‘23 Fischer Rangers

[twoturn]

Anyone ski on the new Ranger 116?

Any experience on the new Ranger line?

[Crystal Skier]

^^^ this…also intrigued by the 116. Dimensions look great and bump up slightly as you go longer.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[twoturn]

I just picked some up. Will be mounting them this week. Got a pair of the 193s

[kid-kapow]

I just mounted some 102s today. I will hopefully get to ski them tomorrow and will report back if so. The Blister review makes them sound pretty supoptimal and moody wrt to stance, but we'll see.

I've been kinda hesitant to try the wider skis. Their shovels just seem so soft, but then again the people I've talked to who have been on them have been really positive.

[mn_teleswede]

Following this thread. Not many real world reviews out there.

Picked up a pair of Mfree 108’s as couldn’t find any deals on Ranger 108’s to fill the middle spot of my 3 ski quiver.

[kid-kapow]

hm, the 102 is a good ski that could become great with some tweaks:
1) cut 4cm off the tips - they are just flappy as is, are not required to float well and do nothing but increase swing weight imho (obviously the tip geometry/start of the rocker zone would have to be tweaked) - added bonus of moving the mount point to -8
2) extend the titanal portions all the way to the contact points fore and aft, with heavy tapering of the titanal at the ends (goal at the ends: to quiet the tips, not to provide torsional rigidity) - added bonus, will help with point 3
3) drop the flex cut in the tiatanal at the center of the ski making for a more uniform flex throughout the ski - added bonus, easier to mount fore/aft of the recommended spot


I found them to be good on groomers with a forward stance, but also a bit cumbersome / easy to track poorly or bee deflected on less than perfect groomers with a more centered stance - and likewise off piste. I like them more than I did Black Crows Atris. The tails felt fine - I did not really notice their stiffness in any detrimental way, though it kinda felt like the flex zone in the middle of the ski prevents one from really activating the back half of the ski to pop out of carves.

My pair is mounted with pivots, so that could add to the feeling of being some hinge points in the ski - both up front and underfoot.

And yes, I totally understand Blister's recommendation to size down on these given how much (unnecessary) tip there is on these - I doubt you'll loose much top end by going down, but you will probably gain a fair bit of nimbleness / reduce swing weight.

[MTslackcountry]

Ive got a pair of 187's. Amazing in untracked pow or light density snow. Im selling mine as I dont see enough deep snow to warrant a ski this big. $600 shipped with attack 14 bindings. Skied 3 days. Perfect condition.

[BirdosRider]

Did anyone mount a pair? Curious about mount point choices. +2.5cm would put it 8cm behind true center which has worked pretty well for me across most powder skis. I mounted ranger 108's +1.5cm and they crush it.

[SnakeMagnet]

hm, the 102 is a good ski that could become great with some tweaks:
1) cut 4cm off the tips - they are just flappy as is, are not required to float well and do nothing but increase swing weight imho (obviously the tip geometry/start of the rocker zone would have to be tweaked) - added bonus of moving the mount point to -8
2) extend the titanal portions all the way to the contact points fore and aft, with heavy tapering of the titanal at the ends (goal at the ends: to quiet the tips, not to provide torsional rigidity) - added bonus, will help with point 3
3) drop the flex cut in the tiatanal at the center of the ski making for a more uniform flex throughout the ski - added bonus, easier to mount fore/aft of the recommended spot

That theoretical ski you described sure sounds like the new rustler 10.

[MTslackcountry]

Bump! shipped for $550. Skis are mint