Bought it last year for me and my wife (thanks to you) and since then skiing was never the same... it`s awesome! +10 fun factor and confidence. Thank you!
Love the videos and information, thank you. 6’2” 180 lbs. 40 years old, racer as a kid, ski 40 to 50 days per year on the east coast. Typical day is ripping groomers at first chair, then heading into the woods to chase the kids or into the bumps. Love to ski groomed and natural stuff. Looking at this Ranger 96 and the elan ripstick black. Thoughts? Anything else I should consider? I have an enforcer 104 for fresh snow days, so would avoid having another enforcer in narrower width.
Personally I prefer the energy and turning capabilities of the Ripstick Black over the Ranger. I think the Ranger is easy to turn and very versatile, but the Ripstick Black is pretty special on groomers and beyond.
Thanks for another amazing review. Im 5’9 175 adevanced east/west skier. Looking to replace my BC camox (174, prob too long). Being an east coast native im looking for something that allows me to do what i do well (charge on groomers, harder stuff) and progress where im less adept, ski confidently off trail, trees, etc. i find the camox a little nervous over crud and the tails a bit grabby. So if looking for something a bit more stable on hard snow and maybe a little easier off trail-alot to ask i know-you think the Ranger 96 fits the bill? Was also considering Rustler 9 or Ripstick 96 too. Any advice, would be grateful.
Tough to go wrong with these mid-duty mid-90's skis--they're just so darn versatile and fun! I do like the Rustler when it comes to being well-rounded on groomers at speed and maneuverable in tighter spaces.
Great review again! Between this ski and the 2024 Rustler 9 for a light expert skier who appreciates ease of turn initiation (by tilting the ski), smaller radius turns with a lot of energy at the end of the turn, but not too tiring for a day in the bumps and tight trees (75% of the day)… Which one would be the better choice? Thanks!! I briefly tried the QST on hard snow. it’s probably a fun freeride-ish ski but it reminded me too much those weird shapes of my old Armada JJ which required to be more centered to use the short turn radius.
I've had more success on the Rustler than the Ranger, as it has the ability to make a lot of different turn shapes and styles. I find the Ranger to have excellent stiffness underfoot, but is a bit flexible in the shovels . The Rustler is such a no-brainer--so incredibly fun and playful while retaining excellent stability and grip at higher speeds and on firmer snow.
@@SkiEssentials Thanks! I’ve been able to test the Ranger, the ‘23 Rustler 9 and the ‘24 Rustler 9. Your description is spot on. The Ranger is better for carving long turns, the ‘23 Rustler has more camber and more grip on firm snow/ice but the ‘24 Rustler is probably better on soft snow and for powder days. But the winner is the Ferreol Explo 96. Amazing ski, great edge grip and shorter turn radius 👌
Great review! In terms of length selection, would you recommend the 159 or 166? I'm 5'6 and 120lbs, intermediate skier looking for a pair mainly for Utah / Colorado.
Cheers for the review. Been tossing up between these and the Ranger 90s, noting that the 90s come in slightly different lengths. I'm 179cm and 97 kilos ( about 5'11, 212lb roughly) and probably an intermediate skier, looking for something all-mountain to pull the trigger on. Skiing here in Australia the conditions arent always the best but I'll be getting overseas a lot more now too. So basically skiing a range of different slopes and conditions. I'm curiour whether you think the ranger 96 in 180cm length would be alright for me or whether the ranger 90 in 177cm length would be better?
I'd go with the 96 based on your stats and application in the 180. I never felt that these 96's skied short, rather I kind of wished they had more length to them without going to the 187. Additionally, the mid-90's is a great place to be for various conditions and terrain. If you're looking to get into softer snow at all, that'll only make it more amenable and satisfying.
I think there's a lot to like about the Camox in terms of versatility. you may find the mid section of the Ranger to be on the damp side, and that's great for carving turns, but the energy and pop of the Camox is outstanding. I also really like the longer turn shape of the Camox for varying conditions and terrain as you're never really locked into any particular style or shape of turn.
I am considering buying a pair, but I am really not sure about size - I am 154lbs (70kg), and 5,7 inches (175cm. Was thinking the yellow in 173, but maybe the 166 is better? Been skiing for 15 years.
If you are more aggressive and prefer stability at speed, I'd go ahead and go with the 173, but to unlock the shorter radius and mid-range velocity skiing, the 166 won't be too short.
Yes, same things can be said about this as the 102 to the Rustler 10 comment you had--there's more tip to tail stability in the Rustler than the Ranger. Underfoot, it's about equal, but overall, the Rustler has some more dampness to it. The difference here is that the Rustler 9 has more or a dramatic rocker profile and splay than the Ranger (or the Rustler 10) making it a more playful ski in softer snow while the Ranger doesn't quite have the same energy.
There's quite a bit more performance from an on-trail perspective from the Kastle. Ranger is a smoother and easier ski in an off-piste realm, but if you're looking to hammer carved turns down the mountain regardless of conditions or terrain, the Kastle holds up to much more aggressive skiing.
Hey guys, thank you for your awesome reviews :D Do you have an expert opinion for my situation? It's about the Fischer Ranger 96, intended use will be ~75-80% piste. I'm 5'10" (180cm), 187lbs and a fit and sporty skier who loves short turns, medium to high speed but also skiing lazy sometimes. The Fischer is available in 173 and 180, should I go for the longer one because of the rocker and off-piste characteristics or the shorter one because of the 1 meter shorter radius for agility? What makes more sense at the end of the day?
I'm an expert skier, 5'11" 220lbs, and like a one ski quiver, currently on the Enforcer 93 which is so fun going fast and crushing anything, but in moguls they are a handful and I think I'd rather give up some stability for something that will make bumps more enjoyable, like a softer tip and less metal. Thoughts?
If you're looking for a low to mid-90's ski for a one ski quiver that's a bit more manageable than the Enforcer, I'd take a square look at the Armada Declivity 92 and the Black Crows Serpo. Wonderful energy and stability in a carved turn but easier to use in the bumps and trees.
I just tested these for a week head to head against sender 94, Enforcer 94, head kore 93. Fisher has more rotation underfoot. More agile turns. But also demands more of the skiier when charging fast. They are not as stable as the others. If you relax to much they become twitchy. Ranger has top edge grip on ice in comparison. This can also be tiresome. That good grip can make skiing a whole day tiresome for the legs. Playful i go Ranger, Serious charger i go enforcer. Light skis go Kore. Sender 94 is somewhere between all of them . Not huge diffrence but still enough to notice.
So on your website you say the recommended ability level for this ski is "Beginner to Advanced Intermediate" but then in this video you state this is really a ski for an "Advanced to Expert" skier. That's completely opposite advice. There's other examples where you label hardcore advanced skis as good for beginners or intermediates on your website. Not helpful at all for those trying to filter potential ski choices.
Bought it last year for me and my wife (thanks to you) and since then skiing was never the same... it`s awesome! +10 fun factor and confidence. Thank you!
Great to hear!
This video made me buy the ski.
that's the idea! Hope you like them!
Love the videos and information, thank you.
6’2” 180 lbs. 40 years old, racer as a kid, ski 40 to 50 days per year on the east coast. Typical day is ripping groomers at first chair, then heading into the woods to chase the kids or into the bumps. Love to ski groomed and natural stuff. Looking at this Ranger 96 and the elan ripstick black. Thoughts? Anything else I should consider? I have an enforcer 104 for fresh snow days, so would avoid having another enforcer in narrower width.
Personally I prefer the energy and turning capabilities of the Ripstick Black over the Ranger. I think the Ranger is easy to turn and very versatile, but the Ripstick Black is pretty special on groomers and beyond.
Thanks for another amazing review. Im 5’9 175 adevanced east/west skier. Looking to replace my BC camox (174, prob too long). Being an east coast native im looking for something that allows me to do what i do well (charge on groomers, harder stuff) and progress where im less adept, ski confidently off trail, trees, etc. i find the camox a little nervous over crud and the tails a bit grabby. So if looking for something a bit more stable on hard snow and maybe a little easier off trail-alot to ask i know-you think the Ranger 96 fits the bill? Was also considering Rustler 9 or Ripstick 96 too. Any advice, would be grateful.
Tough to go wrong with these mid-duty mid-90's skis--they're just so darn versatile and fun! I do like the Rustler when it comes to being well-rounded on groomers at speed and maneuverable in tighter spaces.
Great review again! Between this ski and the 2024 Rustler 9 for a light expert skier who appreciates ease of turn initiation (by tilting the ski), smaller radius turns with a lot of energy at the end of the turn, but not too tiring for a day in the bumps and tight trees (75% of the day)… Which one would be the better choice? Thanks!! I briefly tried the QST on hard snow. it’s probably a fun freeride-ish ski but it reminded me too much those weird shapes of my old Armada JJ which required to be more centered to use the short turn radius.
I've had more success on the Rustler than the Ranger, as it has the ability to make a lot of different turn shapes and styles. I find the Ranger to have excellent stiffness underfoot, but is a bit flexible in the shovels . The Rustler is such a no-brainer--so incredibly fun and playful while retaining excellent stability and grip at higher speeds and on firmer snow.
@@SkiEssentials Thanks! I’ve been able to test the Ranger, the ‘23 Rustler 9 and the ‘24 Rustler 9. Your description is spot on. The Ranger is better for carving long turns, the ‘23 Rustler has more camber and more grip on firm snow/ice but the ‘24 Rustler is probably better on soft snow and for powder days. But the winner is the Ferreol Explo 96. Amazing ski, great edge grip and shorter turn radius 👌
Great review! In terms of length selection, would you recommend the 159 or 166? I'm 5'6 and 120lbs, intermediate skier looking for a pair mainly for Utah / Colorado.
I think they're mobile enough to go with the 166. Have fun!
Cheers for the review. Been tossing up between these and the Ranger 90s, noting that the 90s come in slightly different lengths. I'm 179cm and 97 kilos ( about 5'11, 212lb roughly) and probably an intermediate skier, looking for something all-mountain to pull the trigger on. Skiing here in Australia the conditions arent always the best but I'll be getting overseas a lot more now too. So basically skiing a range of different slopes and conditions. I'm curiour whether you think the ranger 96 in 180cm length would be alright for me or whether the ranger 90 in 177cm length would be better?
I'd go with the 96 based on your stats and application in the 180. I never felt that these 96's skied short, rather I kind of wished they had more length to them without going to the 187. Additionally, the mid-90's is a great place to be for various conditions and terrain. If you're looking to get into softer snow at all, that'll only make it more amenable and satisfying.
@@SkiEssentials cheers mate, appreciate the advice
I’m 183 and weigh 78 kg, and starting to get into backcountry. Would you recommend the Rangers or maybe a stiffer ski?
I don't think you need a stiffer ski for starting in the backcountry. If you like the looks of the 96, I'm not here to stop you!
Any thoughts on Ranger 96 vs Black Crows Camox in terms of overall versatility in all conditions?
I think there's a lot to like about the Camox in terms of versatility. you may find the mid section of the Ranger to be on the damp side, and that's great for carving turns, but the energy and pop of the Camox is outstanding. I also really like the longer turn shape of the Camox for varying conditions and terrain as you're never really locked into any particular style or shape of turn.
I am considering buying a pair, but I am really not sure about size - I am 154lbs (70kg), and 5,7 inches (175cm. Was thinking the yellow in 173, but maybe the 166 is better? Been skiing for 15 years.
If you are more aggressive and prefer stability at speed, I'd go ahead and go with the 173, but to unlock the shorter radius and mid-range velocity skiing, the 166 won't be too short.
Looking at the Ranger 96 but might be between sizes; I’m 5’10 and 135 lbs……. 173 or 180cm. Thoughts? Currently on 175cm stormrider 95.
I'd go 173 based on your stats and application, especially if you are comfy on the 175.
This looks to be a serious competitor to the new Rustler 9. Would you say it is pretty much it’s equivalent?
Yes, same things can be said about this as the 102 to the Rustler 10 comment you had--there's more tip to tail stability in the Rustler than the Ranger. Underfoot, it's about equal, but overall, the Rustler has some more dampness to it. The difference here is that the Rustler 9 has more or a dramatic rocker profile and splay than the Ranger (or the Rustler 10) making it a more playful ski in softer snow while the Ranger doesn't quite have the same energy.
Great review. This looks like a winner!
How does this compare to the Kästle FX 96 TI?
There's quite a bit more performance from an on-trail perspective from the Kastle. Ranger is a smoother and easier ski in an off-piste realm, but if you're looking to hammer carved turns down the mountain regardless of conditions or terrain, the Kastle holds up to much more aggressive skiing.
Hey guys, thank you for your awesome reviews :D
Do you have an expert opinion for my situation?
It's about the Fischer Ranger 96, intended use will be ~75-80% piste. I'm 5'10" (180cm), 187lbs and a fit and sporty skier who loves short turns, medium to high speed but also skiing lazy sometimes.
The Fischer is available in 173 and 180, should I go for the longer one because of the rocker and off-piste characteristics or the shorter one because of the 1 meter shorter radius for agility?
What makes more sense at the end of the day?
I'd say the 180 is fine--I find these skis to feel a bit short.
@@SkiEssentials thank you for the response. Appreciate it :)
5'10" is 178 cm.
I'm an expert skier, 5'11" 220lbs, and like a one ski quiver, currently on the Enforcer 93 which is so fun going fast and crushing anything, but in moguls they are a handful and I think I'd rather give up some stability for something that will make bumps more enjoyable, like a softer tip and less metal. Thoughts?
If you're looking for a low to mid-90's ski for a one ski quiver that's a bit more manageable than the Enforcer, I'd take a square look at the Armada Declivity 92 and the Black Crows Serpo. Wonderful energy and stability in a carved turn but easier to use in the bumps and trees.
@@SkiEssentials Thank you
I just tested these for a week head to head against sender 94, Enforcer 94, head kore 93. Fisher has more rotation underfoot. More agile turns. But also demands more of the skiier when charging fast. They are not as stable as the others. If you relax to much they become twitchy. Ranger has top edge grip on ice in comparison. This can also be tiresome. That good grip can make skiing a whole day tiresome for the legs. Playful i go Ranger, Serious charger i go enforcer. Light skis go Kore. Sender 94 is somewhere between all of them . Not huge diffrence but still enough to notice.
....wings...and if you don't like it....yeah...;) LOL
So on your website you say the recommended ability level for this ski is "Beginner to Advanced Intermediate" but then in this video you state this is really a ski for an "Advanced to Expert" skier. That's completely opposite advice. There's other examples where you label hardcore advanced skis as good for beginners or intermediates on your website. Not helpful at all for those trying to filter potential ski choices.
Trust the video whenever applicable. The website is tougher to be consistent about, although it is a focus for improvement for us for sure.