"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 new graphics.
Update 2020/21: Some new 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
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?
All this being said, I am torn on getting a 171 vs a 178. 178 obviously has a higher speed limit but I feel like the ski has a long effective edge so that the 171 should feel stable, esp cause of how stiff it is, and also drops about 100grams with a shorter turn radius so hoping it will improve it's versatility for me in narrow spots, and longer days. Thoughts? I could totally go with the 178, just curious if any of your have had similar experiences or think it was possibly due to a slightly forward mount pt.
I am looking for a ski and boot combination that can provide as close a feel as possible to my resort setup on the downhill (especially when it comes to lateral control and progressive forward flex in the boot) without being too heavy for 7-8 mile hiking days. My current resort setup is the Head Raptors 120 flex and the Volkl Deacon 84 in 167, both from last season).
My current backcountry setup that I am unhappy with is the 2014 Women’s Scarpa Maesrale RS, 2013 Volkl Aura’s, Look/Dynafit HM10 Demo’s. My main complaint about my setup is that the forward flex in my boots combined with bindings feels like I’m standing on my tip-toes and feels extreme compared to my Raptor’s, and when I get bucked forward or backwards by the snow or try to flex forward, it feels like I hit a brick wall with my shins or calves. My instinct is that this is a boot problem, but then I also wonder if the skis could be contributing.
Anyways, long story short, I have been looking to get the Blizzard Zero G 95s hoping they will ski powder better than the Volkl Aura’s and just be a bit more of a predictable ski...and the Técnica Zero G Tour Scouts. I am 5’8” and 140 lbs.
is that combination likely to meet most of my expectations? Or am I expecting too much.
My other thoughts for boots have been: Lange XT3, Scarpa Maestrale RS (the newer versions have less or more adjustable forward lean...but I’m worried that the lateral control won’t be any better), or the Atomic Hawx Ultra XTD.
My other thoughts for skis have been:
Volkl Rise Above 88, Volkl BMT 90, and Volkl Blaze 94
(I should add that I don’t have much desire to ski anything wider than 95 because I generally ski most days in Utah on my 84 underfoot and just adjust my technique. Deep days I will go up to 95. I guess it’s a ski instructor thing.
Is there any combination here that might most closely meet my desires?
All of these are great questions, definitely a lot to unpack here. It would be great if you could send us all of this info (copy & paste) to email@example.com
From there we can really dive into the nitty gritty.
Also if you're in the Salt Lake City area maybe consider scheduling a bootfitting appointment ,then we'd be able to geek out in person!
Looking at the comments from the 85, it seems the old and new version of that ski weren't that much differently. Is it the case for the 95 as well?
The recommended mount point on the 178's is 98 cm from the tip if you measure in a straight line. The mount point does vary by size and the 171's measure 94.5 cm from the tip in a straight line. Hope that helps!!
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.