2019-2020 Fischer Ranger 102 FR

by
Luke Koppa reviews the Fischer Ranger FR 102 for Blister
Fischer Ranger 102 FR

Ski: 2019-2020 Fischer Ranger 102 FR, 184 cm

Available Lengths: 170, 177, 184, 191 cm

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

Stated Weight per Ski (177 cm): 2000 grams

Blister’s Measured Weight per Ski (184 cm): 2101 & 2104 grams

Stated Dimensions: 138-103-128 mm

Blister’s Measured Dimensions: 137.8-102.4-127.7

Stated Sidecut Radius: 19 meters

Measured Tip & Tail Splay (ski decambered): 65 mm / 35 mm

Measured Traditional Camber Underfoot: 4-5 mm

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

Base: Sintered

Factory Recommended Mount Point: -9.9 cm from center; 82 cm from tail

[Editor’s Note: Our review was conducted on the 18/19 Ranger 102 FR, which returns unchanged for 19/20, apart from the new 191 cm length option.]

Intro

Back in our coverage of the 2018 OR / SIA tradeshow, I noted that I was particularly excited about one ski at the show — the Fischer Ranger 102 FR.

As the twin-tipped and slightly heavier cousin of the Ranger 108 Ti and Ranger 98 Ti, the Ranger 102 FR immediately caught my attention as a playful-yet-stable all-mountain ski. We now have the 102 FR in hand, and will be getting time on it very soon. But for now, let’s run down why I’m excited about this ski.

What Fischer says about the new Ranger 102 FR:

“Offering an array of technology, the Ranger 102 FR is tough yet playful at the same time. Its stability impresses not just in extreme powder turns but also in less-than-ideal conditions as well as on seemingly impassable routes. Above all, its shape is what really shines. The Freeski Rocker with lightweight Twin Tip makes it agiler, more manoeuvrable, and allows big, beautiful, sweeping turns. The shortened linear contact area of the ski works well on the hard conditions typically found off-piste. That saves energy and makes for phenomenal performance on the descent.

Even when the best runs are on the other side of the mountain, you can rely on the Ranger 102 FR to capably navigate the route up and over. Its easy ride isn’t just a result of the Aeroshape construction. The Air Tec Ti wood core and unique Carbon Nose – a super thin shovel carbon fibre construction – also combine to provide minimal weight, effortless turning, and amazing stability. The Ranger 102 FR impresses in every area of performance, conquers the toughest descents, and makes every single trip an adventure.”

First Things First: How in the world did this marketing copy not win our 2018 SWAGGER award??? This ski should have been called the FR Kanye. And it’s probably worth noting that Kanye has been hanging out in Jackson Hole this spring. Rumor is that he is going to be dropping two albums in June, but we suspect that he’s also been hitting Corbet’s quite a bit on the Ranger 102 FR.

(Note: Our editor-in-chief added in that whole previous paragraph, so please don’t blame me for that.)

Ok, so we’ve got claims of the Ranger 102 FR being “tough yet playful,” statements about both firm-snow and soft-snow performance, and notes about it being agile and allowing for big sweeping turns. In other words, Fischer is talking a huge game about the Ranger 102 FR’s versatility, so that will certainly be one of our main questions for our full review.

Shape / Rocker Profile

The Ranger 102 FR looks quite similar to the Ranger 108 Ti in terms of shape. They both have a moderate amount of taper in the tips, and the Ranger 102 FR has a bit more tail taper than the Ranger 108 Ti.

The rocker profile of the Ranger 102 FR is also very similar to that of the Ranger 108 Ti. Both skis have fairly deep tip rocker lines, but not very dramatic tip splay.

One of the main differences between the Ranger 102 FR and the Ranger 108 Ti and 98 Ti is the 102 FR’s “twinned” tail (it’s not a true twin, but the Ranger 102 FR has noticeably more tail splay than the 108 Ti — 35 mm vs. 17 mm). However, the Ranger 102 FR’s tail rocker line is not very deep, so we don’t expect it to feel drastically surfier / looser than the other Ranger skis, especially when you take into consideration its specs in the next section…

Flex Pattern

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

While Fischer is emphasizing the Ranger 102 FR’s playfulness, its flex pattern certainly doesn’t suggest that it’ll be some sort of noodly butter stick. This is a very strong ski, and it’s stiff through most of its length. The tips are just slightly softer than the tails, and the tails are pretty stout (they begin ramping up to “9” or “9.5” pretty quickly).

With such a stout flex pattern, we’re very interested to see how demanding / forgiving the Ranger 102 FR feels, and if we’ll be able to access that stiff flex when trying to pop off features or bend the ski into tighter turns.

Dimensions

At around 102 mm underfoot, the Ranger 102 FR occupies an increasingly diverse category of all-mountain skis that aim to provide a nearly equal mix of hard- and soft-snow performance. It’s going up against some tough competition, including the Rossignol Soul 7 HD, Line Sick Day 104, Atomic Bent Chetler 100, and a bunch of other skis. We’ll be A/Bing it against several skis in this class, and since Fischer hypes up the Ranger 102 FR’s ability to handle both pow and firm snow, we’ll be weighing in on where the Ranger 102 FR feels most at home when it comes to snow conditions.

Weight

When I first flexed the Ranger 102 FR, I lost a bit of interest, since I knew the Ranger 108 Ti was a pretty light ski (~1950 g for the 182 cm), and I don’t tend to get along very well with stiff skis that are also very light (I often find them harsh and unforgiving).

So I was excited to see that the 184 cm Ranger 102 FR is coming in at a weight of around 2100 grams. That seems like a pretty nice weight for an inbounds ski of this size, and to put it into perspective, here are a few of our measured weights (per ski in grams) for a few other notable skis:

1807 & 1840 Atomic Bent Chetler 100, 188 cm (18/19)
1848 & 1903 Line Sick Day 104, 186 cm (17/18-18/19)
1941 & 1965 Fischer Ranger 108 Ti, 182 cm (17/18-18/19)
1950 & 1977 Blizzard Rustler 10, 188 cm (17/18-18/19)
2080 & 2089 Sego Big Horn 106, 187 cm (17/18-18/19)
2101 & 2104 Fischer Ranger 102 FR, 184 cm (18/19)
2131 & 2189 Nordica Enforcer 100, 185 cm
2133 & 2134 Faction Prodigy 3.0, 183 cm (18/19)
2221 & 2245 ON3P Kartel 108, 186 cm (18/19)
2341 & 2318 J Skis The Metal, 186 cm (17/18-18/19)

Mount Point

With a pretty traditional mount point of -9.9 cm from center, the Ranger 102 FR definitely seems like it will prefer a forward stance and not feel particularly freestyle oriented (at least on paper). However, Fischer did put a twin tip on this ski and they are emphasizing its playfulness, and that makes me extra eager to push the bindings forward of the recommended line to see how the Ranger 102 FR feels. I’m excited to see if it falls in line with skis like the Bent Chetler 100 or Icelantic Nomad 115 that don’t feel very sensitive to mount point, or if people should really just stick with the Ranger 102 FR’s more traditional recommended mount point.

Comparisons?

With its stiff flex pattern, pretty playful shape, traditional mount point, and solid weight, the Ranger 102 FR fits into an interesting space between stiffer and / or heavier directional skis such as the Nordica Enforcer 100, and softer and / or lighter skis like the Atomic Bent Chetler 100 and Line Sick Day 104.

So we’re not exactly sure where it will fall, but we’ll be comparing it to several of the skis listed in the weight section above in order to figure out where exactly it slots in when it comes to playfulness, stability, forgiveness, etc.

And feel free to let us know in the comments if there are any other skis you think would make for good / relevant comparisons.

Bottom Line (For Now)

On paper, the Fischer Ranger 102 FR looks like a very intriguing option for skiers looking for something with a playful rocker profile, but that prefer a much stiffer ski than many of the all-mountain freestyle options currently on the market. It’s not the most obvious ski to locate just based on its specs, so we’re gonna stop typing and start skiing it to see where exactly it falls in the category of 100-105mm-underfoot all-mountain skis.

Stay tuned for updates, and let us know about any questions you’d like to see addressed in the full review.

NEXT: The Full Review

Pages: 1 2 3

56 comments on “2019-2020 Fischer Ranger 102 FR”

  2. Wow, that’s a rather heavy ski… 2100gr for a 102! Thought it would be a competitor for the new Icelantic Natural 101, but I think this last one is going to be much lighter.

  3. Will this be an SN108 replacement with a tighter radius? Tip and tail dims are very close, as is the length. These are lighter by 2-300 grams.

    • I was bummed they weren’t making a big guy length too – BUT it looks like a 191 is coming this year. Don’t know when it will be available. Pretty compelling option…

  5. Can you compare to some stiffer twin tip skis like the Blizzard Peacemaker or Moment PB&J? I’ve been happy with my Peacemakers (186) but they are beat and this ski looked to be like a good replacement. I’ve skied my brother’s Ranger 108 in 188cm length, and really liked them EXCEPT for the tail which even with significant detuning stayed a little too locked into a turn for my tastes. In general I think a bit more running length in combination with a loose tail suits me and my style best, which is why I think I had a lot of fun on the Peacemakers. I would also say the ability to lean on the nose a bit sounds like a good feature here, I’ve been able to play with the mount point on the Peacemaker with demo tracks and I’ve settled on +2 cm (so -4 cm from true center) as a great tradeoff between skiing hard in a neutral stance and throwing them sideways in slashes, but on an occasional turn through firm snow off piste I would wish for more front support and drive in the tips.

  6. Sounds like this could be a solid replacement for my QLab.Stiffer up front by the sounds of it but potentially more playful. Interesting!

    • How do these skis compare to the Soul 7 HD’s? Considering both of them. What are pros and cons of both. I would really appreciate a response :)

  8. Why can’t I find this on the Fisher website? Checked the US site in case it was US only but couldn’t see it there either?

    • Hi Swisschris,

      The Ranger 102 FR is brand new for the 18/19 season, so it’s not currently available. It will become available this coming Fall.

  9. Hi

    Would like to find a stable 50/50 ski. Raced in youth. Reference ski is Volkl Mantra M4 177cm that i thought was really good but too heavy touring with framebinding. Found this rather intresting video of this ski…. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VUvOcjJ-zVs

    Is this guy telling the truth ? Hi seems to be quite big guy but still talk about this like some supercharger ? Is it really this demanding? Confused…

    • Well, Luke, too, recommended the ski to “high intermediate to advanced skiers”. And the ski has “fairly stout flex pattern and preference for longer turns”. So yeah, I think the case is solved.

      • Yes. Highlights the important fact that you have to know a littlebit who gives the review. This is very good on Blister.

        The skitester in the video clearly prefers softer easier skis and that is very logical when you see other videos where he skis. I stumbeld over the video review and and that was not the picture I had got of 102fr from other reviews. In the video he make it sound like the 102fr is like a worldcup raceski.

    • Thank you!

      I have Rustler 10s and my chief complaint is that they’re too soft and loose. I was looking at the Fischer 102 FR as a replacement but this review makes it sound like a competitively unforgiving option….. until you watch the reviewer ski it.

      I know this ski will absolutely rip through small bumps and smear through larger ones because I’ve see people do it. Obviously those were much more aggressive skiers.

  13. Looking at the flex pattern and the rocker profile, this ski looks very much like a “skinnier version” of Scott Scrapper 115 (which I own and like a lot). Is the characteristics (feel) of the ski similar to the Scrapper 115?

  14. Hi Blister Crew,
    I currently ride the Ranger 108ti + Kingpins as my 1 ski quiver, but i’m looking for something a little narrower/burlier for resort only skiing. How would you compare the FR 102 to the 108ti? I love how much pop/energy the 108ti has while laying down some turns, just wish it could hang in the crud better. The other ski that has caught my eye is the Blizzard Bonafide, but that seems like it is pushing the stable side of things even more (maybe too much?). Thanks!

    • We haven’t had a chance to A/B the Ranger 102 and 108, but I’m pretty confident that the Ranger 102 should do significantly better in crud. The 102 is heavier and stiffer, and feels quite stable in fairly rough snow. That said, the 102 does require a decent amount of force / strength to get energy out of it, so I wouldn’t expect it to be quite as energetic as the 108, which is a bit softer and easier to bend into a turn. Heavier skiers or those that really like to drive their skis will definitely be able to get some pop out of it, but you have to be pushing it pretty hard.

      If you want a stable narrower ski that’s still pretty energetic while carving, I’d recommend checking out the Mantra M5 or J Skis Masterblaster. They’re both a bit more damp than the Ranger 102, but provide a bit more pop out of a turn.

  15. Hi guys,

    Im in between getting the Ranger´s 102 FR 184cm or the 108 188cm.

    Im looking to mount either of this with the salomon shifty´s in orther to have a good pair of resort / backcountry touring skis. Are the 102 FR going to be to heavy for touring?

    I´m a really agressive skier allways looking to push hard on the skis, but also like to get some air, throw shifftys 180´s, 360´s.

    Thanks!

  16. I’m looking to upgrade my s3 168 skis and was thinking about the soul 7 hd 168 and ranger 102 fr 170. I’m 5’6″ 165lbs and ski pretty aggressively. Love the bumps, steeps and powder but also like to hit the groomers fast. I demod the soul 7 at jacksonhole and loved it, but haven’t had a chance to try the fr 102. Do you have a suggestion between the 2 and which would perform better for my style, or even another suggestion? I appreciate any feedback.

    Thanks
    Sean

    • I compared the Soul 7 to the Ranger 102 FR. I liked the softer buttery feel of the Soul 7 in some circumstances but, I went with the Fischer Ranger 102 FR and its everything its hyped up to be, it just takes a lot more efort to use the tails but its reward is great.

      One thing I noticed is the Soul has minimal edges with nothing on the tips/tails while the Ranger has a full 360 degree metal edge which is more useful and groomer or icy friendly.

      I’m 5’7″ and about 158 lbs and a strong, aggressive, playful skier. It took a bit to get used to the stiffer tails than other similar skis but pushing them feels to slingshot you out of turns allowing more sure-footed speed.

  18. Any more thoughts on mount point?

    I’m 6’1 x 180 and pretty trad. I love my Dynastar LPs, and Monster 99s. Fast and forwards.

    Got the 102fr as a travel ski, something that I can hopefully push pretty hard, but also take touring – prob 70/30 resort/touring.

    Shall I just go on the line and forget about the usual obsessing?

  19. Thanks Luke – you had mount 4cm forward… on the 184? I’m considering the 177 and wondering if you have a view on this. Still in 2 minds between 177 & 184, mid 30s 180cm 155lbs, less aggressive than I was and thinking shorter more fun/sensible. Many thanks!!

    • Went with the 177 + pivot 14s, currently mounted 3cm forward of recommended. My other/comparison skis are CMD it stiffs. As the review says, a very good carver when you get up to speed, but find it slashes through moguls pretty nicely. Being on the shorter 177 and having done a morning of braquage may have helped, the transition from precise to loose felt v natural. Overall this ski is insanely fun. Again, as noted, edge sharpness was ridiculous, I haven’t detuned and have let the mountain do its work…. you can get some cheap deals on these now, so highly recommended

  20. Hello! I need your help choosing between the Fischer Ranger 102 FR in 170 cm, the Bent Chetler 100 in 164 cm and K2 Mindbender 106c Alliance in 167 cm, lengths discussable. I am 159 cm tall and weigh aprox 65-70 kg. I’ve been skiing on Head Mya No.10 (2014) in 172 cm as my one ski for the entire mountain since their release and I love them (https://www.skimag.com/gear/head-mya-no-10-2014). I like to ski a lot of edge/carving, but love to surf powder the most so my winters mix soft snow and powder in the alps, with hard icy snow in the Scandinavian mountains. I do not do a lot of jumps and tricks. Which ski and what length should you recommend? Thank you!

  21. I’m very interested in this ski, but it seems like 184(longest offering) might be a little short for me given my height and weight. 6’4″ 220 lbs. Do you think its enough ski for someone my size?

    • Hey John, I’m the same exact size as you. got the 191 this season and it’s hands down the best ski I have ever been on. Can’t recommend it enough. They’ll be more widely available in 191 next season. Was pretty tough to find in that size, but they’re everywhere on Europe sites right now.

  22. Hi guys – I’m 6ft3 215lbs, skiing exclusively inbounds in the Canadian rockies; love a hike to get the goods but I don’t venture too far from the lifts.

    Had been dead set on a pair of 188 qst106s after demoing in great conditions – that was until I skied the Ranger and loved its performance and intuitive feel on-piste – just want to be sure it’ll still be as fun chasing the soft stuff on those good days!

    I’m torn between the 184 and 191 – how does the 191 float for you on deeper days? I demoed the 184 in wind buffed / crusty conditions and wasn’t able to get a good read on their powder performance, so am considering potentially sizing up as insurance.

    Any feedback on performance in powder and how the 191 handles would be much appreciated.

  23. Hi Guys- appreciate/respect all the reviews, buddies and i constantly sharing your feedback :) Question on size/ mounting. I’m 5″11″ – 168lbs. I assume I’d be termed advanced int. – advanced, I ski hard/fast- Ex: groomers consistently 40+mph zone, plenty of 50. My carving form looks great but still far from Expert off piste ;) I own the 102FR in 177, based on your advice bindings mounted forward +3, absolutely LOVE the ski. Note: Prior to the 102FR I owned two iterations of the Ranger 98 in 180 and loved them. The 102FR is stiffer, a better fit. I own but am selling Ranger 99TI in 180- I never became comfortable, probably due to less than perfect form. Its a demanding ski in my estimation, very little sweet spot. So my question- I’m thinking I may appreciate the 184 length in the 102FR, appreciate any feedback and suggestions on mount point.

    • Hmm, tough question. If you love the 177 Ranger 102 FR and very rarely find yourself wishing it felt more stable at high speeds, then I wouldn’t see much reason to bump up to the 184 cm length. But if you’re frequently wishing that the 177 cm Ranger 102 FR didn’t get knocked around as much when skiing fast and/or floated better in soft snow, then the 184 cm could be worth a try. It will obviously be a bit more work in off-piste terrain, but I don’t find the 184 cm Ranger 102 FR as demanding or punishing as the 180 cm Ranger 99 Ti, so I think you’d still find the 184 cm 102 FR easier to ski than the 180 cm 99 Ti. As for mount point, I think I’d just recommend sticking with the same +3 mount point you liked on the 177 cm length.

  24. Hi guys, really LOVE your reviews – highly appreciated! I am mid 30s, 174cm (5‘9“), 74kg (163lbs). Coming from an on-piste always-on-edge carving background, I started playing around, going off-piste, some deeper snow and trying freeride-skies for the last 1-2 years. I enjoy all conditions and wanna improve my freeride-skills so I am thinking about getting the Ranger 102 FR for its versatility.

    Length – Would you recommend the 170 or 177cm?
    Mount point – Given what I am looking for, what mount point would you recommend, +3cm?

    Appreciate your feedback! Thanks, Alex

  25. Hello, what do you think of this ski ( 2020/21 model really, but I think its pretty much the same ski) as a touring ski? Are they too heavy? I’ll use them with shift bindings, 50/50 resort skiing and touring in the backcountry. I’m 179 cm ( little over 5ft 10inch) should I go for the 184cm or 177cm length? Thanks!

    • Hi Tomas,
      Did you ever pull the trigger on this set up (with shift binding?) I am looking at doing the same set up.
      Thanks,
      Will

      • I have these with the Shift binding and they are (well, could be) my one-quiver ski – the ski I reach for all the time. The rest collect dust.

        I’m not a fast tourer by any means so the weight does not bother me at all. With the proper shuffling technique, rather than lifting your skis like you’re some sort of goofy snowshoer, makes it work well.

        As for the length, I am the same height as Tomas. I had the 177 last season, and I am trying the 184 this season, and I suppose I will make up my mind on which length is ideal as the season continues. For me, as a non-expert skier, it’s a subtle difference.

  26. I am wondering about size of ski as well. I ski in western Canada, strictly in resort in the interior of BC. I am 176 cm tall(5ft 9inch), weigh 79 kg(175lbs). My current ski is 178 in length, Dynastar Cham which has a long gradual rocker in tip and no rocker in the tail. Originally thought about the 177 length, but wondering if I should go longer given the amount of tail rocker in the Fischer 102. Any thoughts?

    • I’m 5’7 145 expert and the 177cm (mounted +2cm in front of recommended line) are great. I find them very quick relative to other skis this length. They do have very stiff tails which can sometimes get a little tricky in very tight spots when theres new snow, relative to surfier skis with softer and/or more turned up tails. Overall their shape and low swingweight makes them easier than similar skis in these spots tho. I don’t find them demanding anywhere else. I dont think good skiers that are taller/heavier than me should be too afraid of the 184cm. Hope that helps

  27. Jonathan and Luke

    Exactly.
    There is nothing about your review that doesn’t square 100% with how these feel to me. Including Luke’s take that they come from the factory way too sharp… Like Ginsu knife sharp. I had to put a stone to them aggressively tip to tail to get them to feel right (as Luke did).
    If I was forced to describe the 102 FR in as few words as possible (as you guys said): Strong and playful. Yep, they’re not as damp as Nordica E 104 but they mean business more. They’re really good at what they do. Thanks J and L for nailing this review as you guys do.
    Andy F

  28. Hey J and L,

    I recently bought some Ranger 94 FRs and have completely fallen in love with their personality and performance. It seems like those traits carry through to the wider skis. To make a 2-ski quiver would you recommend the 115 or the 102 Ranger FR? The 94s are great for The NE and lighter snow days out West, so these would complement them for more fresh snow / powder days on the backside of the resort. Do the 115s hold an edge well enough on the front to warrant having the extra width in soft snow or is the 102 good enough in soft snow to go that way?

    PS: CB is my “home” mountain so that’s something else to keep in mind, but I’d take them with me other places too.

    Thanks!

  29. Picked these skis up at the end of the season and the Blister review nails it. Fun, Fun, Fun!!

    6ft 180lbs advanced/expert and I had no issues with the 184CM length. Mounted at +2 for a more playful/slashy/slarvy ski style and they are dynamite while also allowing for some serious carving. Not the greatest on ice/roughed up groomers but that is to be expected.

    I have the Moment Wildcat 190CM as my pow ski and they really compliment each other and don’t feel drastically different in terms of how you can use them on the mountain.

    Only regret is getting the blue topsheet over the pink one!

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

  31. The last generation of these skis (the blue colored version) weights just 1910 grams(184 cm length). I measured them twice. Anyone with same results here? Wondering if my pair is some exclusion, or not…
    Maybe I should return them to the shop, not mounted yet..

  32. UPDATE: Got another pair (184 cm – the pink version): same results 1895/1910 grams. Obviously Fischer has updated some of the materials.

    • That’s very strange — they told us that nothing had changed construction-wise and their stated weight for the 177 cm length is still 2000 g. I’ve reached out to Fischer and will report back when I have more information.

  33. That would interest me too. Did they really shave down they weight by 200g per ski and didn’t stating it in their Marketing Geschwurbel? I sent a mail to fischer, but they didn‘t reply within a week …

  34. Two Russian guys in their YT channel tested the two iterations – 19/20 and 21/22 face to face, even with one changed ski on their legs. They confirm a little difference in the behavior, too. The new skis are stiffer, may be not so quick in powder, but more stable on groomers and refrozen crud. And with this sub 2000 grams weight, may be touring is included in the equation.

  36. I just got this ski and wow I’m impressed. I was on a Sheeva 10 before and was a little concerned the Ranger 102 might require too much energy. However, this ski is what I needed where the Sheeva was lacking. The Ranger arcs a turn much better and can be pushed hard. I love the pop, quick turning, but not super rockered or chattery. I think it should be emphasized too this is a serious ski that goes all the way down to a 156 cm size, which is awesome for smaller people that still want a solid ski. I was looking for something with solid groomer performance that was not a full metal laminate, had some rocker, and handles bumps. This is it.

Leave a Comment