiing Switch and Park
20:35 - Bonus Ranger 108
Kudos to Emily. Thoroughful analysis and good comments 👍 Great skiing. Hope to see her more!
Well done! Not expecting reviews in June but loving it.
More to come! We try to test and film enough throughout the season to carry our content through the summer.
Great video with excellent explanations and superb skiing. Very well filmed as well !!
Many thanks!
I had been off skis for a number of years and returned on the 102’s. It was like riding a bike. Just got on them and took off. So easygoing and not at all tiring. Love them. They’re the first skis out of the bag on all of my trips.
Agree! Highly intuitive, easy to ski, but lots of performance there too.
Really appreciate the reviews!
Glad you like them!
I’m 6’ 3”, 195 lbs and skied a Ranger 96 in the 187 length last year. Previously had been on Enforcer 100s. I think you nailed this ski - performance, capability, etc. It’s become my everyday ski because it is so versatile, fun, and can do most things very well!. If my buddies are all on their Mantras and want to rip groomers all day and ski nothing else, I’ll get out the Enforcers, but otherwise I just love the capabilities of the Ranger.
We were just talking through a very similar analysis in the office yesterday. Myself and Josh, our owner, agree with you 100%.
@@SkiEssentials Thanks, appreciate that info, you all are the best!
Great review! Those skis look like solid choices.
They are!
I demoed the 96 in 180 at Stratton in March. I own a 92ti in 184. I have to say at 6'3 and 235 lbs, the ski just wasn't enough. Probably would prefer the 90 in the 184, but 187 is longer than I care for. I prefer closer to 180 than 190.
I really wanted to love these because although the 92ti is a phenomenal ski, it's a bit more ski than I necessarily want. I like the ability to be lazy and not get punished..
Unfortunately, I didn't jive with the 96, but if I was 6' amdn190 lbs, I probably would have loved it.
Very interesting, as your feedback is more aligned with Bob's than mine (Jeff), and you've VERY close to Bob's size.
@@SkiEssentials hey Jeff.. hope you're having a good summer. Yeah, I was very disappointed. Had high hopes for that one.
Ultimately I ended up going with a set of 22 QST 92s in 185..I know you both loved that ski and I couldn't beat the price...
Keep up the awesome videos , you guys are the best.
Fisher has always been an overall great ski that doesn´t stand out for any specific purpose.. That´s why almost every ski instructor in Europe use Fisher. Thank you for your review.
Well-roundedness is one of the best characteristics a ski can have, but it's not as exciting as "most powerful" or "most playful" or other superlatives. It's an interesting phenomenon.
Yes agreed, I always associate these all round skis with ski patrol here in the western US as well, I see a lot of Fischer Rangers, Moment Deathwishes or Wildcats, and Elan skis.
I love Emily's style! Flowy and precise. Amazing form. We can all learn some things from her. Sorry Jeff but she is a much better skier . I skied on these all last season here in the PNW. Great ski. I totally agree the shovels are way too soft. They start to slip a lot when you put them in a fast medium arc curve. Slow slalom turn they handle very well actually. I have a POV of skiing them on my channel but editing is bad so I apologize
We are collaborative, not competitive--everyone is still in a learning phase! And yes, the shovels are soft.
sorry my first post came off wayyy to rude. I love all your stuff. ya'll are all great skiers. I just love emilys style a lot@@SkiEssentials
would love to hear how the 102 compares to the QST 98.
I suppose they're relatively similar, but the QST 98 has a lot more rocker, which gives it a more surfy, smeary, maneuverable feel. It leans more towards that side of the skiing performance spectrum, while the Ranger 102 is just so well-rounded. QST better tree ski, in my opinion, but the Ranger is a bit stronger elsewhere.
I'm always on the lookout for skis that can be used in a telemark (NTN, Tx Pro boots) application. Usually, that would be a more forgiving ski that does not require driving the tips, since there's no heel hold down. It sounds as though the Fischer 102 would fit the bill nicely (once my older Rustler 10's wear out).
I agree! I always preferred tele skis without metal (or underfoot at the most), and these Rangers fit that description. I always really liked the Rossignol Blackops 98 or the Dynastar M-Free 99 for a telemark application.
Hello! Thank you for the review! I really enjoy skiing on Ranger 102. For me It is a well-balanced and very versatile ski but in moguls, trees tails are quite punishing. I find the sweet spot is fairly small. Maybe it is my technique issue. Could you compare Ranger 96 180 and Ranger 102 183 cm with Line Blade Optic 96 184 (or 177) in terms of on- ond off-piste performance, forgivness, playfullness? If I change Ranger 102 to Blade Optic 96 what will I loose?
A big thing that differentiates those skis is the amount of tail rocker. The Blade Optics have longer tail rocker and more early taper in the tail as well. If you're finding the tail of the 102 punishing in the bumps, that could actually be a good switch for you. The tail of the Blade Optic should wash around more easily. I do think you lose some precision on firmer snow in the Blade Optic, but if that's not a big concern, go for it. Also, it's still good on firm snow, just doesn't finish a turn with as much efficiency or responsiveness. Hope that helps!
@@SkiEssentials that will help! Thanks!
coz of that long tip rocker should we go for a longer size for the ranger 96? Im 175cm 75kg. what length would you recommend here?
If you're caught in the middle I think it's okay to size up, but it also depends on your levels of aggressiveness and how long you want your radius to be. I personally like the Ranger skis a bit longer, so I'd say the 180 would be fine for you, especially if you know you prefer slightly longer skis.
hows does it compare to the ripstick black? that ski carves and rips.
It's actually a very similar concept as a whole, although I do think the Ranger feels a touch softer. It's kind of like if you were to try to design construction that's right in between normal Ripstick and Ripstick Black. Ranger is stiffer than normal Ripstick, but Ripstick Black is a bit stronger. Shapes are quite similar.
Great content! For the past 7 season I've been skiing Nordica Enforcer 100s (177cm). I love the versatility - charging on groomers, strong, stable, with great float in powder (I've taken them to Japan for 6 seasons now and skied in 20cm of fresh snow and they've been great). I want the same performance (or better in deep snow) but lower swing weight. Is the Fischer 102 or Faction Prodigy 2 good options?
the Fischer is closer to the Enforcer while the Prodigy falls more to the playful side. It depends how many performance notches you want to drop, one or two!
Interesting. I just demoed some of those and can share my notes. But Take this with a grain of salt; I’m not an expert skier and I don’t have a racing background. I’m advanced/advancing intermediate. 5’10” 180lbs. I demoed the Enforcer 100’s in a 177 and they were too much for me. Super heavy, I really struggled to drive them around moguls. I could tell they’re built to bulldoze whatever’s in their path but I was looking for a playful, flexible all rounder. Then I tried the Ranger 102’s in 176 and they blew me away. Super fun, easy to flick the tails out, quick turns, long arcing turns. Just fun. Didn’t take much input.
The next day I also demoed the Prodigy 2’s in a 177. They were a bit heavy, not as bad as the Nordicas but heavier than I remembered the Fischers. They really wanted to go fast and straight. I had to work to make them turn quick and short. Still not as playful as the Rangers.
Finally a couple of quick tests of the Atomic Bent 100 and Armada ARV 100. Bent was another small step better/more playful than Prodigy for me. Still heavy-ish but I could flick it around with work. Held well on high speed arcs too. Heavy enough to plow through crap. The ARV’s I thought were softer still and fun to play around with. Maybe started to compromise high speed long carves through junky snow (less heavy). (Demo bindings are heavy so that may factor into my perceptions)
I want to go back and try the Rangers one more time but I think they won my heart. Frankly, my worry with them being so much lighter, softer, more nimble than others, was: will I grow out of them as I progress? But based on this video, it looks like even the pros are having a great time on them!
Now I’m torn with the 96 or 102. I ski in VT regularly and out west a couple times a year. Currently ski a DPS alchemist RP 100. Do I go 96 or 102?
Personally I think the 96 is the way to go if you're VT regular.
My 3 favorite traits in a ski are loose smeary tails, dampness and decent quickness. I live out west, 70% trees/steeps and 30% (usually) poorly groomed/choppy groomers if they groom at all. Should I go Ranger, 2024 Rustler or Blade Optic? Something that slots right in between a QST 98 and Mindbender 99ti in terms of suspension and personality is what I'm after. Width isn't as important to me as traits.
I'd put in a solid vote for the Blade Optic 96. The more I see and ski on it, the more benefits start to shine through. Rustler's a close second. With the Fischer, I think you're losing out in the quickness department, as has been my experience.
@@SkiEssentials Cheers, I was leaning towards Optic 96 or 2024 rustler 10.
what would you recommend for 5'10" 175lb, advanced skier mostly on pist on mountain, stuck between 96 173 or 102 176. Thanks!
It sounds like you're looking for the 96 in the 173 to me based on your mostly on-piste characterization. Have fun!
If you'd take a 108 180 or 176, how would you have described it and compared it do your experience on the 102?
The 102 feels turnier than the 108, mainly on firmer snow. In fresh and deep, the 108 feels like a powder ski, but doesn't have a whole lot of responsiveness. I like the 108 in longer lengths while the 102 in the 183 feels great.
The only change they should have made to 102 is get rid of that dull dark blue and go all-celeste.
Agree! Who needs dark blue when you've got Celeste?
I actually like that dark navy blue but the Celeste looks cool too. I need to see them in person. Both a cool colors I think.
Thanks Jeff and Emily for the review. I'm 5'11'', 190 lbs, advanced, but not aggressive skier. Ranger 96 in 173cm seems too short for me, but 180cm seems too long. I owned a pair of pink ranger 102 FR in 177cm, loved the length. Would you recommend me go for the 180cm or 173cm for the ranger 96? Thanks in advance.
I'd go 180 based on your stats and application. I do think that these skis can feel slightly short.
@@SkiEssentials Thanks for your response.
Thoughts on Faction Dancer 2/3 vs Fischer Ranger 102? Thanks for the review!
The Dancer series is a lot more eager to make turns, especially carved ones. The Fischer is more drifty, smeary, and floaty but it's not as precise or powerful as the Dancer skis. If you are spending more time in trees, soft snow, and at moderate speeds, the Ranger is great, If you like stronger turns with deeper arcs and predictable edge grip, the Factions are very surprising and energetic.
Great, thank you for your reply. I’m coming from the Prodigy so looking for more edge grip, but not sure how much more I want before trading off a playful ride. I also want a faster tail while still on the freeride side of things. Anything else in this sweet spot you can recommend? Keep up the great work! Cheers!
@@snowdays1116 We really have enjoyed the Armada Declivity 102--for 2025 it gets a different build, leaning slightly more to the Ranger side vs. more directional like it used to be.
Mucho gracias for all the info... will definitely look at Ranger and Declivity!! Powder to the People!!
What lenght was Emily on on the 96?
I believe most of the footage is on the 166 cm. I also recall her testing both the 166 and 173. She's in the office tomorrow, I'll double check.
@@SkiEssentialsthanks, would be really cool to know the impressions of both length from her.
Jeff, how tall are you? I'm debating on the 169 or 176 and I'm 5'8".
Any chance you know yet how tall he is?
no response yet @@apukal
Jeff is 5/10. I'd say a 5/8 skier would be more comfortable overall on the 169. I fear the 176 would be on the long side unless you're very aggressive or just know that you prefer longer skis.
thank you for the recommendation@@SkiEssentials
What size did Emily go with on these skis?
I believe it's a 169 that she prefers.
The snow conditions in the beginning of the video look like crud.. It looks like you had some powder that was groomed but then skied away.. Those are the conditions where I through out my back on my 104 Free.. Those are very tricky conditions.. I would be interested to see Bob's view..
It sure looked like it was a competition with all of you.. When you hit the tree it just seams like it was part of that.. I do better with my 104 Free in the wood than with my F100.. Another thing about my 104 Free is that I need to remain humble and not get over confident.. Not sure if that is what happened with your 108..
I ski a lot, and honestly, I generally chalk stuff like that up to the law of averages. Enough time spent on snow in a dangerous, risky sport, something's going to happen. We're all really friendly here at SkiEssentials, and no one feels like they're competing with coworkers. If anything (I suppose especially for me, Jeff), I might be competing with myself, but compared to how I used to ski, I'm VERY cautious these days. No more 80 foot park jumps and double corks. Just skiing. For me, that's being safe. Hitting that tree was tough. I actually was going to take a more aggressive, more challenging line through there, and thought I was being smart by widening that turn a bit. I just couldn't see what was under the snow surface, and stuffed that tip pretty bad. If I was in the same scenario again, I probably would've made the same choices. That ski is also big and kinda heavy, like the Enforcer 104 Free. Had I been on a lighter or shorter ski, I might have been able to wiggle out of it, but I wasn't! Considering the falls I've had on skis, this one felt pretty controlled, actually. Knew what was happening as soon as I hooked the tip, made a decision to reduce potential injury, and walked away with just bruises.
Got to try the ranger blue in a size too short and it was so bad. It was terrifying, soft and skittish. Never again a ski without metal in it lol.
Do you mean the "Ranger" not the "Ranger 102?" If so, that would make complete sense. I've skied that before and yeah, a bit squirrelly. If you're talking 102, my guess is you're a bigger skier, like Bob?
@@SkiEssentials Yes I mean the ranger not the skis in this video.
Jeff, how tall are you?
yea ok nice skis but why no pink😞🙏
It's a question that will go down in history as one of the biggest conundrums ever. I do like the celeste, personally, but that pink ski had a lot of momentum.
Oof, comparison to 104 free? Man, I hope I didn't make a mistake. I hate those skis and just bought the rangers.
I find them vastly different. If you dislike the Enforcer, you will likely enjoy the Ranger. Very dissimilar, in my experience, although I fall on the opposite side as you!
@@SkiEssentials thanks!
I wish the 108 came in pink :/
Samesies. They missed the mark--people loved that pink ski.
Oh boy is this great. ⛷❄️it’s June and reviews are still going
We still have a lot more to share!