2021-2022 Fischer Ranger 94 FR

Ski: 2021-2022 Fischer Ranger 94 FR, 184 cm

Available Lengths: 161, 169, 177, 184 cm

Blister’s Measured Tip-to-Tail Length: 183.8 cm

Stated Weight per Ski: 1900 grams

Blister’s Measured Weight per Ski: 1937 & 1945 grams

Stated Dimensions: 127-93-118 mm

Blister’s Measured Dimensions: 127.1-92.3-117.7 mm

Stated Sidecut Radius (184 cm): 18 meters

Measured Tip & Tail Splay (ski decambered): 62 mm / 39 mm

Measured Traditional Camber Underfoot: ~3 mm

Core: Beech/Poplar + Titanal Binding Reinforcement + Carbon Fiber Tip + Fiberglass Laminate

Base: sintered

Factory Recommended Mount Point: -7.4 cm from center; 84.5 cm from tail

Boots / Bindings: Nordica Strider 120; Salomon S/Pro 130; Head Raptor 140 RS / Tyrolia AAAttack2 13


  • Luke Koppa: 5’8”, 155 lbs
  • Jonathan Ellsworth: 5’10”, 175 lbs

Test Location: Crested Butte, CO

Days Skied: 9

[Note: Our review was conducted on the 19/20 Ranger 94 FR, which was not changed for 20/21 or 21/22, apart from graphics.]

Luke Koppa reviews the Fischer Ranger 94 FR for Blister
Fischer Ranger 94 FR, 19/20 Graphic
Review Navigation:  Specs //  First Look //  Full Review //  Bottom Line //  Rocker Pics


Last year we were pretty blown away by the Fischer Ranger 102 FR. It’s a very strong ski that you can push very hard, but it’s a bit more playful compared to most other directional all-mountain skis.

Well, apparently Fischer was also pretty happy with their creation because, for 19/20, they’re adding a narrower version of the 102 FR — the Ranger 94 FR.

So just how similar is the new Ranger 94 FR, and how does its design compare to the other options in its class?

Shape / Rocker Profile

The new Ranger 94 FR looks very similar to the Ranger 102 FR. In terms of the skis’ shapes, they’re basically identical, apart from the width differences. The Ranger 94 FR and 102 FR both have a bit more taper than most directional skis in their respective classes. The Ranger 94 FR has more taper than the Volkl Mantra M5, Rossignol Experience 94 Ti, and Blizzard Brahma & Bonafide, but not as much as the Dynastar Legend X96 or Moment Commander 98.

The Ranger 94 FR’s rocker profile also looks nearly identical to the Ranger 102 FR’s, but the Ranger 94 FR’s tip and tail rocker lines are a bit shallower (which makes sense, given that the 94 FR is supposed to be more firm-snow oriented). Compared to the skis mentioned in the previous paragraph, the Ranger 94 FR’s tip rocker line is on the deeper side of things, and to a slightly lesser degree, so is its tail rocker line. And, like the 102 FR, the Ranger 94 FR’s twinned tail makes it stand out from those other skis, most of which have flatter, more traditional tails.

Flex Pattern

Here’s how we’d characterize the flex pattern of the Ranger 94 FR:

Tips: 8-8.5
Shovels: 8.5-9
In Front of Toe Piece: 9.5
Underfoot: 10
Behind Heel Piece: 9.5-9
Tails: 9

The Ranger 94 FR’s flex pattern feels basically identical to the Ranger 102 FR’s. The Ranger 94 FR is still a very strong ski. It’s not quite as stiff as the new Ranger 107 Ti, but there’s still not any part of the Ranger 94 FR that’s very soft.

Compared to the J Skis Masterblaster, the Ranger 94 FR is notably stiffer at the ends of the ski. Overall, the Ranger 94 FR feels pretty similar to the Mantra M5 when it comes to flex.

Mount Point

The Ranger 102 FR that we tested had a recommended mount point of around -10 cm from center. The Ranger 94 FR we have came with a recommended mount point of around -7.4 cm from center.

When I was reviewing the Ranger 102 FR, I ended up moving the bindings a few cm forward of its recommended line, eventually settling on -6 cm from center as my preferred mount point for how I ski. Now, I think there are plenty of people (mostly directional skiers) who will still like the Ranger 102 FR on the more traditional recommended line, but I think it’s interesting that Fischer went a bit further forward with the mount point on the Ranger 94 FR. Since the Ranger 102 FR was a ski that I felt worked well at a variety of mount points, I’ll be playing around with this on the Ranger 94 FR.


Like the 102 FR, the Ranger 94 FR sits around the middle of the spectrum when it comes to weight — it isn’t some portly beast of a ski, but it’s not crazy light, either. The 184 cm Ranger 94 FR comes in a bit lighter than the 177 cm Mantra M5, 184 cm ON3P Wrenegade 96, 181 cm Masterblaster, and 180 cm Blizzard Bonafide. But the Ranger 94 FR isn’t quite as light as skis like the 180 cm Elan Ripstick 96, 178 cm Moment Commander 98, 180 cm Blizzard Rustler 9, and 183 cm Black Crows Daemon

For reference, here are a number of our measured weights (per ski in grams) for some notable skis. As always, pay close attention to the length differences to keep things more apples-to-apples.

1629 & 1684 Elan Ripstick 96, 180 cm (17/18–19/20)
1734 & 1750 Renoun Endurance 98, 184 cm (18/19)
1758 & 1774 Moment Commander 98, 178 cm (18/19)
1800 & 1824 Luke Koppa’s Romp Skis 100, 183 cm (18/19)
1807 & 1840 Atomic Bent Chetler 100, 188 cm (18/19–19/20)
1829 & 1838 Faction Prodigy 2.0, 184 cm (18/19)
1863 & 1894 Blizzard Rustler 9, 180 cm (18/19–19/20)
1894 & 1980 Black Crows Daemon, 183.6 cm (17/18–19/20)
1921 & 1968 Head Kore 99, 188 cm (18/19–19/20)
1925 & 1937 Liberty Helix 98, 186 cm (18/19–19/20)
1931 & 1932 DPS Foundation Cassiar 94, 185 cm (18/19–19/20)
1937 & 1945 Fischer Ranger 94 FR, 184 cm (19/20)
1966 & 1973 Liberty Origin 96, 187 cm (18/19–19/20)
1985 & 2006 Parlor Cardinal 100, 185 cm (16/17–18/19)
1994 & 2011 Fischer Ranger 99 Ti, 181 cm (19/20)
1997 & 2001 Blizzard Brahma, 180 cm (17/18–19/20)
1998 & 2044 4FRNT MSP 99, 181 cm (17/18–18/19)
2007 & 2029 Armada Invictus 99 Ti, 187 cm (18/19–19/20)
2019 & 2022 Rossignol Black Ops 98, 182 cm (18/19–19/20)
2049 & 2065 Volkl Mantra M5, 177 cm (18/19–19/20)
2050 & 2080 ON3P Wrenegade 96, 184 cm (18/19)
2053 & 2057 Atomic Vantage 97 Ti, 188 cm (18/19–19/20)
2062 & 2063 Rossignol Experience 94 Ti, 187 cm (18/19–19/20)
2085 & 2096 Dynastar Menace 98, 181 cm (19/20)
2101 & 2104 Fischer Ranger 102 FR, 184 cm (18/19–19/20)
2114 & 2133 Nordica Enforcer 93, 185 cm (16/17–19/20)
2115 & 2149 J Skis Masterblaster, 181 cm (16/17–18/19)
2118 & 2139 Nordica Soul Rider 97, 185 cm (15/16–19/20)
2124 & 2137 Blizzard Bonafide, 180 cm (17/18–19/20)
2131 & 2189 Nordica Enforcer 100, 185 cm (15/16–19/20)
2311 & 2342 K2 Mindbender 99Ti, 184 cm (19/20)

Some Questions / Things We’re Curious About

(1) The Ranger 102 FR stood out due to its combination of very good stability and just enough playfulness to make it stand out from the other directional options out there. So will the Ranger 94 FR retain this characteristic?

(2) As a narrower version of the 102 FR, the Ranger 94 FR should be better on firm snow. So just how much better will it be, and will it retain enough versatility for some deeper / softer days?

(3) The Ranger 94 FR is a stiff ski, so how forgiving vs. demanding will it feel?

Bottom Line (For Now)

The Fischer Ranger 102 FR is a very good ski, and it looks like Fischer didn’t stray too far from a proven recipe while designing the new Ranger 94 FR. Blister Members can check out our initial on-snow impressions in our Flash Review linked below, and then stay tuned for our full review.

Flash Review

Blister Members can now check out our Flash Review of the Ranger 94 FR for our initial impressions. Become a Blister member now to check out this and all of our Flash Reviews, plus get exclusive deals and discounts on skis, and personalized gear recommendations from us.


Jonathan Ellsworth, Drew Kelly, and I spent time on the Ranger 94 FR all around Crested Butte this year, so let’s go ahead and get into it.

Steep, Chalky Conditions

Luke Koppa (5’8”, 155 lbs): I’m going to start here since this is where I really came to love the Ranger 94 FR. This ski is pretty stiff, offers good edge hold, and has a very low swing weight. In steep terrain, that combo equated to a ski that was very easy to whip around when needed, but that was strong and stable enough to hold up when I got some room to let it run.

Luke Koppa reviews the Fischer Ranger 94 FR for Blister
Luke Koppa on the Fischer Ranger 94 FR, Crested Butte, CO.

There are lighter skis out there that are a bit easier to flick around, and there are also several other heavier skis that are more damp, calm, and composed on really firm, rough snow. But because it was (1) so nimble, (2) felt so precise on most firm snow, and (3) has a strong, round flex pattern, the Ranger 94 FR had me skiing steeps more aggressively than most of the skis I got on last year.

Like the Ranger 102 FR, the Ranger 94 FR is not the “smoothest” ski compared to heavier options, and it’s also not the most forgiving as its tail is quite strong. But I think advanced and expert skiers who value both quickness and strength will get along well with the Ranger 94 FR in steep terrain.

Jonathan Ellsworth (5’10”, ~175 lbs): I want to chime in here to underscore Luke’s three paragraphs above, and especially, his first two paragraphs in our Full Review. As someone who typically likes a bit of weight in my skis when it comes to navigating steep, chalky moguls (I like skis that provide good suspension) it always hurts my heart a little bit when Luke says things like “There are lighter skis out there that are a bit easier to flick around,” because while he’s technically not wrong, I want everyone to have the immediate reaction of “Yeah, but those lighter skis will probably feel worse and will be twitchier and sketchier than the ski in question, so I don’t care, Luke.” That would make me feel better if you all had that reaction.

Luke Koppa reviews the Fischer Ranger 94 FR for Blister
Drew Kelly on the Fischer Ranger 94 FR, Crested Butte, CO.

Anyway, back to the main point: when Luke talks about the nimbleness and the precision of the 94 FR, I agree in full. And just to put a finer point on this, we might think of this (for lack of a better term), as “freeride precision.” Like the Ranger 102 FR, on chalky steeps (even chalky, super-moguled-up steeps), the Ranger 94 FR let’s you put the ski exactly where you want or need it to go — which is to say that it will allow you to either (1) carve hard, precise turns when you need to, while also allowing you to (2) slide and smear turns when you need to or want to. And it allows you to do both without over-pulling you into a turn. (“Over-pulling” — I’m not sure whether that’s a new term, but it might be. In any case, I think it’s a useful one.)

Where I’m going with this is that the 94 FR feels a whole lot better on steeps than the Fischer Pro Mtn 95 Ti. (And I suspect that a lot of Fischer aficionados will be wondering how the Ranger 94 FR compares to the Pro Mtn 95.) With its big hammer head and flatter tail, the Pro Mtn 95 does not let you modulate turns nearly as well as the 94 FR. It is far more likely to pull you into a turn harder than you want, making it more difficult to get out of a turn to set up for the next one. And in this sense — basically any off-piste situation — I’d argue that the 94 FR is the “more precise” tool than the … what do we say here … ‘overly precise’ Pro Mtn 95 — again, when talking specifically about off-piste skiing, and especially in variable conditions. (But if we start talking about groomers, that Pro Mtn 95 absolutely rails, and I would call it the more precise carver than the 94 FR.)

In sum, the Ranger 94 FR allows you to vary your turn style and shape with a lot of modulation and precision, without ever feeling sloppy or too loose. And for those reasons, I’d argue that, for truly all-mountain skiing, it’s a better “Pro Mtn” ski than the Pro Mtn 95.

Moguls, Trees, and Tight Terrain

Luke: The Ranger 94 FR’s nimble and precise feel also made it a lot of fun when the terrain got tight. Again, this ski is very easy to get in the air and turn quickly, which had me doing my best Marcus Caston impression in bumps (which consequently led to some spectacular crashes). I’d launch off the top of a bump, pivot in the air, and drive the shovel through the trough of the next mogul. Combined with the very energetic feel of the ski, this made the Ranger 94 FR a ton of fun in bumps.

Luke Koppa reviews the Fischer Ranger 94 FR for Blister
Luke Koppa on the Fischer Ranger 94 FR, Crested Butte, CO.

As I’ve stated in other reviews, I usually prefer to slide and pivot my way through bumps, rather than pushing my skis dramatically up and over them. The Ranger 94 FR can certainly handle the former technique, and it’s a bit easier to slide around compared to many of the flatter-tailed skis in its class. But if easy pivoting and sliding is what you’re after, I’d look to softer and / or more rockered skis (see the “All-Mountain – More Forgiving” section of our Winter Buyer’s Guide).

But again, if you’re looking for a quick ski that won’t fold up when skiing hard in bumps and trees, the Ranger 94 FR seems like a great option. I’d probably prefer a heavier ski if I was skiing brutally refrozen conditions since the Ranger 94 FR isn’t super damp and I’d ski these conditions slower anyway (so the Ranger 94 FR’s quickness would be less valuable). But apart from super firm and rough conditions, I really, really liked the Ranger 94 FR in bumps and trees.

Luke Koppa reviews the Fischer Ranger 94 FR for Blister
Drew Kelly on the Fischer Ranger 94 FR, Crested Butte, CO.

The Ranger 94 FR is definitely not the most forgiving mogul ski out there, but it’s less punishing than I would’ve guessed given its strong tail. Maybe this is due to its fairly round flex pattern or something else, but both the Ranger 94 FR and 102 FR feel surprisingly manageable for how stiff they are. You won’t want to sit back on its tails for very long, but I was still able to ski the Ranger 94 FR pretty centered / neutral without feeling like the tail was punishing me / taking me for a ride.

Jonathan: Yes to all of the above. And I’d only add that those who really like to carve hard through bumps should also get along well with this ski. I think it’s a very good mogul ski for advanced or expert skiers, and could work pretty well for heavier (say, ~190+ lb.) intermediate mogul skiers.


Luke: Jonathan doesn’t like it when we make lots of analogies, but skiing groomers on the Ranger 94 FR kept making me think of a performance-tuned sports car. The ski grips firm snow really well, transitions between turns quickly, and produces a ton of energy when bent. The Ranger 94 FR isn’t some ultra plush cruiser, but instead rewards aggressive skiers with precision, speed, and lots of pop.

For skiing fast on straight-up ice, I’d prefer a heavier ski that can stay more planted. But for ripping high-edge-angle turns on anything softer than ice, the Ranger 94 FR was a riot.

Luke Koppa reviews the Fischer Ranger 94 FR for Blister
Drew Kelly on the Fischer Ranger 94 FR, Crested Butte, CO.

It’s also worth quickly noting that, unlike the Ranger 102 FR, I didn’t feel the need to immediately do a very heavy detune on the Ranger 94 FR. Its factory tune was sharp but not excessively so, letting me drive it hard on very firm snow while still letting me release the tails when needed.

Skiers who just want a ski that’s predictable, intuitive, and smooth on groomers might be better off on a softer and / or heavier ski. But if your idea of fun on groomers means carving GS turns and getting your skis in the air during turn transitions, the Ranger 94 FR should be on your list.

Jonathan: Yep. And just to go back and give credit where credit is due, the Fischer Pro Mtn 95 was a more “exhilarating” carver — if your idea of “exhilarating” is instant turn initiation and then being powerfully pulled across the fall line. On very clean, smooth groomers, I think the Pro Mtn 95 wins. But on a bit more roughed up groomers or on chunky, icier snow, I’d take the Ranger 94 FR. The Pro Mtn 95 really excelled on perfectly smooth groomers. I wouldn’t call the Ranger 94 FR amazing on beat-up groomers, but it’s a better tool for the job than the Pro Mtn 95.

And aside from all of that, I’d agree with Luke’s take on the ski — I’ll just skip the beat-to-death cliche about skis feeling like sports cars. (Insert smiley face emoji. Or the sigh- / grimace-face emoji.)

Chop & Crud

Luke: I didn’t get the Ranger 94 FR in any deep pow, but I did break it out for a couple of days following a storm.

Luke Koppa reviews the Fischer Ranger 94 FR for Blister
Drew Kelly on the Fischer Ranger 94 FR, Crested Butte, CO.

In soft chop that hadn’t set up much, the Ranger 94 FR’s strong flex pattern and moderate weight let me blast through the snow with little feedback from the ski. Combined with its low swing weight and abundant energy, this made mobbing around soft chop a lot of fun.

When the snow did set up and get firmer, I definitely would’ve preferred a heavier ski. The Ranger 94 FR is totally comfortable taking things slower when conditions get nasty, but if you like to ski fast no matter the conditions, you’d be better off on a heavier ski that’ll do a better job of blasting through firm chop and crud.

Luke Koppa reviews the Fischer Ranger 94 FR for Blister
Drew Kelly on the Fischer Ranger 94 FR, Crested Butte, CO.

Again, the Ranger 94 FR seems best suited for skiers who prefer a ski that’s strong and nimble, rather than some tank of a ski that’s most comfortable going straight through everything in its path (and not very comfortable making quicker, smaller turns).

Mount Point

Luke: I started on the Ranger 94 FR with the bindings on its recommended line (-7.4 cm from center). On the recommended line, the Ranger 94 FR feels like a directional ski that’s just a touch more playful than other, flatter-tailed skis in its class. If you’re a directional skier who likes to drive the front of your skis and who likes the sound of what I’ve described above, the Ranger 94 FR’s recommended line is probably the way to go.

Luke Koppa reviews the Fischer Ranger 94 FR for Blister
Luke Koppa on the Fischer Ranger 94 FR, Crested Butte, CO.

Like the Ranger 102 FR, I also skied the Ranger 94 FR with the bindings in front of its recommended line. With the bindings around -5.4 cm from center, the Ranger 94 FR felt a bit more playful and balanced overall, but I could still drive it when needed.

As someone who likes to be able to drive the front of my skis but who also appreciates a balanced swing weight, I loved the Ranger 94 FR with the bindings around -5 cm from center. And if you think you want a slight increase in playfulness but -5 cm sounds too far forward, the Ranger 94 FR also felt great with the bindings around -6 cm from center.


Luke: As I just alluded to, the Ranger 94 FR feels a bit more playful than many of its directional counterparts. The Ranger 94 FR is still a pretty stiff ski with a directional shape, so if freestyle performance is a top priority for you, I’d look to the options in the “All-Mountain Freestyle” section of our Winter Buyer’s Guide.

But for people who want a strong ski that’s still energetic, light in the air, and that can ski switch, the Ranger 94 FR makes a lot of sense. Don’t expect to surfing sideways down the mountain or easily bending the ski into extended butters, but the Ranger 94 FR offers enough playfulness to make it stand out from the other directional skis that are similarly strong.

Who’s It For?

High-intermediate to expert skiers looking for a narrower all-mountain ski that’s precise, powerful, fairly playful, poppy, and nimble. (And we’d feel increasingly confident about this the more you skew toward the advanced / expert end of the spectrum.)

Those who are willing to muscle around their skis in tight spots in order to gain max top-end stability should look to heavier options (see the “All-Mountain – More Stable” section of our Winter Buyer’s Guide).

And those who are willing to give up some stability in exchange for more forgiveness at slower speeds should look to softer options (see the “All-Mountain – More Forgiving” section of our Winter Buyer’s Guide).

But if you don’t want some noodle of a ski, nor some super heavy charger that’s a lot of work in tight spots, the Ranger 94 FR is worth a very close look. I think it could work well as a 1-ski quiver for lower-snow areas like the U.S. East Coast, or as the narrower ski in a quiver at higher-snow locales.

Bottom Line

The Fischer Ranger 94 FR feels a lot like the Ranger 102 FR, and we’re not at all mad about that. The Ranger 94 FR is a strong ski that excels when under the feet of dynamic skiers who is able to put its low swing weight, energy, precision, and quickness to good use.

Deep Dive Comparisons: Fischer Ranger 94 FR

Become a Blister Member or Deep Dive subscriber to check out our Deep Dive comparisons of the Ranger 94 FR to see how it compares to the Fischer Ranger 102 FR, Fischer Ranger 99Ti, Moment Commander 98, J Skis Masterblaster, Nordica Enforcer 100, Renoun Endurance 98, Armada ARV 96Ti, Rossignol Black Ops 98, Dynastar Menace 98, Liberty Origin 96, 4FRNT MSP 99, Blizzard Rustler 9, Atomic Bent Chetler 100, ON3P Wrenegade 96, and Blizzard Brahma.

Share this post:

Rocker Pics:

Full Profile
Tip Profile
Tail Profile
Top Sheet
Previous slide
Next slide
2021-2022 Fischer Ranger 94 FR, BLISTER
2021-2022 Fischer Ranger 94 FR, BLISTER

36 comments on “2021-2022 Fischer Ranger 94 FR”

  1. Good writeup Luke, looking forward to this review. Do you have any current recommendations for a 85-95mm high-energy groomer ski? Looking for that sportscar feel of the Soul7 but obviously narrower and much more stable at speed. Considering Brahma so far….

    • I haven’t spent a ton of time on the Soul 7, but I just talked to our editor Sam Shaheen about this (he loves the Soul 7), and he said the Volkl Mantra M5 would be his top recommendation for what you’re describing.

      • Thank you Luke, I’m going to look more into the Mantra M5. I’ve been sort-of disregarding it because have the 2010 Mantra which was more ‘planky’ and larger turning. By Soul7 “sportscar feel” I mean the energy that rockets you out of a deep turn and into the next turn… I’d guess the Soul7’s energy proabably comes from loading up its significant camber.

        • Yep, the new Mantra, with its camber and new construction, definitely feels much more energetic than the previous versions. Sam is a huge fan of both skis and thinks they complement each other well.

      • Great review! These are due to arrive any day now! I’m 5’10.5” around 200lbs. Gonna be 40 this year and just getting back into skiing after a long hiatus with marriage, kids, job, etc. wanting to have a ski setup that allows for some park skiing as well as the groomer Ohio slopes. I used to be a madman when I was 20, but 40 is a different story. What mount point would you recommend? I also used to be an inline skater who did rails, so I do appreciate the center balance feel, but I don’t want to sacrifice the Rangers all mountain carving potential. Thoughts?

  2. I managed a quick demo of this the other day. Felt really good; could handle speed, good edge grip and not too hard to break free the tails. I also skied the Ti92, which felt a bit less playful but more stable. It’d be great to see a comparison between the two lines (I know there’s stuff already out there about the construction of FR vs Ti, but I was hoping to see weights and tip/tail profiles.)

    Looking forward to the full review!

  3. I got 25+ days on my 102 FR this past season and love them but I think they’re short at 170cm length. I’m 170cm tall 150lbs expert and the 170 is super manueverable but feel like a very short effective edge
    1) Luke/Sam at I think 174/179cm tall would you be on the 184 or 177 if you were buying this ski?
    2) As a mainly Tahoe and Utah ‘daily driver’ would you get the 94 or the 102 to complement a powder ski? (I’m off trail in the trees a huge amount of the time, not sure yet if wider ski will be a wildcat, line outline, or rustler 11)

    I can’t find anyplace to demo Fischer so i’m torn between the 94 or 102

    • Don’t know if this helps, but I’m riding the Ranger 102 – I’m 6’2″, 220 pounds, skiing the 184 length and I’m very happy with that length. I did like them better when I moved the bindings forward as suggested. I had times where it was a little tough to maneuver in tight trees or bumps, it was easier when I moved the bindings forward. Thankfully I had demo bindings on them.

  4. I’d be curious to hear how the 94 FR feels with the bindings moved backwards from the recommended, especially as I’m under the impression that its shape is basically identical to the 102 FR, just narrower. Let me explain…

    I myself came to like the 102 FR last season as a reliable but still relatively playful ski. I experimented with the mount position initially (demo bindings), trying to find a more forward position that I liked. Personally, I settled on +3 cm, as at +4 cm I felt that I couldn’t drive the front of the ski as much as I would like to, loosing an important characteristic of the ski without gaining really in playfulness or quickness in return. And I kept skiing it at +3 for the rest of the season. But, somehow, there was always a minor feeling of… I don’t know… not quite clicking with the ski fully when skiing it.

    On my last trip (Sölden during Easter), I ended up moving the binding backwards a little (~+2), somehow it felt like like the right thing to do, and, indeed, in the icy morning conditions the skis worked better, and also later during the day when the snow softened, the skis felt still good, a little behind from what I had been used to. Then I got curious, what if I go more backwards, instead of trying to make these skis emulate some other, more freestyley skis… and at +1, then +0 cm the skis just felt more… playful(!), and driving the front of the skis felt very natural. And for me, the skis finally clicked.

    I now read the Ranger 102 FR review rather differently than I used to. The Ranger likes to be driven. Yes, indeed.

    For reference, my favourite ski is still the Candide 2.0/3.0/4.0. I ski them very differently compared to the Ranger 102FR, and I like it that way.

  5. Hi,
    again a great review from you guys, as always!
    I’m curious about how the 94 FR skis compared to the last years 98 Ti? Im thinking about to mount my ATK’s on a FR 94 to replace my 98 Ti.

  6. Thank you for doing what you do. For several years I have been looking for just the right ride for the way and places I ski. I live in the midwest and make from one to several trips out west (as we say) every year. Mostly in the resort but jump at every chance for short tours and hikes outside the gate. So far I am thrilled with the Ranger 94. Mounted it with a Shift. The setup does everything I want it to do, and rides exactly as described. I would not have found it without your thorough reviews. The comparisons are particularly helpful. Keep it up!

  7. How do the Ranger 94 FR compare with the DPS Foundation 94? You guys have a nice write-up for the DPS Foundation 94 under Best Skis for Beginners, “ But for use all-around the mountain — or your first ever turns on ski — the shape, weight, and supportive flex pattern of this ski are quite ideal.” Could the Ranger 94 FR also fit into the same duty given their weight, tip/tail rocker being similar? Or would they be too stiff?

  8. I don’t think the Ranger 94 would be my top pick for a beginner, mostly due to its stiff tail. While it was less punishing than I expected after hand-flexing it, there are lots of better options for people who often end up in the backseat (including the Cassiar F94). The Cassiar is a bit more forgiving overall, I think the two are pretty similar in terms of stability, but the Ranger feels quicker, more energetic, and more playful.

  9. Hi,
    I want to change my current Armada TST 183cm by some similar ski but better in hard snow conditions, because I feel it a little bit soft in this conditions. Maybe something a little bit narrower and a little bit harder (but not super heavy charger) and with similar playfulness.
    Is this Fischer Ranger 94 FR a good choice?
    I’m 179cm tall. What ski lenght do you recomendó? 177 or 185?
    Thank you

  10. Hey guys, I’ve found some great end of season prices on these Ranger 94 FR’s, but saw one bad customer review on durability? Do these exhibit any unusual signs of wear and tear after one season?

        • I’m 2.5 years late here but for anyone reading this, I’ve been a little disappointed in the construction of these. There’s not plastic cap at the end of the tail, and I’m only 2-3 days of normal resort skiing, the tails are starting to delaminate. I put a layer of epoxy over them to hopefully seal it up and protect it, but it sorta sucks to have this happen so soon. Otherwise I LOVE the ski.

  11. Love the review! How would you compare the Ranger 94 to the enforcer 93? I mostly ski inbounds in the Midwest/east coast, with roughly 1 trip per year out west.

  12. Totally stuck between the 94FR and 99ti! I’m 6’ 215lbs strong intermediate. Mostly on piste but a little glade/ tree skiing. Love a strong carver but with moderate weight and a bit of pop. Live in a lower snow area but travel few weeks annually to higher snow areas. Thanks in advance. Nick.

    • Hey Nick — I think either could work, and it mostly comes down to what skis you’ve been on in the past and what you liked / disliked about them. Both are great carvers, but the Ranger 99Ti is more powerful, stable, and finishes turns with a bit more precision, while the Ranger 94 is easier to break free from a carve and is a bit looser and easier to pivot off piste, which makes it feel more forgiving and playful.

        • Got it, I think in that case the Ranger 94 might make a bit more sense as the 99 Ti will likely feel more locked-in and difficult to release from a turn vs. the Mindbender 90 and Wailer 100.

  13. For frozen slopes or hard snow, like you have on the East Coast, which ski will perform better : Ranger 94 FR or Blizzard Rustler 9?

    Both skis have big tail rocker, Fischer Ranger 94 FR I could say it’s towards Twin Tip. Thank you!

  14. I’m curious to know how going down to the 177 affects it’s rating in the buyers guide. I ski a Kore 105 in a 180, a rather boring ski, and wanting something more fun for groomers and low snow days. The 177 seems like it’d be too short, 185 too long. Thanks!

    • What ski is your 180 cm daily driver? Does it ever feel particularly long or short?

      If it’s a pretty heavy, flat-tailed, and / or stiff ski, I’d go with the 184 cm. If it was a light, more rockered, and / or soft ski, I might recommend sizing down to the 177 cm.

  15. Me: 6’2 165, better than intermediate but can’t claim ‘advanced’ status. Ski all over Japan, occasional trips to Rockies or Alps
    I’m skiing a 185cm Enforcer 100 daily driver. I like the flex and stability, but would prefer something a little quicker and narrower for trees. Based on reviews, Blister’s & others, I don’t think the Enforcer 94 is the answer.
    I’m looking at the 180 Ripstick 96 Black and a 185 Ranger 94 FR, or possibly a Mantra at 177.
    Appreciate any thoughts/advice you could offer. Mucho arigato!

    • I think the 184 cm Ranger 94 could be a very good choice. It basically sits between the Enforcer 100 and Elan Ripstick 96 in terms of stability and maneuverability. While the Ripstick will feel even lighter and more nimble, it’s also going to feel a lot less smooth and stable when conditions are rough. Given that, I feel like the Ranger 94 could be a good compromise — it feels a lot lighter, more maneuverable, and more energetic than the Enforcer 100, but it’s still a pretty stable ski. The 177 cm Mantra could work and is a bit more stable than the 184 cm Ranger 94, but especially if you’re frequently skiing softer or more variable conditions, I think you might find it a bit challenging to maneuver and like it’s not all that much quicker than the 185 cm Enforcer 100.

      • Thanks, Luke. I’ll be using it for mostly variable snow, so sounds like the Ranger is the call.
        Much appreciate the response. Blister rules!

  16. Question about sizing. I’m 5’6″ (168cm) 145lb. Expert and aggresive skier, although at 54 not as strong as I used to be. I’m replacing an Experience 88 170cm as the low tide ski on my quiver. Also have a Woodsman 108 177cm and Volkl One 176cm. The 169cm is right in the size range for me, however I think this ski is probably more rockered and skis shorter than other similar width skis such as the E88, Kendo, Mindbender 90 etc. So I’m wondering if you think it’s best to size up to the 177. Thanks!

    • Yep, if the 177 Woodsman and 176 One don’t feel super long to you, I think I’d go with the 177 Ranger 94. Its shape, rocker profile, weight, and mount point will all make it feel a bit shorter than something like the E88, Kendo, etc.

  17. G’day. Versus the Head Kore 93? Mostly on piste but able to handle roughed up groomers and a little off piste when snow is good. Also for mucking round with the kids. I’m 6ft 205pounds. Intermediate skier. Thanks in advance.

    • A little tough to say as I have pretty minimal experience on the Kore 93, but I think it’s safe to say that the Ranger 94 is going to be a bit more damp / stable at high speeds and on rough snow, and the Ranger is going to be a bit more forgiving and maneuverable off piste. The Kore 93 probably wins in terms of edge hold and turn initiation on piste, but the more you prioritize stability, suspension, and / or off-piste maneuverability, the more I’d lean toward the Ranger.

  18. Just had my first day skiing these at Welch Village. These are fun skis with a lot of pop and much more forgiving than my 2020 Blizzard Brahma. Thanks for the mount point tip. Turned it into a really great ski. Looking forward to a couple trips out West! Thanks for the great reviews!

Leave a Comment