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

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,298
Location
Reno
Fischer My Ranger 102 FR
Dimensions: 135-101-125
Radius: 17m@168cm
Sizes: 159, 168, 176
Size tested: 168
Design: All New

Fischer is one of the manufacturers taking a deeper look at its women's skis, making it clear that it is paying attention to us. The My Ranger 102 FR is a new addition to the lineup, which previously had stopped at the My Ranger 98. Next season's lineup will include a My Ranger 96 Ti and 90 Ti, both with metal, but the My Ranger 102 FR is the same construction as the men's Ranger 102 FR, which has no metal but does incorporate a carbon nose and free ski rocker to make it a stable, playful, fun experience.

IMG_5005.jpg


IMG_5003.jpg

With this ski season's big snow, I've had no shortage of good conditions to ski on wider skis, and fortunately this particular ski was in my arsenal when I was skiing at Alta on a surprise powder day. It delivered some serious fun. I followed the guys through steeps and moguls for the better part of the day and never found a moment when this ski let me down. When it was time to slow it down at the end of the day, the My Ranger 102 FR was stable while skiing groomers (which weren't really groomers) back to the lodge.

fullsizeoutput_493f.jpeg

This is a great addition to Fischer's freeride line-up, a ski that will make an advanced female skier say, "My oh My!"
  • Who is it for? An advanced female looking for a One Oh Something that is nimble and playful.
  • Who is it not for? Someone looking to stay on piste.
  • Insider tip: If you're looking for a longer length, look at the men's side of the wall; if you're a guy looking for a shorter length, don't be afraid to try this ski.
 

Tom K.

Skier Ordinaire
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Posts
8,404
Gorgeous turn in the middle pic. Round, high edge angle, centered, stacked. Got it all going on.

Buy that photographer a beer. Timing was perfect!

Oh yeah, the ski. Love my 115 Rangers, and the trusty old Motive 95s are still my go-to ski for "single ski road trips".
 
Thread Starter
TS
Tricia

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,298
Location
Reno
Gorgeous turn in the middle pic. Round, high edge angle, centered, stacked. Got it all going on.

Buy that photographer a beer. Timing was perfect!

Oh yeah, the ski. Love my 115 Rangers, and the trusty old Motive 95s are still my go-to ski for "single ski road trips".
Heh, thanks.
The snow was interesting, super soft in most places but then a chunk of something would catch me off guard. The My Rangers just blew through it....and Phil is good at finding a good shot.
 

ejj

Prairie Skier
Skier
Joined
Dec 4, 2015
Posts
300
Location
Minneapolis
Ranger 102 FR is an awesome ski! More people need to try this ski! There is life beyond the Enforcer 100/104!
 

zircon

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Feb 23, 2018
Posts
808
Location
I can’t believe it’s not England!
Thanks for the great review! As a small guy who occasionally fantasizes about a one-oh-something, but despairs about sizing, this sounds very interesting.

I'm curious about the sizing run, though. 168cm seems really close to the shortest men's length of 170cm. Maybe not even notably different? I may have a mental block about numbers that start with a "17..." but sounds like they brought it down one size from the men's with the 159 (and maybe moved the mount point forward a bit?)
 
Thread Starter
TS
Tricia

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,298
Location
Reno
Ranger 102 FR is an awesome ski! More people need to try this ski! There is life beyond the Enforcer 100/104!
Truth!
There are so many good skis.

Thanks for the great review! As a small guy who occasionally fantasizes about a one-oh-something, but despairs about sizing, this sounds very interesting.

I'm curious about the sizing run, though. 168cm seems really close to the shortest men's length of 170cm. Maybe not even notably different? I may have a mental block about numbers that start with a "17..." but sounds like they brought it down one size from the men's with the 159 (and maybe moved the mount point forward a bit?)
I don't have the book in front of me, but you may be right on the men's sizing.
Its not uncommon for a manufacturer to change the *published* size on women's skis when the men's/women's line up is same construction.
 

Vinnie

Getting on the lift
Skier
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Posts
268
Thanks for the great review! As a small guy who occasionally fantasizes about a one-oh-something, but despairs about sizing, this sounds very interesting.

I'm curious about the sizing run, though. 168cm seems really close to the shortest men's length of 170cm. Maybe not even notably different? I may have a mental block about numbers that start with a "17..." but sounds like they brought it down one size from the men's with the 159 (and maybe moved the mount point forward a bit?)
As you get into one oh-something width the skis will tend to have more rocker, looser tail and smaller effective edge. So if your used to a 16x length in an 80-90mm all mountain/front side ski I really don’t think you would have any problems with a 10x ski in the 172-176cm range. I should qualify this. I am not talking about a burly 10x ski like the Cochise or Monster 108, but one of the more ‘playful’ ones like the Liberty Origin 106 or Salomon QST 106 and based on this review the My Ranger 102 FR.
 

zircon

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Feb 23, 2018
Posts
808
Location
I can’t believe it’s not England!
Its not uncommon for a manufacturer to change the *published* size on women's skis when the men's/women's line up is same construction.
Sounds like it could be similar to some manufacturers that seem to label the same boot down 5 points for the women's version, then.

As you get into one oh-something width the skis will tend to have more rocker, looser tail and smaller effective edge. So if your used to a 16x length in an 80-90mm all mountain/front side ski I really don’t think you would have any problems with a 10x ski in the 172-176cm range. I should qualify this. I am not talking about a burly 10x ski like the Cochise or Monster 108, but one of the more ‘playful’ ones like the Liberty Origin 106 or Salomon QST 106 and based on this review the My Ranger 102 FR.

At 5'5"(ish) and 130 pounds, and spending most of the last 10 years on a full cambered 156 and now skiing 160-161 with a touch of rocker, 172-176 is still scary. Should probably make peace with with the 165-170 range, though ;)
 
Thread Starter
TS
Tricia

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,298
Location
Reno
Thread Starter
TS
Tricia

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,298
Location
Reno
Bump for some amazing spring skiing and possibly more powder days in Colorado. May-basin here we come!
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top