Fischer Transalp 105 CTi, 178cm Metrics
Available lengths (cm): 164, 171, 178, 185
Dimensions (mm): 139-105-124 [178]
Radius (m): 22
Mass (g): Claimed: 1580, Measured at 1558 and 1599g.
Mount Position (cm from center): -10
Construction Highlights: Paulownia core, partial ABS sidewall, carbon + shaped Titanal reinforcement
Shape: Wide shovel, significant taper (15mm), medium-long radius
Profile: Gently rockered tip and tail, a bit of camber underfoot
Similar Models: Blizzard Zero G 105, Atomic Backland 107
MSRP: $899.95
Fischer’s new Transalp 105 CTi photo: Fischer
Side view—rocker profile.
For winter 2024, Fischer has totally revamped their touring ski line. The Hannibal line got the ax, replaced by an expanded Transalp collection. We have a couple of the new Transalp skis on the review docket this winter. Starting with the Transalp 105 CTi.
Plugged by Fischer as a “Freeride tourer with lightweight powder performance”, I expect that the Transalp 105 will be a versatile option, both as a daily driver and a safe bet for mid winter high (Teton) peak skiing.
Fischer provides some sustainability information on the skis—the bar is being raised all the time for sustainable manufacturing.
The Transalp 105 is a pretty traditional, directional ski. It adds some significant tip and tail rocker, as well as a pintail design (large width difference between tip and tail) that should keep the tips floating well in deeper powder. I’ll be interested to see how the rocker/taper/mount point combo plays out as far as skiing experience. The rearward mount and general robust/stiff feel point to a more demanding ski that could require consistent pressure on the tips to feel in control, but the rockered tip and tail and low slung, soft to close camber may help balance out the more demanding characteristics. Time will tell.
Tail Rocker.
Tip Rocker.
I’m excited to compare with a few similar models—especially the Blizzard Zero G 105. In many ways, the ZG105 is my benchmark traditional, sturdy, 1500g-ish touring ski. The Transalp 105 has a very similar weight and shape, but moves the mount rearwards, adds some more rocker to both tips and tails, and adds a more significant shaped titanal layer to the layup. Aside from the more rearward mount (which I am contemplating bumping forward 2cm or so), I quite like the sound of those adjustments relative to the Zero G.
A good view of the shaped titanal layer.
I’m looking forward to getting these mounted up and put to the test. I’ve always enjoyed the 105mm-ish touring ski category, and the CTi 105 seems like a worthy addition to the many options available in this width and weight class.
Hi,
first of all, it’s great to see that there is finally again a site with some real world reviews on ski gear! Appreciate your work a lot!
I wanted to ask, if there is any update on your review of those skis? I’m especially intrested on your thoughts about the mount point of the bindings? Did you end up 1-2 cm further the recommended line?
The reason I’m asking for is that I’m about to mount the Transalp 98 CTI, but not yet shure if I should move 1 cm forward…
Thanks a lot!
Hey George, we have been really enjoying the Transalp 105! I have enjoyed a few days on them, but for the most part, Slator Aplin has been using them a ton. I mounted them at +1 from recommended, so 9cm behind center. It’s worth checking the mount point on the 98mm model as it may not be the same. For my preferences of more centered for/aft weight distribution, -9cm is still quite far back – that being said, the 105s have felt intuitive and relatively easy skiing, where sometimes I tend to get “punished” by not being far enough forward on skis like this. I don’t imagine it would be productive to stray too far from recommended here.
Hi Gavin! Thanks a lot for the detailed response!