(hover to zoom, click to enlarge)

Fischer Hannibal Ski

Brand: Fischer
Model: Hannibal
Shipping: FREE*
Availability: In Stock & Ships Today
Price: $699.95 From $499.96
    - or add to package
* Ski Length:
 - OR - 

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 tip-to-tail. This reduces the overall density of the ski and boosts surface-area-to-weight ratio. The long-turn radius and Sandwich Sidewalls are unique features that serve multiple purposes. High-speed stability, surefooted steep-skiing performance, and impact-resistance will be the most obvious benefits to the skier. 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 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 2019/20: Fischer gave the Hannibal a new coat of paint, otherwise it's the same great ski as before!!

Lengths (cm) 162, 169, 176, 183
-> ounces
1155g [162]
1255g [169]
1320g [176]
1410g [183]
Weight (pair) 2310g [162]
2510g [169]
2640g [176]
2820g [183]
Dimensions 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.
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 M
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 this question:

by Chris E (used product regularly)
Skied these about 50 days in the 2018-2019 season, mounted with Dynafit Ultralights and using a TLT6p boot. I've loved them -- I came from a Voile Vector, which is similar in specs (although the Hannibal is substantially lighter), and didn't realize how much different a ski with the same shape could ski. The Hannibal out-skis the Vector hands-down, and feels a lot nicer on the uphill. Absolutely love these things.
Comment on this review:

by Chris C (used product a few times)
Have been skiing 183's this season with Plum Race 170 and TLT5, mounted at recommended line. So far, they're really versatile skis--light but substantial, fat but not unweildy, turny but not hooky.

I'd reccomend considering a slightly rearward mount. Could be partially due to these being longer than recent touring skis I've owned, but I find I have to fight the tail to finish turns in anything but perfect snow. On other skis--mostly resort skis--I've found moving the mount point back 1-2 cm to help this. Some may find the recommended mount point "quick and agile" or something else marketable.
Comment on this review:

by JPM (used product a few times)
Height 5'6"
Weight 150 lbs
Ski Hannibal 176 cm, G3 Zed/leashes
Boot Fischer Travers Carbon
Skimoco Type, breaking out of Type II, flirting with Type III when my wife isn't looking.

Thanks to the description of this ski by Skimo, at home in snow and able to hold an edge without crying uncle, I figured it would be worth a try.

For the first tour on this kit, myself and (we'll call him Dave) skinned up to Point Supreme and dropped in. The snow had been tracked out two days earlier but pretty much filled in due to some light snow and wind. Whoever was out there should be granted a farm subsidy. Nice work!

When dropping in, would it be be bigger, open turns or smaller, tighter turns. As soon as the first turn was finished a new turn was started effortlessly. This went on and on and on in moderately dense, loose snow approximately 8 to 10 inches deep. This ski is extremely easy to turn and stable.

From Point Supreme we went over to Rocky Point and dropped into steeper terrain and much deeper, dryer snow. This time turns were opened up and as speed increased I had this great idea to see if I could get the tips to dive. The tips were heavily pressured as thoughts of what kind of mess this could be flashed through my mind. Nothing exciting happened and a new turn was started with tips heavily pressured, repeat, over and over. Never did get a different result.

After Rocky Point, we followed the traverse back to above Albion chair and hit Clothesline/Powerline for a relaxing few turns. From there, it was a couple of runs off Sugarloaf chair to get into some man-made grippy firmer snow. This ski holds a nice edge on "Utah ice", carves nicely, doesn't roll over when finishing a turn and when softening a turn, the edge breaks smoothly.

To sum it up, Hannibal is a well mannered ski that has all the bacony, cheesy, turny goodness that any skier will have boatloads of fun on.
Comment on this review:

by Rando Richard (used product a few times)
Nice all-around mid-season ski. Two side notes:
1. The 183cm is actually 97mm wide, not 96mm as listed for the 176. I assume that the other lengths are correspondingly narrower.
2. The edges are narrower than most non-race skis, at 1.8mm I believe. I assume that is to save weight, but that may make this ski less durable.
Comment on this review:

Question from Christof N
I have two pair of these skis in plastic, 169 and 176 length. I'm bringing ONE up to you guys to get mounted and will be my daily driver for this season here in the Wasatch, and I could use some guidance on length selection. I'm putting the Fischer Tour Speed Lite (Dynafit Superlite) on it, and using my beloved Travers Carbon boot for a full color-coordinated ensemble. At least I'll look fast, which is half the battle. I use a Helio 88/168cm for my lightest mountaineering setup, and also have a Helio 105/175cm that I used as a daily driver last year. I really enjoyed the 175 length last year, but at times felt I just didn't need the width of the 105 so my initial thought are to keep pretty much the same length, just fill the gap with a 95mm waisted ski. The 169 just seems really short, and very similar to my Helio 88. What say ye? 170lbs, Type III ex-ski racer who can charge but keeps things in check in the backcountry, simply to not worry about orphaning the kids.
Answer from Trace Leches
Hey Christof! Ha! Looking fast is CRUCIAL! Given the skis that you already have, it'd be sweet to see something like a 173cm Hannibal. Here's my two cents: go with the 176cm length. With as much float as the Hannibal has, chances are pretty good you'll only need to pull the Helio 105 out for the few obscenely deep days that we seem to get 'round these parts anymore. The 169cm could be sweet, but might limit your high speed stability if it is indeed a daily driver for the lower angle, higher speed skiing. If you need a ski that short, then you're probably skiing something steep, in which case you'd probably need a narrower ski anyways because the snow's not going to be deep so you'll need better edging instead of extra float, which is where the Helio 88 would come into play.
Answer this question:

Comment from JPM
Thanks, see you Oct 29. The commander has given her blessing.

Reply to this comment

Question from JPM
Skimo's bottom line describing Hannibal as having the bacony, cheesy goodness of being an all around, easy, fun ski has my attention. I plan to pair these up with the Fischer Traverse Carbon and G3 Zed or? What length do you suggest at 148 lb, type II skier, III if I have to because of a bad decision and really close to 61 yrs age.
Answer from Trace Leches
Hey J P! Bacony cheesy goodness? Now I want a baked potato. You are right in that it's a fun, easy ski and it'd be a perfect combo with a Zed and Travers Carbon. Binding recommendation is pretty personal so it's tough to recommend anything out of the gate without getting a little bit more info. Here's our binding finder if you'd like to get a personalized recommendation on some more bindings. For a Type II or III skier that's 148lbs and in some relatively lightweight (albeit powerful) boots, my gut reaction is to recommend the 169cm. There's a bit of wiggle room in that recommendation though when height and skiing style/location come into play so there's that, but like I said, 169cm is the place I'd start.
Answer this question:

by Jeff H (used product regularly)
This is somewhat of an apples to oranges comparison since I have the previous 100 underfoot version. But the construction is unchanged so I thought a review would be helpful. I love this ski. It is a nice balance between weight and performance. As it was explained to me, "sure it is a bit heavier than the carbon ultra light skis. But you will appreciate that extra half pound on the way down. It will ski so much smoother and damper." I agree with that assessment. It is light enough on the up. It does not rip all conditions like a heavier ski, but it is surprisingly nice on the down. A good balance.
Comment on this review:

Write a Review Ask a Question Post a Comment

Your name: (or )

Your e-mail:

Overall rating:
1 star 5 stars

Your review:

What is 5 + 1?

Your website (optional):

Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.
» Compare to other High-fat Skis 
© 2019 Skimo Co
View Full Screen Version