I love how you've started doing these specific ski reviews with so much detail and examples. Being able to see the skis on a person, who can actually show the different types of usage - amazing! Even though the lenght of the videos is larger, the quality is much greater!
shoutout to this ski again, its probably the most fun while still chargy and friendly and its now 2023... no idea why they made the 2023 version not so good like this was/is
Thanks for keeping it relevant and fresh in the minds! From the first time I got on the blue one years ago, I had the same feeling. Safe to say I did not get the same feeling from the new skis.
I own the bent chetler 100, 188cm, the ranger 102 FR 184cm, the 102 FR 191CM. I'm bobs height/weight, for me the 102FR wins on everything but touring. That beeing said the bent chetler 100 is a very fun ski.
There's more torsional stiffness and more precision in the Ranger 102. The Bent Chetler 100 is a fun ski, but designed for playfulness and soft snow above all else.
@@sebastianjo752 Ranger 102 is going to carve better than the Bent 100. They're pretty comparable for freestyle applications, so I'd say if you want to retain good carving performance, go with the Ranger.
Thank you so much for the review. I saw the video just looking for versatile ski and this caught my eye. I think i'm going to get myself a pair. I entered the giveaway and I cant wait to see who wins. Keep up the great work I love your videos.
Hi, I’m interested in these skis and have a curation about mounting. I’m used to softer freestyle oriented skis with center mounting or 1-2 cm behind true center. How far can the binding be moved forward from factory without loosing the skis “properties”? How far does Noah mount the bindings forward? Great reviews by the way!
I wouldn't recommend going true center as the tip rocker is longer than the tail rocker, but I think something like 2-3 cm back would be perfectly reasonable. I reached out to Noah to ask specifically about his mount point, I'll let you know when I hear back. We skied them recently and I went 3 cm forward from recommended on a demo pair and I think if I owned a pair, I'd go maybe 1 cm further forward than that...
Bindings from Look. Classic design, there are some benefits to them for sure. We have a binding comparison video, which would be a good place to start.
Both are great skis. The Poacher is certainly more of a park ski with some all-mountain influence, while the Ranger 102 is more of a freeride/all-mountain ski with a little bit of park influence.
They're great! The tail rocker gives them a catch-free feel in terrain like that, and the light swing weight really helps when you need to make quick movements. One of the most agile skis in this width range.
Very similar as they use the same overall shape and construction. The 102 feels a little more stable just because it has more mass, while the 94 feels quicker.
Would you say this is a good ski to learn and progress powder riding skills on? I'm a confident intermediate skier on groomers but really lacking skills in the deeper stuff (Pacific Northwest powder). Looking for a 2nd pair of skis that are wide enough for the deeper snow but still feel nimble and not out of place on piste. Current ski is a Salomon XDR 84ti which I like for the nimble feel. Thanks for the great content by the way.
Yes! I actually think it's a great ski for that. It's not too demanding, so shouldn't be too challenging to ski at first, but has a high performance ceiling so it'll keep satisfying your demands as you get better and more confident in powder.
You guys have me hyped about this ski. Sounds fun and quite versatile. Maybe I’m expecting too much, but how is it in the moguls? Clearly not an ideal ski for bumps but wondering if it can manage ok.
Hey Kevin! Sorry for the delay getting back to you. The Ranger 102 is actually quite good in moguls for its width. Obviously not as quick as a narrower ski, but it's not too cumbersome, and releasing the tail edge is easy. You never feel caught on edge, so it works pretty well in bumps.
@@SkiEssentials thanks, I’m skiing on 80mm wide atomic vantage, which are awesome in the bumps, but my 210 lbs sink pretty deep in the powder 😂 You have to compromise somewhere or change skis every run.
The Ranger 102 has more torsional stiffness and is a little more stable at speed. Stiffer overall flex and more responsiveness. The M-Free feels looser, easier maneuverability in soft snow, but it's not as strong or as responsive as the Ranger.
Hey Seth! As long as you're aware that it might take a few days or even a week or so to get the hang of it, I do think this is a ski you can grow into. It's not too demanding and it's not heavy, which are both good things for you. The width will probably be the most challenging aspect for you to get used to. A wider ski requires a higher edge angle in a lot of situations, so that might take some practice.
Yo guys, maybe you should start doing binding reviews? I feel like its an under-reported sector of ski equipment and I'd love to hear you guys talk about Look Pivots for an hour!
Hey Connor! The Ranger is lighter, quicker, more energetic... snappier flex pattern, etc. The Holyshred feels damper, more powerful, and generally smoother through choppy terrain and stuff like that, but it's a little heavier on your feet. Both are fun, playful skis, so we're kind of splitting hairs in a way, but that's where I feel the difference.
Hi, guys! Awesome review! What about mounting point, if we exclude freestyle use and concentrate on the 20/80 groomed run/freeride purposes? Wondering between +2 and +4 from recommended. Any of the viewers experimented with the mount point and the change of the skis behavior. BTW - I love my old Scott Punishers 110, mounted on +2...
+2 feels like a good choice, but +4 would be too much in my opinion. A lot of the guys using it for more freestyle applications are around +4. I think +2 will give you a similar overall feel to your Punishers, although the Ranger is much lighter, which I know you'll appreciate.
No, especially not if they're going to act as a one ski quiver. That way you're still getting a ski that's relatively quick edge to edge, but also performs well in deep snow. 102 is plenty wide for most powder days in my opinion, and the shape of the Ranger helps a lot. The long tip rocker helps it plane at slower speeds, which gives it more float than you might expect.
Thanks for the review guys. I’m looking for a more hard pack, side country ski for the Alps to compliment my quiver of Bent Chettlers and Sir Francis Bacons. Love the look of these or the narrower version. Also looking at Enforcers, Rustlers and Sick Days. How would you say these stacked up? And any others I should be looking at as great skis to bridge the playful/hard charging divide?!! Thanks guys, loving your reviews from here in the UK ....
Hey Peter! My first thought is that the Ranger 102 might be a little too close to your Bent Chetlers. They do feel more precise and have more torsional stiffness, but they're really close in width (obviously), have a similar rocker profile, and kind of accomplish the same thing in a lot of ways. I think if you're looking for more firm snow performance, it makes sense to go narrower. The Ranger 94 FR makes more sense to me than the 102. The Enforcers and Rustlers could work too. Enforcer 88 or 94 would give you the most firm snow stability, edge grip, etc out of those options, but at the cost of weight and some versatility, or rather ease of use in variable conditions and terrain. The Rustler kind of falls in between the Enforcer and Ranger. Not as light as the Ranger, but more maneuverable and more versatile than the Enforcer. Hope that helps, let us know if you have any other questions!
@@SkiEssentials thanks guys! I have the fat 123mm Bent Chettlers from 2013. Great for the rare deep snow back country days. I’ve been using my bacons all over the mountain and I do love them but with conditions the last few years I’ve found myself on piste more and more and was looking for something a little more piste oriented that can blast it but is still playful and very manoeuvrable - I tend to smear quick turns rather than carve big turns. Would the ranger 102’s be too close to my Bacons? If so, maybe a rustler or a sick day?? Enforcers probably not so fun? Thanks guys!!
@@peterwoolston8836 That makes way more sense. No, the Ranger 102 is definitely not too close to your Bacons. After learning which Bent Chetler you have, I think the Ranger 102 would be a nice addition to your quiver!!
Hey guys - outstanding video reviews - thank you! My question is for Bob as I am basically same age, size and ability as him. I am looking real hard at these ranger 102s. I like the sound of taking the 184 length into trees and tight places but would you recommend the 191 for a better all around ski? I don’t know if you have had a chance to ride the 191 but if you have can you tellus what your experience was like. Thanks again - have a great season.
I reached out to Bob to get his answer and he said he overall prefers the 191 in the Ranger 102. I definitely think 184 could work if you're looking for more quickness and a very agile ski. I know Bob has skied that length quite a bit and has never complained about it being wildly unstable. Hope that helps!
Lighter, quicker, easier edge release. Not the same stability or edge grip as the Enforcer 100. The Enforcer 104 Free is really a better comparison to the Ranger 102 FR, and the Ranger 99 Ti would be a better match for the Enforcer 100. Just in general between the two brands, the Rangers will feel lighter and quicker, Enforcers more damp and a little more stable at speed.
Is the skier on the 191 in the video and how does that length feel in some of those tighter trees at Stowe? Would you go to the narrower width in packed out conditions? How's the flex hitting a bump with the tips? "Ryan" appears to be getting a lot of energy outta that ski, nice.
The 3 skiers in the video are actually on different lengths, but Marcus is on his 191 cm, yeah. There's enough rocker in the tips and tails and it's light enough that it feels maneuverable in tight trees. You will encounter terrain that's narrower than the length of the ski, of course, but that's all part of skiing in Vermont in a way. The tip is pretty forgiving, doesn't get deflected if you stuff it into a bump.
@@SkiEssentials ahh thanks. Funny you mention the terrain narrower than the ski...I'm looking for something that works in those emergency turn situations where you need it to fit and when you need it to go in reverse and not get jammed up if you know what I mean. Sometimes it's just not possible to keep the skis pointed down the hill in those trees. Any suggestions? I was thinking this ski has a bit up turned up tail, is that right?
@@CC-ys8qq The Ranger 102 FR is pretty good in those situations. It's light and it's easy to flick around. Still, the 191 cm length would be a handful in some tighter trees, but I think you could say that about any ski in a 191 cm length. There are just going to be places where you're unable to throw them sideways. Yes, it does have a bit of a turned up tail, which really helps in those situations. Wailer 100 from DPS comes to mind too, that ski is ultra-quick in tight trees.
What brake width is that Pivot 15 the 95mm width or the 115mm width? I’m wondering which I should stick on either this ski or a nordica enforcer 104. I like high edge angles and the brake setup in this vid looks to clear pretty good
I do believe those are 95 mm. I can double check and let you know if I'm wrong. I personally have a pair of Enforcer 104s with Pivot 18s and 95 brakes. It's tight, but I prefer it over the 115.
6’2, 175, level three skier. Plan to use this at the resorts and a few days in the BC. Would you go with 184 or 191? Would never consider 191 except with the rocker I am thinking twice.
Hey Colin! I can understand why you're going back and forth... I do think 184 is probably plenty of ski for you. I'm mostly thinking about your weight. Even though you're pretty tall, I don't think you need the extra stability of the 191 at 175 lbs. The 184 should still have plenty of float and it's only a couple cm shorter than your height, so it's not like it's going to feel outrageously short or anything like that. I suppose if you care most about ripping high speed turns in open terrain, you could go 191, so if that sounds like you... maybe go long, but if it doesn't, I think 184 is probably more beneficial.
Would be a great setup with a Shift binding! Definitely will be a downhill oriented AT setup, but it'll still be pretty lightweight too. Definitely lighter than a lot of setups I see with Shift bindings.
Would love to hear more of a comparison against the 94 fr. Are they pretty much identical except for the waist width or do they have a few unique attributes of there own? I am a 187 cm 85 kg aggressive tele skier in Australia looking for a daily driver and leaning towards the 94 but the pink 191 102 fr is making me reconsider.
@@Mrfty3t1 Its not just stiffness, more like they made the 102 first, then figured they needed a 94, get the 102 for sure, its quicker edge to edge than a lot of 90 skis. just skied the 94 briefly so cannot go that indepth on it, just liked the 102 more for everything, and honestly I'd rather ski something 94 for the snow we have, so I was surprised myself, so I think the way to look at is isnt the 94 is bad, but the 102 is just that good.
They use the same recipe, so to speak, but the 102 does feel more powerful just because it has more mass. The 94 feels super light on your feet, which is great, but it can also cause it to get deflected. The 102 tracks better.
What is the length of the ski did Ryan test ? Is it the 184cm or the 177 cm ? I ski like him (nearly and not the jumps...unfortunately. lol) and I like short turns but I carve also at hi speed. I am 88 kg and 1,80m height. I have GS ski 184 cm and fat freeride ski 188cm. I am considering the 177cm for crud and forest but I wonder if in off piste is far too short ! Thank you in advance and congratulations for your reviews. Stefan from France
Hi Stefan! I'm 99% sure Ryan skis the 184 cm length in the Ranger 102 FR. That said, considering your size and your application, 177 cm might be better. More maneuverable in the trees and you already have longer, wider skis for stability and float.
Hey guys. I ski the RC4 CT 175cm. I’m 37, 185cm and 90kg with a race background (in my teens). Looking to get these to have fun with and without my kids. What length do you recommend ?
Hey Jason! I think the 184 cm length makes the most sense in the Ranger 102. 177 would probably feel short to you, and 191 is just overkill. 184 feels like the sweet spot to me.
Amazing reviews thanks guys! How does this compare to the faction Candide 2.0? I love to carve but doing a full season for the first time this year so want something that will let me make the most of powder days and also allow me to spend more time practicing in the park, nothing crazy just grabs, 360s, grinds? Which would be best? Also unsure on size, I'm 178/5'10" and 72kg, what would you recommend?
The Candide is noticeably softer. Super playful, but not as responsive and not as much stability at speed or edge grip as the Ranger. If you value carving performance, I would stick with the Ranger. It'll still do just fine in the park as has been proven by plenty of skiers. For length, I'd go with the 177 cm. That'll still be stable at speed, but will be more rewarding in the park than longer lengths.
@@joshuawilson529 Not really, no. It's a very well-rounded without any significant downsides. I'd at least check out the Enforcer 104 and BLACKOPS Holyshred before you pull the trigger as I think those are two of the closest competitors to the Ranger 102 now.
Is it the same model you have on your website? I know the graphic is different, but the one in the video looks like a twintip and the one on your site looks more ‘flattailed’
Feels lighter and more energetic than both of those skis. The MB 99Ti is a stiff, strong directional ski. The Holyshred is a twin tip, like the Ranger 102, but it too feels a little heavier on your feet. The swing weight of the Ranger 102 is really impressive, and it's still pretty darn stable too. More responsive because of its energy.
@@SkiEssentials Thanks for the breakdown! Do these skis ski short at all with the rocker? I am 5’10”, 170lbs and more of an advanced skier; should I go with the 177cm or jump up to the 184?
It is not a super light ski, but I use it as a touring rig with shifts. I would imagine with Dynafits you are cutting some of the weight of the shifts. I love it though as I am more focused on the down than the up.
@@PDManseau thanks for your input!! I would use it as a second and lighter touring pair for those bootpacking days but I would also want a ski that can rip the descents.
Great review guys, as always. Torn between this and the 99ti, I don't do the park and like some energy out of a turn. So 99ti probably better for me, but do some skiing following the kids learning the hill so don't want anything too demanding when cruising around slow to moderate speeds. Anyone skied them both for comparison?? Im 6 foot, 215 lbs. Thanks in advance. Nick.
I think you'll prefer the 99 most likely just for the extra energy out of a carving turn. At your size, I don't expect you'll have any trouble maneuvering the 99Ti, even at slower speeds when you're cruising with your kids. Most of our staff have skied both of them.
Hey dudes, great review. how do the 102 FR and TI compare to the Blizzard Rustler 10? I like the sounds of the FR but am worried that it won't be as juicy as the Rustler 10 since it doesnt have that partial metal...if I like the Rustler am I going to like the TI more than the FR? I like the playful yet juicy aspect of the Rustler...thanks guys!
I think the best way to think about it is the Rustler kind of has characteristics of both the FR and TI. It's playful, like the FR, but has more vibration damping like the Ti. That said, I know a lot of people who ski the Ranger 102 FR and don't complain about it feeling unstable. A little lighter on your feet, but not drastically less stable than the Rustler in my opinion.
@@SkiEssentials thanks for getting back to me, you guys are awesome! Thanks for all the vids. If I wanted to try a different ski, as damp as the rustler and more agile or responsive what would you recommend.?
Hi guys, thaks for this videos! I am planning to buy a pair of these Fischer Ranger 102 fr skis, but I am doubting on which length should I ski them. I am 168 cm “tall” and 64kg with a normal type of skiing. Should I go for the 170? Planning to put the Look Pivot 15 bindings on them, may be with the cast Freetour kit. What do you guys think about this setup? Keep on with the videos, you are doing a great job!
Hello! Yes, I think the 170 cm length is the way to go. A couple inches taller than you, but the Ranger has such a nice, lightweight feel, that it should be perfectly manageable in that length while providing really good float and stability. Love the idea of a Pivot 15 with the CAST system. That'll be a really versatile setup and I'm always a big fan of how Pivots feel. Have them on most of my skis.
Thanks a lot for the answer! Would the 177cm length be too long for me? Thats 4 inches more than my height. Really appreciate the effort you make trying to help us with the doubts we all have. You are the best!
@@asiergoitia7361 I guess it just kind of feels like overkill. I'm sure you could ski it, but I don't know it's necessary. For reference, I'm ~72 kg give or take and close to 180 cm, at first I kind of went back and forth between the 177 and 184, but I really like skiing the 177 and if I had to choose one or the other, it would be that.
@@SkiEssentials I've been thinking about this comment thread for about a month now and I still don't get it =( Can you guys explain for a dummy like me
hi guys, i want a pretty versatile ski that i'm going to ride with a salomon shift. I hesitate between an enforcer 94, rustler 9 or this Ranger. light skier 165lbs intermediate / advanced level. thank you and you always have a good review.
Icelantic natural 101 or nomad 95, also black crows camox(97 waist). Alot lighter than the skis you listed (and much more swag). I wouldn't tour on an enforcer, great skis just on the heavy side.
Gee Jeff, your aging out of park skiing ha. In my case I'm just aging. 67 yrs. skiing for ...yes 60 years. Could the 102 FR be a one ski quiver option for an old (expert) directional skier who lives and mostly skis in Colorado?
Hey John! Haha, I get that response a lot, but it's definitely how I feel being a 35 year old amongst mostly teens in the park. To answer your question, yes, certainly! One of the best aspects of the Ranger 102 FR is its broad appeal. It's just as good for a directional skier such as yourself as it is for someone who would mount it more centered and potentially use it in the park a little. Great ski for Colorado too, very versatile for the terrain and conditions you get out there.
@@SkiEssentials Thanks ! I ordered 2020 ones I hope to shred them in La Clusaz soon ! Btw can you nose butter them ? I mean do the carbon and the link between the nose and the woodcore will bear those kind of loads ? Thanks a lot for the precious advices.
I'd go 170 or 177 cm. Both of those lengths could work for you, in theory. The 177 cm is quite a bit taller than you, so I'd reserve that for only if you're a relatively aggressive, expert skier. Otherwise, I think there would be more benefits to the 170 cm.
I'm debating myself to get the 184 or 191. How do you feel the difference in length when riding? I want to mount with a Salomon Shift binding and use the for everything :)
@@ClaesN1973 184 is nimble and playful, got it +2 mounted, but can charge surprisingly hard, the 191 I have +3 mounted, and its just everything magnified, when you really want to charge, I'd say you choose depending on the terrain and your height. I can flex the skis into a shorter turn radius than the numbers would suggest. I usually dont like something as short as a 184, but it does ski very well, the early rise/rocker/whatever they call it, is mild enough that you can use the area of the ski when carving hard turns. The 191 floats better and is more chargy, without any chatter, keep in mnd the actual lengths of the fischers seems quite long. For summerski I took the 191 and the length really helped with the variying conditions.
@@pewpewpew8390 Just curious, what's your height and weight? I'm 6'1" and 175 and i'm on the fence between sizes. I've got the 186cm enforcer 104 mounted at +2 and I'm looking for something a bit more stable but if I got the ranger I'd likely throw a salomon shift on it so I'd hesitate on the 191
@@jasonfournier5235 6'3 230lbs, The 184 is surprisingly stable and solid, I much prefer it to the enforcer 104, but the enforcer 104 is still a very good ski and very stable, I just find it to be a bit soft for me. I have the 184 mounted +2 and 191 mounted +3. The 191 measures out to 190cm actual, and 184 at 183. The 191 will of course be the more stable ski and you can go even faster. but with a shift Im guessing your not trying to go 60mph+? I think 184 will be enough
I love how you've started doing these specific ski reviews with so much detail and examples. Being able to see the skis on a person, who can actually show the different types of usage - amazing!
Even though the lenght of the videos is larger, the quality is much greater!
i realize I am kinda randomly asking but do anyone know of a good site to watch newly released tv shows online?
@Gunner Jace flixportal xD
@Emmanuel Alexzander thanks, I signed up and it seems like a nice service =) I appreciate it !!
@Gunner Jace no problem :D
Easily the best ski reviews on TH-cam. Love the detail, comparisons and video showing them in use. Please keep it up!
These guys are doing a real review! Compare three different skiers on the same skies. Nice ! Well done Jeff and Bob!
Thank you Fernando!
You guys should make a video where you go into the Pivot at length. That would be cool.
shoutout to this ski again, its probably the most fun while still chargy and friendly and its now 2023... no idea why they made the 2023 version not so good like this was/is
Thanks for keeping it relevant and fresh in the minds! From the first time I got on the blue one years ago, I had the same feeling. Safe to say I did not get the same feeling from the new skis.
the guy in orange jacket can ski for sure
Shit now I want a pair after watching the review for those days in japan when the powder isn’t on. Amazing review boys keep up the good work.
How does this compare to a Bent chetler 100
A comparison would be really interesting
I own the bent chetler 100, 188cm, the ranger 102 FR 184cm, the 102 FR 191CM. I'm bobs height/weight, for me the 102FR wins on everything but touring.
That beeing said the bent chetler 100 is a very fun ski.
There's more torsional stiffness and more precision in the Ranger 102. The Bent Chetler 100 is a fun ski, but designed for playfulness and soft snow above all else.
@@SkiEssentials so I carve really good and like it a lot but I want to get started with freestyle which one would you recommend to buy
@@sebastianjo752 Ranger 102 is going to carve better than the Bent 100. They're pretty comparable for freestyle applications, so I'd say if you want to retain good carving performance, go with the Ranger.
Would love to hear your thoughts/discussion on pivots, as I think it’s definitely one of the best bindings out there
Enough people are asking for it, so we probably will do one eventually!
I have the 94 FR and love it
6:40....who s the skier? Very nice and clean skiing style!...got it, Ryan not doubt that you have a very good racing background.
Ryan's fun to ski with. Really fun to film too!
Just picked up a pair and put switch bindings as a hedge against the resorts closing. Can't wait.
Awesome setup!
Thank you so much for the review. I saw the video just looking for versatile ski and this caught my eye. I think i'm going to get myself a pair. I entered the giveaway and I cant wait to see who wins. Keep up the great work I love your videos.
Hi, I’m interested in these skis and have a curation about mounting. I’m used to softer freestyle oriented skis with center mounting or 1-2 cm behind true center. How far can the binding be moved forward from factory without loosing the skis “properties”? How far does Noah mount the bindings forward? Great reviews by the way!
I wouldn't recommend going true center as the tip rocker is longer than the tail rocker, but I think something like 2-3 cm back would be perfectly reasonable. I reached out to Noah to ask specifically about his mount point, I'll let you know when I hear back. We skied them recently and I went 3 cm forward from recommended on a demo pair and I think if I owned a pair, I'd go maybe 1 cm further forward than that...
What are pivots? Where can i learn more?
Bindings from Look. Classic design, there are some benefits to them for sure. We have a binding comparison video, which would be a good place to start.
Would you recommend this ski or the k2 poacher? I am an intermediate skier and sky mostly on the east coast. Thank you
Both are great skis. The Poacher is certainly more of a park ski with some all-mountain influence, while the Ranger 102 is more of a freeride/all-mountain ski with a little bit of park influence.
How would these skis fare on steeps and moguls compared to other skis of similar width?
They're great! The tail rocker gives them a catch-free feel in terrain like that, and the light swing weight really helps when you need to make quick movements. One of the most agile skis in this width range.
how do these compare to the ranger 94
Very similar as they use the same overall shape and construction. The 102 feels a little more stable just because it has more mass, while the 94 feels quicker.
What brake size is that look pivot? Would 115 be to wide?
95 is actually going to fit a little better. I have a 95 brake on some 104s and know plenty of people with the 95 on the Ranger 102.
How does this compare to the Bent Chetler 100?
Would you say this is a good ski to learn and progress powder riding skills on? I'm a confident intermediate skier on groomers but really lacking skills in the deeper stuff (Pacific Northwest powder). Looking for a 2nd pair of skis that are wide enough for the deeper snow but still feel nimble and not out of place on piste. Current ski is a Salomon XDR 84ti which I like for the nimble feel. Thanks for the great content by the way.
Yes! I actually think it's a great ski for that. It's not too demanding, so shouldn't be too challenging to ski at first, but has a high performance ceiling so it'll keep satisfying your demands as you get better and more confident in powder.
other than cosmetics, any upgrades from 2020 model?
I'd be keen to have some clarification too.
I've seen another review /test, on Freeride. com, that says it's softer in the tail this year???
You guys have me hyped about this ski. Sounds fun and quite versatile. Maybe I’m expecting too much, but how is it in the moguls? Clearly not an ideal ski for bumps but wondering if it can manage ok.
Hey Kevin! Sorry for the delay getting back to you. The Ranger 102 is actually quite good in moguls for its width. Obviously not as quick as a narrower ski, but it's not too cumbersome, and releasing the tail edge is easy. You never feel caught on edge, so it works pretty well in bumps.
@@SkiEssentials thanks, I’m skiing on 80mm wide atomic vantage, which are awesome in the bumps, but my 210 lbs sink pretty deep in the powder 😂 You have to compromise somewhere or change skis every run.
How does this compare the dynastar M-Free 99? Thanks! Loving the pink!
The Ranger 102 has more torsional stiffness and is a little more stable at speed. Stiffer overall flex and more responsiveness. The M-Free feels looser, easier maneuverability in soft snow, but it's not as strong or as responsive as the Ranger.
Hi Guys, I'm a relatively new skier (
Hey Seth! As long as you're aware that it might take a few days or even a week or so to get the hang of it, I do think this is a ski you can grow into. It's not too demanding and it's not heavy, which are both good things for you. The width will probably be the most challenging aspect for you to get used to. A wider ski requires a higher edge angle in a lot of situations, so that might take some practice.
Yo guys, maybe you should start doing binding reviews? I feel like its an under-reported sector of ski equipment and I'd love to hear you guys talk about Look Pivots for an hour!
We're going to start thinking about it and working on one! It's probably something we'll do over the summer.
Fischer ranger 102fr vs black ops holyshred????
Hey Connor! The Ranger is lighter, quicker, more energetic... snappier flex pattern, etc. The Holyshred feels damper, more powerful, and generally smoother through choppy terrain and stuff like that, but it's a little heavier on your feet. Both are fun, playful skis, so we're kind of splitting hairs in a way, but that's where I feel the difference.
Hi, guys! Awesome review! What about mounting point, if we exclude freestyle use and concentrate on the 20/80 groomed run/freeride purposes? Wondering between +2 and +4 from recommended. Any of the viewers experimented with the mount point and the change of the skis behavior. BTW - I love my old Scott Punishers 110, mounted on +2...
+2 feels like a good choice, but +4 would be too much in my opinion. A lot of the guys using it for more freestyle applications are around +4. I think +2 will give you a similar overall feel to your Punishers, although the Ranger is much lighter, which I know you'll appreciate.
I was thinking about these for a one ski quiver, do you think these are too narrow for a couple feet of powder
No, especially not if they're going to act as a one ski quiver. That way you're still getting a ski that's relatively quick edge to edge, but also performs well in deep snow. 102 is plenty wide for most powder days in my opinion, and the shape of the Ranger helps a lot. The long tip rocker helps it plane at slower speeds, which gives it more float than you might expect.
Thanks for the review guys. I’m looking for a more hard pack, side country ski for the Alps to compliment my quiver of Bent Chettlers and Sir Francis Bacons. Love the look of these or the narrower version. Also looking at Enforcers, Rustlers and Sick Days. How would you say these stacked up? And any others I should be looking at as great skis to bridge the playful/hard charging divide?!! Thanks guys, loving your reviews from here in the UK ....
Hey Peter! My first thought is that the Ranger 102 might be a little too close to your Bent Chetlers. They do feel more precise and have more torsional stiffness, but they're really close in width (obviously), have a similar rocker profile, and kind of accomplish the same thing in a lot of ways. I think if you're looking for more firm snow performance, it makes sense to go narrower. The Ranger 94 FR makes more sense to me than the 102. The Enforcers and Rustlers could work too. Enforcer 88 or 94 would give you the most firm snow stability, edge grip, etc out of those options, but at the cost of weight and some versatility, or rather ease of use in variable conditions and terrain. The Rustler kind of falls in between the Enforcer and Ranger. Not as light as the Ranger, but more maneuverable and more versatile than the Enforcer. Hope that helps, let us know if you have any other questions!
@@SkiEssentials thanks guys! I have the fat 123mm Bent Chettlers from 2013. Great for the rare deep snow back country days. I’ve been using my bacons all over the mountain and I do love them but with conditions the last few years I’ve found myself on piste more and more and was looking for something a little more piste oriented that can blast it but is still playful and very manoeuvrable - I tend to smear quick turns rather than carve big turns. Would the ranger 102’s be too close to my Bacons? If so, maybe a rustler or a sick day?? Enforcers probably not so fun? Thanks guys!!
@@peterwoolston8836 That makes way more sense. No, the Ranger 102 is definitely not too close to your Bacons. After learning which Bent Chetler you have, I think the Ranger 102 would be a nice addition to your quiver!!
Hey guys - outstanding video reviews - thank you! My question is for Bob as I am basically same age, size and ability as him. I am looking real hard at these ranger 102s. I like the sound of taking the 184 length into trees and tight places but would you recommend the 191 for a better all around ski? I don’t know if you have had a chance to ride the 191 but if you have can you tellus what your experience was like. Thanks again - have a great season.
I reached out to Bob to get his answer and he said he overall prefers the 191 in the Ranger 102. I definitely think 184 could work if you're looking for more quickness and a very agile ski. I know Bob has skied that length quite a bit and has never complained about it being wildly unstable. Hope that helps!
How would you compare this to the Nordica Enforcer 100?
Lighter, quicker, easier edge release. Not the same stability or edge grip as the Enforcer 100. The Enforcer 104 Free is really a better comparison to the Ranger 102 FR, and the Ranger 99 Ti would be a better match for the Enforcer 100. Just in general between the two brands, the Rangers will feel lighter and quicker, Enforcers more damp and a little more stable at speed.
Is the skier on the 191 in the video and how does that length feel in some of those tighter trees at Stowe? Would you go to the narrower width in packed out conditions? How's the flex hitting a bump with the tips? "Ryan" appears to be getting a lot of energy outta that ski, nice.
The 3 skiers in the video are actually on different lengths, but Marcus is on his 191 cm, yeah. There's enough rocker in the tips and tails and it's light enough that it feels maneuverable in tight trees. You will encounter terrain that's narrower than the length of the ski, of course, but that's all part of skiing in Vermont in a way. The tip is pretty forgiving, doesn't get deflected if you stuff it into a bump.
@@SkiEssentials ahh thanks. Funny you mention the terrain narrower than the ski...I'm looking for something that works in those emergency turn situations where you need it to fit and when you need it to go in reverse and not get jammed up if you know what I mean. Sometimes it's just not possible to keep the skis pointed down the hill in those trees. Any suggestions? I was thinking this ski has a bit up turned up tail, is that right?
@@CC-ys8qq The Ranger 102 FR is pretty good in those situations. It's light and it's easy to flick around. Still, the 191 cm length would be a handful in some tighter trees, but I think you could say that about any ski in a 191 cm length. There are just going to be places where you're unable to throw them sideways. Yes, it does have a bit of a turned up tail, which really helps in those situations. Wailer 100 from DPS comes to mind too, that ski is ultra-quick in tight trees.
What brake width is that Pivot 15 the 95mm width or the 115mm width? I’m wondering which I should stick on either this ski or a nordica enforcer 104. I like high edge angles and the brake setup in this vid looks to clear pretty good
I do believe those are 95 mm. I can double check and let you know if I'm wrong. I personally have a pair of Enforcer 104s with Pivot 18s and 95 brakes. It's tight, but I prefer it over the 115.
6’2, 175, level three skier. Plan to use this at the resorts and a few days in the BC. Would you go with 184 or 191? Would never consider 191 except with the rocker I am thinking twice.
Hey Colin! I can understand why you're going back and forth... I do think 184 is probably plenty of ski for you. I'm mostly thinking about your weight. Even though you're pretty tall, I don't think you need the extra stability of the 191 at 175 lbs. The 184 should still have plenty of float and it's only a couple cm shorter than your height, so it's not like it's going to feel outrageously short or anything like that. I suppose if you care most about ripping high speed turns in open terrain, you could go 191, so if that sounds like you... maybe go long, but if it doesn't, I think 184 is probably more beneficial.
Thanks guys! Great review as always. How would you see it mounted with a Shift binding? As a downhill oriented touring ski?
Would be a great setup with a Shift binding! Definitely will be a downhill oriented AT setup, but it'll still be pretty lightweight too. Definitely lighter than a lot of setups I see with Shift bindings.
Would love to hear more of a comparison against the 94 fr. Are they pretty much identical except for the waist width or do they have a few unique attributes of there own? I am a 187 cm 85 kg aggressive tele skier in Australia looking for a daily driver and leaning towards the 94 but the pink 191 102 fr is making me reconsider.
94 doesnt have the power of the 102
@@pewpewpew8390 as in not as stiff?
@@Mrfty3t1 Its not just stiffness, more like they made the 102 first, then figured they needed a 94, get the 102 for sure, its quicker edge to edge than a lot of 90 skis. just skied the 94 briefly so cannot go that indepth on it, just liked the 102 more for everything, and honestly I'd rather ski something 94 for the snow we have, so I was surprised myself, so I think the way to look at is isnt the 94 is bad, but the 102 is just that good.
@@pewpewpew8390 hhmmm well that certainly makes things more difficult. Thanks for the reply.
They use the same recipe, so to speak, but the 102 does feel more powerful just because it has more mass. The 94 feels super light on your feet, which is great, but it can also cause it to get deflected. The 102 tracks better.
Can u go touring in them?
Absolutely! Lots of people putting an alpine touring binding on these. Really good ski for hybrid resort/AT skiing.
What is the length of the ski did Ryan test ? Is it the 184cm or the 177 cm ? I ski like him (nearly and not the jumps...unfortunately. lol) and I like short turns but I carve also at hi speed. I am 88 kg and 1,80m height. I have GS ski 184 cm and fat freeride ski 188cm. I am considering the 177cm for crud and forest but I wonder if in off piste is far too short ! Thank you in advance and congratulations for your reviews. Stefan from France
Hi Stefan! I'm 99% sure Ryan skis the 184 cm length in the Ranger 102 FR. That said, considering your size and your application, 177 cm might be better. More maneuverable in the trees and you already have longer, wider skis for stability and float.
@@SkiEssentials Thank you very much for your answer. Best regards
Hey guys. I ski the RC4 CT 175cm. I’m 37, 185cm and 90kg with a race background (in my teens).
Looking to get these to have fun with and without my kids. What length do you recommend ?
Hey Jason! I think the 184 cm length makes the most sense in the Ranger 102. 177 would probably feel short to you, and 191 is just overkill. 184 feels like the sweet spot to me.
Amazing reviews thanks guys! How does this compare to the faction Candide 2.0?
I love to carve but doing a full season for the first time this year so want something that will let me make the most of powder days and also allow me to spend more time practicing in the park, nothing crazy just grabs, 360s, grinds? Which would be best? Also unsure on size, I'm 178/5'10" and 72kg, what would you recommend?
The Candide is noticeably softer. Super playful, but not as responsive and not as much stability at speed or edge grip as the Ranger. If you value carving performance, I would stick with the Ranger. It'll still do just fine in the park as has been proven by plenty of skiers. For length, I'd go with the 177 cm. That'll still be stable at speed, but will be more rewarding in the park than longer lengths.
@@SkiEssentials are there any cons to the 102 fr? Or any serious competitors I should maybe consider before pulling the trigger?
@@joshuawilson529 Not really, no. It's a very well-rounded without any significant downsides. I'd at least check out the Enforcer 104 and BLACKOPS Holyshred before you pull the trigger as I think those are two of the closest competitors to the Ranger 102 now.
Is it the same model you have on your website? I know the graphic is different, but the one in the video looks like a twintip and the one on your site looks more ‘flattailed’
Should be the same, yes. I believe we only have the 2020 version available right now, which is blue, but it is the same ski.
Skiessentials.com great thanks. Blue works fine for me ;)
Great review! How would this ski compare to the K2 Mindbender 99ti or the Rosignol holyshred?
Feels lighter and more energetic than both of those skis. The MB 99Ti is a stiff, strong directional ski. The Holyshred is a twin tip, like the Ranger 102, but it too feels a little heavier on your feet. The swing weight of the Ranger 102 is really impressive, and it's still pretty darn stable too. More responsive because of its energy.
@@SkiEssentials Thanks for the breakdown! Do these skis ski short at all with the rocker? I am 5’10”, 170lbs and more of an advanced skier; should I go with the 177cm or jump up to the 184?
@@alexgallup8864 they don't ski tremendously short, no. I'm about your size and if I was buying a pair for myself I think I would go 177 cm.
would the 102 be light enough for a "lighter" touring rig with a dynafit that can still charge?
It is not a super light ski, but I use it as a touring rig with shifts. I would imagine with Dynafits you are cutting some of the weight of the shifts. I love it though as I am more focused on the down than the up.
@@PDManseau thanks for your input!! I would use it as a second and lighter touring pair for those bootpacking days but I would also want a ski that can rip the descents.
Great review guys, as always. Torn between this and the 99ti, I don't do the park and like some energy out of a turn. So 99ti probably better for me, but do some skiing following the kids learning the hill so don't want anything too demanding when cruising around slow to moderate speeds. Anyone skied them both for comparison?? Im 6 foot, 215 lbs. Thanks in advance. Nick.
I think you'll prefer the 99 most likely just for the extra energy out of a carving turn. At your size, I don't expect you'll have any trouble maneuvering the 99Ti, even at slower speeds when you're cruising with your kids. Most of our staff have skied both of them.
Hey dudes, great review. how do the 102 FR and TI compare to the Blizzard Rustler 10? I like the sounds of the FR but am worried that it won't be as juicy as the Rustler 10 since it doesnt have that partial metal...if I like the Rustler am I going to like the TI more than the FR? I like the playful yet juicy aspect of the Rustler...thanks guys!
I think the best way to think about it is the Rustler kind of has characteristics of both the FR and TI. It's playful, like the FR, but has more vibration damping like the Ti. That said, I know a lot of people who ski the Ranger 102 FR and don't complain about it feeling unstable. A little lighter on your feet, but not drastically less stable than the Rustler in my opinion.
@@SkiEssentials thanks for getting back to me, you guys are awesome! Thanks for all the vids. If I wanted to try a different ski, as damp as the rustler and more agile or responsive what would you recommend.?
Hi guys, thaks for this videos! I am planning to buy a pair of these Fischer Ranger 102 fr skis, but I am doubting on which length should I ski them. I am 168 cm “tall” and 64kg with a normal type of skiing. Should I go for the 170?
Planning to put the Look Pivot 15 bindings on them, may be with the cast Freetour kit. What do you guys think about this setup?
Keep on with the videos, you are doing a great job!
Hello! Yes, I think the 170 cm length is the way to go. A couple inches taller than you, but the Ranger has such a nice, lightweight feel, that it should be perfectly manageable in that length while providing really good float and stability.
Love the idea of a Pivot 15 with the CAST system. That'll be a really versatile setup and I'm always a big fan of how Pivots feel. Have them on most of my skis.
Thanks a lot for the answer! Would the 177cm length be too long for me? Thats 4 inches more than my height.
Really appreciate the effort you make trying to help us with the doubts we all have. You are the best!
@@asiergoitia7361 I guess it just kind of feels like overkill. I'm sure you could ski it, but I don't know it's necessary. For reference, I'm ~72 kg give or take and close to 180 cm, at first I kind of went back and forth between the 177 and 184, but I really like skiing the 177 and if I had to choose one or the other, it would be that.
"I'm Bob, Hi!" - what happened?!
I (Jeff) almost didn't know how to continue the review!
@@SkiEssentials I've been thinking about this comment thread for about a month now and I still don't get it =( Can you guys explain for a dummy like me
hi guys, i want a pretty versatile ski that i'm going to ride with a salomon shift. I hesitate between an enforcer 94, rustler 9 or this Ranger. light skier 165lbs intermediate / advanced level. thank you and you always have a good review.
I havent skied the new enforcer 94, but I own the enforcer 93, and I find the 102 FR more fun than the 93
Icelantic natural 101 or nomad 95, also black crows camox(97 waist). Alot lighter than the skis you listed (and much more swag). I wouldn't tour on an enforcer, great skis just on the heavy side.
Gee Jeff, your aging out of park skiing ha. In my case I'm just aging. 67 yrs. skiing for ...yes 60 years. Could the 102 FR be a one ski quiver option for an old (expert) directional skier who lives and mostly skis in Colorado?
Hey John! Haha, I get that response a lot, but it's definitely how I feel being a 35 year old amongst mostly teens in the park. To answer your question, yes, certainly! One of the best aspects of the Ranger 102 FR is its broad appeal. It's just as good for a directional skier such as yourself as it is for someone who would mount it more centered and potentially use it in the park a little. Great ski for Colorado too, very versatile for the terrain and conditions you get out there.
Is it the same ski as the 2020 one ? Great vids btw very informative
Yup! Same ski.
@@SkiEssentials Thanks ! I ordered 2020 ones I hope to shred them in La Clusaz soon ! Btw can you nose butter them ? I mean do the carbon and the link between the nose and the woodcore will bear those kind of loads ? Thanks a lot for the precious advices.
Hey guys! Awesome video, I’m 1`72 cm, and 68kg, and I’m looking to get these skies. What length do you recommend?
I'd go 170 or 177 cm. Both of those lengths could work for you, in theory. The 177 cm is quite a bit taller than you, so I'd reserve that for only if you're a relatively aggressive, expert skier. Otherwise, I think there would be more benefits to the 170 cm.
Thumbs up from the get go!
Men wear pink🔥
I bought the 184 cm 102 FR, loved it so much I had to buy the 191cm 102 FR, amongst my favorite skis for sure.
I'm debating myself to get the 184 or 191. How do you feel the difference in length when riding? I want to mount with a Salomon Shift binding and use the for everything :)
@@ClaesN1973 184 is nimble and playful, got it +2 mounted, but can charge surprisingly hard, the 191 I have +3 mounted, and its just everything magnified, when you really want to charge, I'd say you choose depending on the terrain and your height. I can flex the skis into a shorter turn radius than the numbers would suggest.
I usually dont like something as short as a 184, but it does ski very well, the early rise/rocker/whatever they call it, is mild enough that you can use the area of the ski when carving hard turns.
The 191 floats better and is more chargy, without any chatter, keep in mnd the actual lengths of the fischers seems quite long. For summerski I took the 191 and the length really helped with the variying conditions.
@@pewpewpew8390 Just curious, what's your height and weight? I'm 6'1" and 175 and i'm on the fence between sizes. I've got the 186cm enforcer 104 mounted at +2 and I'm looking for something a bit more stable but if I got the ranger I'd likely throw a salomon shift on it so I'd hesitate on the 191
@@jasonfournier5235 6'3 230lbs, The 184 is surprisingly stable and solid, I much prefer it to the enforcer 104, but the enforcer 104 is still a very good ski and very stable, I just find it to be a bit soft for me. I have the 184 mounted +2 and 191 mounted +3. The 191 measures out to 190cm actual, and 184 at 183. The 191 will of course be the more stable ski and you can go even faster. but with a shift Im guessing your not trying to go 60mph+? I think 184 will be enough
@@pewpewpew8390 Cool thanks for your input!
@skiessentials.com Did Bob get to go to Noah's party?
Hahaha, I don't recall him being there.
Did Bob with the "hulk legs" just say skiing some baby bumps was hard on his knees?????? WHAT?????
Ryan 😍