• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

2023 Fischer Ranger 96

Chickenmonkey

David T.
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
343
Similarities/differences to the Origin 96?

Skiing out west for 4 weeks this year really made me love my Rustler 10, 188's. But at times the ski was a little too long and not as turny as I would have liked in some tighter moguls/trees. So I'm thinking I need something a little shorter and I'm missing a ski in the mid 90 range.
Hi Chip.

I have skied the pre-VMT Origin 96 in 176 for a couple years and still do. It is my 50/50 ski and soft snow travel ski. I just got the Ranger 96 in 180 and have one day (yesterday) on them.

For me, the Ranger is significantly stronger than the Origin both longitudinally and torsionally. The Ranger also has less rocker and less splay in both the tip and tail thus skis longer with more effective edge.

So as you can imagine, the Ranger was more damp and provided much more edge grip on the firmish spring groomers I skied yesterday. It allowed me to ride with more speed before feeling uncomfortable than the Origin would. I was still able to ski a variety of turn shapes with various radii just like the Origin, it just took a little more speed and technique at my weight (150). Ranger is stronger here for sure.

Off-piste, we had well formed and tight-ish spring bumps, a mix of firm and slush. @Unpiste mentioned that the bumps were tighter than his skis, which I think were 180 Bonafides. Here the Rangers were more work and required me to be more on my game, than the Origins because of the extra length and stiffness. The Origins are one of my favorite bump skis so this is not a surprise, they are just so easy. So for tight, single diamond bumps, I am holding judgement until I can get more time on the Rangers.

On spaced out bumps that formed on steep groomers throughout the day, they were super fun and handled the piles of soft along with the scraped-off firm with much less drama than the Origins would.

The Ranger in 180 for me, will be likely slot in as my daily driver until I find what I can‘t do on them, LOL. It is my longest and stiffest ski so it will take some getting used to.

Hope this helps.
 

Chip

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Jul 3, 2017
Posts
603
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Hi Chip.

I have skied the pre-VMT Origin 96 in 176 for a couple years and still do. It is my 50/50 ski and soft snow travel ski. I just got the Ranger 96 in 180 and have one day (yesterday) on them.

For me, the Ranger is significantly stronger than the Origin both longitudinally and torsionally. The Ranger also has less rocker and less splay in both the tip and tail thus skis longer with more effective edge.

So as you can imagine, the Ranger was more damp and provided much more edge grip on the firmish spring groomers I skied yesterday. It allowed me to ride with more speed before feeling uncomfortable than the Origin would. I was still able to ski a variety of turn shapes with various radii just like the Origin, it just took a little more speed and technique at my weight (150). Ranger is stronger here for sure.

Off-piste, we had well formed and tight-ish spring bumps, a mix of firm and slush. @Unpiste mentioned that the bumps were tighter than his skis, which I think were 180 Bonafides. Here the Rangers were more work and required me to be more on my game, than the Origins because of the extra length and stiffness. The Origins are one of my favorite bump skis so this is not a surprise, they are just so easy. So for tight, single diamond bumps, I am holding judgement until I can get more time on the Rangers.

On spaced out bumps that formed on steep groomers throughout the day, they were super fun and handled the piles of soft along with the scraped-off firm with much less drama than the Origins would.

The Ranger in 180 for me, will be likely slot in as my daily driver until I find what I can‘t do on them, LOL. It is my longest and stiffest ski so it will take some getting used to.

Hope this helps.
Thanks for this- very helpful.
As for steeper tight trees how did you like the Origins? Since you really like them in the moguls- I would think they would be nicely suited for tighter trees. I'm 6' 175, and was thinking either in 176 or 182. Like I said the Rustlers are 188 and at times just a little longer than the conditions need. In tight bumps the tails will hit sometimes, so I'm looking for shorter. I have the Evolv 84 in 179 and love them all around the mountain, but once there's chop they drop off and get pushed around easily. So I'm looking more for the bumps/trees than groomers.
 

Chickenmonkey

David T.
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
343
Yes, anywhere you want lots of maneuverability, the Origins should work.

At your size, 182 for sure. Also, I‘ve never skied it, but I think the Evolve is a stronger ski than the Origin…so it will still get pushed around in chop.

There is a current Origin thread, you should ask over there. Also check out the skiessentials.com reviews of these skis.
 

bbinder

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
2,224
Location
Massachusetts
I demoed these skis yesterday at Snowbird in a 180 length. The conditions were packed powder, some hard-ish packed snow, windbuff, and areas of knee deep heavy to chunky to crusty snow. Probably an important caveat to this review is that, while I de-burred the edges myself, the tune was not nearly as good as the tune on my everyday Western skis (180cm Fischer Motive 95s tuned by Mile DeSantis of SkiMD).

Me: 69 years old, 5'11", 175 lbs, level 8 skier with aging knees.

I had high hopes because I love my Motives, and I hoped that this ski would be an evolutionary step forward in ski design. I was disappointed. The tips engaged turns nicely and quicker/easier than my Motives do. Once the tips were engaged, however, the entire ski felt vague. Even in soft packed snow, I did not have confidence that the ski would hold a carve. On exiting a turn, I felt that the tail would not support me as I moved into transition. When skiing fast on packed snow, I felt that I hit the speed limit on these skis quickly, and I did not feel confident. In moguls, they felt better, but they never lost that feeling of vagueness. In deeper soft snow, I had hoped that the tip design would float me better that the conventional tip design of the Motives, but that was not the case for me. I won't comment on the performance in the deeper/chunky snow because at that point my lack of confidence in the ski likely contributed to operator error.

Phil often refers to the fact that when one demos a ski, one is demoing the tune of the ski as much as the ski itself. Perhaps that is the case here. The only other ski that I demoed this season is the Lusti 95. After 3 turns on the Lusti, I felt as confident is not more so than I feel on my Motives. Unfortunately, visibility was poor (for me) the day that I demoed those skis so I did not have the opportunity to push them in varied conditions and terrain.
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
I demoed these skis yesterday at Snowbird in a 180 length. The conditions were packed powder, some hard-ish packed snow, windbuff, and areas of knee deep heavy to chunky to crusty snow. Probably an important caveat to this review is that, while I de-burred the edges myself, the tune was not nearly as good as the tune on my everyday Western skis (180cm Fischer Motive 95s tuned by Mile DeSantis of SkiMD).

Me: 69 years old, 5'11", 175 lbs, level 8 skier with aging knees.

I had high hopes because I love my Motives, and I hoped that this ski would be an evolutionary step forward in ski design. I was disappointed. The tips engaged turns nicely and quicker/easier than my Motives do. Once the tips were engaged, however, the entire ski felt vague. Even in soft packed snow, I did not have confidence that the ski would hold a carve. On exiting a turn, I felt that the tail would not support me as I moved into transition. When skiing fast on packed snow, I felt that I hit the speed limit on these skis quickly, and I did not feel confident. In moguls, they felt better, but they never lost that feeling of vagueness. In deeper soft snow, I had hoped that the tip design would float me better that the conventional tip design of the Motives, but that was not the case for me. I won't comment on the performance in the deeper/chunky snow because at that point my lack of confidence in the ski likely contributed to operator error.

Phil often refers to the fact that when one demos a ski, one is demoing the tune of the ski as much as the ski itself. Perhaps that is the case here. The only other ski that I demoed this season is the Lusti 95. After 3 turns on the Lusti, I felt as confident is not more so than I feel on my Motives. Unfortunately, visibility was poor (for me) the day that I demoed those skis so I did not have the opportunity to push them in varied conditions and terrain.
It does sound like the tune was part of the issue but the Ranger 96 is not a new Motive, it is a different animal. This is one of the reasons I never put you on it, I know what you like and are expecting, that is why I suggested the Lusti 95 for you, that is closer to a current incarnation of a ski that you like and quite frankly, a ski with that shape in the mid 90 mm range are few and very far between.
 

bbinder

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
2,224
Location
Massachusetts
It does sound like the tune was part of the issue but the Ranger 96 is not a new Motive, it is a different animal. This is one of the reasons I never put you on it, I know what you like and are expecting, that is why I suggested the Lusti 95 for you, that is closer to a current incarnation of a ski that you like and quite frankly, a ski with that shape in the mid 90 mm range are few and very far between.
Fair enough! ( Oh and it is Mike, not Mile, DeSantis)
 

Sponsor

Top