2021 Fischer Ranger 102 FR Ski Review: Lead Image

Ski Reviews

2021 Fischer Ranger 102 FR Ski Review

Before we begin the review, we teamed up with Fischer to give a pair of these Ranger 102 FR skis away on Instagram! Head on over to @SkiEssentials for details, the winner will be announced on Monday, March 9, 2020.

And now to the Ranger 102 FR. This ski was introduced for the 2019 season and is back again for 2020 unchanged, although we got a new 191 cm length for 2020. The ski is structurally the same for 2021, except we get new graphics, and it’s not what you might expect. For 2021, Fischer is basically offering most of their skis in two different colors. They aren’t necessarily differentiating them specifically for men or women, either. Just two color choices, you can pick which one you like best. And which one do we like best for the Ranger 102 FR? I mean… how can you possibly dislike a pink ski?

That’s right, for 2021 you can get a Ranger 102 FR in the pink graphic all the way up to the 191 cm length. Is skiing getting cool again? It certainly feels like it. Not that it was particularly uncool, but I personally feel like there is a return to the fun-loving, no-cares, counter-culture attitude that got me hooked on the sport back in the 80s and 90s, and this ski is a perfect example.

Let’s summarize construction and shape, in case you’re unfamiliar or need a refresher. The Ranger FR line in general is designed with more freestyle and freeride influence than the Ranger Ti models. The ski uses a poplar and beech wood core in a sandwich style construction, but Fischer’s Aeroshape design gives the ski a look that’s relatively unique. The wood core is built in an Air Tec style, where materials are milled out of the core to reduce weight, but retain torsional stiffness. There’s also a little bit of metal underfoot, but not much, and it’s mostly for binding retention. Then, of course, we get Fischer’s Carbon Nose, which has been proven to provide excellent turn initiation and plenty of torsional stiffness, yet does it with incredibly light swing weight. The shape of the Ranger 102 FR looks like a park ski blended together with a directional freeride ski. It’s 102 mm underfoot, of course, and has a distinctly twin tip profile. We get both tip and tail rocker with camber underfoot, although there is longer tip rocker than tail rocker. The 177 cm length has an 18 m turn radius. There’s a little bit of taper in the tips and tails, but not much. It would be more accurate to describe it as just a nice rounded off tip shape rather than abrupt early taper.

2021 Fischer Ranger 102 FR Ski Review: Full Camber Image

So, that’s the design of the Ranger 102 FR. The result is a ski that’s exceptionally versatile and a ton of fun to ski. It’s also extremely interesting how many different types of skiers enjoy it. As we did in the video that goes along with this article, let’s talk about 3 different skiers who all have been skiing pink Ranger 102s this season. First up, Ryan. Ryan works at a well-respected race shop here in northern Vermont. He himself has a successful race background, and absolutely rips. It’s not uncommon to find him at the top of the podium of our local Ski Bum race series, often distancing himself from the majority of the field by full seconds. Watching him lay down carves on the Ranger 102 FR is mind-blowing. It doesn’t make sense that a ski with this shape and build can hold an edge as well as it does or be as responsive and energetic out of a turn. Ryan’s constantly surprised and reminded by it too. He spends a lot of time on race skis, yet when he gets on his Ranger 102 FR you can often hear him saying things like “I guess you don’t really need metal!” Now, the Ranger Ti models do take the performance to another level if you’re talking firm snow carving performance, but this Ranger 102 FR does it really well, especially for a ski that falls more into the twin tip, freeride category than anything else.

Next, we have Marcus. You’ve seen him in our content, he manages the inventory here at SkiEssentials.com, and you often find him deep in Smuggler’s Notch seeking out untracked, technical lines. For Marcus, he benefits from the maneuverable, playful nature of the Ranger 102 FR in off-piste scenarios and deeper snow conditions. It’s not as wide as most dedicated powder skis, but you get reasonably good float of out it, especially in the longer lengths. Fischer’s Carbon Nose has a tendency to stay on top of the snow, which is a valuable characteristic in a ski like this. The light swing weight also makes it very flickable, so Marcus can maneuver through the tight trees here in Vermont without worry or without becoming overly fatigued. While he chose to mount his Ranger 102 FR with a Look Pivot 15 (it looks pretty sweet), we also wouldn’t be surprised to see Marcus put a binding like the Salomon/Atomic/Armada Shift or the new Marker Duke PT on it. The Ranger 102 FR is certainly light enough to justify making it part of your alpine touring setup.

2021 Fischer Ranger 102 FR Ski Review: Full Width Action Image 1 2021 Fischer Ranger 102 FR Ski Review: Full Width Action Image 2

Then we have Noah. Noah has a freestyle background. He competed in halfpipe and slopestyle years back and these days is the head coach of Green Mountain Academy in Stowe, a freestyle and freeride focused program. You can often find Noah chasing powder with Marcus, but you also see him in the park a lot. Noah chooses to mount his Ranger 102 FR a little further forward than Ryan or Marcus, as for him it doubles as park ski just as much as a freeride ski. Switch takeoffs, switch landings, sliding rails, it’s all no problem on the Ranger 102 FR. As we mentioned earlier, it is a more directional ski than a lot of twin tips, but you can still move the mount point up a little and create a more balanced ski for spins and similar tricks. For Noah, it’s a perfect coaching ski. Whether the kids want to ski powder, park, or anything in between, the Ranger 102 FR is a proper tool.

Simply put, this ski can do a lot. It’s not a ski that’s chasing superlatives, Fischer just wants it to be fun. It’s not the stiffest, it’s not the most powerful, and it doesn’t have the best edge grip. It’s also not the lightest, nor is it the most playful for a true park skier. It is, however, an incredible blend of performance that will put a smile on the face of just about anyone who skis it. And it’s pink. Like, really pink.

2021 Fischer Ranger 102 FR Ski Review: Buy Now Image
 

Written by Jeff Neagle on 03/05/20

110 thoughts on “2021 Fischer Ranger 102 FR Ski Review

    1. Hi Emil!
      Yes! Not the lightest out there, but a good mix of weight and performance. Have fun!
      SE

  1. I just bought a pair at the end of Dec and absolutely love them on and off piste. Wish I had known about the colour change coming as the pink ones look amazing

    1. Just passing by to mention, that the 21/22 version (both colors) is lither that about 200 grams (184 cm version- I have got all three variants - the old and the new iteration in the two colors) from the 19/20 version. They are stiffer everywhere. I believe this is an improvement in the materials there. And I’m sure the new version is better on nasty conditions, wonder about playfulness…

  2. I’ve seen some indicate that this ski’s tail stiffness makes it very difficult in moguls. Did y’all find that to be the case?

    Thanks!

    1. Not really, Ryan.
      I'd say the width is more prohibitive than the stiffness when it comes to tight bumps. Overall very fun!
      SE

  3. This is a long shot, but has anyone skied this and the old Line Influence 105? That's my current ski, but I'm looking for something a little less stiff and more playful - it's awesome on groomers, blasts crud and floats pretty well, but it's not very nimble in trees/bumps. I still want similar performance, but with more forgiveness and maneuverability in tighter terrain and bumps. A little less of a charger basically.

    Would you say the Ranger 102 FR fits that bill? I've heard it's a little playful but is still pretty locked down on firm stuff and crud, which sounds like what I want. And would you say it's more or less stiff/charge-y than something like the Enforcer 100 or 104 Free? Those 3 I would say are my shortlist right now. I'm really looking to use the ski as a do-everything for trips out west, and as a soft snow ski here in the east (I have a pair of 74mm carvers for the bulletproof days).

    Thanks in advance!

    1. HI Ryan!
      I can't comment on the Line, but the 102 is just a great all-around ski. The only metal is found underfoot in kind of an extended mounting plate, so it is something, but the rest of the ski is all wood with carbon tips. They're significantly softer than the Enforcer skis, so if you're looking for more playful, I'd stick to the Ranger. Really a well-rounded ski. Take care!
      SE

      1. Thanks a ton! That's good to hear. I think your comment in the video that this ski is "not the best at any one thing, but very good at just about everything" pretty much sums up what I'm looking for. And the fact that your race-background buddy can lay arcs like that on this tells me it's plenty locked down for firm snow. How does it do in nasty snow (set up crud, refrozen crap, etc)?

        Also - I'm 5'8" and about 140-145 lbs, I assume the 177 length would be the sweet spot for me? I'm an advanced skier who likes skiing just about everywhere, but not much of a park guy.

        Thanks again and awesome videos across the board guys!

  4. Hi guys. Firstly, thanks for all these reviews, best on the internet!!

    I live in Europe, ski two weeks a year in France / Italy / Austria. I need something that can handle whatever conditions I get those weeks. My preference is to get up high and look for soft snow / powder but I do spend plenty of time on groomers and bumps as well. I like dynamic short turns on the steep stuff and laying out longer carves on groomers. I definitely value something light for the steep and deep and hitting natural drops and side hits.

    I'm between the Ranger 102 and the Elan Ripstick 106. They tick a lot of boxes (width, all-round performance, weight) and I can get both of them on offer at the moment. I'm wondering how the Ranger's tail and stiffness perform in powder and how forgiving they are in general? and how much power is needed to bend it into tight carves at medium speeds?

    5'10, 165lbs, Early Advanced Skier.

    Thanks in advance guys!!

    1. Hi Sam!
      For the Ranger, they do a nice job of keeping the actual material of the tail pretty stiff and burly without metal, but the turned-up shape allows the skier to disengage from the carve whenever necessary. So it can be responsive and smeary at the same time. In powder, that shape helps a ton. Not that you should be "riding" your tails in deep snow, but rather you're not really supposed to feel them. If the same ski had a flat tail, it wouldn't be as fun or playful. The Ripstick does have a flatter tail shape, but also more taper and width, so it's a give and take type of deal between those two models in the snow. As for tight carves at medium speeds, the only real limitation is the width. You're just going to lose some torsional stiffness when you're at ~102 mm underfoot, even with a metal plate there. The tips and tails are happy to oblige the tighter carve, but the width of the waist makes it a bit chattery when pushed hard on firm snow, and that's just the nature of the physics of the ski. More skilled skiers will be able to do it better, but I wouldn't say it's a strong point of the 102 (or the 106). I'd say for overall versatility, I'd go with the Fischer while I'd reserve the Elan for more pure powder. Take care!
      SE

      1. Thanks for your response. I'm on old Soul Rider 97's so I'm quite comfortable at that width, it's really the jump in stiffness that I'm curious about but I think I'll go with your advice.

        Thanks again!!

  5. Hey guys,

    Great review. I'm a northeast skier like you guys and I'm a little weary of the 102mm under foot. Would you suggest this ski as a full time northeast ski? Would I be better on the 94 FR? I know you did a review on the 2020 94 FR, but you really caught my attention when you said the 102 FR isn't chasing superlatives, it's not great at just one thing but really good at all of them. Would you say the same for the 94 FR? I finally got rid of my OLD Volkl P30 RC's last year and bought a pair of M5 Mantras. They were great when attacking the mountain but i have a young family so a lot of my time is going to be spent on beginner (and hopefully some intermediate) trails next season. I felt the Mantra's were a bit too aggressive for family time. Would either of the FR's be better suited for family skiing? Lastly, i noticed the 94 FR is 92 mm underfoot. Any reason its not 94mm/?

    Keep up the good work fellas!!!

    1. Hi Bryan!
      Oftentimes, skis lose width as they get shorter due to keeping the radius the same through the sizes. The 185 should be 94 underfoot. If you value quickness over flotation, look to the 94. I'd say it's a better overall choice for northeast, but I also prefer narrower skis because I do value quickness and edge grip. The 102 is more than acceptable, but you should expect a lack of grip on icy days for sure. Is it worth the tradeoff? That's up to you. I think the low to mid-90's is the place to be for eastern one-ski quivers. Take care!

      1. I am 6’2 195lbs intermediate skier. What size ski would you go for? Do you think the 102 is a good fit for east coast skiing?

        1. Hi Joe!
          I think you'll see some chatter on the hard stuff, especially at speed, but we have a lot of friends who use that as their every day Stowe ski and love it. I'd go with the 184 in that ski. Have fun!
          SE

          1. Thanks for the help. I think that makes my decision. Where is the best place to stay that’s handy and not to pricey in Stowe?

          2. Great, Joe!
            The Town and Country Resort got a recent re-fresh and has a fun bar/game room area. Right on the mountain road as well. There's a bunch of smaller inns that are pretty cool too, Brass Lantern and 1860 House come to mind. Have fun!
            SE

  6. Hey guys, great review.
    I’ve narrowed my next ski down to either the Fischer Ranger 102 FR or the Elan Ripsticks. I’m an aggressive Utah skier looking to expand my quiver with a ski that can carve as well as my Blizzard Rustlers but with more energy and pop... Really just want a fun ski to carve with in between storms while my legs heal for the next storm, haha. Which would you recommend?

    1. Hi Breck!
      If you're on the more aggressive side, I think you'll like the Ranger 102 a bit better. The Ripstick is just a tad on the light side if you're a really strong skier, while the Ranger has a higher gear. Have fun!
      SE

    1. Hi Vit!
      I think the 184 is the way to go for you--still stable enough for on-piste performance and appropriate for touring/off-piste as well! Have fun, great skis!
      SE

  7. Hello there, what length of this ski would you recommend for me, I'm 6'1" 205 pounds? I'm leaning toward 184cms but also considering 191cms. (I also have 188 115 FR)
    Thanks!

    1. Hi Satheesh!
      I'm 6'2 220 and I'd go 191 all day. I think the light weight puts people north of 6' in the long length. Personally, I do not like the feeling of potentially leaving performance on the table, which is why I lean to the longer size. Have fun!
      SE

  8. Hi, another length recommendation question. I'm 5' 11" and 190lbs, ski Stowe, like to ski the whole mountain and spend time in the woods when it's good. I'm currently on a 187 Bonafide, which rails on groomers and hard stuff but can feel like too much ski in the tighter trees. Based on reviews, sounds like the 102 FR might be easier to handle at a longer length. Would you recommend 184 or 191 based on the above? Thank you!

    1. Hi Alex!
      I'd say the 191 is comparable to the 187 Bonafide, so if you're looking for a similar feel out of a ski but with a lighter, more maneuverable personality, then that's a great choice, but if you're dissatisfied with the length of the Bonafide, I think your stats put you in the 184. I'm 6'2 220 and I'd ski the 191 all day mostly because I do not like the thought of leaving performance on the table. I'd go long. See you out there on some big pink skis! Have fun!
      SE

      1. I'd rather a little long in the trees than too short on the trail, so I'm leaning 191. Appreciate the feedback!

  9. What are your thaugts between the ranger and the bent chetler 102, i am searching for a ski to do Touring and Piste skiing that is also palyfull and fun.
    Other question i am 6 foot and 180 pounds should i take the 184 or bigger.i am an advanced skier

    1. HI Louis!
      Pretty similar overall feel. I'd say the Ranger 102 is a bit more refined and will give better overall performance while the BC 100 is fun and playful, just not quite as energetic as the Ranger. I'd lean to the Ranger for a better overall performance, and I'd say the 184 is the way to go. Have fun!
      SE

  10. Hi guys!
    First af all, thank´s for all your reviews, they are VERY helpfull.
    I am 29 years old guy, 6´2´´ 205 lbs, advance skier, and I am deciding between the 102 and the 94 FR. I think my rigth length is 184 since I love skiing trees and I love maneuverability but also because this ski is stable enough for me that I dont need to go to the 191. My options are:
    2020 94 in 184 (370€)
    2021 102 in 184 (570€)
    2020 102 in 191 (420€)
    The point is that I would choose the 102 over the 94, but I dont find 102FR 2020 in 184 length (I live in EU) and I could save 200+€ having 2020 model. ¿Do you think the 191 length could make me loose too much maneuverability so I should better go for the 94FR 184 2020 or the 102FR 184 2021?
    Thanks in advance!

    1. Hi Jose!
      I think your best bet on that list is the 94. I had an absolute blast on the 94 in the bumps and trees, and the only real reason to bump up to the 102 would be soft snow and powder performance. The 94 is a much more accomplished carver, and is quick and maneuverable in addition. Have fun!
      SE

  11. Hi again guys, for high angle edge grip and tons of pop, would the Fischer Ranger FR 102 or Black Crows Camox be a better choice? Any other skis I should consider for those two attributes?

    Thanks!

  12. Hi - I am debating between the 94 and the 102. What would you recommend for an out west Colorado vacation ski? We spend most of our time in the trees and looking for powder but enjoy an occasional groomer. I have an ex racing background so enjoy ripping down the mountain as well. I have my race skis for coaching locally but want something fun for those Christmas and Easter vacations to our condo in Colorado. Also, what length do you suggest? I am about 5 foot and 140 pounds. Thanks!

    1. Hey Girl!
      I think the 102 has too much of a soft-snow focus for your application and skillset. The 94 is a ripping ski--very quick and agile, and also grippy and precise. You definitely lose quickness and precision as you move to the 102. At 94, the Ranger still floats really well due to the profile and weight. If you prefer longer skis, look to the 161. Have fun!
      SE

  13. Hi! I have been looking at the ranger 102 and can't decide on what size I should get. I'm 180cm (5'11 I think?) and 65 kg (around 140lbs) and an advanced/expert skier. I have a freestyle background I I'm looking at mounting them a bit more forward. I'm scared the 177 will be too short but the 184 it taller than what I'm used to. I have considered the 179 Nordica enforcer 104 but would like to do some touring and think they will be too heavy for that. What do you guys think? Thanks!

    1. Hi Sara!
      I've skied the shorter 102 (184, versus my normal 191) and I didn't think it was too short. I think the 177 will be a good length for you. I would say that the 102 is a better touring ski versus the Enforcer 104, but it all depends on how much weight you're looking to pull uphill. The Ranger is certainly on the lighter side, but also doesn't quite have the downhill performance to match the Enforcer. It's all about compromise and balance, right? I do think the 177 Ranger sounds like a better fit for your size and application--very fun skis!
      SE

  14. Hi, I have just bought a pair of the Fischer ranger 102, which I am very excited to try out this season. I have out a touring setup on the skis and wanted to know if there is any particular set of skins you would recommend for this ski?
    Mark

    1. Hi Mark!
      While there are a lot of ski companies that are making ski-specific skins these days, the Ranger 102 isn't one of them. We've had good success with the Black Diamond Ascension skins--buy them in the width wider than the 102, and they can be trimmed to fit the ski. Have fun!
      SE

  15. Hi there.

    I’m looking at getting back into skiing. I’m 38 years old. 185 pounds. Athletic and 5’11. Ski for 3 years as a kid and was able to parallel ski and Rip decent for a little one. That’s was almost 25 years ago! I’ve snowboarded for 6 years since. I can skate, surf etc. I’m Playful, like hitting little Side hits. Carve. Straight line. On piste and off.
    I’ve been looking at a few skis. Revolt 104. Fisher ranger 102fr. Line sick day 104.
    I’m out west.
    What do you think? I’m leaning to the ranger 102 fr. what size do you think for me ? 177 or 184?
    I think I’ll be semi learning the first few days but will pick it up again quick i would hope.
    Thanks for your help.

    1. Welcome back, Tyler!
      Three great choices, there, with no wrong answer. We're big fans of the Ranger 102 here, and love its versatility, fun levels, and wide range of applications. It's not quite the freestyle ski of the Revolt, and a bit more freeride-oriented than the Sick Day 104, so I think it sits nicely in the middle of these three skis. I've also recommended this ski to converted snowboarders, as it has that smeary style that translates well to skiing. I think for the long run, I'd go with the longer length, especially given your history. The 177 might be good for the first few times back out, but overall, I like the sound of the 184. Have fun!
      SE

      1. Thanks so much for your response. Not sure if the ranger 102 fr will be a little stiff for me. I wanted to ask about one other option and your opinion. The Bent Chetler 100 in 180cm. Of those 4 what would you think would be the best for me ?

  16. Your reviews are great and very helpful. I’m a Colorado/ Utah snowboarder turned skier (7 years running). I’m looking for a ski for lower snow days. I would spend equal time on groomers, bumps, trees, steeps. I’m 5-9, 160, a lower end expert skier and looking for something that may help me develop and ski tight terrain faster and with more confidence. Aka a very maneuverable ski that is also stable enough to mob down groomers. Groomer performance is the least important to me. I currently have a 2017 184 cm Moment Bibby Pro, and a 2015 184cm Line SFB. If conditions are “hardcore ice” or “death cookies” I go to the bar or stay home. So I don’t need a true “ice” ski. In addition to the Fischer Ranger 102 I’m also considering the Volkl Revolt 104. Would you recommend one over the other based on my intended use? Suggested length? Other ski I should be considering?

    1. Hi Greg!
      We've found the Ranger 102 appeals to the former snowboard crowd, and I think it has a lot to do with the flex and playful nature. You're going to find similar performance benefits in the Revolt, but with a more freestyle-oriented personality. More energy from the Ranger, and more flexibility and playfulness from the Revolt. Your intended use sounds more in line with the Ranger, mostly because of your inclination for speed. At 5/9 160, I'd think the 177 is appropriate, but if you're used to the 184's, then there's no real reason to change. Have fun!
      SE

    1. Just my 2c—I’ve heard mixed things. Check out Blister’s review of the ski, they actually preferred them mounted forward. That said, I’ve heard from others that it feels like too much tail since the tails are already very stiff.

  17. I want to buy the Ranger 102 FR; change my mind.

    Live in Minneapolis, not tons of "powder days" if you know what I mean. However, I'm tired of skiing on piste; I've been doing that for the past 30 years.

    I'm looking to get into trees with a ski that won't fight me and carve groomers when I'm tired out. Is this ski a mistake?

    Also, Ranger 102 FR vs Nordica Enforcer 100: who wins?

    1. Hi James!
      Not gonna do it! Love that ski. As a Nordica Enforcer 100 owner, I have a lot of respect for those skis, although they are certainly heavier and more difficult to use versus the Ranger. If you're looking for the soft snow performance and reasonable on-trail personality without a fight, the Ranger 102 is about as slick as it gets. Have fun!
      SE

  18. Hey guys terrific stuff. I’m on the Nordica Navigator 90 at 179cm but heading out to Colorado for 3 months to focus on my skiing for retirement. I’m 6’ and 190 pounds and pretty athletic for a 50 year old. I like to cruise the whole mountain would say 50/50 depending on who I’m with and ski some bumps and steeps. I’ve slowed my roll on the craziness but still like to carve hard, jump in and out of the woods and bumps, and pop off stuff when conditions are good I like what I am hearing about the Fischer 102FR and it seems like a ski that does everything I pretty good. Sometimes I do get in the backseat a bit on the bumps so was hoping you could give me a recommendation between the 179 and 184 length. I want to pull the trigger and go the longer length but need a nudge in the right direction and would appreciate your thoughts??? Also binding of choice? Thanks guys, your content is great and you obviously love what you’re doing! Kee the passion as it goes by fast!

    1. Thanks Roger, enjoy retirement!
      Definitely a well-rounded ski with tons of upside! 6' is kind of my cutoff for skis in the 185 range, so I think you're well within that zone. You wrote 179, but the next size down is 177, not sure if that was a typo or not, but that might further solidify your gravitation to the 184. Have a great few months!
      SE

  19. I feel good about getting these skis based on my skillset, terrain preferences, ski style, etc. I am a little worried that the smallest size is 170. I currently am on 167 Sego Up Pros, which is pretty perfect. Do you think I will notice much of a difference in handling these in a 170? 5'6/130lbs and ski aggressively 🙂

    1. Hi Unicorn!
      They come as small as 156! The next size up is the 163, which I'd recommend for you. We have the 163 in stock in the Pink color! Have fun!
      SE

  20. Hello, thanks for all the excellent reviews your team does throughout the year! I am an aggressive intermediate skier who currently skis on a 177-Kendo 92. As you know these things must be driven aggressively or they will work you out! Although I love to carve and ski aggressively, I also like to be a little playful which the Kendo does not like to do. I am 5'8" 185 and have watched your reviews and many others. Much of my time is on the piste, but when the pow comes the Kendo struggles because it likes to go fast. Do you think this is a good choice for a Pacific Northwest skier with my experience? Should I go with the 170 or the 177? HELP!!!

    Thanks again for all you do for the ski world!

    Y'all rock!

    1. Thanks, Johnny!
      Great PNW ski, I'd say, and for sizing, if you're cool with the 177 Kendo, I see no reason to downsize. The 102 is lighter and easier to ski, so I'd be hesitant to go down 7 cm in addition to the ski having a lighter feel. Better float in the 177 for sure!
      SE

  21. Great review guys! I'm a 51 year old, 6'1" and 185 lb skier. I ski 90% of my days in the East, and I recently bought the Fischer RC4 The Curv DTX in a 178 because I love ripping groomers with short to medium radius turns. I am now looking to add a second ski to the quiver, for trips out West and the rare soft days in the East. I want something mid-fat, playful, highly maneuverable, and good in the powand trees and forgiving in the bumps. Don't care too much about stability or edge grip for this second ski. I want fun, lively, and easy to throw around in tight spots. I am considering the Blizzard Rustler 10 and the Fischer Ranger 102 FR. I demo'ed the Rustler 9 last year and liked it but found it had a little too much chatter at speed to be my daily driver on firm snow in the East. Do you think the 102FR or Rustler 10 would be a good choice to complete my 2-ski quiver? If so, which one and in which length? Open to other suggestions you may have. Thanks, in advance.

    1. Hi Josiah!
      Both great choices. The Rustler does have a partial sheet of metal, so it will hold up a bit better at speed versus the Ranger, but the Ranger has a lot of playfulness that we really love, specifically with that ski in mind. You're likely looking at a 180 or 188 in the Rustler versus a 184/191 in the Ranger, if the sizing pushes you one way or the other. I think the 184 Ranger makes the most sense. Have fun!
      SE

      1. As someone who has the Rustler 11 and ranger 102 and demoted the Rustler 10 a few times I would say definitely go with the Ranger 102. A lot of energy and better carving performance. The 10 is hooky and you can easily find it’s max speed. That Ranger has some secret sauce in it and I can honestly say it’s the best ski I’ve found since the Bonafide years ago.

  22. Hi
    I have a pair of Ranger 108 Ti in 188 with marker jester and love them for super g turns in pist or perfect big mountain off pist. I bought a pair of Salomon qst 99 with shift binding to have on small mountain and touring but think they are quite boring and not playful enough so thinking of changing them for a pair ranger fr 102 in 191 cm. My question: are the 102 fr 191 cm and 108 Ti in 188 to much the same ski or will I have one playful ski and one charger ski?

    1. Hi Kristofer!
      I think the difference is enough. It's pretty evident when you get on that 108 that you're on a serious ski. The 102 is more interesting than the QST, and with that Shift, it opens more doors in the backcountry as well. Have fun!
      SE

  23. Hi there,

    I’m 6’4, 170lbs - advanced skier with a pretty playful style. I’d be getting these skis for off piste resort skiing but am unsure of which length to get. It’s always weird for me, being so tall but relatively lightweight. At the resort, I usually ski a 188cm Atomic Vantage; thoughts on a FR102 in 184cm or 191cm? Thank you!

  24. For two season I've been happy on Ripstick 106, 188 length. I'm looking for a new ski. How do these compare to the Ripstick 106, and what length should I aim for (6'3", 200 lbs, and ski varied terrain)? Thanks

    1. HI Hanky!
      Pretty similar feel overall, with the Fischer's having a stiffer shovel. It engages into the turn with more power, which is something that I like as a 6/3 220 pound skier. I think you're in the 191 in that ski. Have fun!
      SE

  25. Hey guys!
    First of all, thank you for your job doing these reviews, they are top notch!
    I need help chosing the right lenght for me (no demos here unfortunately). I'm 6' 150 lbs, pretty good skier i would say (not an expert though, but i'm improving).
    I'm torn between 177 and 184 cm.
    Have ridden nordica enforcer 100 in 185 cm, rossi soul7 HD in 188 cm, atomic bc100 in 180 cm and they all felt quite right for me.
    Thank you!

  26. hey guys! How does it compare to the new Salomon Qst 99? I'll use for all mountain/freeride/touring skiing, does the extra waist width (which I think it will make it better for soft days (?)) of the Ranger justify the extra weight?

    1. HI Martin!
      The Salomon is a bit sturdier of a ski versus the Ranger, which is fairly light and stiff in the tips. This makes the Ranger a bit bouncier in the crud, but is a better floater in pure snow. If you're looking for a bit more power, I'd stick to the QST, but for more playfulness and freeride personality, I'd go Ranger. Have fun!
      SE

  27. Hey fellas,

    Your reviews are the best on the web, you’re my go to for checking out skis. How would you compare the Fischer 102 and the Rossignol Holyshreds?

    Thanks!

    1. Thanks, Brandon!
      Holyshred is damper and heavier and a bit more sluggish. If you're looking for stability, the Holyshred is a better choice, but for a lighter ski with a bit more quickness and energy, I like the Ranger. I'm a bit heavier of a skier, so I personally prefer the Holyshred, as I do like the extra power. Have fun!
      SE

  28. Are there any changes to the Ranger 102 FR for 21/22?

    How would you compare it to the WNDR Alpine Intention 110 as a 50/50 ski?

    Btw would love (!) to get a review from you guys on the latter!

    1. HI JD!
      No changes for 21/22for the 102. We haven't had the chance to get on the WNDR's as of yet, but are always on the lookout! If the construction is similar, I'd say the 102 makes more sense for a 50/50 application, just from a maneuverability standpoint. Unless you're in deep snow most of the time, the 110 might be on the wide side. Have fun!
      SE

  29. Hey guys,

    I’m ‘5 “10, 155 Ibs. I come from both a racing and freestyle background, expert skier who usually skis as fast as possible getting as low as possible into carves, but also likes to stop and throw tricks off side hits. I currently have liberty helix 98s in 177.
    . I ski bumps, trees, and powder pretty frequently as well out here in Colorado. Stuck between the enforcer 100s and these, but I’m worried these might be too soft to keep up on groomers? How do they compare to the enforcer 100s at high speeds, and what length would you recommend? Thanks!

    1. Hi Andrew!
      Not much of a comparison in terms of stability and power with the Enforcer--the dual-metal laminate and burly build make that ski a lot more Cadillac-esque than the playful Ranger 102. I think as long as the speed is kept under wraps and the edge angles are kept high, the Ranger is a capable and competent carver, and a lot easier to manage in the bumps and trees for sure. If speed is your thing, though, and you can deal with working a bit harder to get the skis to come around in the bumps and trees, there's nothing wrong with the E100, just takes more effort. I'd go with the 179 in the Nordica and 177 in Ranger--pretty similar in terms of length/feel. Have fun!
      SE

  30. Hey guys,

    I'm pretty close to buying Fischer ranger 102 as my everyday ski. Last thing I'm not sure about the length. My height is 180cm and my weight is 75-77kg and medium skier. I spent on-piste - approx 70% and off-piste 30-20%. Also this year I want to try ski touring. So could you recommend which length will be more suitable for me 177 or 184?

    Many thanks.

  31. Love carving, hitting tree runs, jumping off little side hits, and playing in fresh snow. Based in New Mexico and ride Taos or Santa Fe most of the time and am looking at two skis Ranger 102 or Bent Chetler 100, thoughts?

    1. HI Green Chile!
      A bit softer and more playful with the BC 100, while the Ranger 102 and its Carbon Nose is a bit stiffer--certainly during the entry of the turn. Ultimately, you're going to get more edge grip and energy out of the Fischer, but the Atomic is a really fun and playful ski. If you can live without the denser and more stable performance of the Ranger, I'd go with the Atomic. Have fun!
      SE

  32. Hello
    I'm 5.5 and 140lbs female aggressive skier. Can you help me choose a length . Ill be setting the skis up with kingpins and doing a mix of on piste and touring. Thanks.

    1. Hi Samantha!
      If your comfortable with slightly longer skis, I'd go with the 163. I just think the 156 will feel a bit stubby for you. Have fun!
      SE

    1. Hi Paul!
      If you find yourself in the woods more often than not, that's a pretty big pro for the 184. I am 6'2 220 and I'd use the 191 if I were only doing resort/lift skiing, but for touring mostly, I'd size down, and would recommend you do the same. You'll get better flotation and performance out of the 191 for sure, but for a bit of a weight savings and increased maneuverability in trees, I think the 184 is a better overall choice. Have fun!
      SE

  33. Hi guys, great work.
    Has the Ranger 102 kept the same construction through the years or is there any changes apart from the looks? I know there are no changes between the two newest models but what about 18/19 compared to 20/21 or 21/22?

    I've been on QST99s (the 18/19 model with a yellow "S" logo) for a few years and been using them on piste and touring, maybe 70/30. Mostly on piste anyways. I've enjoyed them but every now and then you just want something new so I've set my eyes on Ranger 102, with Shifts.

    Initially I was looking for Ripstick 106 or maybe QST106 to add to my quiver but I live in Europe with no real mountains near and we don't get those big, deep days that much so maybe I'll just retire the QST's and get a new daily driver. Is it worth ditching the old QST's and get these instead? Are they too much in common? More stability with QST's on the icy groomers but better manouverability in the softer stuff with the Rangers?

    172cm / 68kg & I'd say moderate aggressive. Touring, trees, carving but no park & no switch skiing so mounting on factory line or perhaps just a bit further? The QST99's are 174cm in length. As for Ranger 102s I'd say 177... or would 170 be better - what do you think?

    Those pink sticks are pretty darn tempting!

    1. Hi Peter!
      No structural chances to the Rangers since inception. I think it's an adequate replacement for the QST--no real need to keep that due to the versatility of the 102. The Ranger has more energy and pop, and while it's not quite as stable as the QST, especially in crud or chop, it's still a great floater with excellent on-piste performance. I'd rather ski the Ranger 102 on an icy groomer than the QST 106. I think 170 makes more sense based on your stats, but if you prefer longer skis, I do not think the 177 is too long. Factory line, I'd say for mount. Have fun!
      SE

  34. I am looking for a ski for my wife for the upcoming season. She is 5'8" and has been skiing an older set of Armada TST 101 under foot in a 175cm length. She moved into the trees last season and unless it ices up has little interest to be on the groomers. She would be an intermediate skier who is improving each time out. I have been looking at a few different skis and would like your thoughts. I have looked at the Rossignol Black Ops Sender / Line Sick Day 104 / Frischer 102 FR. Looking to stay in the 175 to 180 length. We are located in the Kootenay's where powder/soft snow is usually easy to find.

    1. Hi RG!
      It's hard to argue against the Fischer for that application. The Sender and the Sick Day are great--energetic and fun, they do have more of an on-trail personality versus the more soft-snow oriented Ranger. If you're spending most of your time in search of soft snow, I'd go with the Ranger. They're just a bit heavier than the Sender, so I'd say they're slightly more stable and damp for when progression and improvement present themselves. Have fun!
      SE

  35. I've been taking along hard look at the Ficsher Ranger 102 184cm.. My current quiver of skis include the 2018 Blizzard Brahma 180cm, J Skis Masterblaster 181cm, Nordica Enforcer 100 185cm and the Nordica Enforcer 110 185cm. I'm looking to replace my Nordica Enforcer 100 185cm because I thought it was a little too sluggish in tight trees and moguls. I have the Masterblaster 181 for firmer days and the E110 185cm for powder days. I want something I can ski tight trees and still do well on days where there's up to 8 inches of fresh snow at the resort. Something to fill the gap between the Masterblaster and E110.

    One major concern about the Ranger 102 is the stiffness, tails and mount point. I'm type 3 skier, 6'0" and 200 lbs. 46 years old and fairly strong for my age. I'm not a particularly aggressive skier, meaning I don't do big jumps or spins or straight line moguls, but do like to ski fast on open areas and like to pick my way through tight trees and moguls with generally good technique.

    Given my size and skier type do you think the 184cm Ranger 102 will be a fatiguing ski due to its stiffness or do you think the light weight of the ski will help mitigate some of the general harshness of carbon skis? Do you think I'm heavy enough to bend the ski effectively in moguls or tight lower angle tree skiing? I tend to like skis in the 180cm to 184cm for 100mm wide. I'm a directional skier, so would you recommend staying at the factory mount point or move them slightly forward? (I tend to get int he backseat sometimes in tight terrain.)

    I usually ski places like Winter Park, Jackson Hole and Mt. Bohemia Michigan.

    Thanks!

    Pete

    1. Hi Pete!
      Keep in mind that the carbon in the Ranger is only in the tips, so the rest of the ski (other than metal binding reinforcement) is wood and fiberglass. The tails, certainly compared to the Enforcer 100, are more flexible, so I think it's going to be a good fit. Elan Ripstick 96 is worth a look as well, on the slightly narrower side. For mount, we like the factory line for directional skiing. Have fun!
      SE

  36. Hi, I’m very interested in buying the 2022 Fischer Ranger 102 FR. I’m 5’7″ 180 lbs, strong muscular dude. Advanced skier, I was an instructor before. I plan on skiing in Whistler and Revelstoke this winter, I would like to use the skis for resort and touring. Should I buy the 177 cm or 184 cm ? Every chart I look is made for skinny guys so I’m confused. Thanks!

    1. Hi Justin!
      I'd lean to the 177. While the 184 would provide more flotation and greater stability, I think 177 is a better overall choice. Unless you know you like long skis, in which case, I'm not going to talk you out of it!
      SE

  37. Hi folks, great reviews as always,
    This will be my second season back skiing here in Colorado after a 20-year break.
    skied 20 days last year primarily 80/20 frontside/off piste winter park/Eldora.
    Plan to ski at least 40 days this year rapidly advancing back up to an high intermediate low Advanced skier. Looking at the FR 102 and the Salomon qst 106. 5'10 strong 250#, 60 years old. I charge from time to time but generally value being able to ski the entire day without getting tired out. Your thoughts? Which ski and in what size? By the way I'm on the Nordica HF 110 boots. Thanks in advance!

    1. Hi Jeff A!
      If this is to be your only ski, I think the Ranger makes more sense. It's lighter, more agile, and seeps to be a better fit for your stats and application. If you were seeking fresher and softer snow more often than not, I suppose the 106 would be a better choice, but for what you're going to be doing, I'd go with the Ranger in the 177. Have fun!
      SE

  38. HI! great reviews!
    I am a avance expert skier, 175 cm 75kg ,decide to choose 177cm ranger 102, I have a 2019 faction candide 2.0 with 178cm, i mounted ti at -2cm from true centre, I like it very much, for this type of ski (more freeride ) where should i mount it? I know the recommended line is at -9.9 cm, I skied more like Noah. and where did Noah mount at?

    1. HI Bruce!
      Noah's are close, but not true center. Not sure of his exact number, but it is ahead of recommended.
      SE

  39. Hello

    I'm 5.2 and 130lbs female aggressive skier. Can you help me choose a length? I am in-between the 156 and 163. I'll be skiing primarily in Colorado, and doing a mix of on and off-piste. Thanks.

    1. HI AJP!
      I'd go with the 156 based off your stats and application, unless you know you prefer longer skis. Have fun!
      SE

  40. Hey Team!

    I've had my eye on this ski and I think I'm ready to pull the trigger. 6ft 180lbs advanced/expert skier. I want to mount it +2CM from the recommended line for increased balance in the air and to make the ski more inclined to slash around the mountain. With that said I am also a firm believer of always mounting skis on the factory line. Did any of the guys in the shop try the skis a bit forward but ultimately decided to stay on the line and if so why? I'm curious to see what attributes I would lose by moving it up to. I don't want to force the ski to become something it isn't. Hope this all makes sense!

    Thanks for the awesome content and great products!
    Stephane

    1. HI Stephane!
      Our friend Noah who coaches our local freestyle team skis it midway between center and standard, and it looks pretty good for his application. Everyone else is on the line and likes it there for a directional format. Do what makes sense for how you like to ski!
      SE

    1. HI Corey!
      I have a 95 pivot brake on a 105. It does take a bit of bending, but it's way better than the 115.
      SE

  41. Hi guys, great review! I am mid 30s, 5‘8“ (174cm), 161lbs. Coming from an on-piste high-speed carving background (skiing 165cm Atomic S9), in recent years I started playing around and going off-piste, trying out some freeride skies in deeper snow, etc.. I wanna have maximum flexibility during the day and improve my freeride-skills so I am thinking about getting the Ranger 102 FR for its versatility.

    Length – Would you recommend 170 or 177cm?
    Mount point – On the line or a little forward?

    Appreciate your feedback!
    Thanks, Marc

    1. HI Marc!
      Great ski for you and your application. I'd stick to the manufacturers line and I'd go with the 170. Have fun!
      SE

  42. These reviews are incredible, thanks for taking the time!
    Couple questions if you have time please-
    I'm currently on 164cm Sky 7 HD and find them great in the soft but feel surfy on piste. How do these compare?
    Considering the 163 or 170 Ranger for a more all round ski, any advice on length?
    I'm 170cm in height, 66kg, intermediate / advance. 80% off piste 20% on in European Alps. Will mount with G3 ION 12.
    Any advice would really be appreciated.

    1. Thanks, Steve!
      Definitely a solid replacement for the Sky! The Ranger is a bit stiffer and stronger overall, while retaining the light weight and maneuverable nature that skiers loved the Sky for. I'd go with the 163 in that ski, unless you felt like your 164 Skys were too short. The Ranger skis a bit longer than the Sky, for what it's worth. Have fun!
      SE

  43. Thanks again. I've asked quite a few questions on your site and YouTube channel, you've been really informative and helped with all the decisions between different skis. I've gone for the 163 Ranger. Appreciate all your help.

  44. I just returned from a trip to Powder Mountain, Utah. Utah is having a slight snow drought, but there was sufficient snow to test drive the Fischer Ranger FR 102 (pink—which freaked out my gender conscious friends). I am 61 and, as the son of an Austrian, have been skiing since I was 3, with some teaching and other professional qualifications. I found a recommendation for this ski on Skis for Seniors. I bought them from Ski Essentials with DPS Phantom, itself a great product. This ski is FANTASTIC. Looking at them, or just thinking about them, brings a smile to my face. On groomers, you can get terrific edge angle, even though the ski is 102 under foot. It skis like a carving ski. The ski shines in powder and cut up powder. It stays on the surface nicely, but if you get an open face and want to sink them down, no issues. I don’t know how Fischer did this, or whether there is a ski that can do what the FR 102 can. Perhaps its only flaw would be skiing it at really high speeds on groomers. But, that is not an issue for me at my age, and in any case, I was never in the back of any pack, so it’s not like they don’t rip. I just wouldn’t take them into a GS course and expect to win. The Tyrolia Attack 13 were a great match. Also, Ski Essentials is a terrific company. Great analysis its reviews. And great customer service.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.