Blizzard Zero G 95 Ski

(My wife’s skis, but I use them sometimes, which should tell you how good these are:))
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 considering zero G as touring skis and was hoping to get advice on 95 vs 105 underfoot. Also looking for length recommendations. Here are my details:
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 replacement of my Camox Freebird in 188cm, which I quite liked in fast runs, but really didn't like in tight forest runs. I'm 6'2, and I think that these skis (with moderate rockers) in 188cm were a bit too long for me, even if I'm a good skier. On paper, the ZERO G 95 seem to be exactly what I want, but the 185cm is not a huge difference from my previous 188cm. The next size (178cm) is too short, so I basically have the choice of opting for the 185cm, or choosing another model. Thoughts?

Hi Skimo,

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!

I have a question about the mount point as well. Interested in this new version of the Zero G 95. Do you know how many cm behind center the mount point is on the 164?

I am 6'1" 180lbs and will be looking to use this ski mostly in the BC of Arizona and the Sierra with a couple of Volcano trips mixed in. I am torn between sizes. What do you think, 178 or 185?
Thanks,
Bill

I have been looking for an uphill ski for resort groomed skiing that is stable enough for coming back down on the groomers for an intermediate skier.Do you recommend the G95 for this or a different ski ? Thank you for your advice.

I am looking at a pair of these for longer days in the cascades where the snow conditions can be quite variable throughout the day. I am around 190lbs 6’ 1”. I would like to pair these with a F1 LT, would the 178 be the best length for me?

Any red flags for pairing the Alien 1.1 and the 95’s at 171cm? I’m currently skiing 8 year old 178cm Dynafit Mansalus, with the Aliens and looking for something damper and more responsive with similar weight. Thanks for the help!

I absolutely love these skis. I needed a set of uphill-focused skis (due to inferior fitness, or perhaps a higher-than-average gravity setting around here)...so I bought these a size narrower and a size shorter than I usually would.

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.

I bought these a few weeks ago to become my do-it-all touring ski. I don't ever take my salomon QST's out anymore. First off, the weight is impressive. Awesome on the uphill - I even started racing on them. My first couple runs I had to get used to how stiff they are, but after a few tours I have really adapted and they feel totally smooth. *Really* surprised with how well they float in powder - much better than my Volkl Mantra's with similar waist (96mm). Holding extreme conditions aside, I can't think of a day that I wouldn't take these out. Nice recommendation to buy these from Eric at the shop. One note: both plastic tail clips from the precut skins broke within a week. Easily fixed with the replacements available from skimo.co but I would just go ahead and purchase replacement clips in advance. The replacements seem to be third-party manufactured and do not break as easily.

I'm a bigger guy (220# with kit), advanced skier, and like to ski fast. My last pair of dedicated alpine skis were Blizzard Cochise (which I loved). The last two seasons I've been on Head Kore 105s (w/ Tectons) as a 50/50 quiver of one. The setup has served me well but it is a bit heavy and I'm now looking to build out a lighter, touring-specific setup for longer days in the BC here in the Wasatch and elsewhere. I don't want to give up too much downhill performance, though. In terms of width, I'd like something that is still fun in mid-Winter powder but could also function well in Spring conditions.

These skis have defintely caught my interest. Would they work for that use case? Anything else you think I should take a look at?

Thanks!

I see there are new colors for 2020/21. What year was the construction of the ski updated from the prior version (as mentioned in the description)?

Hi! I want to replace my old pair of these with some new ones. I’m 5’8”, 190 lbs before gear, intermediate/conservative skier in Pacific Northwest. My current pair are 178s, kinda wondering if I can size down to 171s. Thoughts?

I demod the zero g 95s yesterday. Very impressed. However I felt like the 178 was a bit of a bear to ski in tight chutes and keep speed in check in narrow icy trees. It however have me a shit eating grin opening it up on the faces and fans beneath the steeps. The demo had super heavy bindings (probably around 750g w plates) and I think perhaps my boot was not centered, it appeared maybe 1cm forward which may have affected my experience. Unsure if due to mount or added weight, I felt like it wanted to over steer/rotate on jump turns, more characteristic of a ski with a lower turn radius. I also felt like the tail got in the way for me more on acute kick turns, in spots where I normally don't have a problem even with mid 180s skis.

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.

Are you sure the turn radius specs are correct? I think Blizzards website is labeling them a few inches higher. I was thinking of snagging some 171’s but with the 20” radius but if it’s actually 22” might shy away. Thanks for your time.

I have been trying to decide on a set of skis for a while now for the backcountry as well as boots. I am not happy with my current setup. I am an expert and a ski instructor so I am very attuned to the response I get from my equipment and have been disappointed with the backcountry boots I have as well as the skis. Bindings are somewhat okay.
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?

I’m deciding between the zero g 95 and the Fischer Hannibal 96. I’m 5 7 , 125 lbs and would say I am a advanced/expert skier. I have read nothing but positive reviews on both but having trouble deciding between the two. In the zero g I would get 164. In the Hannibal I’m not sure. I ski k2 sidestashes now in 167. Would love any insight you may have... as in if one ski is easier to manage than the other. Thanks in advance!

Any comments on how much differently these ski compared to the original version of the 95? Is there much of a perceptible difference between the old and new models?

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?

I’m a huge Voile fan but these have totally caught my eye for an Eastern Sierra daily AT ski. I have Hyperchargers (tele), Ultravectors (tele), Objectives (AT) and I'm trying to decide between these and the Hypervectors! Can you help shed any light? I think I’d rock 178s for either at 6’ and 160lbs. Also I’m planning on Plum 170s and I’m skiing the Fischer Travers Carbon boots.