Blizzard Zero G 95 Ski
When Blizzard introduced the Zero G 95 in the wee years of 2018, many skeptics were impressed with how hard they could push such a light ski. This skiability came in large part due to their Carbon Drive construction, which when wrapped around a paulownia core, delivered hard-charging performance at a reasonable weight. After a few years elapsed, Blizzard introduced their improved Carbon Drive 2.0, which kept the same hard-charging performance as the original while making it a bit more approachable to the masses. As you've guessed, the new Carbon Drive 3.0 continues this evolution and is arguably their best version yet. Supportive but not overbearing, the Zero G 95 handles steep and scary terrain with poise, leaving behind any unwanted “hookiness” of its forebears. This laminate change also gives the Zero G 95 an almost playful feel, which is something you'll surely appreciate on the long ski out from your objective. From harvesting corn, to mid-winter powder, to far out mountaineering objectives, the Zero G 95 is a reliable partner for the job.
- Carbon Drive 3.0 results in a supportive yet playful ride that is just plain fun underfoot.
- Paulownia core keeps things light and poppy for your enjoyment.
- Lots of effective edge for superior edge hold in challenging terrain.
- Partial sidewall for better durability means you better like these skis (you will) because you're going to have them for a while.
| Specifications | |
| Lengths (cm) | 157, 164, 171, 178, 185 |
|
Weight |
1080g [157] 1115g [164] 1190g [171] 1240g [178] 1315g [185] |
| Weight (pair) | 2160g [157] 2230g [164] 2380g [171] 2480g [178] 2630g [185] |
|
|
125-95-109 [157] 125-95-109 [164] 125-95-109 [171] 127-95-111 [178] 127-95-111 [185] |
|
Turn |
19.0m [157] 19.5m [164] 22.0m [171] 23.0m [178] 24.0m [185] |
|
Skin |
Round tip with recess for precut skins, flat tail with notch |
| Specs Verified | Yes |
| Design | |
|
|
Rocker in the tip, Camber underfoot, Slight rocker in tail |
|
|
Round tip, squared off tail, medium sidecut |
|
|
Carbon Drive 3.0 |
|
|
Paulowina |
| Skimo Co Says | |
| Usage | All snow types |
| Notes | Very agile and nimble with Carbon Drive 3.0 construction |
| Bottom Line | Quiver of one, good for everything |
| Compare to other High-fat Skis | |
Related Products
Questions & Reviews
12/18/2024
Would a telemark Lynx binding work on these Blizzard Zero G 95's? I realize that many carbon skis aren't great for telemark, but have not seen a clear statement from Blizzard about these particular skis. And, to be clear, my question is focused on the potential risk of the screws stripping-out, and not the actual ski performance. Thank You.
12/18/2024
Hi Rob,
Blizzard doesn't have an official stance on whether or not their skis are safe to mount with tele bindings, but you shouldn't have any issues.
Blizzard doesn't have an official stance on whether or not their skis are safe to mount with tele bindings, but you shouldn't have any issues.
Answer this question:
11/13/2024
Hi all, does anyone know what the factory recommend mount point is on these skis? I can't seem to find it anywhere online about this generation
11/13/2024
Hi Jake,
In the 178cm ski, I measured it at -10cm behind the true center, measuring the length with a straight pull from tip to tail.
In the 178cm ski, I measured it at -10cm behind the true center, measuring the length with a straight pull from tip to tail.
Answer this question:
10/21/2024
Hello!
How would you compare this ski to the Ski Trab Ortles Pro 90?
Which one do you think would be better for a trip like the Haute Route in Europe?
Thanks for all your hard work and valuable information!
How would you compare this ski to the Ski Trab Ortles Pro 90?
Which one do you think would be better for a trip like the Haute Route in Europe?
Thanks for all your hard work and valuable information!
10/21/2024
Hi David,
Good comparison! They would both be great Haute Route skis. The Ortles would skin a little bit better due to the narrow width - weights are pretty much equivalent for a 171. The current Zero G 95 is a fun ski - more energy and a bit softer than previous versions (although still stiff). The Ortles will pull you into a turn a little bit more, due to a slightly softer shovel, but both skis have a relatively longer turn radius. Personally, I'm a big fan of the Ortles - I think it's really fun in soft snow, and can handle a variety of conditions well. But the Zero G 95 has a big following for a reason!
One other factor that would be relevant for me is the Ski Trab precut skins - I think their attachment system is excellent, and I like the plush and glue a bit better than the precuts that are available for the Zero G series. But of course you can always make your own skins, or go with whatever trim-to-fit offering you prefer.
Good comparison! They would both be great Haute Route skis. The Ortles would skin a little bit better due to the narrow width - weights are pretty much equivalent for a 171. The current Zero G 95 is a fun ski - more energy and a bit softer than previous versions (although still stiff). The Ortles will pull you into a turn a little bit more, due to a slightly softer shovel, but both skis have a relatively longer turn radius. Personally, I'm a big fan of the Ortles - I think it's really fun in soft snow, and can handle a variety of conditions well. But the Zero G 95 has a big following for a reason!
One other factor that would be relevant for me is the Ski Trab precut skins - I think their attachment system is excellent, and I like the plush and glue a bit better than the precuts that are available for the Zero G series. But of course you can always make your own skins, or go with whatever trim-to-fit offering you prefer.
Answer this question:
9/23/2024
Hey There,
The last 2 Seasons, I've been touring on Alp Tracks 90ies as a "Quiver of One ski" in Europe. This year I'm looking to renew my pair and was wondering how the Blizzards would compare? I'm looking for a tad of more flotation for some easier runs on powder and maybe a tiny bit more ski to inspire a bit more stability on crud and crust. Could the Blizzard be an option?
The last 2 Seasons, I've been touring on Alp Tracks 90ies as a "Quiver of One ski" in Europe. This year I'm looking to renew my pair and was wondering how the Blizzards would compare? I'm looking for a tad of more flotation for some easier runs on powder and maybe a tiny bit more ski to inspire a bit more stability on crud and crust. Could the Blizzard be an option?
9/24/2024
Hey Andy, the Zero-G 95 could be a decent step up in width from the Alp Tracks 90. While you gain a bit more width underfoot and a bit more weight, the tip dimensions of those two skis are pretty similar. Another possible ski you could look into is the Volkl Rise Beyond 96 ski. With a bit more width in the tip and underfoot, the Rise Beyond would be more bearable when conditions get more profound, and it would be more confident in tricky snow. Feel free to email help@skimo.co with any other ski questions!
Answer this question:
3/17/2024
Hello. I have the 20-21 version (I think) of these skis - lime green graphics. Despite comments about them being difficult to ski, I actually find them fun in lots of conditions - and love their responsiveness and light weight. How different is the current iteration in terms of skiing? Thinking of getting another pair as my son and I share them and be nice to each have his own. I don't want too soft a ski.
3/18/2024
Although I haven't skied the 2.0 and 3.0 versions, I have asked about half a dozen people who have. The short answer is there appears to be very little difference. Answers range from the new version feels slightly softer in tips and tails to no noticeable difference and one person even saying the new version feels slightly stiffer. I heard someone say the new version limits the carbon layer to only cover the mid section of the ski instead of extending all the way to the edges making the ski less torsionally stiff. For the 105 model, someone actually remarked that the tails felt too soft and thought the 2.0 was a better ski. If you go to soothski.com and compare the bending and torsional stiffness for 2.0 vs 3.0 there is essentially no difference for the 95 or 105.
Answer this question:
2/11/2024
Hi, I had the 2019 Zero Gs for two years, i ski only east coast which means mostly icy, frozen, crusty conditions - 99% of the time. I love them on the uphill, but for descending they require huge amount of attention on both piste and off. And in tight woods when things are frozen, they didn't inspire confidence at all.
For that reason I was going to move away from them. As I thought the biggest problem was maybe the radius (23m) and pretty much zero camber under foot, I looked into other skis that I thought could still hold edge well, but turn better.
I keep reading that with the "new models" Blizzard fixed the "problem". But it is hard to tell if they talk about the "catching edge" and " forgiveness" of the ski. Or if it also includes the ability of the ski to turn. (was the shape or camber changed in the new models)?
For that reason I was looking into a ski with smaller radius... Maybe the Backland 95 (18m) or Ripstick, Enforcer or something... But your comments above mentioned the Backland might be better for soft snow, and again this is east coast, our default is the opposite. Basically looking for good east coast touring ski. Something that can handle ice and tight turns, that is not too heavy.
I wonder if you think the i m p r o v e d ZeroG might be an option.
Or given what I said above it is best to look for something perhaps less light that can handle these conditions better.... in which case would you have suggestions?
For that reason I was going to move away from them. As I thought the biggest problem was maybe the radius (23m) and pretty much zero camber under foot, I looked into other skis that I thought could still hold edge well, but turn better.
I keep reading that with the "new models" Blizzard fixed the "problem". But it is hard to tell if they talk about the "catching edge" and " forgiveness" of the ski. Or if it also includes the ability of the ski to turn. (was the shape or camber changed in the new models)?
For that reason I was looking into a ski with smaller radius... Maybe the Backland 95 (18m) or Ripstick, Enforcer or something... But your comments above mentioned the Backland might be better for soft snow, and again this is east coast, our default is the opposite. Basically looking for good east coast touring ski. Something that can handle ice and tight turns, that is not too heavy.
I wonder if you think the i m p r o v e d ZeroG might be an option.
Or given what I said above it is best to look for something perhaps less light that can handle these conditions better.... in which case would you have suggestions?
2/12/2024
Janek,
The Zero G are one of the best Light skis on ice. The newer 2.0 and 3.0 versions they soften the tips and tails, but still have the same turn radius.
The Backland 95 is good on firm snow and the Ripstick Tour 88 or 94 are good choices. They bite well and turn quick. The 95 is a bit heavier, but that extra weight will make for better on the down. Or the Full resort Enforcer....
The Zero G are one of the best Light skis on ice. The newer 2.0 and 3.0 versions they soften the tips and tails, but still have the same turn radius.
The Backland 95 is good on firm snow and the Ripstick Tour 88 or 94 are good choices. They bite well and turn quick. The 95 is a bit heavier, but that extra weight will make for better on the down. Or the Full resort Enforcer....
Answer this question:
2/4/2024
Can you compare these to Atomic Backland 95 (and/or 100) and/or Black Diamond Helio Carbon 95?
2/6/2024
Hi Rett,
The current Zero G 95 and the current Backland are fairly comparable. Previous generations of the Zero G 95 were less friendly, but the current model has become a lot more fun and less demanding. Between the two, they are both energetic, fun 95mm skis - the Zero G is still the choice for firmer snow and edge-hold, whereas the Backland - although not lacking in that department - I would favor for softer/fresh snow.
The Backland 100 is a different ski, a bit softer, and more powder-oriented. I would definitely choose one of the two 95mm options you're considering for a ski mountaineering application, or for a do-it-all lightweight adventure ski. I would take the 100 for a lightweight uphill-oriented powder ski, if you like a turnier ski in powder. Unfortunately we do not carry the Helio Carbon 95 and so I am less familiar with those.
The current Zero G 95 and the current Backland are fairly comparable. Previous generations of the Zero G 95 were less friendly, but the current model has become a lot more fun and less demanding. Between the two, they are both energetic, fun 95mm skis - the Zero G is still the choice for firmer snow and edge-hold, whereas the Backland - although not lacking in that department - I would favor for softer/fresh snow.
The Backland 100 is a different ski, a bit softer, and more powder-oriented. I would definitely choose one of the two 95mm options you're considering for a ski mountaineering application, or for a do-it-all lightweight adventure ski. I would take the 100 for a lightweight uphill-oriented powder ski, if you like a turnier ski in powder. Unfortunately we do not carry the Helio Carbon 95 and so I am less familiar with those.
Answer this question:
1/22/2024
How do these skis compare to the Kastle TX93?
1/24/2024
Hi Adam! Although both skis exist in a similar category, they differ in shape and construction. The Kastle TX93 takes on a heavier construction and a short turning radius, therefor generally preferring short and slower turns. The Blizzard Zero G 95 on the other hand utilizes a lighter build without sacrificing downhill performance with their new carbon drive construction. Continuing, they are quite versatile in respects to snow conditions, terrain features, and turning shapes. They remain stable at speed, yet maneuverable and nimble. A good balance if you ask me! Thanks!
Answer this question:
1/16/2024
I bought a pair of pre drilled zero g 95s and they aren’t able to mount my bindings at the factory recommendations. Would it be better to go +2cm or -2 cm to mount them? I am on 157cm zero g and a 24.5 technica Cochise boot
1/16/2024
Kirsten,
Personally, I'd err towards going 2 back, but neither are ideal. If you have a more upright/less aggressive skiing style, 2 forward would be better. If you can find a binding that has a different toe pattern that would allow you to mount closer to recommended, that would be best. Or you may be able to use a toe adjustment or shift plate to avoid the old holes.
Personally, I'd err towards going 2 back, but neither are ideal. If you have a more upright/less aggressive skiing style, 2 forward would be better. If you can find a binding that has a different toe pattern that would allow you to mount closer to recommended, that would be best. Or you may be able to use a toe adjustment or shift plate to avoid the old holes.
Answer this question:
12/27/2023
Hi,
1) how would these fare on ice and as a quiver of one ski to do it all on both the east coast and west coast (resort and backcountry)?
2) would you recommend other similar quiver of one skis that might be of the same weight or lighter?
1) how would these fare on ice and as a quiver of one ski to do it all on both the east coast and west coast (resort and backcountry)?
2) would you recommend other similar quiver of one skis that might be of the same weight or lighter?
12/27/2023
Jim,
Reach out to us at help@skimo.co and we can get you more perzonalized recommendations!
These are a very precise ski with a long effective edge. That gives them great edge hold on firm snow and in steeps. They'd make a great all-around touring setup. Only time you might want more out of them would be high speeds on chopped up snow. They tend to be a little bit chattery in variable snow, but less and less so with the Carbon Drive 3.0. Also, a ski with a shorter effective edge and earlier rocker would be floatier and arguably more fun in soft snow, but that's personal preference. Overall, these would make a great quiver of one!
As I mentioned below, the Wayback is a similar, slightly more versatile option you could take a look at. It would be better suited to western skiing, while the Zero G will handle ice better.
Reach out to us at help@skimo.co and we can get you more perzonalized recommendations!
These are a very precise ski with a long effective edge. That gives them great edge hold on firm snow and in steeps. They'd make a great all-around touring setup. Only time you might want more out of them would be high speeds on chopped up snow. They tend to be a little bit chattery in variable snow, but less and less so with the Carbon Drive 3.0. Also, a ski with a shorter effective edge and earlier rocker would be floatier and arguably more fun in soft snow, but that's personal preference. Overall, these would make a great quiver of one!
As I mentioned below, the Wayback is a similar, slightly more versatile option you could take a look at. It would be better suited to western skiing, while the Zero G will handle ice better.
Answer this question:
12/24/2023
Hello, how does this ski compare to K2 wayback 88? I know that both are excelent in firm conditions and hold the edge perfectly. Ive also heard they are stiff but maybe Blizzard skis are more difficult to ski and demand a more experienced skier. Is that right? Which ski is maybe more fun to ride? Thanks
12/26/2023
Caroline,
Both very similar skis! The Wayback has a bit earlier of a rocker than the Zero G, so it will float a bit better in soft snow, and have a bit less effective edge on firm snow. In the past, the Zero G was somewhat chattery on crud, but with the Carbon Drive 3.0 layup, that has changed somewhat. It's now much more progressive. I'd say the Wayback is a bit more versatile, while the Zero G is a bit more honed in on steep skiing.
Both very similar skis! The Wayback has a bit earlier of a rocker than the Zero G, so it will float a bit better in soft snow, and have a bit less effective edge on firm snow. In the past, the Zero G was somewhat chattery on crud, but with the Carbon Drive 3.0 layup, that has changed somewhat. It's now much more progressive. I'd say the Wayback is a bit more versatile, while the Zero G is a bit more honed in on steep skiing.
Answer this question:
12/18/2023
Quick question, I’m thinking of getting the blizzard zero g’s for a great light spring set up. Is there a difference between the women specific and unisex ski? I also am debating between the 85 and 95 width? What would be the pros and cons of each?
12/19/2023
Hi Kiersten, the Women's and Unisex models are equivalent, just a different top sheet. Besides being wider than the 85, the 95 has a touch more rocker all around, making it a bit more versatile, especially in softer snow. The 85 has a longer running edge and is geared more towards steep skiing on hard snow, or if you just like the feel of skinnier skis. Feel free to reach out to us at help@skimo.co if you'd like to get into more details!
Answer this question:
2/2/2023
Will one notice a difference in floor flex between the 2023 and 21/22 version of this ski?
2/2/2023
Thanks for reaching out, Dave. There is a slight difference between the two model years, which some may be able to feel while doing a "floor flex." When skiing the two different years, the 22/23 model feels less demanding and more playful than the 21/22 (though the 22/23 is still quite good in firm and variable conditions).
Answer this question:
1/16/2023
Hi there,
I am considering buying new skis after 3 seasons of skiing on K2 Wayback 88 - 174cm. Wayback 88 skis were often too soft for me on steeper slopes and hard snow.
That's why I rented Zero G 95 178cm, 21/22y, skis and tested them on a tour with various types of snow. They were great on a slope, in the forest, on soft snow, but on frozen avalanche debris, crusty snow and frozen ski tracks from the day before, it was very difficult to control the ski.
I compared the length of Wayback 174 and Zero G 95 178, side by side and they are the same length -176.2cm. When I compared them to my height, they reach the top of my forehead (the beginning of my hair) when I'm in ski boots (Dynafit Radical Pro).
On steeper slopes, above 45 deegres, I found it difficult to make jump turn the K2 178 while skiing downhill.
Do you think the Zero G 95 22/23 would be a good chice for me? I understand that you prefer shorter skis and you will probably recommend 171cm to me instead of 178 which I tried but not on a slope steeper than 35°.
In addition to the Zero G, I am also considering the Rossignol Escaper 97 Nano, the Salomon MTN 96 Carbon, even the Atomic Backland 95 and the Hagan Boost 94.
Thank you for your advice.
I am considering buying new skis after 3 seasons of skiing on K2 Wayback 88 - 174cm. Wayback 88 skis were often too soft for me on steeper slopes and hard snow.
That's why I rented Zero G 95 178cm, 21/22y, skis and tested them on a tour with various types of snow. They were great on a slope, in the forest, on soft snow, but on frozen avalanche debris, crusty snow and frozen ski tracks from the day before, it was very difficult to control the ski.
I compared the length of Wayback 174 and Zero G 95 178, side by side and they are the same length -176.2cm. When I compared them to my height, they reach the top of my forehead (the beginning of my hair) when I'm in ski boots (Dynafit Radical Pro).
On steeper slopes, above 45 deegres, I found it difficult to make jump turn the K2 178 while skiing downhill.
Do you think the Zero G 95 22/23 would be a good chice for me? I understand that you prefer shorter skis and you will probably recommend 171cm to me instead of 178 which I tried but not on a slope steeper than 35°.
In addition to the Zero G, I am also considering the Rossignol Escaper 97 Nano, the Salomon MTN 96 Carbon, even the Atomic Backland 95 and the Hagan Boost 94.
Thank you for your advice.
1/16/2023
Aco,
To really go in-depth on this, send us an email at help@skimo.co! I'll give a brief answer here;
The Zero G is an excellent ski, but no ski will ski frozen avalanche debris well. The Backland and the Armada Locator are some of the best at absorbing chop, but touring skis just aren't as damp as alpine skis.
Yes, sizing down will help with jump turns, but it sounds like the 178cm fits you pretty well. The amount of rocker will change how tall a ski is compared to a person, which is why the 174 and 178 wind up being roughly the same length.
Jump-turning performance is primarily dictated by ski weight and length, so I'd recommend looking more at performance in crud and your turning style - personally, I like to slash and rarely connect more than a couple of turns, so the Locator suits me very well - easy to break out of the turns and easy to get back into them.
But again, to really go in-depth, email us at help@skimo.co!
To really go in-depth on this, send us an email at help@skimo.co! I'll give a brief answer here;
The Zero G is an excellent ski, but no ski will ski frozen avalanche debris well. The Backland and the Armada Locator are some of the best at absorbing chop, but touring skis just aren't as damp as alpine skis.
Yes, sizing down will help with jump turns, but it sounds like the 178cm fits you pretty well. The amount of rocker will change how tall a ski is compared to a person, which is why the 174 and 178 wind up being roughly the same length.
Jump-turning performance is primarily dictated by ski weight and length, so I'd recommend looking more at performance in crud and your turning style - personally, I like to slash and rarely connect more than a couple of turns, so the Locator suits me very well - easy to break out of the turns and easy to get back into them.
But again, to really go in-depth, email us at help@skimo.co!
Answer this question:
11/17/2022
K, I had the original Zero G 85s. And I hated them! They were so stiff and difficult to ski. I'm loving the stats on these. The weight is nearly equal to the Alp Tracks 95 but the price is much better. Given they've made all the changes, should I even consider the original Zero G 85s when looking at these?
11/17/2022
Hi GregO,
Depends on the year. If you are talking the first Generation of Zero G 85 (15/16-18/19) The new Zero G 95 is a very different ski. Blizzard has worked hard to make the Zero G friendlier over the iterations. The new construction in the Zero G line is much more forgiving with a softer flex. It is easier to initiate turns, with a more relaxed turn radius, and overall more approachable feel.
That being said, this ski can certainly still perform. If you have further ski questions, feel free to reach out to help@skimo.co!
Depends on the year. If you are talking the first Generation of Zero G 85 (15/16-18/19) The new Zero G 95 is a very different ski. Blizzard has worked hard to make the Zero G friendlier over the iterations. The new construction in the Zero G line is much more forgiving with a softer flex. It is easier to initiate turns, with a more relaxed turn radius, and overall more approachable feel.
That being said, this ski can certainly still perform. If you have further ski questions, feel free to reach out to help@skimo.co!
Answer this question:
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.
