Fischer Ranger 115 Mount Point

[Tom K.]

I snagged a pair of Fischer Ranger 115s in 188 cm, and am looking for some input on mount point.

I'm 6'2", 195 lbs, and a classic directional skier.

The recommended line is about -9 cm from true center, but they are also marked with -10, -20 and -30 mms, so I’m a bit uncertain.

Pic below for reference.

Thanks!

 

[Philpug]

On the 188, I would say for yoru size that on the line would be good.

 

[Tom K.]

Thanks @Philpug.

Hoping @epic -- resident forum Fischer dude -- might chime in.

I need to drop them for mounting tomorrow afternoon.

 

[Grizzly777]

This may not help much but I picked up a 188 Fischer Ranger 98 and skiing them on the line was horrible. Sliding demo binding back to -20 good and -25 is good. I thought -30 was a bit much but still better than on the line. I was shocked how much of a difference binding position made on Ranger 98 ski but it is drastic. I was going to get rid of Ranger 98 ski until I slid binding back and now night and day difference on Ranger 98. Ranger 98 is now a very good all mountain ski with bindings slid back!!!!

Please give a review of Ranger 115 there is not much out there on that ski but what little I could find was positive about Ranger 115.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

I haven't skied the 115, but the line for the 102 feels dead on to me. Weird about the 98, I've been skiing it right on the line and happy with it there. I've only ever really skied it on hard snow though.

Looking forward to a report on your 115s. I'm holding off, if I buy a pair I'm sure it will never snow again! Need to buy some slaloms to get the snow started up.

 

[Tom K.]

This may not help much but I picked up a 188 Fischer Ranger 98 and skiing them on the line was horrible. Sliding demo binding back to -20 good and -25 is good. I thought -30 was a bit much but still better than on the line. I was shocked how much of a difference binding position made on Ranger 98 ski but it is drastic. I was going to get rid of Ranger 98 ski until I slid binding back and now night and day difference on Ranger 98. Ranger 98 is now a very good all mountain ski with bindings slid back!!!!

Please give a review of Ranger 115 there is not much out there on that ski but what little I could find was positive about Ranger 115.

Thanks for the detailed input, Griz. I don't hate you quite as much anymore for selling your GT84s to somebody else.

Do you know the vintage of the Ranger 98s you have? IIRC the original versions had the mounting mark forward from where Fischer actually intended.

Favor Request: Any chance you could measure how far behind actual center the "mark" is located on yours?

Thanks again.

 

[Grizzly777]

Well that is good about GT84's but I still kinda of liked liked the 80 Pros the best out of all the Nordica carving skis line up over the years.

My Fischer Ranger 188cm are the current 2018 model. I have same markings as your picture for the Ranger 115 model as my Ranger 98's have -10,-20,-30. I'm liking around -20 mark its way better on groomers and off trail and glades. On groomer on the line it felt like it took a lot more foot steering effort for turns and to adjust turn shape if that makes sense. Someone else mentioned that on TGR about Ranger 98 ski about needing lots of foot steering and being twitchy and I noticed what he was talking about skiing them on the line right away. Sliding binding back around -20 mark got rid of all that negative on the groomers and Ranger 98 ski became significantly better with turns on hardpack with less effort. Its a tough call since Ranger 115 may be similar or not.

I thought Fischer Pro Mountain 86 felt good on the line but I think My Fischer Pro Mountain 95's feel too far forward and maybe someday I will put a demo binding on Pro Mountain 95 to slide it back some. My size is on the bigger side being 6'6" and close to 240lbs so maybe that has some impact on mount point.

 

[Tom K.]

UPDATE:

After much analysis paralysis, I went with -1, and I LOVE THESE SKIS!

It's like Fischer somehow figured exactly what Tom wants in a powder ski and built it.

Great float, smooth release, and smooth period in pow and chop. Carvy feel in soft snow and on groomers. I love carvy feeling skis. Top end not discoverable by me, so far.

Only one day, but I was grinning like a kook the whole time, and I do NOT suffer from the "well I bought them, so I love them" syndrome.

 

[TylerStableford]

I just skied my Ranger 115s in the 196cm length today mounted at the “recommended” line and it was horrible. WAY too far forward. What in the world is Fischer thinking/doing with this recommendation? Wasted my time and money mounting them here. For reference I looked at my 197cm Volkl Katanas when I got home this evening and their recommended mount point is much further back.
Will have to remount them.
I would challenge anyone at Fischer to ski a season on these 196cm skis mounted at the “recommended” location. I bet no one there has, at least in this length.
For reference I’m 6’2” 195 pounds, lifetime skier.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

To each his own... my friend Pat has them mounted way forward of the line and likes them that way. I think he's crazy, but he seems to like it that way. This is why the Marker Schizo existed.

 

[Tom K.]

I slid mine back to minus 2 (from minus 1) and think I like them even better, but really need a deeper day before making any final pronouncements.

I guess I'm lucky. My local ski tech guy only charges me $25 for a remount.

As long as I split a good deli sandwich with him while he's doing the deed!

 

[Shawn C.]

As a new Fischer Ranger 98 owner, is there anything unique about the Fischer 'recommend line' mounting point? Are they forward to some ridiculous degree vs. other skis of the same width or general type? I haven't mounted mine yet and would have thought nothing about mounting them at recommended but now I'm wondering if there isn't something screwy I don't know about.
If it is germane to this discussion I have the last year of the Fischer Motive 96 mounted on the line. Those skis rock!

 

[Tom K.]

As a new Fischer Ranger 98 owner, is there anything unique about the Fischer 'recommend line' mounting point? Are they forward to some ridiculous degree vs. other skis of the same width or general type? I haven't mounted mine yet and would have thought nothing about mounting them at recommended but now I'm wondering if there isn't something screwy I don't know about.
If it is germane to this discussion I have the last year of the Fischer Motive 96 mounted on the line. Those skis rock!

Not sure about the Ranger 98 mount point. Maybe @epic will chime in.

On the 115s there is a lot of interweb preference for going minus one or even two. I compared the mount point to that of the Motive 95, and even at minus one I was significantly further forward than the Motive's factory line, so went with minus one. Then I second-guessed myself, and went a bit further back, which I haven't been able to test adequately.

Long story short, if it were me, I'd mount them at minus one, after comparing that position to your Motive 95s. Damn those Motives, anyway. Still haven't found a ski that tops them as a do it all soft snow western ski.

 

[Shawn C.]

Yeah, Motive 95. I fat fingered the "96." Wow, do those skis rock. I usually only bring them out now when there isn't any fresh turns to be had. Those things carve so well for their width. The only weakness I was able to find on those skis was relatively deep (>12") of high density untracked or crud. That big tip tends to get pushed around a bit in those conditions in my opinion. but when the snow is of even average moisture content they just kill any condition. I bought a pair of Elan Spectrum 105 ALU last year as they were dirt cheap and they are now my go-to soft snow ski but I still love my Fischers.

I think that in the absence of any other feedback I will go with your recommendation of -1 on the Rangers when that time arrives. Thanks for the input, Tom!

 

[Marker]

@Philpug What mount point would you recommend for this ski in 188 cm for a 6'6", 230 lb skier? I ski mostly at Killington now and want this in my quiver for big dumps of fresh snow.

 

[Marker]

@Tom K. @epic Do you have any idea of the factory edge bevels of the 115?

 

[Doug Briggs]

I haven't skied the 115, but the line for the 102 feels dead on to me. Weird about the 98, I've been skiing it right on the line and happy with it there. I've only ever really skied it on hard snow though.

Looking forward to a report on your 115s. I'm holding off, if I buy a pair I'm sure it will never snow again! Need to buy some slaloms to get the snow started up.

I agree that on the recommended mark sounds good. My 98s are superb at recommended. I'd only consider going further back if I were committing the skis to powder specific use. But then, I'd only consider it, I wouldn't do it.

 

[Doug Briggs]

@Tom K. @epic Do you have any idea of the factory edge bevels of the 115?

They are probably somewhere between 1/3 or 1/2. Have the shop measure them when they are mounted. Ski them as is if they say the bevels are consistent and in an appropriate range (between 1/3 and 1/2). If you like them, remember the bevels and keep them. If not, then change them.

While edge bevels angles and having appropriate sharpness are important to every ski, the wider the ski, the less it will affect the performance, within reason. Sure you can tip and rip a 115 mm ski, but I would be using them primarily when conditions are soft and the difference between a 2 and 3 degree side bevel won't matter that much.

Measuring Ski Edge Bevels has good information on determining your bevels. It is something that is really good to know how to do yourself.

 

[Marker]

I agree that on the recommended mark sounds good. My 98s are superb at recommended. I'd only consider going further back if I were committing the skis to powder specific use. But then, I'd only consider it, I wouldn't do it.

Being for the east coast, I would say these are more for soft snow days followed by crud than a true powder day. I've skied at Killington and Sunday River after some rather large snow falls, but the snow consistency never was really powder. Still, I would have appreciated a wider ski for the fun of it. I mean, I could ski them with my 83-88 mm skis, but it was a lot of work. It does get easier as time passes and experience grows. I went with the recommended mark and received my new skis last night! A long wait now until the first "powder" day. But I have mine and my wife's new powder skis to tune up and wax to keep me happy for a few days...

 

[Doug Briggs]

Being for the east coast, I would say these are more for soft snow days followed by crud than a true powder day. I've skied at Killington and Sunday River after some rather large snow falls, but the snow consistency never was really powder. Still, I would have appreciated a wider ski for the fun of it. I mean, I could ski them with my 83-88 mm skis, but it was a lot of work. It does get easier as time passes and experience grows. I went with the recommended mark and received my new skis last night! A long wait now until the first "powder" day. But I have mine and my wife's new powder skis to tune up and wax to keep me happy for a few days...

Then mount at 'recommended' and if you think you'll have to deal with hard pack between soft sections, 1/3. FWIW, I have my Ranger 98s (188 cm) for exactly the soft to crud days you describe. I keep them moderately sharp with 1/2 bevels. My next step up in width is 120+ for true powder days. They still have sidecut so get me back to the lift without problem. They don't get the same edge love that the Rangers get but they are 1/2 as well.