2018-2019 Fischer Ranger 108 Ti

Moguls, Trees, and Tight Terrain

The Ranger 108 Ti’s lack of mass becomes a benefit in tighter terrain. The ski is agile and nimble when pivoting or jump turning through tricky terrain. It also has a pretty forgiving tail, so if you get backseat, it won’t take you for a ride. And the flex through the shovel offers good support when moving quickly through mogul fields, which is something that I found a bit lacking on the Liberty Origin 106.

While the light weight of the Ranger 108 Ti didn’t entice me to rage through moguls, the skis do respond well when I wanted to carve at speed through tricky terrain with precision. This dance works well in terrain or mogul fields that are a bit more open, where you can commit to a turn and stay planted on smooth snow in between variations in the terrain.

Powder

While the last couple of months haven’t brought large storms, the Ranger 108 Ti has floated well in untracked powder up to a foot deep. I had no problems porpoising in and out of the fresh snow, and I found this could be done without concern of tip dive.

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 has excellent float for a ski of this width, but there are far more “surfy” skis on the market at this width if that is the sensation you’re after. No one’s going to confuse the Ranger 108 Ti with a Liberty Origin 106 or fully rockered (and heavily rockered) Moment Meridian or 4FRNT Devastator. Instead, the Ranger 108 Ti is a ski that likes to carve through powder and requires a bit more input than other skis to break the tails free into a slash.

Soft Chop

Like its narrower brother, the Ranger 108 Ti isn’t most at home when making large turns through cut-up powder. The lightweight construction causes it to deflect a bit more than heavier skis. While there is a longer, 188 cm model of the ski, I don’t think that additional length will necessarily make a huge difference; a ski sometimes just needs more mass. So, if you’d prefer to crush soft chop but are still interested in excellent carving characteristics, I think a heavier ski like the Line Supernatural 108 will be a better choice. However, if you prefer to make short and snappy turns through soft chop, I think you’ll find the energy and agility of the the Ranger 108 Ti to be quite compelling.

Firm and Variable Snow

The Ranger 108 Ti is a light ski and, like all light skis I’ve tried, it feels a bit out of place in more firm, variable snow. While it wants to carve hard and has pretty tenacious edge hold, irregularities in the terrain can cause a decent amount of deflection. I couldn’t let the Ranger 108 Ti run with reckless abandon like I can with other heavier skis (like the old metal Katana). The amount of deflection is pretty comparable, I’d say, to the 188 cm Salomon QST 106, though the 182 cm Ranger 108 Ti isn’t quite as damp. (And this is one area where the 188 cm Ranger 108 Ti will almost certainly close the advantage that the longer QST 106 has over the 182 cm Ranger 108 Ti that we’ve reviewed.)

If the firm snow is smooth and consistent, however, I don’t think anyone will be complaining about the ride of the Ranger 108 Ti. It feels locked in through the turn a bit more than the Salomon QST 106, and, in smooth, chalky, firm snow, the Ranger 108 Ti exhibits the same strong carving performance that it has on groomers. I found this strong edge hold to be quite confidence-inspiring on steeper terrain.

Fischer Ranger 98 Ti vs. Fischer Ranger 108 Ti

As I’ve mentioned earlier, the Ranger 108 Ti and the Ranger 98 Ti are extremely similar skis. They both are exciting and nimble skis that love to carve, whether it be on firm snow or in powder. As expected, the Ranger 108 Ti floats better in powder, while the Ranger 98 Ti is quicker edge-to-edge and more agile in moguls (especially when they become Volkswagon-sized).

If you’re looking for a one-ski quiver, I’d personally lean more towards the Ranger 98 Ti. However, if you’re looking for a more powder-specific ski to complement a narrower ski, I’d opt for the Ranger 108 Ti, and, at resorts with more open terrain, would consider sizing up to the longer 188 cm length.

Bottom Line

The Fischer Ranger 108 Ti has three stand-out traits: it floats well in powder, it has great energy when carving, and it’s lightweight. While it’s a bit heavier than what I’d normally look for in a touring ski, it’d be a great ski to bang out laps on a powder day, then go for a tour once the resort gets tracked out. It’d also work well for a skier that’s looking for a lighter and more agile resort powder ski, and tends to ski with more finesse than all-out aggression. The excellent carving performance would also be a lot of fun in corn and slush, later in the season, whether in the backcountry or at the resort.

 

NEXT: Rocker Profile Pics

12 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.

  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