Ski: 2022-2023 Fischer Ranger 102, 183 cm
Test Locations: Crested Butte Mountain Resort, CO; Queenstown, New Zealand
Days Skied: 20+
Available Lengths: 155, 162, 169, 176, 183, 190 cm
Blister’s Measured Tip-to-Tail Length (straight-tape pull): 181.2 cm
Stated Weight per Ski (183 cm): 2050 grams
Blister’s Measured Weight per Ski: 2057 & 2061 grams
Stated Dimensions: 138-103-128 mm
Blister’s Measured Dimensions: 137.5-102.2-127.8 mm
Stated Sidecut Radius (183 cm): 19 meters
Measured Tip & Tail Splay (ski decambered): 70 mm / 34 mm
Measured Traditional Camber Underfoot: 4 mm
Core Materials: beech/poplar + titanal (1 partial layer) + fiberglass laminate
Base: sintered
Factory Recommended Mount Point: -10 cm from center; 80.6 cm from tail
Ski: 2022-2023 Fischer Ranger 102, 176 cm
Blister’s Measured Tip-to-Tail Length (straight-tape pull): 174.4 cm
Stated Weight per Ski (176 cm): 1950 grams
Blister’s Measured Weight per Ski: 1880 & 1916 grams
Stated Dimensions: 137-102-127 mm
Blister’s Measured Dimensions: 136.3-101.2-126.1 mm
Stated Sidecut Radius (176 cm): 18 meters
Measured Tip & Tail Splay (ski decambered): 66.5 mm / 35 mm
Measured Traditional Camber Underfoot: 3.5 mm
Factory Recommended Mount Point: -10.1 cm from center; 77.1 cm from tail
Boots / Bindings: Tecnica Mach1 MV 130, Tecnica Cochise Pro W, Atomic Hawx Ultra 130, Lange RS 130 / Tyrolia Attack 13
Intro
Fischer launched overhauled versions of their entire Ranger series of freeride / all-mountain skis for the 2022-2023 season. From the Ranger 90 to the Ranger 116, all the skis featured new constructions, with the Ranger 102 slotting right in the middle of the range, serving as the do-everything model in the lineup.
The previous Ranger 102 FR was a favorite of many of our reviewers and Blister Members, so we were eager to see how the new version compared to its predecessor, and where it slotted into the current market of ~100mm-wide all-mountain skis.
For reference, Fischer takes a truly “unisex” approach to their entire Ranger lineup. There are no women-specific or men-specific versions of the Ranger, just a very broad size range and two colorways for most models, so you can pick your preferred graphic. We’ve had both female and male reviewers testing the new Ranger 102 in two different lengths.
Before we dive into the Ranger 102’s on-snow performance, check out our Blister Summit Brand Lineup video with Fischer to learn more about all of the updates that come with the new series:
(And if you’d like to try these skis for yourself, join us at the 2023 Blister Summit, where you’ll be able to try a whole bunch of skis from Fischer and more than two-dozen other brands.)
What Fischer says about the Ranger 102
“Deep-snow skiers benefit from the wider size, and this ski also has a smooth ride on groomers. Its excellent ride quality comes from a calibrated Flex Cut and Titanal reinforcement exactly where needed. Agile, stable, and easy to steer, the Ranger 102 is the ideal skiing partner for enjoying a wide variety of skiing.”
Construction
The latest Ranger 102 features a poplar / beech wood core, fiberglass laminate, sintered base, and a partial titanal laminate. The latter consists of a split piece of metal that covers the binding area and extends a bit toward the tips and tails; the narrower Rangers feature a slightly longer metal layer, while the wider Rangers have a bit less metal.
Shape / Rocker Profile
Compared to the original Ranger 102 FR, the latest Ranger 102 shares nearly identical dimensions, though its tips and tails are a bit more squared-off / blocky-looking. Overall, there’s nothing super out of the ordinary going on with its shape.
The Ranger 102’s rocker profile is similarly familiar, with a pretty deep tip rocker line, camber through most of the ski, and a shallower tail rocker line.
Flex Pattern
Here’s how we’d characterize the flex pattern of the 183 cm Ranger 102:
Tips: 6.6-5
Shovels: 6.5-8
In Front of Toe Piece: 8-9.5
Underfoot: 10
Behind the Heel Piece: 9.5
Tails: 9-8
And here’s how we’d characterize the flex pattern of the 176 cm Ranger 102:
Tips: 5.5
Shovels: 6-7
In Front of Toe Piece: 7.5-9.5
Underfoot: 10
Behind the Heel Piece: 9.5
Tails: 9-7.5
These two lengths of the Ranger 102 feel pretty similar around and behind the bindings, though the 176 cm is significantly softer at the tips and shovels. Overall, the latest Ranger 102 has a softer flex pattern than the Ranger 102 FR, particularly through the front of the ski. The Ranger 102 FR was pretty consistently stiff throughout, whereas the Ranger 102’s front half is notably softer than the back half of the ski (more on that later).
Mount Point
Not much change here — the Ranger 102 still features a very directional, rearward mount point of about -10 cm from true center.
Weight
The Ranger 102 has lost a bit of weight (~40 g), but not much. At about 2060 grams per ski for the 183 cm length, the Ranger 102 is a fairly light ski, but not extremely light by today’s standards.
For reference, here are a number of our measured weights (per ski in grams) for some notable skis. Keep in mind the length differences to try to keep things apples-to-apples.
1707 & 1752 4FRNT Switch, 184 cm (21/22–22/23)
1735 & 1740 K2 Mindbender 106C, 175 cm (21/22-22/23)
1761 & 1778 Zag Slap 104, 176 cm (21/22-22/23)
1781 & 1795 Atomic Maverick 100 Ti, 180 cm (21/22–22/23)
1797 & 1839 Rossignol Rallybird 104 Ti, 171 cm (20/21–22/23)
1807 & 1840 Atomic Bent 100, 188 cm (18/19–22/23)
1816 & 1819 Head Kore 99, 184 cm (22/23)
1878 & 1891 Salomon QST Stella 106, 173 cm (22/23)
1880 & 1916 Fischer Ranger 102, 176 cm (22/23)
1896 & 1942 K2 Reckoner 102, 184 cm (20/21–22/23)
1925 & 1934 Black Crows Camox, 186.5 cm (19/20–22/23)
1929 & 1982 Faction Mana 2, 183 cm (22/23)
1933 & 1943 Norse Enduro, 188 cm (20/21–22/23)
1936 & 2013 Salomon Stance 96, 182 cm (20/21–22/23)
1938 & 2003 Nordica Unleashed 98, 186 cm (22/23)
1958 & 1960 Faction Dancer 3X, 172 cm (22/23)
1960 & 1962 Majesty Dirty Bear XL, 186 cm (22/23)
1970 & 1993 Moment Deathwish 104, 184 cm (21/22–22/23)
1973 & 1997 Volkl Revolt 104, 188 cm (21/22–22/23)
1976 & 2028 Parlor Cardinal Pro, 182 cm (19/20–21/22)
1998 & 2044 4FRNT MSP 99, 181 cm (17/18–22/23)
2009 & 2010 Rossignol Sender 104 Ti, 186 cm (22/23)
2010 & 2023 Moment Commander 98, 182 cm (20/21–22/23)
2022 & 2046 DPS Foundation Koala 103, 184 cm (21/22–22/23)
2024 & 2112 Dynastar M-Free 99, 185 cm (21/22–22/23)
2035 & 2118 Faction Dancer 3, 183 cm (22/23)
2043 & 2089 Volkl M6 Mantra, 177 cm (21/22–22/23)
2049 & 2053 Whitedot Altum 104, 187 cm (19/20–22/23)
2054 & 2063 Salomon QST 98, 189 cm (21/22–22/23)
2057 & 2061 Fischer Ranger 102, 183 cm (22/23)
2074 & 2088 Line Blade Optic 104, 178 cm (22/23)
2077 & 2096 Line Blade Optic 96, 184 cm (22/23)
2101 & 2104 Fischer Ranger 102 FR, 184 cm (18/19–20/21)
2118 & 2128 ZAG Harfang 106, 186 cm (22/23)
2120 & 2134 Blizzard Rustler 10, 188 cm (19/20–22/23)
2128 & 2186 J Skis Masterblaster, 181 cm (21/22)
2138 & 2172 Rossignol Sender 106 Ti+, 187 cm (22/23)
2165 & 2186 Wagner Summit 97, 182 cm (21/22–22/23)
2178 & 2195 Volkl M6 Mantra, 184 cm (21/22–22/23)
2166 & 2237 Volkl Mantra 102, 184 cm (22/23)
2230 & 2290 Line Blade Optic 104, 185 cm (22/23)
2232 & 2242 Blizzard Cochise 106, 185 cm (20/21–22/23)
2233 & 2255 Nordica Enforcer 104 Free, 186 cm (19/20–22/23)
2281 & 2284 Blizzard Bonafide 97, 177 cm (20/21–21/22)
2326 & 2336 Nordica Enforcer 100, 186 cm (20/21–22/23)
Now, onto how all of this translates on snow:
FULL REVIEW
We first got on the updated Rangers back at the 2022 Blister Summit, and then a whole bunch of our reviewers continued testing them throughout the spring and into this season. We’ve had male and female reviewers on both the 176 cm and 183 cm Ranger 102 during that whole testing period, and now it’s time to weigh in:
Groomers
Luke Koppa (5’8”, 155 lbs / 173 cm, 70 kg): For a ~102mm-wide all-mountain ski, the latest Ranger 102 is a very respectable carver. And in most conditions, it’s a whole lot of fun to bend this ski into a variety of turns.
I think what makes it shine on piste is its easy turn initiation. As will be a theme here, the Ranger 102’s tips and shovels feel notably softer than the back half of the ski, and on piste, this makes for a ski that doesn’t require much effort to bend and get carving across the fall line (notably less effor than the old Ranger 102 FR). But it also provides a good bit of support through the midsection and tails, meaning I can still finish carves with a bit of precision and pop.
That said, like the other new Rangers, I definitely feel like I’m getting most of my edge hold from the middle of the Ranger 102. While its shovels make it easy to start a turn, they don’t feel all that precise (more on that later), so it took me some time to get used to the ski and learn how to really take advantage of the edge hold of the middle of the ski. Once I did, I found myself willing to actually carve icy, scraped-off patches of groomers (something I can’t say for many skis this wide), but it wasn’t as easy to trust in those conditions as something like, say, the Volkl Mantra 102 or Rossignol Sender 106 Ti. Once you get used to it, though, the Ranger 102 is both easy to bend into turns and reliable in terms of edge hold through the middle of the ski.
So overall, I’d say the Ranger 102 is a very good carver for its width, it just wouldn’t be my top pick if you really need your 100+ mm ski to be great on icy pistes.
Eric Freson (5’10”, 175 lbs / 178 cm, 79 kg): I found the new Ranger 102 to feel generally a bit looser than the previous version did, with the most notable change coming from its shovel, which feels less precise and less willing to hunt for grip in firm snow than the last iteration. I’d echo what Luke points out; to me, it also feels like the sweet spot in terms of grip on groomers was around the center of the ski.
Somewhat conversely to my experience off piste, I had the most fun on groomers aboard the Ranger 102 when skiing with a fairly centered stance, and unweighting the ski and pivoting from my heels. I found the tails to provide good feedback and be more predictable than the shovels of the ski, but I was missing the enthusiasm and energy that the previous version fed you when exiting a turn and transitioning to the next. This latest version of the Ranger 102 took less focus and energy for me to ski it, but the tradeoff was I had a harder time imagining myself chasing slalom gates on it.
Kara Williard (5’9”, 167 lbs / 175 cm, 75.7 kg): Unlike most of the Blister crew, I haven’t spent time on the previous Ranger series, so my outlook on this ski was pretty fresh without much to compare. But I agree with what was said above. The Ranger 102 is very easy to initiate on groomers, provides some energy and support coming out of turns, and is a pretty good carver for its width. However, if you spend a lot of time on icy or really firm groomers, there are more stable and precise options that feel a little more locked in and reassuring.
Charlie Schayer (6’3”, 190lbs / 190cm, 86kg): I agree with Luke and Eric’s assessment of the Ranger 102’s groomer performance. Like Kara, I also had not previously skied the older Ranger prior to getting on the new one, so I was able to get on this version with no expectations and found it to be an accommodating ski on groomed runs. Now that I have been able to try both iterations, I’ll echo Eric and Luke’s comments; the older version has a higher performance ceiling and superior edge hold on firm snow.
Jonathan Ellsworth (5’10”, ~180 lbs / 178 cm, 81.6 kg): A lot has already been said here, so let me just add this: carving up groomers is where I have enjoyed the updated Ranger 102 the most. Turn initiation is easy, and I suspect that if you asked 1000 skiers which version of the Ranger 102 they preferred on groomers, a majority would choose this updated version.
Moguls, Trees, & Tight Terrain
Luke: At least for me (see our other reviewers’ thoughts, below), the latest Ranger 102 is a bit of a mixed bag in tight, off-piste terrain. On one hand, its tips and shovels feel very easy to smear around, its tail doesn’t feel extremely locked in or difficult to release, and it has a low swing weight. On the other hand, I’ve had a hard time getting along with the binary-feeling nature of its flex pattern.
When I was skiing more conservatively and really focusing on keeping my weight over the front of the ski, the Ranger 102 was a quick and agile ski in bumps and trees. Its tails weren’t all that difficult to release and pivot, and its minimal swing weight made quick changes of direction feasible.
However, when I was slightly off my A-game — usually at the end of a long day or when I was really trying to ski fast — the Ranger 102’s tail felt quick to punish mistakes. Or, more specifically, I found the sweet spot of the ski to be fairly small. There are skis that are stiffer overall (front and back) that felt more intuitive to me, since I could just drive their shovels as hard as I wanted in order to stay off their stiff tails. And there are skis that are softer overall that better suit a more centered, upright stance that occasionally involves some backseat slashes. With the Ranger 102, it felt like there was a smaller range in my body positioning where I felt supported by the front of the ski but not punished by the back.
Now, this was mitigated by the Ranger 102’s low swing weight — in general, I find it easier to recover from the backseat on a lighter ski. Still, on a ski like this that has a lower swing weight that encourages a dynamic style, a punishing tail makes me more hesitant to really push it, since I’m more prone to making a mistake when I’m trying to ski bumps and trees quite fast. I preferred the 176 cm length in this terrain (more on that below), but overall, the 176 cm and 183 cm versions felt quite similar to me.
Eric: I think Luke encapsulates the character of the Ranger 102 really well. My own analogy would be something akin to playing aboard a see-saw. I’m having fun, but I’m on edge waiting for things to shift under me. When over the shovel of the ski in bumps, it was easy for me to feel like I was overwhelming the Ranger 102 and getting too far forward. Adjusting my weight a bit to compensate had me quickly moving past the “pivot point” of the ski’s flex, and getting bounced off the trails, probably in the backseat.
The Ranger 102 does move under you easily as a light ski, and coupled with its loose shovel, it made it a ton of fun to smear, hunt for transitions, and dive into uncertain lines. But with a narrow “pivot point” to try to stay balanced on, it meant that I wasn’t encouraged to let things run out as long or get as out of control before I checked up and dialed back my speed.
Kara: I spent quite a bit of time on the 176 cm Ranger 102 in bumps and tight terrain, and while I agree with just about everything Luke and Eric said, I think for my skiing style, it just worked a bit better for me. For one, I ski a lot more slowly than either of them (I mean, I wish I could keep up with Luke or Eric on a mogul run, but try as I might…). I also tend to be pretty far forward and not very upright or centered on a ski, especially in moguls. So, with the mixture of my more conservative skiing style and being generally more forward, I benefited from the Ranger 102’s easy turn initiation, low swing weight, and fairly easy tail release, without ever feeling too aware of the stiffer tail. That is, until I hit a weird mogul, felt off-balance, or got tired.
In sum, the Ranger 102’s flex pattern is not the most intuitive (Luke’s description of binary is apt), and I would agree that the tail can feel punishing. But depending on how you ski or what your preferences are, this can be anywhere from super obvious to barely noticeable.
Charlie: Hmmm, perhaps I’m more on ‘Team Kara’ than ‘Team Luke and Eric’ on this one. I really enjoy this ski in bumps and tight terrain. When you find the sweet spot, the Ranger 102 rewards you with quickness and maneuverability. I found it to be at its best when I was being conscious of my line choice and skiing deliberately. Although, I agree with Eric that I could overwhelm the ski when skiing fast and aggressively.
Jonathan: I’m very, very much on Team Luke and Eric here. But this might be the really important caveat: in moguled-up terrain, I found the Ranger 102 to have a frustratingly tiny sweet spot. I’m in exact agreement with Eric’s description, and in moguled-up terrain, I found myself missing the prior Ranger 102 FR very much.
That said, if you spend lots of time on groomers and little of your time in off-piste moguls, I suspect that you might wonder what Luke, Eric, and I are even talking about. On groomers and on smoother off-piste slopes, I think you’ll be a lot less likely to activate that ‘see-saw’ effect. So, as always, Know Thyself — and think about the type of terrain you spend the most time skiing.
But let’s get back to moguls for a minute. Another thing I struggled with was not just the small-feeling sweet spot of the ski, but when driving the shovels down hard on the backside of moguls, I regularly felt the ski wanting to hook up and hang a hard left or right when I didn’t want it to. I never had this feeling on the previous Ranger 102 FR. So while I think the flex pattern of the updated Ranger 102 creates advantages over the previous 102 FR on groomers, that same flex pattern (for me, at least) creates disadvantages when skiing fast in moguls (especially moguls that aren’t perfectly spaced out and well manicured).
Powder & Soft Chop
Luke: I think the Ranger 102 is a very solid powder ski for its width. Compared to the previous version, the latest Ranger 102 looks (and feels) like it has more surface area in the tips, and they’re definitely softer, which helps in terms of flotation. And as I alluded to above, the latest Ranger 102’s tips and shovels feel much easier to smear and slide around than the previous version, which adds to the newer ski’s maneuverability in soft snow.
Overall, the Ranger 102 is still not some ultra-surfy ski, particularly if you’re comparing it to more playful, freestyle-oriented options like the Dynastar M-Free 99, but it definitely sits on the more maneuverable end of the spectrum for ~100mm-wide, directional all-mountain skis. And unlike some of the more forward-mounted, freestyle-oriented skis in its class, you can still ski the Ranger 102 with a fairly forward stance in deeper, softer snow (and you kind of need to if you want to release its tails and throw it sideways).
Eric: I skied the Ranger 102 on some excellent soft chop days. It felt most in its element here, to me. The soft shovel, low swing weight, and its easy-to-smear nature meant that it makes a fun game out of powder-pile smashing. Look for soft lumps, pivot to meet them, and enjoy the momentary decrease in speed and increase in control while your eyes search to acquire the next one — all in an effort to help keep you in check as you hurtle down a run and keep your skis pointed down the fall line. Good stuff!
Kara: I brought along the Ranger 102 on a summer ski trip to New Zealand this year because I was expecting to ski anything from a bit of powder and chop to potential rain crust and ice. Well, it turned out to be the latter, but because of the way the Ranger 102 skis in soft chop and powder, I chose to bring it along. As Luke and Eric mentioned, the Ranger 102 is loose and maneuverable in chop and powder. These conditions are also where I found the Ranger 102 to feel the most lively and energetic, so in combination with its loose and somewhat surfy nature, it was plenty of fun to hop around on and pop out of turns in soft and forgiving conditions.
Firm Chop & Crud
Luke: The Ranger 102 is not a super damp or stable ski. It’s respectable in both regards — and better than many lighter skis in its class — but there are several heavier alternatives that do a much better job of muting out harsh vibrations of rough snow and stay more composed when skiing fast in those sorts of conditions.
As in most conditions and terrain, the less you ski in the backseat and the more you keep pressure on the Ranger 102’s shovels, the better it feels in firm, bumpy snow. There’s a notable difference in how composed it feels once you get slightly off its shovels vs. when you’re really driving them, but it can be difficult to do so in really challenging conditions. So my preferred approach in crud was to make lots of turns at more moderate speeds, so that I could keep my stance more consistent and, in turn, keep the ski feeling more in control.
Eric: As someone who’s less apt to accommodate to the way a ski wants to be skied, and is more interested in forcing it to accommodate me, the Ranger 102 and I butted heads a bit in firmer, chopped-up snow. As Luke points out, I wouldn’t benchmark it as a particularly damp ski, and its flex pattern meant that how stable it was feeling could oscillate quite a bit, depending on where my weight and balance was over the ski.
This added up to the Ranger 102 not really inspiring me to feel overly confident in what are often the type of conditions that make a skier feel least confident. When snow softness, texture, and energy are changing quickly, a ski whose character also changes quite substantially over just 183 cm of length meant it kept me on edge and on my toes. This can be fun when everything is going to plan and when I was able to stay forward over the ski, leverage the loose shovel, precisely finesse the middle of the ski, and stand up on the tails to effectively navigate through the terrain. Doing this, the ski felt light and alive. But when things would go awry (as they always do), similar to how the ski felt when pushing hard on groomers and bumps, the sweet spot of the ski feels small, and this just meant that it was hard for me to build confidence and trust the Ranger 102, as it’s range of responses to terrain was just so large.
Kara: When applying my more conservative, slower, and more deliberate skiing style, the Ranger 102 felt reasonable in cruddy conditions. While I agree with what Luke and Eric said, I thought the Ranger 102 felt pretty smooth and stable in harsh conditions, provided I was driving its shovels. It’s definitely not at the top of its class in terms of damping and suspension, but it’s pretty respectable, given its weight.
As I mentioned above, I skied some of the harshest conditions of my life on the Ranger 102 (rain crust + breakable crust + wind-scoured chop). In these conditions, and as long as I stayed forward, I appreciated the maneuverable nature of the Ranger 102, which, combined with its fairly good suspension and low swing weight, kept it from feeling cumbersome or difficult to dump speed. But of course, mistakes and sloppy technique are inevitable, so when I did find myself in the backseat, the flex pattern of the Ranger 102 didn’t feel very intuitive.
Playfulness & Mount Point
Luke: I’d call the Ranger 102 a somewhat playful but very directional ski. Its rearward mount point (-10 cm from true center) and directional flex pattern don’t make it feel very conducive to taking a freestyle approach to skiing, but it does have a low swing weight and is fairly energetic. I’d say the former is the main thing making this a somewhat “playful” ski, but if you’re looking to prioritize freestyle performance, you’ve got loads of better options.
As for mount point, interestingly (but maybe not surprisingly), I ended up preferring the Ranger 102 mounted on its recommended line. I say “interestingly” because, for my preferences and skiing style, I often end up preferring skis with similar recommended mount points with the bindings pushed a centimeter or two forward of their recommended lines, in order to get a slightly more balanced feel in the air and on the snow, but doing so on the Ranger 102 mostly just made its tail feel more punishing and it didn’t let me ski much more centered. So, to reiterate what we’ve said above, I think the Ranger 102 will work best for directional skiers who stick to a pretty forward stance, in which case the recommended mount point will likely be the right call.
Eric: I tend to spend a lot of time on heavier skis, often with denser core materials and/or more metal in them. That’s important to note because any time I find myself aboard a ski with a faster rebounding flex pattern and/or lighter construction, I feel like I have a ton of energy and pop coming from the ski. The Ranger 102’s soft shovel, stiff tail, low swing weight, and fast rebound meant that, somewhat conversely to how I felt leaving a turn on piste, I felt like the Ranger 102 had a lot of energy to unload off piste, and therefore a lot of pop and playfulness. I never think of playfulness as being anything other than directional (shovels pointed downhill for me, thanks), so, in keeping with the previous Ranger 102 FR, I found this version to be quite a playful ski.
At 183 cm and with a soft shovel and low swing weight, I was never very interested in pushing the mount point of the Ranger 102 any farther forward. To do so would have had me feeling too centered / short-shoveled, relative to the flex and length of the ski.
Kara: For me, the -10 cm recommended mount point worked well without a second thought, given that I am a very directional skier. In general, the Ranger 102 feels like a mildly playful directional ski. It’s pretty easy to slarve and slash, and combined with its low swing weight, it can feel pretty playful to a directional skier.
Length
Luke: I’ve spent time on both the 183 cm and 176 cm Ranger 102. For reference, I typically prefer skis around this width in the ~180–190 cm range, usually close to the middle of that spectrum. If I were to own this ski, I’d probably go with the 176 cm length, since I found it slightly more forgiving in moguls and trees, which I spend a lot of time in, and I didn’t feel a massive difference in stability between the two lengths. Given that this ski isn’t inherently super damp or stable, I think optimizing its quickness and maneuverability is the way I’d go (via the shorter length), rather than trying to eke out a bit more composure at speed (via the longer length), at the cost of a more difficult time in tight terrain. Your mileage may vary, depending on where and how you ski.
Eric: Having also skied both the 176 cm and 183 cm, I think Luke’s right on the money here. Conventionally, I would gravitate toward the 190 cm version of the Ranger 102, but its strengths and character would have me leaning toward the 183 cm in this instance. Its quick and light feel would be more fun to take advantage of than a bit more stability at speed, and so if I were to own the Ranger 102 I’d be more focused on “slice and dice” than “smash and grab” mentality, and would correspondingly go with the more agile length.
Kara: As someone who prefers lengths anywhere from 170 cm 180 cm, the 176 cm Ranger 102 was pretty optimal for me, and I certainly wouldn’t opt to go longer, especially given the stiffness of the tail.
Who’s It For?
Luke: I think the Ranger 102 makes the most sense for skiers with solid technique who value a low swing weight and a pretty maneuverable ride, but who still want a ~100mm-wide all-mountain ski that carves well and can be pushed pretty hard in consistent snow conditions. There are more forgiving skis that are better choices for those just starting to venture off piste, and more stable skis with better suspension that stay more composed when skiing fast in challenging conditions. The Ranger 102 could be a good fit for those who want a pretty quick ski but who often find skis that fit that description lacking in support through the tail.
Eric: The most distinguishing characteristic of the Fischer Ranger skis I have reviewed is that they always leave me feeling like they excel as skis that you’ll use to truly split your time between groomed and ungroomed terrain. Meaning, you’re someone who places an equal amount of importance on both on- and off-piste performance, and you’re looking for a tool* (intentional word choice) that most seamlessly bridges the gap between a ski that can be fun on both the frontside and the backside of the mountain.
The Ranger 102 benefits from a skier with good form and balance, a calm upper body, and a penchant for enjoying loading and unloading a ski smoothly. It doesn’t work best as an outlet for raw emotion, energy, or angst. Rather, it’s rewarding in consistent snow conditions where a skier piloting the Ranger 102 can really get in touch with the feel of the ski, dial up the zen, and work on making every action deliberate, purposeful, and as well executed as possible. It was a really rewarding ski in this context, and the kind of ski that kept me coming back for more in a search to master it.
Kara: Despite some of the quirks that result from the flex pattern of the Ranger 102, I still think it could work well for quite a few directional skiers. The word that I used above to describe my skiing style I also now see in Eric’s description above, and it’s an important one when it comes to the Ranger 102 – “deliberate.” The Ranger 102 rewarded my deliberate approach to finding the smoothest line and working to always keep my weight over the front of the ski.
When skied in this way, the Ranger 102 feels like a very versatile ski. The Ranger 102 is worth a look from directional skiers who are looking for something lightweight that will handle a variety of conditions, and who prioritize maneuverability over suspension / damping. I can see the Ranger 102 as a good contender as a 1-ski quiver for the right person, wherein there might be compromises in one direction or another, but across the board it handles most things fairly well (so long as your skiing style matches what we’ve mentioned above).
Jonathan: The less time you spend trying to ski fast in weird, tricky moguls, the more I think you will like this ski. And if you spend most of your time on groomers — and don’t already have very clear performance characteristics that you demand out of your ~100mm-wide ski — the more I think you will enjoy this Ranger 102.
Bottom Line
The latest Fischer Ranger 102 is a nimble and maneuverable ski that rewards good technique and is still quite engaging and fun on piste. Its flex pattern might not feel intuitive to everyone, especially if you ski with a fairly centered stance or prefer skis that are consistently stiff from tip to tail. But for directional skiers who ski with good technique and a controlled, deliberate style, it is a very versatile all-mountain ski.
Deep Dive Comparisons
Become a Blister Member to check out our Deep Dive comparisons of the Ranger 102 to see how it compares to the Ranger 102 FR, Ranger 108, Ranger 96, K2 Mindbender 99Ti, Black Crows Justis, Blizzard Bonafide, Zag Slap 104, Blizzard Rustler 10, Rossignol Sender 104 Ti, Moment Commander 98, Line Blade Optic 104, Black Crows Atris, Elan Ripstick 106, Faction Dancer 2, Atomic Maverick 100 Ti, Dynastar M-Pro 99, Nordica Enforcer 100, Salomon QST 98, Nordica Enforcer 104 Free, Volkl Mantra 102, Salomon Stance 102, J Skis Masterblaster, & 4FRNT MSP 99.
The difference in flex is very interesting, I wonder if the 190 is stiffer still. I’d thought the ski was softer than I’m looking for but perhaps it isn’t
According to 21/22 (pink/blue) version:
Very different flex in shovels, different (more directional) shape, no carbon… may be good ski, but all we need is the older Ranger 102, though.
Last time, when I was so concerned, was when Salomon stoped the excellent QLab from production.
So I guess they have dropped the FR from the Ranger branding too?
Yes, Fischer is no longer using “FR” to indicate Ranger skis with more twinned-up tails. So far, from what we’ve measured, the new Ranger 102 and 108 both have about as much tail splay as the old Ranger 102 FR, while the new Ranger 90 and 96’s tail splay is more similar to what we measured on the old Ranger 99Ti. The Ranger 116 has a pretty curved-up tail, too.
It may admittedly make for a somewhat niche Blister Summit panel but ski naming conventions! Clearly I will not buy the Fischer 102 now because they have removed the FR designation ;) In all seriousness many of the name changes seem not to have been properly thought through, so that when a range addition comes along they suddenly realise they have to change all the names – I am looking at you Dynastar and Rossi. Maybe the Panel could be more properly focused on brands and how the plan their ranges e.g. how far out did Fischer have this range update planned etc
Really interested in the 102FR (21/22) comparison to the 102 (22/23). Main point of interest is the edge hold, how do they compare? In my experience, after two seasons on the 102FR the only weakness was edge hold on firm snow. They did everything else: easy to slash, easy to initatiate a turn, carve great, float great. Just turn up the edge hold without loosing everything else and you have true love.
Mount them on +2,5 and they will blast on firm snow, believe me!
I put rental binding on mine and agree. Very different ski with forward mount.
Just ordered a pair of 183s after watching all the Ski Essentials content on this ski. According to their take it was noticeably looser and more playful than the old FR. I really liked that ski but found it a bit stiff in the tail and somewhat unforgiving in bumps (which I don’t love to ski but are unavoidable). Was hoping these would be a nice, slightly more playful alternative to my 108 Mindbenders for when the snow is a little drier/lighter (Cascades). But the tail flex you listed is a little concerning. I’m very much a directional skier but I do a lot of ollies/tail presses, and want some forgiveness when landing backseat off drops. That said, gonna throw some Switches on them and they’ll be replacing some Kore 105s as my sidecountry skis, and they can’t be any stiffer than those.
Ski Essential team was involved in development on 22/23 version. So, I would’n bet for their honest opinion. Just saying…
Sammy, I had the 22 Ranger FR’s. I liked the ski but also hated the tail. How do you like the new version?
Thanks!
I got these this season. They absolutely rip. They carve great but if you push them too hard they will release their edge, but they are 102’s and not pure carvers and 95% of people will never reach the point where they lose their edge. If you do get thrown into the backseat they will tend to go off in their own direction, but I love that. Without that stiffer tail that these have, I feel like they would lose a lot of their personality. They float well in soft snow and perform well in moguls. I have yet to try them on pure ice. They can be unforgiving in a really tight and firm frozen chewed-up powder crud. After hitting a lot of lava rocks I’m impressed with how burley the bases are on these, even though I did have to p-tex some of the deep scratches. amazing ski. These do a lot of things right. For sure not for intermediate skiers due to the turning characteristics.
What do you mean by “not for intermediate skiers exactly? I pick up from most of the reviews that the new model was supposed to make them more accessible to intermediate skiers. I used to ski more, but I’ve been mostly away from it for a few years. I’m 48 and starting to get back into the sport. I used to consider myself an advanced skier, but I’m definitely less aggressive than I used to be (plus I aggressively ride an office desk for a living now). I am considering these and the K2 Reckoner 102s as my daily 50/50 driver. I’ve been leaning to the Fischers as I thought that they may be too soft. Thoughts?
Yeah, I’ve tried these and the previous 102FR, and the old 107Ti at 189 cm is my daily driver (I like that ski enough that I bought a spare pair when they were discontinued). They tried to make the new 102 more accessible by softening the shovels, but IMO they failed at that objective because they kept the tails too stiff in relation to the softened tips. The ski requires less force to initiate, but ended up at least as sensitive to fore/aft balance as the 102FR. So it just requires a different combination of skills rather than less. My $0.02.
Looking for ski to tool around off piste in the trees while there is still soft snow and skiing on groomers in softer snow. I’ve got skis to deal with harder groom and powder, so these would be in between skis. I generally avoid moguls.
Should I spring for a pair of the Fischer 102’s? I’ve been seeing the Line Sick Day 104’s at great prices and wonder if I might be just as happy with those for these purposes and save some money?
What Fischer did to the Ranger lineup makes me personally sad. I’m an unabashed fan of the old 107Ti at 189 cm, and the replaced both the Ti and FR “sub-lines” with a unified line that doesn’t even charge as hard as the FRs, much less the Tis.
I tried these skis, and while they’re perfectly reasonable in broader terms they represent a huge step away from what has made Fischer’s skis special over the past few generations.
The two lines had different construction, but both required more skill than the one new line. And they didn’t ski all that different. Not enough to justify two lines. I bought the 99ti, liked it, then 107ti which I like more now with binding moved back, and then 102 fr which I like with binding forward. Sounds like Fischer tried to make a Stockli Storm Rider 102 – longish tip rocker, compliant shovel, and seamless transition to firmer tail through solid underfoot. Hard to do.
What lengths did you try, and how much do you weigh?
Asking because at 220 lbs I thought there was a pretty significant difference between the 189 cm 107Ti and the 191 cm 102 FR. I felt that the 107Ti was significantly less willing slash or skid, whereas the 102 FR’s deeper tip and tail rocker made it easier to do so from a wider range of balance points. On the flip side the 107Ti had significantly better grip on hard snow and a higher top end in basically all conditions. The 102 FR also needed to be driven more actively to keep it tracking at higher speeds in crud, whereas the 107Ti sort of tracks “by default”, maybe because of its greater weight.
Certainly both skis were/are really strong and demanding and therefore catered to a similar population of skiers, but that’s sort of what you expect from Fischer.
I’m 6 ft 160 lbs I think you posted about moving the binding back on the 107’s, thanks. I’m on shorter lengths, my 107 is 182cm and my 102 are 184. So probably different dynamics.