"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 2020/21: 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
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?
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?
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.