The Fischer Transalp Pro 92 CTi is a solid option for steep skiing for those who like a slightly higher cambered ski underfoot.
The Fischer Transalp 92 CTI Pro is a worthwhile consideration for skiers looking for a 90mm-ish ski for spring and high mountain skiing, and/or resort touring.
Intro
Here we have another dive into another iteration of the new for 2024 Fischer Transalp CTi series. In the spring, Slator Aplin reviewed and enjoyed the western daily driver 105mm model, and here we have the 92 Pro version.
Stepping back, Fischer ditched the Hannibal and old Transalp series and launched the Transalp CTi lineup last fall. The old models never particularly appealed, especially given Slator’s previously discussed durability woes and a generally flimsy-looking and feeling construction paired with traditional shapes and light weights. The CTi update is a seriousparadigm shift. While the new skis still have partial sidewalls, the combination of thicker cores, a heavily shaped titanal layer below the topsheet, and an overall higher quality build and more middle-of-the-road (for lightweight touring skis) weights piqued my interest last fall.
Read THR’s first look here.
Available in many widths (82, 86, 92, 96, 105), the plethora of options in this ski line approach Atomic levels of nuance without a huge difference in shape between models. Adding an 86 Pro and 92 Pro to the lineup makes the options overwhelming—even for a well-informed consumer. Being a North American skier perhaps doesn’t help this, as our tendencies toward wider skis seem to overshadow some subtleties in the narrower lengths, where my brain tends to think in ~10mm increments. I struggle a bit with the small-width steps.
Lineup confusion aside, Fischer finally enters the conversation of top-tier, big-brand touring skis with solid competition for the likes of the Blizzard Zero G, Dynastar M-Tour/Vertical, Atomic Backland, etc., lineups. More options and more good skis benefit everyone, and we are psyched to see Fischer bring compelling options to market.
“The most substantial difference between the two skis is the camber pocket. The Zero G has a relatively low and easy closing camber pocket. In contrast, the Transalp has a high and strong camber pocket that takes significant force to close by hand, a trait much more reminiscent of the Dynastar M-Vertical 88.”
Design Highlights
As discussed in the first look, there is often a design convergence between brands and models regarding traditional sub-100mm touring skis. The Transalp 92 Pro CTi is pretty darn similar on paper and in practice to a Zero G 95, Camox Freebird, Ski Trab Neve, etc. Construction, flex profile, and weight are even more important when shapes are similar. Brand loyalty, graphics, and price also play an undeniable role when the differences get more nuanced.
Once settled on the 92mm width within the Fischer lineup, they must decide between the Black “normal” model and the highlighter yellow “pro” model. The differences between models on paper are pretty minor, but the Pro model is a touch lighter and is advertised as stiffer. As above, I think topsheet color is likely as important a detail as the other stated differences. Naturally, my YAM (young, aggressive male) tendencies drew me immediately to the Pro model, regardless of the feet-on-the-ground differences.
Moving on from colors, width, and marketing speak, let’s dive into the nuance of the 92 Pro model and compare it with a steady and well-loved market staple, the Blizzard Zero G 95. Starting at the tip, the Transalp has a few cm longer tapered section that makes the shovels appear a bit more substantial than the Zero G. Rocker-wise, the tip profile is nearly identical, with maybe a touch more splay than the Zero G, but overall, minimal tip rocker.
The most substantial difference between the two skis is the camber pocket. The Zero G has a relatively low and easy closing camber pocket. In contrast, the Transalp has a high and strong camber pocket that takes significant force to close by hand, a trait much more reminiscent of the Dynastar M-Vertical 88. The mount point is ____, and as discussed with the Zero G, I enjoy mounting a little forward for a more balanced pivot in steep turns. The tails have a touch of early rise and taper. This early rise assists with not getting hung up in technical maneuvers and loosens the tails to free them from the intense edge engagement provided by the aforementioned camber.
The shaped Ti (not titanium) topsheet is a bit more than just a binding insert, and likely adds torsional stiffness and tunes the longitudinal flex profile.
The construction of the Transalp 92 is not especially unique, but it checks all the boxes in my mind regarding quality and durability. These boxes include metal topsheets for binding retention, thick edges that wrap the full ski tip, partial sidewalls, and a sufficiently thick core that is >0 thickness into the tips and tails. The shaped Ti (not titanium) topsheet is a bit more than just a binding insert, and likely adds torsional stiffness and tunes the longitudinal flex profile. Qualitatively, the 92 Pro is very stiff both lengthwise and torsionally. The flex softens a touch at the tips but stays stiff through the tails. Between the traditional profile, camber, and stiff flex, firm and 2D snow is sure to be the specialty here.
Testing Setup
We treated the 169cm Transalp 92 CTi Pro to some Plum Oazo bindings and some Pomoca/Blizzard 100% mohair skins. A few of us tested the skis with various boots, from the Technica Zero G Peak and Atomic Backland Carbon to the Dynafit Hoji Pro on the heavy end of the spectrum.
A strong camber underfoot provides “intense edge engagement.”
Field Testing
Powder/soft snow
At 92mm/169cm, the Transalp 92 isn’t a good choice for maximum powder snow enjoyment. Despite this, I brought them out on a few soft snow outings on Teton Pass when I wanted something lightweight without minimizing to the Zag Adret 85 (which skied well in soft snow). The Transalp had some distinctly different character than the Zero G 95, a benefit of the lower/softer camber, manifesting in a (small) degree of looseness in soft snow. The Transalp felt more locked in tracking along its radius and quite a bit less maneuverable. Conversely, the more tapered tip did a bit better planing/floating compared to the “bottom feeder” character of the Zero G. There are more fun ways to ski powder than on a ski this skinny—the Heritage Lab BC90 is the only exception I can think of at the moment.
Crud/tracked/variable snow
Where the high and strong camber felt like a downside in soft snow, I appreciated its suspension in 3D crud. Add in the moderately tapered tip, and most of these “bad snow” conditions we regularly encounter in the alpine were adeptly handled by the Transalp 92.
Breakable crust was the notable exception—the long wheelbase and energetic camber made breakable feel pretty challenging. It often felt tricky to initiate a turn in these conditions, almost like running in deep sand, with nothing to push against to flatten the camber and load the ski.
As a tool for firm snow and long hauling, the Fischer Transalp 92 CTi Pro is a fine tool. Seen here, Brian Burger in the Beartooths. Photo: Ben Hoiness
Firm Snow/Steeps
Given the very stiff character of the Transalp 92s, I was a bit concerned that they might be more chattery and give that “overly stiff carbon” ski feel that people fret about. I was pleasantly surprised in this category; they felt more planted and damp than the Zero G 95 and the M-Vertical 88. I would categorize all three of these models as excellent firm and steep snow tools and trust each of them in consequential terrain, but I was particularly impressed with the confident edge hold of the Transalp.
The other edge of the sword here is that the high-energy camber feeling isn’t my favorite when things are really steep, and each turn is more of a pivot and skid maneuver. This is where the theory of flatter camber, on something like the Black Crows Solis, for example, comes into play. The balance and energy implications of loading and unloading lots of camber each turn can be unsettling. This characteristic seems like a matter of preference, more than a negative feature, and is certainly a tradeoff with the excellent and confident edge the camber assists with.
Resort Skiing/groomer
The Transalp 92 CTi Pro would make an excellent resort touring ski—it was a blast to load up the camber and arc turns down groomers, perhaps the most fun I’ve had on a ski in this size and weight class for skiing inbounds. It felt easy to adjust my turn shapes and moderate my speed without skidding or slarving. The 1320g weight is perhaps a little heavy for pure fitness touring, but if the goal is to have some fun on the way down, and maybe even take a few lift laps after skinning, the weight feels right.
Ben Hoiness, Gavin Hess, and Brian Burger: the before times in the Beartooths. Photo: Ben Hoiness
Conclusion
As we discussed, it can be really challenging to discern performance in a ski like the Transalp 92 CTi Pro before spending some time skiing it (and similar skis). I learned this lesson with the Ski Trab Neve, which I expected to be a more damp and heavy version of the Zero G 95. I didn’t get along with that ski. With the Transalp, we have another model similar to the Zero G 95 and Neve on paper, and I enjoyed it. While a certain amount of analysis and comparison can explain this, there is also a certain degree of shape, mount point, construction, and flex interacting just right to make a ski work well. Fischer got this formula right with the Transalp 92 CTi Pro.
The Transalp 92 is a worthwhile consideration for many skiers looking for a 90mm ish ski for spring skiing, high mountain skiing, and/or resort touring. I’ve often said that the Zero G 95 skis are like a slalom ski. The energetic nature of the Transalp 92 takes this sentiment to another level. Perhaps a freshly minted recovering ski racer would be best served with something with a truly rearward mount like a Dynastar M-Vertical, but for competent directional skiers that maybe ski more progressive skis midwinter, the Transalp will feel intuitive and be an easy ski to transition to as powder season wraps up.
Specs
Available lengths (cm): 162, 169 (tested), 176, 183
Weight: 1320g (verified)
Side cut: 109-92-123
Turn radius: 20m
Core: Paulownia, carbon stringers, shaped titanal below topsheet
Build Comments: partial sidewall, thick edges, tail clip, tip edge
Shape: traditional with long camber and sidecut, minimal taper, short tip and tail rocker
Recommended Mount Point (cm from center):
Drill size: 4.1x9mm
Similar Models: Ski Trab Neve, Blizzard Zero G 95, Dynafit Blacklight 95
Price: $850.00
Excellent review–I’ve been looking forward to it!
I didn’t get along with the Zero G 95, and usually opted for the 105 even though it was heavier. The Fischers seem like a good option for me.
I’m 180cm tall, and have the Zero G 95s and 105s in a 178cm. Not sure whether I should size down to the 169cm in the Fischers. How tall are you Gavin?
Hey Alex,
I’m 6’1”, 180lbs. I have skied both the 180cm zero g 105 as more of a daily driver, as well as a 172cm 0G 105 as more of a high mountain/expedition ski. That being said, if firm or 2d snow is the objective of the ski, I find the added maneuverability of shorter lengths outweighs the lack of stability at speed or shorter effective edge. I’ve sold a few even bigger friends on shorter skis, and they have more or less universally enjoyed them in the right context- I’d say give it a try!
Good advice, makes sense. I wonder if I’d have liked the 95s more in a shorter length. I love the 180cm 105s but they are tough to swing through steep kick turns! I’ll try these in 169cm, thanks!