2018 Fischer Ranger 98 Ti Skis 2018 Fischer Ranger 98 Ti Skis

2018 Fischer Ranger 98 Ti Skis

Some still seem to blame Fischer for sins of the past. Their loss. Because if the family-owned Austrian brand was ever guilty of making skis that only a nails-for-breakfast Austrian racer could love, the Ranger 98 is clearly a new breed of Fischer. The Ranger is still underpinned by Fischeresque power, precision, and stability, and it still certainly belongs in the “charger” subgroup of the 100-mm width class (see Mantra, Bonafide, etc.). But there’s a surfy, fun-loving, sunny-day side to its personality too—an ease of maneuverability that makes it more open-minded about quick direction changes in tight spots, even at high speeds. Thank goodness, it still has all the top-end rippability that Fischer fans prize—bring a strong, energetic attack and a greed for speed to it, and it’s beefy enough to keep up. But if you’re in the mood for slashy, lazy, skidding-around fun on the softest snow you can find, here’s a Fischer that won’t judge.

Testers said:

Joe C. : “Well shaped for smeary off-piste versatility and occasional bump duty, but sacrifices nothing in the way of on-piste carvability. Bends and arcs automatically; releases easily and predictably. Great Eastern all-mountain skills.”

Steve B. : “A nice departure from the stereotype of Fischer being a frontside-only brand. Fun solid, stable. A ripper in bumps or trees.”

Bob S. : “Stiff and responsive, plows through snow no problem. Carves all radius turns easily and powerfully.”

Jamie B. : “Nicely predictable flex and sidecut makes it easy to change turn shapes and manage speed as terrain changes.”

Mike A. : “Super strong, powerful, and damp. An aggressive all-mountain ski option. Powers through spring crud and holds a great edge.”

James S. : “Amazing stable for how quick it steers and how light it feels. Carbon tips are unwavering. Carves eagerly, but it’s just as happy to slarve and play around.”

Testers

Steve Brown Ski Tester Profile Photo

Steve Brown

Age: 26Height: 6'6"Weight: 235 lbs.

Ski Style: Fast, smooth, and swingy down the fall line

Bob St. Pierre Ski Tester Headshot Image

Bob St. Pierre

Age: 39Height: 6'2"Weight: 215 lbs.

Ski Style: Adaptable, versatile, ex-competitive mogul skier.

Jamie Bisbee Ski Tester Headshot Image

Jamie Bisbee

Age: 43Height: 5'10"Weight: 190 lbs.

Ski Style: Fast and Furious, like the movie

Joe Cutts Ski Tester Headshot Image

Joe Cutts

Age: 54Height: 6'3"Weight: 225 lbs.

Ski Style: Heavy-footed, a little reckless, bumps, trees, beer league

James Stewart Ski Tester Headshot Image

James Stewart

Age: 28Height: 6'2"Weight: 170 lbs.

Ski Style: Energetic, Playful, Fun to Follow

Mike Anglin Ski Tester Headshot Image

Mike Anglin

Age: 39Height: 6'"Weight: 190 lbs.

Ski Style: All mountain freeride with a racing background

61 Comments on the “2018 Fischer Ranger 98 Ti Skis”

  1. Hi, I’m planning to buy the Fischer 2019 My Ranger 98 Women’s Skis in the 172 cm size. A friend recommended to pair them with the Marker Griffon bindings. What width would you recommend for the bindings?

    Best,
    Graciela

    1. HI Graciela!
      The Griffons have a 100 mm brake width which would be ideal for those skis. Have fun!
      SE

  2. Thank you so much for the help. I think I’m leaning towards either the 102 fr or soul7 hd. Would you say 170 for the fr and 172 in the s7 is about right? Between the 2 which would you say handles quick turns in the bumps better? I really enjoy your reviews too by the way

    1. Sean,
      I think you’re right on with sizing. Between the two, the Soul has much lighter tips and tails, so that reduces swing weight and makes them quicker, but they are wider so edge to edge won’t be as exact as the 102. I would prefer to ski bumps with the 102 because of the narrower frame and I’d rather deal with the slightly heavier ski just to get the better response. Hope that helps!
      SE

  3. Hi there. I’ve been skiing Rosignol s3 168 for a while now and am looking to upgrade. I demo’d the soul7 at Jacksonhole and loved them, but think I need more of an all mountain ski. I love to jump into the bumps any chance I get and also look for trees and steeps any chance I get. I also enjoy hitting the groomers and doing laps. Is the Fischer Ranger 98ti 172 a good ski for me or would you suggest something else? I’m 5’7″ 160lbs and ski aggresively. O was also wondering what binding you would get. I need to upgrade my boots as well. Thank you for any feedback.

    Sean

    1. Hi Sean!
      You’ll love the performance of the Ranger 98. They’re wide enough for floating, narrow enough for carving, quick enough for bumps, and light enough for powder and trees. They’re really at the top of the list for all-mountain skis in that width. If you’re aggressive, I’d go with the 172 for sure. We pair those skis with either the Marker Griffon 13 or the Tyrolia Attack 13. As far as boots, definitely see a bootfitter, but you’re probably looking for something in the 110-120 flex rating zone. Have fun!
      SE

      1. How do you like them compared to the Ranger 102 FR? Last question is the biggest difference between the soul 7 & M5 mantras for bumps and trees? Before my s3’s, I had the solomon f9, so I tend to keep my skis a long time. Thanks for all the great reviews and advice! I want to get new skis before next season, and won’t have time to demo anything else.

      2. Sean,
        The 102 is softer, wider, and more playful (thanks to the turned-up tail) than the 98, so it works better as a freeride ski versus an all-mountain ski. I love them both, but the 102 suits my style a bit better. The Soul 7 is a lot more manageable in the bumps and trees than the M5–they’re built quite differently, with the Mantra being stiffer and more stable at speed while the Soul is softer and far more maneuverable. In soft snow and tight trees, the Soul is a more useful tool, while the Mantra is the superior performer due to the metal laminates and overall stiffness. I still ski on my Salomon SuperForce 9.1 2S about 15 days a year, for what it’s worth.
        SE

  4. Looking at these as a 50/50 resort/touring ski mounted with some shift bindings.
    I’m 174cm tall and 74kg, advanced skiier. Would you recommend the 172cm or 180cm? Unsure as I would get the 180cm as a resort ski and the 172cm as a touring one. How stable are they at 172cm does the rocker make them ski short? Thanks in advance!

    1. Hi Ian!
      I’d go with the 172. Yes the rocker does make them ski a bit short, but they are still quite stable. If you’re super-aggressive, you could size up, but otherwise I’d stick to the 172. Have fun!
      SE

  5. That’s it. I’m fed up with all these lightweight-ish, no good for nothing, modern-ized pseudo-touring shovels. Coming from an alpine then to touring background and after a dozen or so pairs I m currently on a mid 90s waist 177 length with 1200grams…with minimal (500grams) weight gain I believe they simply deprive me from the fruits of my efforts of going up by being indifferent Downhill and absolutely absent in indoors skiing.this time I think I nailed it with 2 pairs. Either the ranger 98ti 180 or the 90eight 177. Just wanted to confirm with you experts if I can take advantage of all the potential of the above mentioned with tech bindings and scarpas F1. Confirmed to expert, athletic 175m@70kg riding both backcountry and inbounds (untracked preferably) all sorts of snow. Any preference between the 2? Thanx

    1. Hi Simon!
      I think you’ll like the performance of the Ranger over the 98Eight. The metal really makes a difference, especially at speed. The boots will be more of a performance-limiting factor than the bindings, but touring on alpine boots is zero fun, so a sacrifice has to be made somewhere. Love your passion!
      SE

      1. I believe 2018’s f98ti is superior to 2019 and I was in search for some really good deal, but just came into the equation the multifaceted personalities of Rustler 9s and legend 96s. Its certain their short radius makes em more maneuverable in tight places but..are they equally stable at speed with fischers? both carving-wise and edge to edge..Thanx

      2. Hi Simon!
        No. I’d say the Fischer is more stable at speed than at least the Dynastar, and probably the Rustler. The Rustler 9 has metal underfoot that tapers in towards the tips and tails, so while they are very stable at medium speed, the tips and tails can be a bit flappy at high speeds on hard snow, but that’s a small limitation. The Dynastar with its five-point sidecut is more at home making shorter, more controlled turns while the Ranger can handle a wide variety of speed and snow conditions. Have fun!
        SE

  6. Hi I’m 1.8m tall, 83 KGs. Intermediate to advanced. Running Soul 7 HD everywhere, not ideal, but aware that they’re not that great on groomers or tight scenarios, moguls etc so looking for a ski to accompany my Soul 7 HD to cover mixed conditions: crud, hardpack, moguls, ice. Would the Rangers be suitable? Any other options? Thank you, Rob

    1. Hi Rob!
      The Ranger 98 is a fantastic all-mountain ski for what you are looking to do. My general rule is that if you’re building a two-ski quiver, try to have at least 10mm underfoot difference so your skis aren’t too close together in terms of shape/size. You’re at 8 mm difference if you get the Ranger, so make sure you do not want anything thinner. The K2 Pinnacle 95, Rossignol Experience 94, and the Blizzard Rustler 9 come to mind as skis that are under 96mm underfoot and will do what you want. At the end of the day, don’t nitpick over 2 mm of waist width if you like the Rangers, they’ll certainly handle the crud, hardpack, moguls, and ice. Have fun!
      SE

  7. I’m a 55-year old advanced/intermediate skier who, these days, is mostly a front side carver in the Midwest. Planning a trip to Colorado in March, too. I just got a pair of the Ranger 85s and I’ve been looking at two boot options. Salomon X Pro 110 and the Fischer Ranger 120. Is there any advantage to pairing the Fischer boot with the Fischer ski?

    1. Hi Dan!
      Short answer is no, there’s no advantage. You should definitely try them on and get the one that fits you better. Have fun!
      SE

  8. At 5’8″, 155 lbs, aggressive advanced skier (who still has to do laps with his 8 year old) – what size would you suggest in this ski? For a predominately east coast skier would you take this over the 90ti?

    1. Hi Tim,
      I just responded for your other question in which I recommend the 172. And yes, I’d take it over the 90, especially if you plan on touring. It’s a much more stable ski in the softer snow. Have fun!
      SE

  9. Hi – I am a predominately east coast skier (Maine) looking to update to something current in shape a versatility. I am an aggressive advanced skier – like to ski all terrain types. I am 5’7” 155lbs, 38 years old. I am attracted to the 98Ti as it seems very versatile, and it is lighter weight for a smaller skier like me. I am also interested in getting into some small amount of backcountry skinning, and this seemed like an interesting entry point, but still need a ski I can kick around the resort with my 8 year old. What length is appropriate for me? Is a longer length going to be a chore to move around? I ski a 170 right now, but it’s full camber, 80mm waist.

    Lastly, I am in the Tecnica Cochise 90 from 2016 right now. It’s actually quite perfect for me – the three buckle and shorter height cuff works as I am a bit shorter, lighter, with large calves. I have read that you can swap the soles on these for tech compatible soles. Is this actually possible? I have a very hard time find versatile boots that work with my size/calves and would very much like to not do this again, but am also very interested in the Salomon Switch for why I want to ski.

    Best,

    Tim

    1. Hi Tim!
      I think the 172 in that ski would be appropriate. Size down if you feel like you’re doing more “kicking around” than actual skiing. Yes, you can swap the soles for tech soles and they will work for touring in the Shift (I think that’s what you meant with “Switch”). Have fun!
      SE

      1. Tim, I was hoping you weren’t going to ask that, because I just looked and couldn’t find anything online. I did just call our bootshop in town and they do have them. It’s Inner Bootworks and their phone is 802-253-6929. Good luck!
        SE

    1. Hi Cliff!
      On hardpack, the Mantra’s titanal frame really puts a lot of material right over the edge. As a result of that and the camber underfoot, you get a very precise edge feel from tip to tail. There isn’t as much tip and tail taper as the Fischer, so you get an earlier engagement and a longer edge contact through the tail. That’s not to say that the Fischer carves poorly, but the profile and construction differences do create differences. The converse can be said about crud. The tapered shape of the Fischer allows it to float over and slice through crud with more ease and smoothness than the Mantra, which prefers to plow through manky snow rather than dance over it. Additionally, the carbon nose of the Ranger is quite a bit lighter and more maneuverable than the tips of the Mantra, so the softer the snow, the more easy and playful the performance. Hope that helps!
      SE

  10. I am 5’4″ tall , 190 lbs ,54 years young, used to be a racer so I ski aggressively and am into speed. I do most of my skiing on hard pack, but love to get off the beaten path for some powder days and occasional tree skiing, I would consider myself advanced to expert level. I am currently skiing on Blizzard Titan Argos IQ which are 2008 model in a 180cm , with Marker Duke touring bindings, I however have regular alpine boots. I absolutely love my setup however it’s time for a new pair.I am considering the Fisher 98 as a replacement ski and was thinking of going to a 172cm, with a simalar binding. Do you this would be a good fit, and what binding would you recommend in that same style?

    1. Hi Randy!

      I assume you want to retain the ability to tour? If that’s the case, with your alpine boots, you’re going to need to stick with a frame binding like the Duke. All the other options require tech-fitting on the toe of your boot. The new Salomon Shift, for example, would be great, but you’d require new boots. So, you’ll probably want to stick with the Duke, or an equivalent like the Guardian 16.

      For skis, I think the Ranger 98 is an awesome replacement to your Titan Argos. Those were really cool skis, but a lot has changed since then. The Ranger 98 drastically outperforms it in just about every application I can think of, and also is a great choice for a combo resort/AT ski. I think 172 cm is good for you. Considering you’ve been on a 180 cm, I don’t expect you’ll have any trouble on that length, rather it should be a little more forgiving, but plenty stable.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  11. Hi I’m considering the fisher as an all around ski for my ski patrolling job. Although I’m 90kg and 183 cm, ok m thinking the 180 cm, as I want something highly manouverable that could work on soft / some fresh snow too and that can edge. My question is , is it damp enough when you consider carrying a patient with the sledge ?
    I’m thinking of pairing it with the salomon shift binding , in order to use it for shortish backcountry tours on my free time. For the ski brakes would I go for 100mm or 110mm?

    1. Hi Sebastian!

      We actually know a fair amount of patrollers who ski the Ranger 98 Ti. It has a really nice mix of stability and maneuverability for the work you have to do. To answer your question, yes, it’s definitely damp enough for skiing with a sled. It’s actually an impressively stable ski given its overall maneuverability and forgiveness. I think it’s a fantastic ski to pair with the Shift too. In my opinion that’s a pretty perfect application for the Shift. For bindings, the 100 mm brake will fit just fine. No need to get the wider 110 brake.

      SE

  12. I currently have the 2015 Atomic Theory in 186, and am I curious, whether making a step up to the Fischer 98 ti in 188 would be a justifiable move up. I used to have the 2009 Fischer Watea 78s and loved them when it came to moguls. Will the difference in performance for and Advanced skier whose home mountain is Mary Jane/Winter Park, be a significant jump up? Thanks, Ari

    1. Hi Ari!
      You’ll definitely notice a difference in the stiffness and width of the skis when it comes to moguls. As I recall, Mary Jane has a lot of moguls! If you’re skiing fast and in a lot of different conditions, then the Ranger is a great ski. If you’re primarily in moguls, you might find them to be a handful. Overall, yes, it is a performance step up, but the all-mountain capabilities of the Ranger 98 are pretty amazing. From groomers to powder, they do a lot of things really well. Hope that helps and happy winter!
      SE

  13. I am 6’4″ 200 lbs and am considering getting the ranger 98’s in a 188 length. I’m not sure whether to get the rangers in the 98 width or the 90. I have spent the last few years skiing on a pair of Volkl RTM 8.0’s and am used to skiing skis of that width. I consider myself an advanced to expert level skier and have really pushed my Volkl’s to their limit with the skiing I have done in northern Vermont. I am looking for a ski I can use about 70% of the time on the resort and 30% off. During my normal skiing days I prefer to spend most of my runs jumping in and out of the woods, but I have found my Volkl’s at times hard to manage on big powder days and in untracked snow. I am looking for a ski that can handle climbing up to the top of Mt. Mansfield or to the top of Tuckerman ravine but can also serve as a decent resort ski. I plan on keeping my Volkl’s for days with really nasty conditions. I’d just like to know if you think the rangers would be a good ski for me and what width I should get them in. I was also thinking about putting Marker Baron 13 binding on the skis and was wondering if they were a good choice for resort focused alpine touring or whether there was a different binding I should consider. Thanks.

    1. Hi Riley!

      I’d go with the Ranger 98 over the 90. It’s more capable in soft snow and still performs great on firm snow. It’s a more versatile ski overall and since you plan on doing some backcountry and sidecountry I think that’s the way to go. It’s really a fantastic ski, I think you’ll be very satisfied with it. It has a nice blend of performance. Stable, powerful, good for someone your size, but still maneuverable and feels relatively lightweight.

      I think putting a touring binding on it would be a great choice. What do you have for boots? Do you have tech-fittings on your boots? Two holes on the sides of the toes where a pin binding can attach? The reason I ask is because the new Salomon Shift AT binding is quite impressive. You need tech-fit boots for the way up, however, whereas you don’t with the Baron. The Shift is going to be a little more expensive too, but if you have it in the budget and it works with your boots I would definitely consider getting it. The Guardian or Tracker 13 is fairly comparable to the Baron if you decide to go with a frame binding like that. Just thought I’d give you another option within that category, but they both work well.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

    1. Hi Dane!

      Both great skis. The Ranger 98 Ti feels a little more stable, more powerful, etc. It’s a touch heavier on your feet than the Wailer 99 Alchemist and doesn’t use quite as much rocker or early taper. So, the easiest way to think of it is the Wailer 99 is going to feel lighter and more maneuverable, while the Ranger 98 will feel more stable, but at the cost of a little bit of weight. Both skis would be great as a 50/50 ski, in my opinion it should come down to how aggressive you are and how fast you like to ski. Really aggressive, really fast, go with the Ranger.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  14. Hi,

    I am considering the Fischer ranger 98 paired with an alpine AT binding (such as the Tyrolia AAAmbition or the Marker F12) and i am unsure as to the apprpriate length. I am 1.88m (~6’2”), 82kgr (~181 pounds), an advanced skier and the intended use is lift accessed backcountry and daily backcountry trips. What do you think?

    Chris

    1. Hi Christos!

      I would think you could probably handle the 188 cm. I personally like to have a bit longer skis for backcountry use for the extra stability and edge grip. I hate being in an uncomfortable situation in the backcountry on skis that feel unstable to me. As an advanced skier I think you can handle the 188. It’s exactly your height, which isn’t too long for a ski that uses this much tip rocker by any means. If 188 cm feels intimidating, you could go 180 cm and probably get away with it without feeling too much instability, but my instincts are to go with the 188 cm.

      SE

    1. Hi Stephen!

      Right now we have it paired with the Tyrolia Attack 13. A lot of skiers really like that binding because of its wide foot print and low stand height. Works really well on a ski like the Ranger 98. Do you know what your DIN is?

      SE

      1. With the Tyrolia bindings what width do you recommend. Seems they are widely available in 95 (which seems small?) and 110 (which seems big).

      2. Good question, Will!
        With that particular binding, we’d use the 95. The Tyrolia’s run wide so that’s the way to go for a 98. Hope that helps!
        SE

  15. I’m a 171cm tall but 140lbs light weight advanced skier..
    Skiing in West Coast BC 50/50 on-off pistes ,venture bumps/trees/open bowls most of the time,
    torn between the length of 172 or 180,
    is it with huge rocker tip and fairly ‘ski-short’?
    Please suggest disirable size.
    Regards

    1. Hi Db!

      I would stick with the 172 cm length. It does have quite a bit of rocker, but not so much that it makes the ski feel drastically shorter than its length. I think 180 cm would feel like a bit of a handful in tighter terrain for you. Just a lot of ski to maneuver at your size. The 172 cm should give you plenty of stability, enough float for softer snow conditions, but will be much more manageable in tight terrain.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  16. I am 53, 6′ 2″ and 210 lbs. I currently ski 180 cm Bizzard Brahmas (2015) and have worn them out. As a beer league racer who loves speed and hard carving turns, I am looking to replace with something with a little more underfoot for variable New England skiing. I am looking for something I can confidently use on groomers, hard pan and in glades as a one quiver ski. As an old racer, I ski everything with razor edges, so carving can be maximized and the Brahmas deliver. I have fatter skis for bluebird days, so really looking for something I can depend on as an all round ski when I don’t pull out the Katanas. Based on my experience with the Brahmas, I am looking hard at Bonafides, but love what I have read and seen on the Fischer 98’s. A knee injury has made me appreciate lighter equipment and the thought of lighter skis to compliment my Atomic Ultra Hawks (super light) is enticing. Any thoughts based on your experience and are 188’s too long for tight trees, or does rocker help on the Fischers?

    1. Hi John!

      I totally understand where you’re coming from. If you like the feel of your Brahmas you’d undoubtedly like the feel of the Bonafide, but you’re right in the sense that they are definitely heavier than the Ranger 98. As you probably already know, the Brahma and Bonafides can be relatively demanding. Because the Bonafide is wider it is also slightly heavier than the Brahma, so actually a little more challenging to maneuver and slightly more fatiguing. I’m sure you have some hesitation to going with a lighter weight ski, however, because you’re afraird you’ll lose some stability. Am I correct? I think the Ranger 98 would probably be a great ski for you if that’s the case. Sure, it’s slightly less stable and slightly less powerful than the Bonafide, but it’s a marginal difference and it’s quite a bit lighter on your feet, less fatiguing, and feels more maneuverable. I think at your size you’ll be able to maneuver the 188 cm Ranger 98. Longer than your current Brahmas, but longer tip rocker too, and the light swing weight makes them feel pretty quick to throw around.

      SE

  17. As always great helpful reviews! I’ve been skiing the Soul 7 HD 2017 @180 now for 2 seasons and love it for its manoeuvrability and lightness. But being 172cm tall and 100kg in weight I find on the firmer snow I reach its limits quickly. The ranger 98 seems a sensible next step as it sounds burlier but still quick and agile. So debating between the ranger 98, 2018 Soul 7 HD, FX 95 Hp and the Enforcer 100. What are your thoughts? Feel like it might be time to have metal in my skis. I’d consider myself quite aggressive but not always charging. Any feedback helpful!

    Many thanks

    1. Hi Rob!

      Yeah, I agree I think the Ranger 98 would be a good next step. You’re correct in assuming it’s a little bit burlier, but still pretty quick and pretty maneuverable. The Enforcer 100 and FX 95 HP really start getting into a different feel as they use more metal. They’re both very stable, powerful skis, but do feel a little heavier on your feet than the Ranger. In my opinion the Ranger sounds like it will be a really good ski for you, but if you wanted to maximize stability the Enforcer or Kastle would be the ticket.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  18. I skied on the Salomn Quest last week and loved it, had an afternoon on the ranger today and it’s a tough call between the two…. any thoughts?

    1. Did you ski an older Quest or did you ski the new QST? I would say the QST 99 and the Ranger 98 are a pretty close comparison. The QST feels a little more “freeride” inspired, while the Ranger 98 is one of the lighter-feeling skis in this category. In my opinion those are the major differences between the two.

      Hope that helps

      SE

  19. I am currently skiing the Ranger 98 in the 188 length.They are the 2016 model.Are there any differences in construction or performance in the 2018 model other than cosmetics?

    1. Hi Sam!

      Nope, I don’t believe there have been any major construction changes since the 2016 model. It does have a skin attachment point on the tail now.

      SE

  20. Any Comparisons with the new K2 Pinnacle 95 or 105? Subs like the new Pinnacles are a bit more stable and grippy than the first generation, so it should bring the two fairly close together.

    Wondering which ones you feel are quicker to pivot and fit in tight trees and moguls? Stability on rough surfaces?

    Thanks

    1. Hey Slim!

      The new version of the Pinnacle is definitely more stable and has better edge grip than the previous version.

      I would actually say the Ranger 98 Ti feels a tiny bit quicker. It feels really light on your feet so it’s pretty easy to swing around. The Pinnacle is close, and its shape does smear turns really well, but it doesn’t feel quite as quick. Maybe smoother, but not as quick.

      Stability on rough surfaces is a bit of a toss up. They’re really close. Slightly different feel, with the Pinnacle again being slightly smoother, but in terms of overall stability I think they’re really about the same.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  21. I bought the 188 in 2015 and was persuaded to get a touring binding mounted and went for the marker Baron frame bindings.
    I took these to Canada for there 1st outing. I didn’t get on with them very well. Too much tail in bumps and generally hard work
    I took them to Colin at the Piest Office Notts UK and he’d got someone’s 188s in for a service
    We compared the two lengths and a comparable ski and decided to ditch the frame bindings.
    Add Quiver Killers and mount Marker Griffon bindings 20mm further back
    So less tail
    I tried them out in Chamonix and boy what a difference
    Great ski All round.
    I now take my Volkl kendos and Ranger 98s and use the same bindings between the two

    1. Thanks for sharing your experience Mark! Unfortunately frame bindings sometimes can do that to a ski. They can really effect the flex pattern of a ski, somewhat depending on which frame system, and you’re certainly not alone having that experience. I’m glad you’ve got them figured out and wondering if anyone else has played around with mount point. Are they now 2 cm back from the traditional line?

      Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!

      SE

  22. What size did you test? Fischer site recommends a 188. I am 5′ 11″ (I’m an Intermediate/Advanced skier) and that length seems LONG.

    Thanks,

    John

    1. Hi John!

      Our testers were pretty split between the 180 and 188 cm lengths. How much do you weigh? I would agree with you that 188 cm seems a little long for your height, but it is remarkably maneuverable and has a pretty light swing weight, so that’s not an outrageously long length. My instincts are that you’ll be happier on the 180 cm, but let me know how much you weigh, that will certainly play into it.

      SE

      1. I too am interested in the answer to this question. I’m 6′ 195lb, wishing there was something between these 2 lengths. I’m an ex-ski coach, bar league racer looking for something to take off piste when I can, but can still ski the New England frontside.

        I’m torn between this ski and the enforcer 93. Had Line Prophet 100s and felt they were to slow edge to edge for the way I like to ski.

        Will probably mount an Adrenaline or similar binding.

        Thanks for the help
        Jim

      2. Hi Jim!

        I can understand why you feel like you’re somewhat in between lengths on the Ranger 98 Ti. My instincts, considering your skiing background, is to go with the longer length, but there could be reason to stay with the shorter length. Do you consider yourself a fast, aggressive skier? As someone with a race background I’m guessing you know how to properly drive a ski, which suggests you might appreciate the extra power and stability of the 188 cm. The Ranger 98 Ti is impressively lightweight, and quite maneuverable. I think the only reason to go with the shorter length would be if you really want to maximize maneuverability in terrain like moguls and trees and aren’t worried about losing out on some high-speed stability. Both lengths will handle the frontside just fine, I think how you want the ski to feel in off-piste terrain is much more of a determining factor.

        The Enforcer 93 will certainly be the quickest edge to edge, although it doesn’t quite match the versatility and performance off-piste of the Ranger 98 Ti. The Ranger 98 compares more closely to the Enforcer 100 just due to waist width.

        Best stability and performance off-piste: 188 cm Ranger 98 Ti
        Best maneuverability off-piste: 180 Ranger Ti
        Quickest edge to edge: 185 cm Enforcer 93

        What do you think?

        SE

Comments are closed.