or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Review: 2016 Fischer Ranger 98 180cm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Review: 2016 Fischer Ranger 98 180cm - Page 3

post #61 of 76

Thanks.  Surfy and needing to be driven more seems like an unusual combination.  

post #62 of 76
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski otter View Post
 

Thanks.  Surfy and needing to be driven more seems like an unusual combination.  

 

yeah. It is the laterally stiff tip combined with the tall rocker profile and pretty fat tip. Not a floppy ski.  

post #63 of 76
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir-turnalot View Post

Hey Dawg - have you skied the Enforcer, and can you give a comparison to Ranger 98. See my earlier post on my consideration for upgrade from 2009 Watea 94. I think I would be going for 180 in the ranger and 177 in the Enforcer. Ottie suspects that Ranger would be "turnier" than the Enforcer do you agree?

 

That is tough. I have skied the Enforcer, only on hardpack.  Been on the Ranger on softer conditions each time.  If I had to say, the Enforcer is a bit more damp. The Ranger lighter and quicker.  But with conditions being so different, I couldn't say which was better/worse. 

post #64 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
 

 

That is tough. I have skied the Enforcer, only on hardpack.  Been on the Ranger on softer conditions each time.  If I had to say, the Enforcer is a bit more damp. The Ranger lighter and quicker.  But with conditions being so different, I couldn't say which was better/worse. 

Hey DawgC, if you would indulge...

I just had most of my quiver heisted from my car (Cold Heats, K2 Outlaws, Rossi Sickbirds - my 99s). And now only have what was in my garage for small repairs...  Fischer Motiv 88s & Nordica Afterburner Pros...

 

So I'm prolly gonna look for another pair - specifically in the SupaWide category ...  97-100  ;-)

 

I think you've skied the Motiv 88s - could you give some comparisons/impressions between the Motiv 88s and the Ranger 98s ?

I know, different skis, but would give a common reference - and demo-ing is not gonna happen round here and likely not in Mammoth either.

would be much appreciated...

at which point, when some insurance dosh comes back, I may be in the market...

thx

post #65 of 76
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moreoutdoor View Post
 

Hey DawgC, if you would indulge...

I just had most of my quiver heisted from my car (Cold Heats, K2 Outlaws, Rossi Sickbirds - my 99s). And now only have what was in my garage for small repairs...  Fischer Motiv 88s & Nordica Afterburner Pros...

 

So I'm prolly gonna look for another pair - specifically in the SupaWide category ...  97-100  ;-)

 

I think you've skied the Motiv 88s - could you give some comparisons/impressions between the Motiv 88s and the Ranger 98s ?

I know, different skis, but would give a common reference - and demo-ing is not gonna happen round here and likely not in Mammoth either.

would be much appreciated...

at which point, when some insurance dosh comes back, I may be in the market...

thx

 

Motive 86's, or 95's?  The 95 is more similar to the 98 Ranger, so here goes a comparison for those. I own a 95 as one of my go-to everyday skis, and the 98 I have AT bindings on. 

 

The Motive has a more damp, refined feel, as it is 2 sheets of metal, wood core, and more traditional construction. The Ranger feels lighter, quicker, less damped, more at home in softer snow.  The Ranger is a bit stiffer laterally, especially at the tip, great edge grip. The Motive also has great grip, but a little more progressive engagement.  The Motive shines when you are on rough snow at speed: It has a damp, stable, quiet race ski feel. The Ranger is more lively, again, perfect for softer snow conditions. As a groomer ski, the Motive has more predictable energy, better turn initiation, more responsive on tip-in.  The Ranger is lighter, quicker, very good laterally and when moving your feet in steep trees and bumps.  Honestly, there is a lot of overlap: if there is a lot of softer snow, I am going Ranger, with it's surfier tip and more soft-snow oriented feel.  Mixed conditions, firmer snow, the Motive is a better choice.  

 

If you do find yourself in the market, give us a shout!  Everything is on sale. The Motive 95 is gone after this year (I think the new ski is a bit more frontside-carving oriented; great ski, but the current is a bit more versatile, like a cross between the replacement Pro Mtn. 95 for the Motive, and the Ranger.  Makes sense, as there was overlap, but for me, the current Motive 95 is a contender for best one-ski quiver available today).  The Ranger is the go to for trees for sure! 

 

https://www.dawgcatching.com/collections/frontpage/products/2016-fischer-motive-95-ti-ski

 

https://www.dawgcatching.com/collections/fischer-1/products/2016-fischer-ranger-98ti-ski

post #66 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
 

 

Motive 86's, or 95's?  The 95 is more similar to the 98 Ranger, so here goes a comparison for those. I own a 95 as one of my go-to everyday skis, and the 98 I have AT bindings on. 

 

The Motive has a more damp, refined feel, ...

... Makes sense, as there was overlap, but for me, the current Motive 95 is a contender for best one-ski quiver available today).  The Ranger is the go to for trees for sure! 

 

https://www.dawgcatching.com/collections/frontpage/products/2016-fischer-motive-95-ti-ski

 

https://www.dawgcatching.com/collections/fischer-1/products/2016-fischer-ranger-98ti-ski

Thanks DawgC

I did mean Motiv 88 from 2012 i believe, thought you had ridden it at some point...

Anyway - the Ranger 98 sounds great - and I'm not looking for tenacious grip on glacial ice - that I expect out of my Mid-80s skis - the Ranger would be for soft/fluff/POW (with the occasional plate underneath ;-)     )

as long as it motors thru heavily tracked conditions without a lot of deflection...  

As mostly happens for me; for every 'untracked' section I'm able to find, I'm generally slugging thru 98% of heavily tracked stuff, at speed, trying to get to that last bit of untracked next to the razor-sharp rocks...  ;-(

still sound like the Ranger 98s  ???

I just can't be that guy, anymore,that camps at the lift at 7 am to get first ride. Sometimes it works out, like 1st tram at the bird, or chance arrival at chr 23 when it first loads at Mammoth, and so on...

as soon as I hear what the insurance will do or not do, I can plan a purchase...

post #67 of 76
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moreoutdoor View Post
 

Thanks DawgC

I did mean Motiv 88 from 2012 i believe, thought you had ridden it at some point...

Anyway - the Ranger 98 sounds great - and I'm not looking for tenacious grip on glacial ice - that I expect out of my Mid-80s skis - the Ranger would be for soft/fluff/POW (with the occasional plate underneath ;-)     )

as long as it motors thru heavily tracked conditions without a lot of deflection...  

As mostly happens for me; for every 'untracked' section I'm able to find, I'm generally slugging thru 98% of heavily tracked stuff, at speed, trying to get to that last bit of untracked next to the razor-sharp rocks...  ;-(

still sound like the Ranger 98s  ???

I just can't be that guy, anymore,that camps at the lift at 7 am to get first ride. Sometimes it works out, like 1st tram at the bird, or chance arrival at chr 23 when it first loads at Mammoth, and so on...

as soon as I hear what the insurance will do or not do, I can plan a purchase...

 

Oh man, that is going way back!  I didn't ski it enough to really say definitively how it compares, being 4 years ago. If I owned it, I would have a better idea, but I only had a few runs here and there on that ski. It was fun, I do remember that much; forgiving, not too stiff, held up well at speed, easy to initiate. 

 

I think you are looking at the Ranger 98 for sure.  It is floaty and precise, but not an aggressive ski. Just the ticket for variable snow.  And they are super well priced; it's a lot of ski for what you pay.  

post #68 of 76

Hi guys,

 

Seriously considering the Ranger 90Ti. At 6'5 185lbs, I am unsure about the length I should go with.

I demoed the 179cm, but they did not have the 185. Intermediate skier (been snowboarding since I was a kid, but I've left the dark side for good it seems haha).
I ski the east, and I tend towards moguls and trees when possible. Groomers, hard pack if that's all there is, like this year :(

Since I am not looking for speed, is the 179 long enough, or is it out of the question to have anything less than 185 considering my height?
I still would like to be able to hit a couple of inches of fresh or leftover soft snow, but if it ever gets seriously deep, I'll hop on my Armada ARVs most probably...

Any help much appreciated
Thanks!

post #69 of 76
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vncntkdl View Post
 

Hi guys,

 

Seriously considering the Ranger 90Ti. At 6'5 185lbs, I am unsure about the length I should go with.

I demoed the 179cm, but they did not have the 185. Intermediate skier (been snowboarding since I was a kid, but I've left the dark side for good it seems haha).
I ski the east, and I tend towards moguls and trees when possible. Groomers, hard pack if that's all there is, like this year :(

Since I am not looking for speed, is the 179 long enough, or is it out of the question to have anything less than 185 considering my height?
I still would like to be able to hit a couple of inches of fresh or leftover soft snow, but if it ever gets seriously deep, I'll hop on my Armada ARVs most probably...

Any help much appreciated
Thanks!

 

I would probably say 185cm: figure it skis 4cm shorter than the listed length.  The 179 would be great if you wanted very, very quick. 

post #70 of 76

Thanks for the input Dawg!

Spoke to a sales guy and he also suggested 185. I also asked about the NRGY 90, which I thought would be a comparable ski, but was told the Ranger was even quicker, an a tad better in bumps.
Looks like it'll be the Ranger!

post #71 of 76
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vncntkdl View Post
 

Thanks for the input Dawg!

Spoke to a sales guy and he also suggested 185. I also asked about the NRGY 90, which I thought would be a comparable ski, but was told the Ranger was even quicker, an a tad better in bumps.
Looks like it'll be the Ranger!

 

I don't have but a few runs on the nRGY90, but I don't remember it being as quick as the Ranger. It is as quick edge to edge as anything I have ever tried, which includes some really light AT stuff that doesn't hold up to any sort of charging. 

post #72 of 76
Thanks for the review Dawg! I'm considering these Ranger 98's. I own a pair of Armada JJ's, but looking for a bit narrower skis, 'cause powder days are so rare for me nowadays.. I'm 182cm 87kg (6ft 190lb) so what do you think about the length I should go with, 180 or 188? My Armadas are 185cm and feel just right at that length. My skills are intermediate in powder, advanced on-piste. I'm 45 years so I like to lay back and enjoy more, steeps and jumps are gone for me smile.gif
post #73 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
 

 

I don't have but a few runs on the nRGY90, but I don't remember it being as quick as the Ranger. It is as quick edge to edge as anything I have ever tried, which includes some really light AT stuff that doesn't hold up to any sort of charging. 


Could you do a quick comparison between the Ranger 98 and 90?

 

Btw my current daily driver is a 177 NRGY 100. Anyone care to compare the Ranger 98 to that?

 

Also, at 5'9 185# would I do the 180 or 188?

 

I'm about a level 7/8 on the Vail skier scale.


Edited by Marshfly - 4/1/16 at 5:18am
post #74 of 76

Never mind. I ended up picking up a set of Ranger 98s in 180 with Look Pivot 14s. Without going into to much detail, they simply rip. Extremely happy with my purchase.

post #75 of 76

Has anyone messed around with the binding location on the Ranger 98ti?  Factory location (where mine are mounted) seems a bit forward.  I skied on mine this season with no real issues, but wondered if anyone here had experience with a more rearward location.

post #76 of 76
Well I pulled the trigger on a great deal on the Ranger 98s at 180 length, and got to ski them last week in Australia. No powder - which is the primary intended application for my purchase - but I had a good variety of conditions from icy, packed powder and heavier/wet spring conditions. I was after something a little more agile than my 178 Wateas, which I have thought might be desirable when conditions are a little less than perfect - eg heavier powder or crusty.

I wasn't sure about the length to buy, but in the end was swayed to 180 because the Ranger has shorter turn radius than the Watea, and the rangers had been reported to ski "shorter than their length" due to the tip rocker, so I thought the 180's might feel like perhaps a 172, which is what I was after. Well my expectations on the length did not work out. Despite my expectation that the 180 Ranger would feel shorter than my watea's, they did feel a little longer.

Aside from that, I must say I agree with a common observations from other reviews - they really do feel silky smooth, and their edge hold in icy/hard snow is much stronger than expected - much better than my (174) Blackeye Ti's. I am sure they will be great in the powder.

I have mounted the skis with attack 13 demo's. I like these because the adjustable heel and toe enables you to change your position on the skis, which I think is essential for early rise/rocker and powder tips (widest point of the tip is further back), and this is definitely true for the rangers. I also agree with review comments that the factory mark is too far forward. I felt more comfortable when set back 15mm behind the factory mark.

So now I have a dilemma - do I go for a swap out to the 172's? Has anyone skied the 172's? I know in the past I have found shorter versions of skis to be completely different to longer versions - but this has been lengths in the 160's compared to 170's. Based on this experience, I think I should expect the 172's to be ok, but would be great if anyone has tried. I would not be concerned about less float in powder for the shorter ski, as I like to be IN the powder, not skimming over the top. How about you Dawg - have you been on the 172's?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Review: 2016 Fischer Ranger 98 180cm