(hover to zoom, click to enlarge)

Blizzard Zero G 85 Ski

Brand: Blizzard
Model: ZeroG 85
Shipping: FREE*
Availability: In Stock
Price: $599.95 From $379.95
    - or add to package
* Ski Length:
 - OR - 

Seemingly out of left field comes some impressive new lightweight skis. That is, if left field were defined as the Blizzard factory in Austria and you gloss over the fact that Blizzard manufactured many skis stamped with other, well-known, backcountry brand names. Now showing off their clandestine experience, Blizzard added a three-dimensional layer of carbon fiber across the enter length and width. This Carbon Drive makes the ski stiff in all directions while offering a relatively damp ride with smooth flex. They also built in sidewalls to help the edges penetrate crusts and ice, while offering more protection from rocks. A rocker + camber profile is just what the doctor ordered for the variable conditions you find while climbing mountains. The Zero G 85 is just what we ordered for classic mountaineering.

  • Full-length sidewalls are rare for a ski this light, offering dampness, edge hold, and durability.
  • Carbon Drive technology is a unidirectional weave in a three-dimensional pattern that just works.
  • Metal edges also run the full length of the ski so you aren’t compromising an inch on the steeps.
  • Paulownia wood core with the carbon frame offers a reasonably stiff ride with some rebound.

Update 2016/17: Just a new topsheet.

Lengths (cm) 157, 164, 171, 178, 185
-> ounces
1055g [164]
1120g [171]
1205g [178]
Weight (pair) 2110g [164]
2240g [171]
2410g [178]
Dimensions 116-85-99.5
Turn Radius 18m [164]
19m [171]
20m [178]
Skin Fix Roundish tips, flat tail notch
Specs Verified Yes
Profile Mild rocker with camber underfoot
Shape Medium radius with easy arcing tip & tail
Construction Sidewall sandwich w/ Carbon Drive
Core Paulownia
Skimo Co Says
Usage Mountaineering, classic touring
Notes Rare sidewall on lightweight skis
Bottom Line Confident steep skier
Question from boris d
I have this ski (G85, last year model) in 178cm length and have not mounted them yet as I started having doubts about the length. I'm 175cm tall, 165lbs. moderate skier. Do you think I'll have trouble on a skin track and with tight turns with this ski? My current ski is Hagan Y-Drive 170 cm and it works fine for me, just getting beat-up. You think 8 cm increase in length with G85 will make a big difference for me?

My other option is to try to sell G85 at 178 cm length and get a 171cm version from you.
Answer from Nate
Hi Boris, I don't think you'll have a problem with the 178, but you definitely would find the 171 more maneuverable for sure.
Answer this question:

Question from Ingrid
I'm looking to buy these or the 95 mm. I just can't decide which one. This will be my primary set of skis.

I'm a girl, 178 cm tall, 65 kg. I rented the 85 171 cm last spring when ski-touring and loved them. I'm just thinking maybe the 95 is a bit more all-round and afraid the 85 will submarine when there's more powder?

My second question is about the length. I did like the 171 cm although it sounds so short? Which length would be best suited for me? And do I lose anything by going with the 171 or 178?

I've previously skied a lot on a freeride set from Rossignol 98 mm, 178 cm but no touring on those.

Answer from Nate
Hi Ingrid, I have good news! You really can't go wrong with any choice or combination of choices you are considering.

The Blizzard Zero G line are all great skis! My personal rule is that if a person can only have 1 ski, that ski should be 95mm under foot. It's such a versatile size and typically for a very marginal weight gain vs. an 85mm ski.

As for 171 vs 178... The 171 will be much more nimble on the skin track, and while skiing in tight terrain. In lots of deep snow the 178 will give you a touch extra float. This choice is going to be a personal decision based on which you value more, the ease of use on the uphill or the added float and stability on the truly deep days.
Answer this question:

Question from Nick
I've demoed the 85 in a 178 and the 95 in a 185. I'm in the market for the 85- looking for a light ski for big days, traverses, spring, and uphilling at the ski area - and can't decide whether to go 178 or 185. The 178 felt short and like it wanted to submarine in powder. Felt great but short on hardpack. The 185 95 felt perfect. I'd go 185 85 but wonder if I should go lighter with the shorter ski. 185 would be less work in 3D snow though. 80g per ski difference it appears. I'm 6'0, 160lbs with a racing background. Currently on a 180 voile vector that I'm happy on as a daily driver but wish it was lighter. I ski in the Colorado rockies. Thanks
Answer from jbo
Hi Nick, I'm the same size as you and I have the 171! Yes the 185 would be help a bit in soft snow, though it without a huge rocker and being fairly stiff that isn't it's sweet spot. For big days, traverses, spring, and resort uphilling that you mention, you won't want the extra length. 178 it is!
Answer this question:

Question from dub_xion
Thoughts on pairing these with some Scarpa F1's (the latest version)? Just wanted to check as it seems these skis are on the stiff side and wanted to make sure the F1's would be enough boot. Thanks!
Answer from jbo
Hi dub_xion, the Zero G's are well within the F1s capabilities. In fact, the Alien RS can handle these as well!
Answer from Andrew
I use that combo all the time with a Speed Turn binding. It's fantastic. I've even towed a (heavily) loaded sled at work a bit and its been fine.
Answer this question:

Question from Jim
Hi-What is the difference between the 2015/16 Blizzard Zero G 85 and the 2016/17 Blizzard Zero G 85? Thanks.
Answer from jbo
Hi Jim, just the topsheet color.
Answer this question:

by jake (downright abused product)
Really great ski for what I used it for- lots of groomer tours before lifts spin. And even a couple laps on the chairs when I didn't have enough time to switch to alpine gear.

I used the 185cm. The ski is very stiff, but the tip and tail rocker allow for a little easier turn engagement and disengagement in a ski with that much length. I was able to get this carving up to around 45-55mph before I started to get a little concerned about the chatter and jumpiness. These are not a damp ski at all. You feel the energy course through them. But they hold a wicked strong edge. These skis suck with aplomb in any snow deeper than 4". Keep them away from pow. Def light enough to make uphill a breeze. A very fun, unique ski which serves the terrain I am around very well.

Sadly for me I passed my pair on. I am kind of inbetween sizes on these. With my TLT6s I just couldn't get the tip engagement on the 185s to every feel much better than vague. And the 178s with the tip/tail rocker were just a little too short and thus a little skiddish and the speeds I was wanting.
Comment on this review:

Question from Peter
How would you compare these skis to the Voile Objective? They seem like direct competitors.
Answer from Trace Leches
They are direct competitors when considering weight and dimensions, but each ski has its own sweet spot. While both are fairly versatile, the Zero G 85 seems more hard snow oriented and a better carving ski, whereas the Voile will end up being a bit easier to ski in variable and soft conditions. Just depends on your application.
Answer this question:

Question from Nick
Given the overwhelming feedback, I'm seriously considering these skis for a lighter setup this year.
I have a kingping + mid-fat 102cm skis but they tend to be a little on the heavy side for long days.

Now I'm just wondering which length. I'm 172cm and my current setup is 178cm.
I've always enjoyed longer skis, especially when I try to get a bit more aggressive. However for a more "couloir" setup I'm wondering if taking the g 85 with a length of 171cm would make more sense? Would do you guys reckon?

Thanks in advance :)
Answer from jbo
Hi Nick, the 171 would complement your existing skis better. As your only ski I might recommend the 178 but the shorter length is quicker in couloirs and will be enough ski for lots of conditions.
Answer this question:

by Dan (used product regularly)
These skis are a fantastic ski mountaineering tool. They are light, stiff and have outstanding edge grip. The only caveat I have about these skis is that you really do have to ski well on them - they are unforgiving of backseat skiing and reward very good skiers (which I am aspiring to be as a result of these skis!)

So far there's no dramas with durability, and they have performed excellently in firm snow conditions. If you want a lightweight ski for spring / firm snow focused descents, look no further.

I'm 178cm, about 85kg with gear and ski the 171.
Comment on this review:

by Matt (used product a few times)
Blizzard has tapped into some kind of magic in the ZeroG line. The weight on these is stellar and they rail in any snow which is even remotely soft. In the hard stuff, they can be a little prone to chatter, but they do shut up quickly with some strong input to the front of the ski. The tapered tips make for a surfy and predictable ride in soft snow, but the tradeoff is the loss of a little precision when making very tight jump turns. Maybe that's just a function of my technique, though. It also gives up a little effective edge.

As with every ski in the ZeroG line, the lateral stiffness is unreal, lending a precise and responsive feel to the ski.

I concur with the other reviewer who laments the lack of a tip notch. Had Blizzard included one they would have created an excellent speed touring/casual race ski. Aside from that my main gripe with this ski is that for only 100g more, you can have the ZeroG 95, which given my experience with both strikes me as the way to go. A tip notch would really have differentiated this ski a lot more from its slightly bigger brother.
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 7 + 0?

Your website (optional):

Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.
» Compare to other Mid-fat Skis 
© 2018 Skimo Co
View Full Screen Version