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
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.
