Absolutely stoked on these skis. Excellent downhill performance in all kinds of conditions: ice, corn, and yes powder. And feather light on the way up!
I got these for spring mountaineering so didn't expect perfect California pow on couloirs at 12k ft. They handled it like a charm. They are a bit unforgiving if you lean back to surf the pow -- my 102's allow this bad habit from my snowboarding days, but these will punish you. So long as you stay forward they ski great. My 102's would have been more fun, but well worth saving weight for the climb.
I bought the grey ones which I believe are 2022/2023. So should be some improvements in the newer ones.
Blizzard Zero G 85 Ski
When you’re high in the alpine, picking your way through consequential terrain, having reliable partners and equipment is a must. For years, the Zero G line has been a staple of legendary ski mountaineers and has proven itself in some of the most demanding places in the world. Now back and better than ever, the Zero G 85 seeks to keep what made it synonymous with durability and razer-like edge grip, while making it less demanding in other types of conditions. Blizzard achieved this by refining the Carbon Drive laminate, which is a carbon overlay that allows for precise control of torsional and longitudinal stiffness. Combine this with an intelligent 3D construction, carbon-reinforced mounting plate, and partial sidewall, you get another Blizzard Zero G 85 that lives up to its name. That is, maximum performance with zero grams of unnecessary weight.
- Carbon Drive 3.0 laminate allows for the flex to be fine-tuned.
- 3D milling provides torsional rigidity while keeping weight down.
- Long sidecut makes the ski less catchy in variable snow.
- Carbon-reinforced mounting plate helps with durability and binding retention.
Update 2023/24: The ski remains the same but has a new dark blue paint job.
| Specifications | |
| Lengths (cm) | 150, 157, 164, 171, 178 |
|
Weight |
910g [150] 945g [157] 1005g [164] 1070g [171] 1160g [178] |
| Weight (pair) | 1820g [150] 1890g [157] 2010g [164] 2140g [171] 2320g [178] |
|
|
113-85-97 [150] 115-85-99 [157] 115-85-99 [164] 115-85-99 [171] 117-85-101 [178] |
|
Turn |
17.0m [150] 17.5m [157] 19.5m [164] 21.5m [171] 22.0m [178] |
|
Skin |
Tip recession, tail notch |
| Specs Verified | 164, 171, 178 only |
| Design | |
|
|
Limited tip rocker and a smidge of tail lift |
|
|
Modest shovel, tapered tail |
|
|
Partial sidewall with full sidewall under the mounting area |
|
|
Carbon Drive 3.0 |
| Skimo Co Says | |
| Usage | Touring, mountaineering |
| Notes | A touch softer and friendlier than the older Zero G's |
| Bottom Line | The next iteration of a timeless, classic touring ski |
| Compare to other Low-fat Skis | |
Related Products
Questions & Reviews
4/8/2025
Alec
(used product regularly)
4/10/2025
Hi Alec, thanks for the feedback and the photo, looks awesome! FYI there is no construction difference between the colors. In general, we make a new listing if there are changes that affect performance.
Comment on this review:
3/17/2025
My other setup is a dynafit free 97 in 163cm, which I really like, but I'm looking for something lighter for spring conditions. Resort skis are also 163cm because I got a deal on them. Would the 150cm be too short for spring/summer PNW volcanoes and similar? I'm 5'4" and 110 lbs and I ski slower than average.
3/17/2025
Hi Katherine, I think 150cm would be about spot on for a spring mountaineering setup. The Zero G skis pretty long as well, not much rocker. Worth noting that these are quite different personality-wise from the Free 97 - the Zero G is stiff and has a long turn radius. The Free 97 prefers shorter turns, and much damper.
Feel free to email us at help@skimo.co and we can go more in-depth!
Feel free to email us at help@skimo.co and we can go more in-depth!
Answer this question:
I've used these skis for about 20 days so far, mounted with Plum Oazo 8 bindings. Incredibly light for the performance. Just like everyone else says, they eat firm couloirs for breakfast and multi-day traverses for lunch. The thing that surprised me the most was the performance in powdery and choppy snow. Obviously, these aren't going to be your first choice on a powder day, but due to the large scoop at the front they can hold their own when things get a bit deep and variable. Highly recommend these to anyone looking for a spring big-vert ski that can hold its own when conditions aren't as great as expected.
Comment on this review:
Absolute gem for spring couloirs and skimo in the San Juan's. Went with the 85 for when it's tight, steep and firm and it will not disappoint. Total 180 from the Helio 95, now that is my all-rounder and 0G is my objective ski, rad!
Comment on this review:
8/2/2024
Hi there- kind of wondering about available lengths. I'm usually on longer skis; DPS wailer 99 192 cm (carve or DIE!), Blizzard Zero G 105s 188, Blizzard Zero G 95 185, On3p Jeffery 186, etc. So is the Zero G 85 in 178 going to be enough??
8/3/2024
Hi Pat,
It's hard to be completely sure without knowing your approximate height and weight, but generally, a 178cm ski should be enough for the vast majority of people as a mountaineering ski. If your goals are to minimize weight and length on the uphill and move efficiently, it should work for you.
It's hard to be completely sure without knowing your approximate height and weight, but generally, a 178cm ski should be enough for the vast majority of people as a mountaineering ski. If your goals are to minimize weight and length on the uphill and move efficiently, it should work for you.
Answer this question:
4/29/2024
I'm trying to decide between the Blizzard Zero G 85 and Atomic Backland 85 UL. This will be a dedicated mountaineering and spring corn ski. I'm an advanced and somewhat aggressive skier but not a super expert. I want something that will ski well in slush but also hold an edge on ice. Which ski is better for my needs? Also, I'm usually in the 165-172 range on wider skis. Should I size down for this setup? 5'7" and 130lbs. Female. Thanks for the help!!
4/30/2024
Hi Amanda,
I think for a ski like this, compared to your wider, more rockered (?) skis, you may want to go a little shorter. Closer to the 160-164cm range than the upper end of what you would normally ski. They are stiff and have a long effective edge, so they will ski a little longer compared to a wider, more rockered ski, and there are also advantages to a slightly shorter ski in a mountaineering application.
I think you could ski either of these just fine in the conditions you describe. I would lean towards the Zero Gs if you like to make bigger, faster turns in corn, and/or if you want to emphasize the steep skiing/edge hold side of the equation. They are a classic mountaineering ski and hold very well in steep terrain. The Atomics might feel a bit more lively at lower speeds as the shorter sidecut will engage a bit faster and pull you around a little more. I would also refer to Emmett's answer below, as he makes the same comparison.
I think for a ski like this, compared to your wider, more rockered (?) skis, you may want to go a little shorter. Closer to the 160-164cm range than the upper end of what you would normally ski. They are stiff and have a long effective edge, so they will ski a little longer compared to a wider, more rockered ski, and there are also advantages to a slightly shorter ski in a mountaineering application.
I think you could ski either of these just fine in the conditions you describe. I would lean towards the Zero Gs if you like to make bigger, faster turns in corn, and/or if you want to emphasize the steep skiing/edge hold side of the equation. They are a classic mountaineering ski and hold very well in steep terrain. The Atomics might feel a bit more lively at lower speeds as the shorter sidecut will engage a bit faster and pull you around a little more. I would also refer to Emmett's answer below, as he makes the same comparison.
Answer this question:
12/25/2023
Hi, what are the key differences between this ski and the Atomic Backland UL 85. I own a pair of G3 Findr 94 at 177cm with Ion 10 and I’m looking for a lighter setup for PNW volcano skiing so I’m considering these Zero Gs or the Backlands at 171 cm and lighter bindings. I’m 5’ 10’’, 170 pounds and advanced skier.
12/26/2023
Federico,
Shoot us an email at help@skimo.co and we can go more in-depth.
The Zero G and Backland would both be good options for a volcano ski, just depends on your skiing style. In general, the Zero G will excel in steep, firm conditions. Very hard to beat in terms of edge hold. A bit more chattery in crud than the Backland, but less so with the newer Carbon Drive 3.0. The Backland on the other hand is very damp. Good for variable snow and corn, but won't match the Zero G for edge hold and confidence in steeps.
Shoot us an email at help@skimo.co and we can go more in-depth.
The Zero G and Backland would both be good options for a volcano ski, just depends on your skiing style. In general, the Zero G will excel in steep, firm conditions. Very hard to beat in terms of edge hold. A bit more chattery in crud than the Backland, but less so with the newer Carbon Drive 3.0. The Backland on the other hand is very damp. Good for variable snow and corn, but won't match the Zero G for edge hold and confidence in steeps.
Answer this question:
12/25/2023
Hello, I am looking for a ski which is fun to ski also in variable conditions but I also need a good edge grip in steep sections, couloirs and traverses. Hoe would you compare them with their 95 sibling? Is there a significant difference in edge hold? Or not really and I should go for 95 due to the fact its easier to ski?
12/26/2023
Fredrik,
The 85 and 95 ski very similarly. Not much of a difference in edge hold. The 85 might be a bit easier/quicker to jump turn, but the 95 would give you a little bit more of a buffer from washing out on your boot. The 85 will be quicker edge-to-edge on hardpack, and the 95 will provide more float in soft snow. Feel free to shoot us an email at help@skimo.co and we can go more in-depth!
The 85 and 95 ski very similarly. Not much of a difference in edge hold. The 85 might be a bit easier/quicker to jump turn, but the 95 would give you a little bit more of a buffer from washing out on your boot. The 85 will be quicker edge-to-edge on hardpack, and the 95 will provide more float in soft snow. Feel free to shoot us an email at help@skimo.co and we can go more in-depth!
Answer this question:
10/25/2023
Hi, I’m switching away from the BD helio carbon 88 because its lack of shovel has gotten me into some uncomfortable situations when the skin track or egress has prominent rolls or dips. I’m leaning toward the zero g but the description of this ski describes the shovel as “moderate.” I want to make sure I’m not making the same mistake again. Can you advise? Thanks!
10/25/2023
Maria, The Zero G 85 may not be the ski you are looking for. It would be considered a more traditionally cambered ski and not much rocker. So a lot like your current ski.
Please email us at help@skimo.co with more details about you and what you are looking for, and we can suggest some skis for you.
Please email us at help@skimo.co with more details about you and what you are looking for, and we can suggest some skis for you.
Answer this question:
9/2/2023
Hi! Are these too wide to attach to a Skimo racing vest pack?
Why? There's a deal, making these 300 dollars cheaper than the ZeroG 80's.
My team will be using the Blizzard Zero G 80's. I'm hoping these could work too? Weight wise it's pretty comparable given I'm getting the 150's.
And if you had any tips on which skins to get?
Thanks :)
Skimoracing newb who doesn't want racing skis. : )
Why? There's a deal, making these 300 dollars cheaper than the ZeroG 80's.
My team will be using the Blizzard Zero G 80's. I'm hoping these could work too? Weight wise it's pretty comparable given I'm getting the 150's.
And if you had any tips on which skins to get?
Thanks :)
Skimoracing newb who doesn't want racing skis. : )
9/2/2023
Hi Aynsley, they'll fit in most packs, folks here routinely use ~85 underfoot skis with speed ski carries. Feel free to reach out to help@skimo.co with specifics and we can do a fit check.
As far as skins, you won't be able to use a tip-rip skin with these since they have no tip notch, almost all skimo racers will be using those. The Blizzard Precut Skins are an option and have a slick attachment mechanism, but for racing I'd opt for full mohair to get the best glide. Pomoca and Contour both make mohair skins with compatible tip bails.
As far as skins, you won't be able to use a tip-rip skin with these since they have no tip notch, almost all skimo racers will be using those. The Blizzard Precut Skins are an option and have a slick attachment mechanism, but for racing I'd opt for full mohair to get the best glide. Pomoca and Contour both make mohair skins with compatible tip bails.
Answer this question:
4/14/2023
What bindings would you use with a 171 in this ski and the TLT 8?
4/14/2023
Gary,
Shoot us an email at help@skimo.co if you'd like to go into more detail!
First recommendation would be the Plum Oazo. It's got adjustable release and BSL, and the flip risers are extremely easy to use. All at a very light weight.
Another great option is the Ski Trab Titan Vario.2. It has some BSL adjustment, and fixed release. The heel is gapless unlike the Oazo, and had lateral and rearward elasticity. The toe has lateral elasticity as well, which gives the Vario.2 very good release/retention profiles.
If you want a binding with brakes, something like the ATK Crest is a good option. Loaded with features and weighs less than some lean bindings.
Shoot us an email at help@skimo.co if you'd like to go into more detail!
First recommendation would be the Plum Oazo. It's got adjustable release and BSL, and the flip risers are extremely easy to use. All at a very light weight.
Another great option is the Ski Trab Titan Vario.2. It has some BSL adjustment, and fixed release. The heel is gapless unlike the Oazo, and had lateral and rearward elasticity. The toe has lateral elasticity as well, which gives the Vario.2 very good release/retention profiles.
If you want a binding with brakes, something like the ATK Crest is a good option. Loaded with features and weighs less than some lean bindings.
Answer this question:
4/14/2023
I think I've settled on these skis...
I'm 62 year old tele skier looking for a light, spring option for the Mt. Shasta, CA area. This will be my first AT ski set-up. My current daily drivers are 179 Black Crow Navis, with 22 Design Axl's and Scarpa T1 boots.
Is this a solid choice?
What length would you suggest?
What other skis should I consider for spring (and this year summer) objectives?
I'm 62 year old tele skier looking for a light, spring option for the Mt. Shasta, CA area. This will be my first AT ski set-up. My current daily drivers are 179 Black Crow Navis, with 22 Design Axl's and Scarpa T1 boots.
Is this a solid choice?
What length would you suggest?
What other skis should I consider for spring (and this year summer) objectives?
4/14/2023
Gary,
The Zero G is a great choice for a spring ski! It shines holding an edge in steeps. For length, you could probably go with the 171. It will hop turn easier, and be more manageable in trees and for kick turns.
A couple of other options for skis; The Ski Trab Magico.2 is a great option. Damp, yet energetic. Super high performance, you get what you pay for. The Atomic Backland 85 is on the other end of the spectrum. Friendly, easy to ski, damp. Not very energetic, which some people don't like. All depends on your skiing style!
The Zero G is a great choice for a spring ski! It shines holding an edge in steeps. For length, you could probably go with the 171. It will hop turn easier, and be more manageable in trees and for kick turns.
A couple of other options for skis; The Ski Trab Magico.2 is a great option. Damp, yet energetic. Super high performance, you get what you pay for. The Atomic Backland 85 is on the other end of the spectrum. Friendly, easy to ski, damp. Not very energetic, which some people don't like. All depends on your skiing style!
Answer this question:
Santa got these skis for me and they are by far the best skis I've ever used. I'd previously purchased longer (>160cm), fatter (99cm) skis, but I'm glad I went shorter and narrower. They are light, but I feel like I'm in control all the time. The only time I feel like they are light skis is when I'm going fast on groomed runs or on super icy terrain. Otherwise, these ski like a dream in PNW heavy snow or in a foot of powder. 100% recommended. Thank you Skimo for narrowing down my choices.
Ski length: 150 cm
Bindings: Kreuzspitze GT 2.0
Skins: Contour Hybrid Mix
Stats: 5'2" female, 122lbs,
Ski length: 150 cm
Bindings: Kreuzspitze GT 2.0
Skins: Contour Hybrid Mix
Stats: 5'2" female, 122lbs,
Comment on this review:
3/25/2023
Has Blizzard discontinued this ski? It no longer appears on their website
3/25/2023
Hi Andrew, Blizzard is changing colors for next season, so the grey ones must go!
Answer this question:
9/10/2022
How exactly did Blizzard change this ski from previous year's versions?
9/10/2022
Hi Jake, Blizzard redid the "Carbon Drive" layup which changed the personality significantly. Noticeably friendlier, the skis are quicker and less menacing when the snow gets difficult. Just plain fun in smooth snow.
Answer this question:
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.
