Ever since taking its rightful place as the head of the Blizzard touring ski stable, the Zero G 105 has made quite a splash, especially amongst aggressive skiers looking to venture to faraway places. Not being content with good, Blizzard has continued their journey towards great by tweaking the Carbon Drive laminate (now in its third iteration). As a result, Blizzard was able to make the ride a little more friendly without sacrificing the hard-charging performance people have come to love. In other words, the ski loses none of its soft snow pedigree but becomes friendlier when the snow is less friendly (or just downright awful). While the tip and tail rocker make the Zero G 105 a powder ripping fiend, the long sidecut combined with Carbon Drive 3.0 laminate ensures it’s no slouch on hard snow, either. Built to explore distant peaks and the powder-filled couloirs that reside on them, the Zero G 105 is a reliable soft snow-oriented partner that will calmly tackle any objective.
- Carbon Drive 3.0 is a carbon laminate that allows Blizzard to finetune ski characteristics.
- Rocker-camber-rocker profile helps the ski float and maneuver in deep snow.
- The long side cut helps provide a tenacious edge hold on steep terrain.
- Biggest powder-focused ski in the Blizzard touring lineup.
|Lengths (cm)||164, 172, 180, 188|
|Weight (pair)||2640g 
||Tip recession, tail notch|
|Specs Verified||172 & 188 only|
||Rockered tip, camber underfoot, subtle tail rocker|
||Rounded tip and tails with a long radius|
||Carbon Drive 3.0|
|Skimo Co Says|
|Notes||Carbon Drive 3.0 gets rid of the harshness but keeps the charge|
|Bottom Line||Competitive weight with exceptional performance|
|Compare to other High-fat Skis|
Questions & Reviews
I'm curious about your opinion on the two mounting points on the Zero G 105. I bought the ski for mountaineering objectives. I ski a lot in the San Juans and wanted something that's light enough to swing in tight spots but also has some float for the runout. I skied mantras on the resort for years but lately have gravitated toward reverse camber skis because I like how easy they are to manage in technical terrain, and I have kind of wanted something that skis slightly similarly (more upright, less forward pressure) in the backcountry. Obviously didn't fully go that route, but I have been thinking that mounting the Zero G's at the forward line would make the ski a little more balanced and manageable in steep, tight terrain. Do you think the +1.5cm (I think) will make much of a difference or compromise the ski's float in deep snow?
Thanks for your help.
I'd say the balance you gain in steeps would be much outweighed by the loss of float in other terrain. The new Zero G has less stiff tails than the older models, but they're still pretty stiff. You might find the ski would run away easily if you mount them further forward. You could also go forward just a hair, like 0.75 or 1 cm.
I recently rented/tried tour skiing on a pair of Black Diamond Navis. They were great uphill but very underwhelming on the descent. They felt chattery and flimsy with a week edge. I assume the weight savings can contribute to the flimsy effect of a touring ski. This was my first time skinning up a mountain and we descended on piste which is obviously a certain type of skiing.
I like to ski fast and am looking for a stiff ski that will hold an edge and charge on fast turns/general descent on piste, but are much lighter and can handle the variable conditions of touring off piste as well as powder.
Basically, if there's a much lighter V-werks Katana, I'm all in.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Except from weight difference ?
The Locators are very energetic and playful. Easy to break out of turns and easy to get back into them. At high speed in chop they keep gaining energy long after other skis become unstable. The Zero Gs are more of a traditional ski, not to say they're outdated of course. A bit stiffer and more locked in, and probably more stable in steeps.
I'd love any input or thoughts on those two skis. Also, if you think there's a better ski for me/my skiing please feel free to share!
This would be a great ski! Stiff like the enforcer, but keep in mind that this ski doesn't have the weight to soak up crud like the enforcer. You might want to also check out the Dynastar M-Tour 99. In my experience, it skis very much like an alpine ski and is much more stable than the weight would imply. I don't have any experience with the K2 ski, but in my mind, it's heavier than what I would want to use as a dedicated touring setup.
The Helios are very damp - think "wet noodle". Not necessarily a bad thing, but the ski will carry very little energy from turn to turn.
The Zero G is more energetic and easier to ski, probably more fun for most people to ski.
As always, it's personal preference!
I am 6'1" 175ibs.
In bounds I ski a Rustler 11 188 and a Atris 184 but for touring I have used a 180cm Rossi Soul 7, which felt nice going up but feels to short on the way down for how I ski.
I am worried the a 188 would be harder for kickturns and tight trees.
But I also want to make sure I have a ski that can charge down hill and feel comfortable on.
What do you recommend? 180 or 188 in the Zero G 105?
Great question! The Blizzard Zero G will be stiffer ski compared to the DPS, and because the Blizzard has a long turning radius, it will be better at charging in comparison. The Blizzard Zero G caters more towards a mountaineering powder ski.
The DPS is a damper ski; it will want to make shorter turns and will be more versatile as it will ski better be a variety of conditions.
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.