I got these skis at an incredible price.
They’re 3/4 everything my dream ski is (which is pretty good)
I’m 6’2” (188cm) tall, I have the 185 length and it kicks turns better than any of my other skis I’ve had.
Big open turns, steeps, wider spaced trees, it excels.
I find I need to really push it, and sometimes I don’t want to be leaning into it so hard all the time.
They’re a couple years old but are still incredible skis. I don’t think one can get better skis for the price.
Fischer Hannibal 106 Carbon Ski
Gearing up for far-out powder hunting missions? Bypassing Roman garrisons by doing a not-so-casual Alps traverse? The Hannibal 106 Carbon has your back. This plus sized beauty was built for powder, but skis like a low-fat when the good stuff up high turns into crud down low. Easy turning with incredible edge hold, the sandwich construction and ABS sidewalls increase durability as well as increase performance in tough conditions. When speeds hit mach-schnell the Carbon Tex technology adds torsional rigidity and significantly dampens the ride on harder snow. Starting with a classic paulownia wood core, the addition of Air Tec Ti technology provides just the right amount of pop while selective milling of the core reduces weight so the uphill is just as easy as the downhill. Because most of us have managed to ski into instead of around a tree at some point, Fischer has added a Titanal plate in the mounting area to keep your bindings where they should be—on the ski. The Hannibal 106's rockered tip allows you to stay afloat when enjoying those hard-earned powder turns, yet the flatter tail and medium turning radius let you open it up when you’re so inclined. In an epic search for the elusive powder ski that handles itself in sub-ideal conditions, the Hannibal 106 Carbon may be the needle in the haystack of high-fat skis.
- Air Tec Ti keeps weight down and reinforces the mounting area.
- Paulownia wood core creates a consistent flex and a lively ride.
- Carbon Tex helps add torsional rigidity and contributes to an extremely damp ride.
- Modern powder shape makes for easy turn initiation while skiing deep snow.
- Svelte weight helps you make lap after sweet lap.
- Integrated skin mounts make transitions a breeze.
- Sandwich construction with ABS sidewalls lends itself to durability and power transfer.
Update 2022/23: Fischer updated the topsheets this year.
| Specifications | |
| Lengths (cm) | 171, 178, 185 |
|
Weight |
1440g [171] 1560g [178] 1730g [185] |
| Weight (pair) | 2880g [171] 3120g [178] 3460g [185] |
|
|
135-104-119 [171] 138-106-122 [178] 140-108-124 [185] |
|
Turn |
21m [171] 22m [178] 23m [185] |
|
Skin |
Z-hook tip, standard tail |
| Specs Verified | Yes |
| Design | |
|
|
Tip rocker, camber underfoot, flat tail |
|
|
Round tip, flat tail |
|
|
Sandwich sidewall, ABS sidewalls, wood core |
|
|
Paulownia, Air Tec Ti |
| Skimo Co Says | |
| Usage | Backcountry powder hunting |
| Notes | Easy turning modern powder shape |
| Bottom Line | Lightweight powder hunting planks |
| Compare to other High-fat Skis | |
Related Products
Questions & Reviews
1/1/2025
Stephen F
(used product regularly)
Comment on this review:
7/21/2024
cvt
(downright abused product)
Got the 171s, ski short. 171s measure 169. otherwise, great ski. if between sizes, rec going up. I'm 5'7" and 150lbs. these are pow specific skis for me.
Comment on this review:
I've skied these around 5-10 times in powder conditions and have come away not loving them. They seem to have a counterintuitive mix of properties that make them not my first choice for powder. The skis are fairly light, skied more traditionally, softer tips, and have very stiff tails. I found it really hard to find the sweet spot when making turns in deeper powder - I often either overpowered the tips w/ sinking/hooking or felt myself getting out of control on the stiff tails.
Perhaps these just don't mesh with my style of skiing powder. It's also possible that my boots are just too beefy (Hoji Free 130) and just don't match well with them.
I do really like the weight and the mount point of these skis though for the uphill. I noticed some quicker times for frequented spots. Also, the kick-turning in steep terrain was great.
Perhaps these just don't mesh with my style of skiing powder. It's also possible that my boots are just too beefy (Hoji Free 130) and just don't match well with them.
I do really like the weight and the mount point of these skis though for the uphill. I noticed some quicker times for frequented spots. Also, the kick-turning in steep terrain was great.
Comment on this review:
6/17/2024
Curious about the recommended mount point on this ski and if you guys have experimented with it at all. I need a new touring ski for bigger days/soft snow and I am used to using skis with more centered mount points.
Also wondering how this ski compares to an elan ripstick 104 tour.
Cheers from Wyoming,
Thanks!
Also wondering how this ski compares to an elan ripstick 104 tour.
Cheers from Wyoming,
Thanks!
6/17/2024
Nick, we like the recommended mount point. It is determined by the shape and design of the ski. These skis aren't Park or.... or other center mount design.
Both skis are pretty directional Powder skis. The Elan 104 is stiffer and even longer turn Radius, less playful then a center mount ski. The Fischer would be the better call for big Pow days.
Feel free to contact us at help@skimo.co to delve deeper into what you are looking for.
Both skis are pretty directional Powder skis. The Elan 104 is stiffer and even longer turn Radius, less playful then a center mount ski. The Fischer would be the better call for big Pow days.
Feel free to contact us at help@skimo.co to delve deeper into what you are looking for.
Answer this question:
2/2/2024
Currently on some first gen Zero G 95s for all around backcountry skiing. Thinking I'd like to add a wider ski for mid-winter touring. I am not a big guy (5'8", 130). I am a good skier with some (alpine) racing background. I often ski relatively fast, but probably not the absolute most aggressive skier out there. Note that in The PNW, we ski a lot of trees in the winter so maybe not a lot of room to open things open a lot of the time. My style is directional/traditional, and I rarely get air or huck anything.
Curious about the Hannibal vs the new Transalp 105. How do they compare? Even better if you have any thoughts on the Atomic Backland 107 or the new Dynastar M-Tour 108. Thought about the Zero G 105 as well, but kind of want to try something different just to be different (even though I have really liked my Zero G 95s). Thanks!
Curious about the Hannibal vs the new Transalp 105. How do they compare? Even better if you have any thoughts on the Atomic Backland 107 or the new Dynastar M-Tour 108. Thought about the Zero G 105 as well, but kind of want to try something different just to be different (even though I have really liked my Zero G 95s). Thanks!
2/2/2024
Hi Brian,
The Transalp 105 might be right up your alley! Compared to the Hannibal 106 it will be a little damper and more absorbant of chunder and crud due to the titanal laminates in the ski. It is a great ski for someone who wants a more traditional feeling ski that can handle variable conditions as well as soft snow quite well.
The Zero G 105 is another great ski in this category, one of our favorites for a do-it-all ski in this waist width. It would be a great choice for a PNW powder ski. I would say the Zero G 105 might be a little more nimble/easier to slide around in the trees. But either would work great, and the Transalp wouldn't be a bad choice at all if you want to mix it up!
The Transalp 105 might be right up your alley! Compared to the Hannibal 106 it will be a little damper and more absorbant of chunder and crud due to the titanal laminates in the ski. It is a great ski for someone who wants a more traditional feeling ski that can handle variable conditions as well as soft snow quite well.
The Zero G 105 is another great ski in this category, one of our favorites for a do-it-all ski in this waist width. It would be a great choice for a PNW powder ski. I would say the Zero G 105 might be a little more nimble/easier to slide around in the trees. But either would work great, and the Transalp wouldn't be a bad choice at all if you want to mix it up!
Answer this question:
2/1/2024
I am 6'2 and 180lbs. I am looking for a set of skis that will be used in Japan only at ski resorts but will setup with BC because I might do that too. So think light powder (desired) but not always the case. Great tree skiing so tighter turns. Not a super aggressive skier but neither is the terrain over there. I am thinking the Hannibal 106 in either a 178 or 185 - what do you think?
2/2/2024
Hi Rick,
This ski is quite light and fairly stiff. It is really optimized as a backcountry touring ski. It would not be my first pick for primarily resort skiing. For a Japan ski that can ski in the resort as well as in the backcountry, I would look at the DPS Pagoda Tour 112, Atomic Backland 107, Armada Locator 104/112, or Faction La Machine Mega from our powder touring category.
The differences between these skis are too much to list here, but feel free to email us at help@skimo.co to dive in deeper on these models!
This ski is quite light and fairly stiff. It is really optimized as a backcountry touring ski. It would not be my first pick for primarily resort skiing. For a Japan ski that can ski in the resort as well as in the backcountry, I would look at the DPS Pagoda Tour 112, Atomic Backland 107, Armada Locator 104/112, or Faction La Machine Mega from our powder touring category.
The differences between these skis are too much to list here, but feel free to email us at help@skimo.co to dive in deeper on these models!
Answer this question:
10/17/2023
Looking for all around touring ski for CA Sierra Cement, corn and crud... I'm not light (6'2" 205 lbs) and tend to ski fast.
How do these Hannibal 106's compare to the Blizzard Zero G 105, the new Fischer Transalp 105 and the upcoming Voile Charger Ace?
Looking for something that floats well yet holds up in bad snow. Willing to accept some weight penalty. Thanks for any input!
How do these Hannibal 106's compare to the Blizzard Zero G 105, the new Fischer Transalp 105 and the upcoming Voile Charger Ace?
Looking for something that floats well yet holds up in bad snow. Willing to accept some weight penalty. Thanks for any input!
10/17/2023
Hi Ariel,
Of those options, I would air towards the Transalp for dampness and a higher speed limit. The Hannibal will struggle a bit more in rougher snow, it's more of a lightweight powder hunter. The Transalp is very substantial for its weight, flexes quite stiff and has a partial layer of titanal for dampening. The Zero G 105 is a great all arounder, I would lean towards it for powder/softer snow/playfulness and the Transalp for power, speed, and dampness on crud/spring snow.
Of those options, I would air towards the Transalp for dampness and a higher speed limit. The Hannibal will struggle a bit more in rougher snow, it's more of a lightweight powder hunter. The Transalp is very substantial for its weight, flexes quite stiff and has a partial layer of titanal for dampening. The Zero G 105 is a great all arounder, I would lean towards it for powder/softer snow/playfulness and the Transalp for power, speed, and dampness on crud/spring snow.
Answer this question:
4/21/2023
the fischer hanibal 106: are the 21-22 and 22-23 the same except for graphics?
4/21/2023
Hi christoher, yes the construction is the same.
Answer this question:
Height 5' 6"
Weight 150 lbs
Hannibal 106, 171 cm
G3 Zed/leashes
Boot Fischer Travers Carbon Sole 27.5 w/Palau Power Lt Liners
I went with the 171 cm length at the recommendation of Skimo which, has payed off while ascending steeper terrain. On the descent, the skis are quiet on wind impacted surfaces, carve easily when put on edge and float well in light snow. It is an easy ski to turn in all conditions and I would recommend this ski to anyone looking for a wider ski.
Weight 150 lbs
Hannibal 106, 171 cm
G3 Zed/leashes
Boot Fischer Travers Carbon Sole 27.5 w/Palau Power Lt Liners
I went with the 171 cm length at the recommendation of Skimo which, has payed off while ascending steeper terrain. On the descent, the skis are quiet on wind impacted surfaces, carve easily when put on edge and float well in light snow. It is an easy ski to turn in all conditions and I would recommend this ski to anyone looking for a wider ski.
Comment on this review:
11/16/2021
Question from
BART STEVENS 
I'm looking to update my backcountry setup and trying to decide between the 178 and 185. I'm 5'10" 150 lb, but ski pretty aggressive. My resort setup is blizzard cochise at 185, and I love that ski!. I like the idea of being on something a little shorter for tight spaces, but really like the stability of a bigger ski. Just curious your thoughts, I have never ridden a ski less than 180 cm
11/16/2021
Thanks for reaching out, Bart. For most folks, we'd recommend the 178. While it won't be quite as stable at speed, it will be much easier to kick turn, easier on the legs, and offer more maneuverability. However, if you charge as hard in the backcountry as you do inbounds, and are willing to compromise on the earlier mentioned benefits, the 185 would also work. Please let us know if you have any other questions!
11/16/2021
Thanks for the response Brett. I think the 178 makes the most sense. I appreciate the feedback.
Answer this question:
7/11/2021
I am thinking about these to compliment a pair of 176 cm Hannibal 96's Skimo put me on in 2018. The 96's do everything well however, every once in a while I get into lower angle with heavier, deeper snow and wonder if the 106's would have made skiing it easier. Or maybe I should learn to ski?
A waist of 106mm is the maximum width my knees can occasionally handle.
My dimensions are Sixty-seven inches tall and weigh 150 lbs.
Not an aggressive skier unless being chased by a bear or moose and I'm behind a slower skier.
171cm or 178cm? Any other recommendations?
Thanks,
JPM
A waist of 106mm is the maximum width my knees can occasionally handle.
My dimensions are Sixty-seven inches tall and weigh 150 lbs.
Not an aggressive skier unless being chased by a bear or moose and I'm behind a slower skier.
171cm or 178cm? Any other recommendations?
Thanks,
JPM
7/12/2021
Based on your height and weight, my first thought is to go with the 171cm, but it looks like you've been skiing some longer skis and you might feel at home on the 178cm! Have you felt that your Annex 170cm is too short? Also, what boot would you like to use with these skis?
7/13/2021
Thanks Teddy. I pulled the trigger on the 171's. I have a pair of Travers CS's.
Answer this question:
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.
