2018-2019 Fischer Ranger 108 Ti

Brian Lindahl reviews the Fischer Ranger 108 Ti for Blister Gear Review.
Fischer Ranger 108 Ti

2018-2019 Fischer Ranger 108 Ti, 182 cm

Available Lengths: 174, 182, 188 cm

Actual Tip-to-Tail Length (straight tape pull): 181.0 cm

Stated Dimensions (185 cm): 140-108-130

Blister’s Measured Dimensions: 139.5-108-129.5 mm

Stated Weight per Ski: 1950 grams (182 cm)

Blister’s Measured Weight per Ski: 1941 & 1965 grams

Stated Sidecut Radius: 19 meters (182 cm)

Core Construction: Milled Beech and Poplar + Titanal + Carbon Nose

Tip-to-Tail Splay (ski decambered): 62 mm / 17 mm

Traditional Camber Underfoot: ~4 mm

Recommended Line: 7.4 cm behind center; ~83.1 cm from tail

Total Days Skied: 10 (Brian: 5, Jonathan: 5)

Test Locations: Breckenridge & Arapahoe Basin, CO; New Mexico backcountry

[Note: Our review was conducted on the 16/17 Ranger 108 Ti, which was not changed for 17/18 or 18/19, apart from graphics.]


For the 15/16 season, the Fischer Ranger 108 Ti joined one of the most crowded and most interesting ski segments on the market, the 105-110mm wide all-mountain category. At one end of the spectrum, you have skis optimized for firm-snow performance, like the Head Monster 108. At the other end, you have skis that are optimized for powder performance, like the Liberty Origin 106 and the Salomon QST 106.

Brian Lindahl reviews the Fischer Ranger 108 Ti for Blister Gear Review.
Brian Lindahl on the Fischer Ranger 108 Ti. (photo by Grayson Tamberi)

The Ranger 108 Ti occupies an interesting niche because not only does it perform well in powder, it also has some qualities that make it rather compelling on firmer snow — and it’s also light enough for shorter days in the backcountry.

Flex Pattern

I’d sum up the flex pattern like this:

Tips: 6
Forebody: 7
Underfoot: 9
Tail: 7

This is a nice, round, medium flex pattern, with tails that aren’t much stiffer than the shovels. Compared to the Ranger 98 Ti, the Ranger 108 Ti’s tips are a bit stiffer, while the tails are a bit softer.

Mount Point

The Ranger 108 Ti has a recommended mount point of -7.4 cm, which strikes a nice balance between a more traditional rear mount and a more jibby forward mount. On the recommended line, I felt that the ski was balanced and responsive, and neither Jonathan nor I saw a reason to move forward or back; the skis felt comfortable both when driving the tips and when skiing with a more centered stance.

On-Snow Performance

If you’ve read our review of the Fischer Ranger 98 Ti, then you’ll already have a good sense of what the Ranger 108 Ti brings to the table. The 108 Ti is very similar in that it’s an exciting and energetic carver that loves to be on edge, while also delivering excellent float in powder. The personalities of both Fischer skis are extremely similar, but the Ranger 108 Ti, as you’d expect, is a bit more comfortable in soft snow conditions, while being a bit less stable in firm snow conditions — mainly due to width.


While the Ranger 108 Ti is a bit slower edge-to-edge than the Ranger 98 Ti, it still offers up a smooth and energetic ride on clean groomers. The tips really pull you into a turn, while the tails, when loaded, offer a strong pop out of the turn. And you don’t need to be skiing fast to get this feeling — the carving capabilities of the Ranger 108 Ti are quite accessible.

Like the Ranger 98 Ti, however, the lighter weight of the Ranger 108 Ti will result in some deflection when blasting through snow piles you’ll find on groomers at the end of the day. So if you insist on charging through these snow piles, the much heavier Line Supernatural 108 does this better, while also being an energetic carver (though it does require more speed to come alive). However, if you stay light and are quick on your feet, the precision of the Ranger 108 Ti can navigate snow piles with a level of energy and quickness that can be quite fun.

NEXT: Moguls, Trees, and Tight Terrain, Powder, Etc.

13 comments on “2018-2019 Fischer Ranger 108 Ti”

  1. I’ve been on the 188 length all year. The mount point on mine felt off from the start. Things were squirrelly when I tried to drive the tips and overall felt I was not where I should be on the ski. I messed with the tune a bit with little improvement.

    After lots of measuring I moved them back 2.5 cm. The ski felt much more balanced afterwards and I have really enjoyed them.

    • Going back a few years on this post, but maybe you can still comment.
      I have a pair of 2019 or 2020 Ranger 108 Ti’s in a 188. I originally bought to use as a PNW powder day / touring ski. Things change an I am not on the east coast. Anyway, I feel like anytime I have gotten off the groomed trail, the tips dive on me and the ski does not float like I expected. I am questioning this whole mount point issue as the shop set mine up centered.
      Do you recall how yours felt before and after moving the mount point, when in softer snow?

  2. I have a pair of 182’s and agree they are among the squirreliest sticks I’ve ever been on in all but the deepest snow…an opinion shared by some industry friends who demo’d them at one of the trade fairs. I too thought they were mounted too far forward and was debating trying to remount them (or selling them to a jibber). For comparison, I checked the boot center against an old pair of K2 Hardside 98’s (181’s)- a somewhat similar ski idea (rockered tip, minimal tail rocker) and found the Fischer’s mount point to be approximately 2 inches further forward…admittedly not apples to apples, but crazy!

    Is this ski designed to be driven or is it something else? I can’t believe other people have not experienced this or that Fischer does not have a recommended traditional mount point?

  3. Joe perhaps that forward mount point is because this is designed more to be a off piste all terrain ski. (the “Ti” version factoring in for carrying a backpack, etc?????I have The 98 Ti’s with tech bindings (marker Kingpins) with my Dalbello Lupo (basic at version) I may have found the elusive one ski one boot on off piste quiver. Unlike Brian ( Thank you for your reviews) I found the 98’s better than decent in crud ( I avoid moguls like the plague though ) A set of 108’s are tempting me because they have come my way as a “killer deal” That I am trying to resist as I imagine I’d enjoy a more pow pow float ski, than something so close to the 98 I currently possess. Not sure I can resist. Worth noting I’d call myself an intermediate plus skier (or type two and a half. Rocking the 180’s at recommended mounting point.and also 5’10” also “rocking” about 180 pounds. On a related note had the Fischer Profoil “snakes skins and exchanged them for mohair after two trips. Bummer I wanted to have a easier to care for less to think about skin. Had issues noted in comments elsewhere .The 108 Tis available in 184 don’t have AT bindings, may just flip a coin. If I get them I’ll chime in more here and on the 98 ti review next year. Its about to rain on what little “corn” we have in T-hoe. Might get to eastern Sierra (395) but The coast is calling!

  4. I had 2 amazing weeks on the 108Ti’s 182cm at Silver Star BC. After reading numerous reviews and due to shape and rocker of the shovel nose I decided to mount my alpine bindings back 4.0cm. They felt balanced and not at all squirrelly with this set up. Turn initiation was smooth with good energy/pop out of the turns. I would agree with many of the reviews regarding the skis ability to hold a fast carve. I’m 5’10” 175lbs.
    On all but tight moguls the skis made me a better skier, I’m intermediate n a bit. I found the skis shovel nose got a little caught up on each other in tight mogels. It is 108mm wide and I’m an intermediate skier so I think this could be expected.
    All in all I enjoyed the skis but now look at the 102ti’s and think could these be better?

  5. I spent last season trying to like my 188 Ranger 108s mounted on the line, but something wasn’t quite right. The ski felt like a twitchy slalom ski (i.e. it wanted to be quick on and off edges) with a 24m turning radius, which didn’t feel great. When arcing it on groomers, it felt like it wanted to be driven centered to back, and it would occasionally feel unstable just running in straight lines. Surprising for a mostly-cambered, 188cm ski with full vertical sidewalls (check it out — the smaller lengths are not full vertical sidewall, but the 188 is).

    Two things have helped: (1) I realized that the base bevel was 0 degrees. Totally flat. Which explained why the ski felt like it engaged so early. (2) after fixing that, the ski still just didn’t feel right. Following advice here and elsewhere, I moved the mount back 2.5 cm, and the ski feels significantly more balanced. Based on how it feels now, I probably should have gone 3 or 3.5cm back!

    The ski is quick and light for its length and width. It excels at playfully hopping around bumps and changing direction quickly, and with the rearward mount it’s fairly predictable in variable snow. It’s not particularly damp, however, so carving powerful turns on less-than-smooth groomers can be a, err, vibratory experience. I credit FKS bindings for keeping my boots and skis attached.

    The skis are much better now and I’ll enjoy them until they’re beat up, but they won’t go down in the annals of skis that rocked my world. Something still isn’t quite right in their feel, like their sidecut radius, stiffness, and weight, are somehow not all aligned. But they’re serviceable and there are many, many skis I’d like less, especially as biggish, floaty skis that can really play in bumps and tight spaces.

    Finally, my skis are the (still-unchanged-in-shape) green 2016-2017 version. It’s possible that the mount point has changed, so that might be worth looking into before making any definite decisions.

  6. I’ve had these keys for three years in the 188 and I will say these might be the best skis I’ve ever owned they rip big time. Just recently my GPS read 74 miles an hour at Vail. I ski very fast and have clocked myself in the 60s many times on various skis mostly giant slalom racing in the mountains. The skis are amazing but you need to know how to ski though. LOL

  7. Hi, I´m 26 years old, 5’10 ft, 175lb and been skiing since i was 2 years old (agressive skier).

    Im between the 182 or 188 length. What do you guys recommend?

  8. I understand the 188 and 182 are significantly different internally. For instance, the 188 is full vertical sidewall, tip to tail, but the 182 goes to cap at the tip and tail.

    If you go 188, I strongly recommend at least a -2.5cm mount. I can’t personally speak to the 182.

  9. 6′ 165 lbs. About 20 days on the 182, standard mount point. I don’t experience the squirrelly stuff that a couple of people mention. I do find that the skis want a lot forward pressure. I have Masterblaster’s for my frontside ski and the transition between the two is pretty dramatic. They are pretty quick edge to edge and I can rage on consistent snow, groomers and about 18″ of pow, great in the trees a blast as drive and pivot soft bump ski. Nice and light in the steeps. They also have a looser feel to them in light snow than I expected, which is enjoyable. I have experienced some tip dive in density transitions. In deeper snow, I think the 188’s would be better for me, but I bought them as a 50/50 ski. If you ski pushed up snow more like bumps, they are still good in a dump aftermath, but you can get bucked around if you don’t control the speed due to the stiffness and lack of mass. I like them a lot.

Leave a Comment