Help me choose Fischer Ranger skis 90mm vs 96mm

[jenny119]

Hi girls,

I want to get a new pair of skis this season. I am 5’4 110lbs. I am in PNW. Currently I own a really old pair of skinny skis, so I want to upgrade. I am intermediate, 60% on blue and 40% on black, tree runs and mogul. This new pair will be mostly used in resort. The model I am thinking is Fischer Ranger. I really like the top sheet color in 96mm. But now for the discount price, I can only find 159cm available. I want to buy 166cm in length though. There is another option 90mm in 163. How should I choose?

concerns I have
1. Is 96mm too wide to improve skills? Is 90mm more realistic for resort runs?
2. I already have a pair 98mm wide 159cm long in backcountry gear. For this new gear, should I try a different length? But I am also worried that the longer will increase turn difficulty.

thanks

 

[echo_VT]

Is there any way you can demo or test before committing? Or talk to people who ski them or the shop that sells them and really knows their skis! I really liked the Fischer rangers I demo’d, but it’s been a few years. If I couldn’t demo, I’d ask knowledgeable people about the ski and also if any of them know how you ski it would be helpful!

 

[scandium]

Have you skiied any skis that are longer length (163-166cm) before? Can you rent them to try or get to a demo day? My thought is the 96mm/159cm sounds awfully similar to the backcountry skis but when you say trees and moguls it is hard to know whether you would really like to size up as you will normally need slightly more effort to turn the skis fast. But if your skinny skis are very old and full camber then the effective edge may be similar. What length and width are they?

 

[Basil]

Do you like your backcountry gear? Is this your one resort ski, or do you see yourself having other skis at some point to complement them?

I'm 5'5" but significantly heavier than you (about 140-145). I ski the Ranger 102s in a 169, so I'd bet that the 159cm 96's should be about the right size for you. I think the width is a personal preference. Demo if possible! If not, then pick the one you like the color of and you'll never know what the other option would have been like. No regrets on something that should be fun, like skiing!

 

[echo_VT]

I agree with @scandium and @Basil that for your height and weight and what you want to do, the 159 length with 96 underfoot makes sense, in the PNW.

I also like the 163 length with 90 underfoot. From what I remember of the Fischer ranger from a few years back, I think the shovel is wide on the Fischer ranger and the contact point is set further back closer to the mount point, so even if you get dumped on, 90 underfoot might be fine cuz the shovel width will help you float. And 90 will be nicer for turning on hard pack days. I would look up the effective edge and how wide the shovel is and demo and talk to knowledgeable people. Of course 96 will let you float more on pow days, especially as the PNW typically gets cement-y pow…but if you’re looking to fine tune skills in skiing, the narrower waist will be easier to turn.