Skimo Co

Fischer Hannibal 96 Carbon Ski

$799.95 $499.95

In Stock & Ships Today

Free shipping

The Hannibal is Fischer’s 96mm powder-hunting, ice-carving powerhouse. The Hannibal is built on a high-tech Paulownia wood core with carbon stringers that extend from tip-to-tail, thus reducing the overall density of the ski and boosting the overall surface-area-to-weight ratio. The long-turn radius and Sandwich Sidewalls are unique features meant to ensure high-speed stability, surefooted steep-skiing performance, and impact-resistance that you're bound to appreciate whether you're skipping meadows or dancing down a narrow chute. An Aeroshape top-sheet further reduces mass for easy kick turns and low swing-weight. As a bonus, snow will have a harder time sticking to the parabolic top-sheet shape so your skis will start and end each climb at the same weight. The Hannibal is Fischer’s most advanced all-mountain touring ski that’s always hungry for powder.

  • Paulownia wood core is the standard material for light skis that need to perform well on the descent.
  • Carbon stringers are an incredibly light way to add power transmission and liveliness to the ski.
  • Tour Rocker helps you float in deep snow and charge effortlessly through the crud.
  • Air-Tec Ti core construction strategically removes unnecessary core material, adds a milled titanium sheet, and reduces weight for a lighter, wider ski that presents minimal torsional flex.
  • Aeroshape features a sloping top sheet that minimizes snow buildup on your skis, removes mass for easier kick turns, and increases surface-area-to-weight ratio.
  • Sandwich Sidewall allows for more secure edge-grip in technical lines by absorbing the small bumps, but it also increases high speed stability by dampening the ski when you decide to open it up.
  • Comes with a copy of Silence of the Lambs when purchased by the dozen.

Update 2022/23: Fischer gave the Hannibal a shiny coat of paint, otherwise it's the same great ski as before!!

Lengths (cm) 162, 169, 176, 183
convert to ounces
1155g [162]
1255g [169]
1320g [176]
1410g [183]
Weight (pair) 2310g [162]
2510g [169]
2640g [176]
2820g [183]
Sidecut   125-94-112 [162]
126-95-113 [169]
127-96-114 [176]
128-97-115 [183]
Turn Radius   19m [162]
20m [169]
21m [176]
22m [183]
Skin Fix   Z-Hooks, flat tail
Specs Verified Yes
Profile   Rocker tip, camber underfoot
Shape   Medium radius, square tail
Construction   Sandwich sidewall with carbon stringers
Core   Paulowina wood core with AirTec Ti
Skimo Co Says
Usage All-mountain backcountry skiing
Notes Aeroshape top sheet sheds snow
Bottom Line Easy and fun ski, a true all-rounder
Compare to other High-fat Skis

Related Products

$899.95 From $599.95

Questions & Reviews

Question from Robert
Another sizing question for you experts! 5'10" 150lb. Not the fastest skier and like to spend most of my time on the steeps or in the woods. Like a ski that is easy to control and jump turn with. Is 169 too short for me? East coast skier, lots of variable terrain, would not be used on a powder day.
Answer from Niko M
Hi Robert! In general, 169cm is fairly short for you however considering your application and the uphill efficiencies gained, it is a suitable choice. Thanks!
Answer this question:

Question from Ion Dimbeanu
I need some help deciding on a new setup for east coast touring, I am 5ft7, 175 Lb and I am between Fischer Hannibal 96 169 and Volkl BMT90 170 I am planning to setup with Marker Alpinist 12
Thank you
Answer from Carlos M
Hi Ion,

Two good skis! Between the two of them, I would expect the BMT 90 to have the more damp and stable construction. The V-werks carbon layup is excellent. The Hannibal will probably float a little better in powder with a little more underfoot width, but in more difficult conditions I would give the edge to the BMT.
Answer this question:

Question from Earl
How do these differ from the Transalp 90 (other than dimensions)?
Answer from Gabriel I
Hi Earl, the Hannibal 96 is more of a general touring ski built for a variety of snow conditions and tour varieties, albeit with a hankering for carving on harder snow. It's got a fair bit of tip rocker and enough width to keep you up in powder. The Transalp 90 is basically a mountaineering ski. Mostly cambered, stiff, lighter, and built for confidence on the steeps. It's still wide enough and has a bit of rocker to handle deeper snow if you encounter it, but not its strength. It won't handle variable / chundery conditions as well as the Hannibal 96.

Please feel free to reach out to if you'd like to get into more detail!
Answer this question:

Question from Martin
Hi Guys, Im torn between hannibal and backland 95, what im looking in new skis is less grab in crust some flotation and occasional use inbounds with kids.
Answer from Brett S
Hey Martin, it sounds like the Free 97 could be a great contender for what you are after! Compared to the Hannibal and Backland, the Free 97 should offer more dampness (due to the poplar core) and better flotation in soft snow. While no ski is truly fun in crust, the rocker profile of the Free 97 may allow for some maneuverability through that snow type.
Answer this question:

Question from Philip
Hi, I’m new to backcountry skiing, and I’m trying to decide on length for the Fischer Hannibal 96. I’m about 172cm tall, 145-150lbs. I’m stuck between the 162 and 169 lengths. I want something that is plenty maneuverable, especially as I learn how to ski outside of the resort, but I don’t want to compromise on stability. Any input?
Answer from Niko M
Hi Philip,

For starters, this would be a great ski choice! It's a fun and easy option that can handle a variety of conditions. Based on your information the 162cm length would be a great fit for you. If you have any further questions feel free to email us at Thanks!
Answer this question:

Question from Brian
trying to decide between Hannibal 96 and the Salomon MTN 96 Carbon. Seems like both are a good all around, leaning toward the MTN as it looks like it might be a little better in tighter spots but looking for some thoughts/feedback
Answer from Jeff
Brian, Both good All around skis. The Salomon has an 18M turning radius, but testing out the Hannibal in the BC, I didn't find them difficult to turn at all, and I prefer tight radius skis. The MTN 96 is a bit heavier and damper, which will give it the edge in difficult or firmer conditions. Although I have skied the Hannibal inbounds too and is very capable there. Obviously I am not wanting to say anything bad about either.
Answer this question:

Question from Taylor
Hello, I am looking into this ski. I am an intermediate type II backcountry skier that will be mounting alpinist 12’s on these skis. I am 5’10” and 185 lbs. I will be using these as a daily touring ski as well as the occasional traverse. I’m looking at the 176cm length, just wanted to hear your thoughts on the length. Additionally if there are any other ski that you would recommend over this ski, I’m all ears. Thanks!
Answer from Gabriel I
Hi Taylor, these skis certainly hit the do-it-all criteria that you're looking for. At your height and weight, the 176 is a good length that'll balance maneuverability and stability.

Feel free to reach out to if you'd like to discuss other ski options as well!
Answer this question:

Question from John
Another sizing question, because I feel like there’s a big gap between 169 and 176: I’m 155 lbs and a type II skier. I live in the Cascades.

This would be an all-purpose ski for me, any time I don’t want to take out my heavier (but awesome!) Deathwish Tours, which I find myself using any time it’s deep.

So, mainly I’d use this when it’s dust on crust, or on bigger spring missions where it’s firm - but also on particularly ambitious tours in whatever conditions.

Anyway, what’s your take on sizing? Do these ski “long” given their flat tails? I do like to turn, and ski conservatively when the terrain is consequential - but I’m also starting to see the joy in opening up a bit.

I’m not the world’s greatest skier so don’t want something I’ll struggle to control, but conversely want to make sure it’s stable enough for me when things are firm.
Answer from Brett S
Thanks for reaching out, John. Please send an email to with your height and we would love to help you out!
Answer this question:

Question from Ellen
I really like having the shortest ski possible, but I usually end up in a 168-170cm. I am 5’6”, 155 pounds and would use these skis mostly for variable conditions in the spring - shallow powder, grippy firm, or corn. I am not a fast skier, and I love to turn. My fear is that if I went shorter, 162, they would chatter on firm steep terrain, or be less stable with a little speed. What are the drawbacks of being on a ski shorter than what you usually ski?
Answer from Ian C
Hi Ellen, despite my admiration for the Olympic Super G racers, I share your predilection for shorter ski lengths! You've basically summed it up--shorter skis will be less stable at speed and have less float in deep powder. The 162cm would be totally fine for what you are looking to do!
Answer this question:

Question from Jose
How do these compare with the blizzard zero G 95? I'm 183 cm, 190 lbs and plan to use them on a mix of resort, sidecountry and backcountry. Thanks!
Answer from Brett S
Thanks for reaching out, Jose. These will be more forgiving compared to the Zero-G 95, which thrives when edge hold is paramount. Both have relatively large radii and are good quiver killer backcountry skis. Please keep in mind these are lighter touring skis, so they may get tossed around in a resort setting. If you want a slightly heavier ski that could handle resort conditions better, the Dynafit Free 97 would be an excellent choice.
Answer this question:

Question from Ben Nosar
Hi couple of questions:

1) Would you recommend pairing this ski with a Scarpa F1 boot or a Scarpa Maestrale boot? Or would either work well?

2) I'm 6'3'' and 185lbs. Will the 183cm length be long enough for me?

Answer from jbo
Hi Ben, my vote is for the F1! The 183 will be plenty long and it's light enough to pair well with the lighter SCARPA...if it fits of course.
Answer this question:

Question from Jared
How do these compare to the Salto from La Sportiva?
Answer from Zak M
Hey Jared, thanks for the inquiry! Just from first glance, I would go to say that the Hannibal 96 would be considered just a more general easy to operate ski than the Salto. The wider dimension underfoot, rocker profile, and relatively flat tail all make great attributes for the Hannibal 96 to be a do it all type of ski. In my mind the narrower waist, tighter turning radius, and general profile of the ski make the Salto a potential great steep skiing tool or for just making quick fast turns when need be. Note it is much heavier as well.
Answer this question:

Matt (used product a few times)
Pretty awesome skis. Mine are the 176 length mounted with g3 Ions at the factory line. Makes for a very lightweight (and color coordinated) setup.

Flex wise they remind me a lot of my Line Sick Day 95s. I think people who prefer a more flexible ski will like these. I don’t ski them super fast but imagine they wouldn’t be the most stable.

I couldn’t get the pre cut skins for them, but my G3 alpinist skins fit well and attach securely at the tips.
Comment on this review:

Question from George

Eastern skier, but I do a hut-to-hut in Europe every year. Looking at two 'touring' skis that, statistically, look pretty similar. However, with you guys having skied them .. you may be able to point out some differences. The two skis are the Elan Ibex 94 and Fischer Hannibal 96. Both have similar turn radiuses.

Interested in edge hold, ease of kick-turning, and skiing in the varied types of snow to which I spend so effort climbing.

Age 68, 5' 9," 210 lbs, expert skier (whose feet are perpetually together) ...

Interested in any other thoughts you might have. ...

Best, George
Answer from eric
George- Good questions. Both skis have good edge hold, kick turns are going to depend on your boot sole length and where your toe ends up on the ski. I think the big difference between the two skis is that the Fischer has a bit more pop or energy where the Elan is much more damp and quiet. Elan also has a bit more sidecut in the shovel and therefore engages a bit quicker than the Fischer. The Fischer on the other hand might be a bit better in crusty snow.
Answer from George S
Excellent response, Eric. Just what I wanted to know ...
Answer this question:

Question from Laura
Hello - Leaning towards getting a pair of these when they become available. Now my question is what size to get. I am 5 7 125 lbs, an advanced skier although I am not dropping any cliffs or cornices! I will be using these for long hut trips, backcountry skiing and skinning at the resort. Am I ok to get the 162 or should i get the 169? I currently ski a pair of k2 sidestashes from 2012 that are 167 in length.
Answer from Julieana
Hey Laura, for a touring ski it's always better to go a little on the shorter side for maneuverability and weight. The 162 length should be perfect for you!
Answer this question:

Question from Jake
Is there a way to get the Fischer tip attachment or another option to make your own skins from the roll for the Hannibal?
Answer from TSB
Jake -- we don't carry the tip attachment for Fischer skins in particular, but we do carry the precut skins for the Hannibals. It's also worth noting that most standard tip-loop/tail-clip attachments work quite well with the Fischer skis (though they don't take advantage of the nifty rescue hole!)
Answer from jbo
Hi Jake, FYI Pomoca has a Z Hook attachment that adapts their tip kits to the Fischer skis.
Answer this question:

Question from Jake
Any thoughts from on mount location? I see one reviewer suggesting -1cm or -2cm. It does look like a lot of tail to me at recommended but maybe that's how things are these days :)
Answer from TSB
Hey Jake! Without taking a tape measure to the ski and looking at its mount point against other skis, it's hard to say. If you have a particular ski that you're switching out for the Hannibals and want them to feel reasonably similar, look at the mount position on those skis and see if it can transfer over.
Answer this question:

Question from Slim
Do you think 162cm would be bad for a skier 5’7, 145lbs? She currently has 170cm 95mm inbounds skis. Not ever going to ski fast in the backcountry. The short length would allow our daughter to use it as well.
Answer from Jeff
Slim, there aren't even rules in skiing to be broken. Skiers will size short to be able to turn in tight chutes. I personally would like this particular one in a 162 to ski through tight Aspen trees. For skiing 'slow' in powder, it would be fine for both of them.
Answer this question:

Question from Kyle
I'm really split between the 169 and 176 here. I'm 5'8, 140 lb, type III. These will replace some 172 cm G3 findr 78 XCD's as my quiver of one ski.

My primary type of skiing will be overnight trips in the Sierra this winter and spring, so ~30 lb pack most of the time. Boot is Fischer travers carbon and binding is Marker alpinist 12. 169 seems like the right compromise between pow and steep performance, but I worry they may be slightly more "sinky" in deeper snow with a heavy pack? 176 seems more familiar coming from resort gear, but perhaps more than I need for steep spring stuff? I typically ski ~175-180 at resorts, albeit with fairly rockered twin-tips (short effective edge).

Any thoughts on which length to go with?
Answer from Jeff
Kyle, If you have been carrying a pack with your FINDr 78, the 169cm Hannibal 96 will have considerably more surface area. So right off you will be sinking less. And hey, at 140 lbs. plus a 30 lb. pack, that is still only 170lbs, many wish they only weighed that much :) The Hannibal skis powder and spring conditions well and would be great choice for all-around touring in a 169cm.
Answer this question:

Question from Mike C
Hi! Looking for a new ski which I will use in all conditions on the BC coast this winter (everything from PNW powder to spring traverses). I'm 5'9 160lbs, and ride tele-tech bindings, like to have fun and don't ski too steep, usually due to the tele I'm making longer turns. I was considering either this in 176 or the Atomic Backland 95 in 169. (like to keep the length a little shorter for bushwacking!)

What do you guys think? Seems like the hannibal is 100$ cheaper right now, which is like 200$ canadian!
Answer from Jeff
Mike, you picked two versatile skis, either which would be good choices. The Hannibal has more Pop to it and will maybe help you make some shorter radius turns. From my limited testing of them and my many years of Tele skiing, I would favor the Hannibal. I also checked with our mounters. Tele skiers have a history of ripping tele bindings out and some manufacturers do not recommend mounting Tele. They say the Fischer has the thicker metal mounting plate and give it preference for Tele Tech bindings.
Answer from Michael C
Comprehensive and detailed, thank you.
Answer from Wayne R
To telemark skiers: I purchased Fischer Hannibal 96 in Spring 2021 (from a retail ski shop, not Skimo). I mounted Riva II cable bindings on them with an imaginary pin line about 1.5 cm behind chord center. When drilled, the metal mounting plate mentioned above was indeed present for the front screw of the toe piece plus both screws of my chosen heel lifter. However the metal mounting plate was not present for the 2 rear screws of the toe piece. These screws are in soft material only. So Fischer's metal mounting plate is present for AT toe pieces and heel pieces but is apparently not continuous underfoot. My conclusion: Some screws of some telemark bindings in some mounting positions will not contact the metal mounting plates. WR
Answer this question:

Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.

Model: Hannibal

Follow us on social media

View full screen version