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.
Update 2018/19: Blizzard again updated the graphics while keeping the same construction. They now offer the ski in White or Yellow.
Update 2019/20: The good folks at Blizzard made some significant changes to this ski for the 19/20 season, so we pushed it over to a new listing, which can be found here.
|Lengths (cm)||157, 164, 171, 178, 185|
|Weight (pair)||2140g 
|Turn Radius||18m 
|Skin Fix||Roundish tips, flat tail notch|
|Profile||Mild rocker with camber underfoot|
|Shape||Medium radius with easy arcing tip & tail|
|Construction||Sidewall sandwich w/ Carbon Drive|
|Skimo Co Says|
|Usage||Mountaineering, classic touring|
|Notes||Rare sidewall on lightweight skis|
|Bottom Line||Confident steep skier|
|Compare to other Low-fat Skis|
Questions & Reviews
Heavily used for three seasons, mostly in the Alps but also a lot in the Northeast and a bit in Utah. The only condition in which I would prefer a different ski is breakable crust. I've taken them out for resort laps, day tours, multi-day hut trips, and have even raced on them. Agreed that they could use a tip notch, but it's a minor gripe and you can always DIY.
I am 171cm / 65 kg, and I ski the 171 length with Fischer Travers Carbon boots and Dynafit Superlite 2.0s.
Strongly recommended, just like SkiMo Co.
Question, Im 185cm/92kg without gear, would those planks in 171cm suit? or better go with 178cm version? Normally i ski 177 and more skis.
I will mount them with ATK Trofeo plus, cause looking for light-weight setup as possible but still be able to ski normally at firm condition's here in central Europe.
Thanks for your interest in our skis! At your height and size I would go with the 178cm ski. It will still turn well for you, but give you a little extra float should you find yourself in knee deep powder! Have fun out there and say hello to the beautiful mountains in your corner of the world!
Patrick // Skimo Co
They go well with my new TLT7 Carbonio boots.
And, the Pomoca skins recommended by SkiMo are much better than my older, low budget skins.
The whole kit is working out well, and I expect to use them throughput the season, not just for early and late season. I like to ski “in the powder” not “on the powder.” I am going skiing, not rafting on snow, as some of the wider skis would have me do.
Throughout my entire life, I have always skied powder on narrow, stiff skis. I am used to that, and these Zero G’s fit the bill. They are much more agile and nimble than my first BC skis, Volkl Nanuq 95s.
Moreover, the weight savings is very helpful on the uphill.
Overall, very pleased.
The one weak spot might be in heavily tracked, heavy snow, wind packed, or strong crusts where they can feel a bit “weak.”
In those conditions, the lightweight is a handicap. They can gets tossed around a bit.
But, overall, it’s a trade off I can live with, especially at the low price point of $419 that I paid at SkiMo.
1. I'm 5'7", 140lbs. I ski my fatter boards at a 170ish length. I want these for skiing peaks here in the rockies. 171 or 164? Any thoughts?
2. What skin should I pair with these skis?
Thanks, great website!
Oh, the dilemmas we skiers face :)
If you are skiing couloirs or steeper terrain, the 164 would be the ticket. If big arcing turns on wide open corn, the 171 would be ideal.
If you want to carry the least amount of weight up the hill, pair the 164 with the Ski Trab Titan Vario.
Skins, we are bit short in sizes now. I would recommend the Black Diamond Ultralight skins in the 110mm STS kit.
For ex-racers who ski fairly aggressively and can handle a few extra grams, these are awesome, and inspiring to ski. Compared to some other manufacturers high 70 waisted skis, these have just enough float (especially in the waist) to not sink on exploratory missions. Have been out on a few 10+" days in the Rockies, and while I still reach for a fatty with more than that, these handle light powder and crud with ease, but also rip open the groomers and crust.
Only gripe is they don't have a skin notch in the tip, but that can be remedied.
1. Length - i'm 188cm tall and 82 kgs. I usually ski 183 or 185 skis, but they are typically heavily rockered. With a flatter tail and subtle rise of the ZG85, should i go for the 178 or the 185?
2. How they ski - sounds like they are the right tool for multi lap at the resort or longer days BC, i previously tried out Dynafit Cho Oyus and thought they were terrible, felt like ice skates. The ZG85s don't look similar in design, but are close in weight. Help calm my PTSD.
Thank you in advance for you insights.
I initially mounted them centered. Skied them 10 days....and I hated them. I felt like I could just not get forward enough to actually engage the ski. They were really unpredictable and I was super bummed. I recently re-mounted them 1.2cm forward of center and now they're great. Skied them yesterday over some melted out avy debris in a steep couloir and they behaved beautifully. They also skied the upper mountain smooth corn wonderfully, of course.
I don't like typical "mountaineering" skis because they're usually too short and too soft for me, sacrificing stiffness for lightness. Not so with the Zero G 85. It comes in a 185cm, awesome, and it's a very stiff ski. The Zero G 85 is a different beast than similar width/weight skis from Voile, K2, Volkl, Dynafit, or Black Diamond. Much better for those of us that are 180lbs+ and skiing with a full bc pack. This ski is also better, imho, for people who are uphilling at resorts and skiing fast down groomers. This ski has the oomph to actually rail on early morning groomers, if that's your thing.
I do wish the ski had more of a early-rise tip to get up over punchy snow, but given other options, I'll take the stiffness and 185cm length of these over other skis in this category.
My other option is to try to sell G85 at 178 cm length and get a 171cm version from you.
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.
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.
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
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.
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.