"If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Well, the design of the Zero G 95 definitely wasn't broken, but Blizzard still somehow found a way to fix it. The previous Zero G 95 was widely praised for being versatile and reliable across a wide range of conditions and skill levels, yet Blizzard wasn't satisfied. They took their fantastic Carbon Overlay technology and tweaked it to ensure a more reliable and obedient flex, yet still kept it damp and stable. They also altered the core construction and began to taper the sidewall much earlier. The result is a softer feeling tip and tail with the same rock-solid feel underfoot, making it a more easy-going version of itself. Blizzard took a gamble in making changes to a ski that was previously so popular, but their gamble paid off and the updated Zero G 95 is a downright delight to ski.
- The reworked core is protected by durable sidewalls, making your October ski-outing in 8" of fresh slightly less of a bad idea.
- Rocker in the tip keeps you afloat while skinning and also keeps you afloat while descending with a smile.
- Blizzard's own Carbon Overlay provides dampening and adds exactly zero g's extra weight.
- This isn't a technical point, but we really like the season's graphics.
Update 2021/22: Some updated colors spruce up your 0G life while the build remains the same.
|Lengths (cm)||164, 171, 178, 185|
|Weight (pair)||2320g 
||Roundish tips, flat notched tail|
||Mild rocker, camber underfoot|
||Cruising radius w/ arcing tip & tail|
||Sidewall sandwich w/ Carbon Drive|
|Skimo Co Says|
|Notes||Full sidewall helps w/ rocks|
|Bottom Line||Workhorse tourer|
|Compare to other High-fat Skis|
Questions & Reviews
I’m 5’10, 175lbs, expert/aggressive skier with 45yrs skiing and 25+years touring experience.
I’ve had about 15 days in a full range of PNW conditions: perfect volcano corn, waist deep blower, boilerplate frozen rain crust, and pretty much everything in between. I’ve skied dozen or so lift-served runs after tours at Snoqualmie Pass, also in a variety of conditions.
They’re mounted with Ski Trab Titan Vario.2 bindings, and I usually drive them with Scarpa F1 boots (both of which I highly recommend).
As expected, these float uphill, which is why I got them.
At their weight I wasn’t sure what to expect for downhill performance, but I’ve been impressed - tons of fun across a wide range of conditions. They definitely want (need?) to be driven. They’re most fun when I’m skiing aggressively and attentive to technique. If I get lazy or tired, they start to get knocked around and/or stay on the rail they were on when I stopped paying attention. They don’t initiate turns on their own. I find a more forward/aggressive stance helps keep them engaged in the shovel. Energetic? Absolutely! Forgiving? Not so much.
I’d say they excel in smooth firm snow (volcanoes!) and just about anything carve-able. They are super fun in ankle to boot deep powder (but what ski isn’t?). They’re surprisingly still fun in deeper consistent snow, especially at speed. But they’re not the right boards for heavy/chunky/ski-cut snow. I skied them recently in boot deep mashed potatoes through steep and tight trees / gullies / rock outcrops, and couldn’t turn easily at the speeds I was comfortable going in the terrain, so resorted to jump turns (a softer, surfier, easier-turning ski would have been more fun). But even in the deep/chop/mank they can drive through or over the snow if there’s room to open it up a bit.
The level of performance across such a wide range conditions is kind of amazing for a 95mm, sub-1500g ski with lightweight bindings and boots.
On a few stupid frozen skied-out, steep groomers (refreeze after rain) I got them chattering on hard fast turns trying to shed speed, but after slowing just a bit I could carve smooth turns on what was basically ice - again, focus required. Damper than expected at their weight and stiffness.
In summary, they are predictable, well-behaved and fun in a variety of conditions IF you ski ‘em like you mean it. Great option as a single do-it-all touring ski for intermediate to advanced skiers looking for a solid lightweight ski. But best for skiers who take charge of their skis, and not a quiver of one if you mainly tour in big soft snow or if you ski many area days - you'd probably find yourself wanting something fatter with a touch more rocker (and damper / heavier for an area ski).
FWIW, for the first time ever I'm assembling a quiver...the zero g's on the light end of the spectrum, and a fat (117mm) & heavier area/sidecountry ski on the other end. Now I'm on the hunt for a mid-winter touring setup that’s 106mm-ish underfoot, softer & more forgiving and playful in deeper or heavier/chunkier snow. But the Zero G's will be the go-to for pretty much everything else in the bc, especially variable conditions on the firm end of the spectrum, and longer / bigger objective outings in any snow types.
I get why people like these: Stiff, chargey AF, but still pretty light for the waist width. Skiing them on pre-season "groomers" and one-week-old cold snow, I could plow through crud and crank turns at speed.
But ultimately, I felt the ski was too demanding for me. There is no forgiveness in the ski. I felt like the second I wasn't pressed forward on my boot, carving with the best form I could muster, I was in the backseat or getting bucked around. It was very difficult to ski on tired legs.
For all of you former ski racers, these might work great. But for the rest of us, there are other excellent lightweight, burly, but more forgiving skis.
Thanks for the great information and sorry to revive this thread. I was checking out the zero g 95s and they look pretty good.
My question is how would they work as a tele setup. I have some ntn meidjio 3 bindings coming with an alpine heel setup on crispi boots which have the tech heel.
Not sure if this years zero g has a reinforced enough mounting plate for this setup. Also how do you think the flex would work for a tele setup? I currently have black diamond 105 convert with the BD tele binding but it’s not working for me. I think it’s a little long at 188. I’m just on 6’ , 220 lbs and a strong intermediate tele crasher. I’d like a setup that I can use at the hill and is light but still easy to handle when touring. Looking for something I don’t have to work too hard at turning in pow and in tighter trees etc.
I have also been looking at the backland 100, and the way back 96.
Thinking if I go to around 180 length and slightly narrower either 95 or 100 mm waist would help.
Thanks for any advice.
The Wayback and the Backland will also make great teleskis, though the Backland will give you more maneuverability.
First of all congratulations on your website and all your videos! You are the best.
I am about to buy my first touring/all-mountain skis and after studying the market a lot I have two finalists, well in fact three.
I need your help!! I don't know what to decide... !!!
My height is 188cm without boots.
I like to climb mountains and enjoy the descent is very important to me. I think downhill is what I always want to enjoy the most.
Ski level = medium / high, I feel comfortable off the slopes and I have the level to go down black slopes well.
I ski in the Pyrenees and I decided to take a 95 or 96 ski. A versatile ski for all surfaces, but also floating when there is a good powder.
2021 BLIZZARD ZERO G 95 SKIS
2022 K2 WAYBACK 96 SKIS
2022 BLACK CROWS CAMOX FREEBIRD SKIS
Of the three, the Black Crows had ruled them out, because they seem less versatile ... Am I wrong?
1) Which ones do I buy?
2) If I choose Blizzard - size 178 or 185 (I thought 178 because that's what they recommend for my level and height on their website).
3) If I choose K2 - size 177 or 184 (I had thought 184 because that's what they recommend for my level and height on their website).
4) As bindings, a friend recommend me ATK all road 10. Are they compatible with both skis? Any other recommendations with brakes?
Thank you very much!!
Sounds like you have already done a great job whittling your choices down. I will start with a comparison of the K2 Wayback 96, and the Blizzard Zero G 95. Both of these skis are on the less forgiving end of the spectrum. The Zero G 95 is pretty stiff, and will require input in the shovel to get the most out of the ski. It has some rocker to provide float midwinter, but will still perform well in firm spring snow. The K2 Wayback 96 is also pretty stiff, and pretty comparable to the Zero G 95. The Wayback 96 will be a little more damp in chattery snow conditions, but that will come at the cost of some additional weight.
Also, a little on the Black Crow Camox Freebird, they are pretty forgiving skis, and will be a lot softer and easier to initiate. However, they will not have the same performance in firmer conditions, and appear to be heavier than either of the prior options. We have not weighed the Camox Freebird or Wayback 96 ourselves, so this is a little bit of speculation.
As far as length is concerned, based on your dimensions, I would go with the 177cm length if you would like a ski that is easier to maneuver and kick turn as well as lighter. If you want something more stable at speed, consider the 184cm length.
Finally, bindings. If you are referencing the ATK Haute Route 10, it will be compatible with all of the skis that you are considering. However, this binding does not have a brake option unless you would like to replace the adjustment plate under the heel. If you would like to continue this conversation, please reach out to us at email@example.com!
Been interested in these whilst comparing it to armada tracer 88 and k2 wayback 88 and wanted to know how does these blizzards compare with them as an all mountain, ski mountaineering in all conditions (ice to not so deep powder for someone a bit agressive). The fact that it’s 95 mm waist with almost the same weight as the armada is tempting. Basically how do you describe armada tracer 88 vs this one and which one should I go with? (These two both have tail and tip rocker and the k2 wayback doesn’t have a tail rocker, so I think these two (blizzard and armada) are more manoeuvrable in steep techy chutes and places.
Thanks in advance.
Without skiing the Armada Tracer 88, it is a little hard for me to weigh in. However, I can certainly speak to the Zero G 95, and the K2 Wayback 88. The Zero G 95 is quite a stiff ski, with a longer turn radius. The camber underfoot will help in steeper and firmer conditions. However, it will be less forgiving than some other options.
The K2 Wayback 88 is a great daily driver. At 88, some folks will probably consider this more of a spring ski. However, it is quite damp for its weight, and will hold an edge well in the steeper terrain, and be a blast in corn. Another ski that is less forgiving, you will get out of it what you put in. At 88 underfoot, the 88 will have less float than the Zero G 95. For further ski information, reach out to us at firstname.lastname@example.org
I currently am skiing on a pair of Fischer Hannibal 96s that are due for retirement soon. These skis are my daily driver, and I bring them on bigger/steeper days too. Considering the ZeroG 95s, but also considering the Wayback 96s as replacements. I ski in the PNW- so it is mostly long days in the alpine, varied snowpack, steeper faces. I really appreciate the Hannibal's competence when the snow is deep, however I find the ski kind of limiting sometimes, both in choppy steep terrain and in mellow terrain when I am trying to "open up" and ski faster. The ZeroG seems to be a friendly weight, but sounds demanding and a mixed ability in powder. The Wayback 96s are a little heavier, which might be helpful for choppy snow, but idk how they will perform otherwise. Any other skis that can build off of the confidence that the Hannibals give me in steep terrain + powder without sacrificing too much weight or forgiveness?
If you fall more into the "mountaineering" side of PNW skiing then you might check out the Dynafit Blacklight 88 which will hold up well in both soft snow and steep couloirs, while also light for those big days in the alpine.
We love these Blizzards in a 164 (perfect for 130 lbs). Stiff, but the new profile is so much easier to handle than the old ones. These instill a lot of confidence skiing in spring conditions and mixed Cascades and transitional snow packs. Blizzard also has bomber construction, so not scared to strap these to the sled and go for a long, bumpy ride either.
The graphics are a bit aggressive and hard to match, but also represent the energy of these skis pretty well.
I am a heavier skier at 5’10” 205 lbs
I will be using exclusively for touring
At this point I usually tour on soft powder days and go skinny Track skiing when snow conditions are variable.
I will be using Scarpa Maestrale RS boots.
Although I used to favor a stiff big my ski, at 50 years old my touring ambitions and fitness are more inline with a user friendly ski.
I am replacing a pair of 10+ year old BD Ascents which I purchased as more of a do it all backcountry and Resort ski when I was touring and chasing kids around resorts on more mixed condition days.
I am looking for a ski that will be optimal for touring on soft days with user friendly uphill skin track and powder skiing characteristics….
Based on all this would you recommend zero G and if so 95 or 105 underfoot? Length? Other skis I should consider?
Any binding recommendation for a heavier skier for above use?
Thanks in advance!!!
I’m looking for a new ride. The G95 seems to be calling my name. Have typically skied softer skis like Dynafit Manaslu, original Helio 95 and 105., Voile V8. Looking for something a bit stiffer. Undecided about size. I’m advanced skier, 145# and 5’10”. 178 or 171? Seems like 175 has typically been my sweet spot. Thanks!
Thanks for reaching out! I think the Zero G 95 would be a good step towards the stiffer end of the spectrum. For somebody with your dimensions, I'd push you more towards the 171cm. I feel as if a 178cm would be a bit long for a daily driver touring ski. The 171cm will allow for all types of terrain from open meadows to tight couloirs. Plus, it'll be a bit lighter. As always, feel free to reach out to email@example.com if you have any further questions.
The recommended mount point is 71cm measured in a straight line from the tail of the ski. That would make it roughly 11cm behind the center of the ski for the 164cm length.
At your height and weight, you should have no problems with the Blizzard Zero G 95 in the 178cm length. Compared with the 171, the 178 will have more stability at speed and a longer turn radius. However, the trade-off is that they are heavier, and will be slightly more cumbersome for kick turns. If you have any further questions, reach out to us at firstname.lastname@example.org!
Imagine my surprise when I discovered they absolutely RIP! They are responsive, maneuverable, fun, and I have had them up to at least Triple Stupid Speed. I easily run out of bravery before they run out of stability.
They are unbelievably light on the uphill, and EXTREMELY good on the way down. My favorite pair of skis, hands down.
These skis have defintely caught my interest. Would they work for that use case? Anything else you think I should take a look at?
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.