Skimo Co

Blizzard Zero G 95 Ski - 2021/22


"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.

Update 2022/23: The newest Zero-G 95 is all the rage with its friendlier Carbon Drive 3.0.

Lengths (cm) 164, 171, 178, 185
convert to ounces
1160g [164]
1215g [171]
1300g [178]
1360g [185]
Weight (pair) 2320g [164]
2430g [171]
2600g [178]
2720g [185]
Sidecut   125-95-109
Turn Radius   19.5m [164]
22m [171]
23m [178]
24m [185]
Skin Fix   Roundish tips, flat notched tail
Specs Verified Yes
Profile   Mild rocker, camber underfoot
Shape   Cruising radius w/ arcing tip & tail
Construction   Sidewall sandwich w/ Carbon Drive
Core   Paulownia
Skimo Co Says
Usage Everyday adventures
Notes Full sidewall helps w/ rocks
Bottom Line Workhorse tourer
Compare to other High-fat Skis

Related Products

Questions & Reviews

Question from Robert
Hello, what is the recommended binding mounting point for 178cm ski?
Answer from Carlos M
Hi Robert,

There is a raised line on the ski that we go off of, on the topsheet. On the current ski, this is 778mm from the tail, measuring not from the notch but from the actual end of the tail.
Answer this question:

Question from David S
Ive noticed after about 15 days of use my skis only have about 1mm of camber at the highest point when I lay the ski flat on the ground. Is this normal or has the ski lost its camber? 2020 model in 171.
Answer from jbo
Hi David, we have seen a few pairs of these go flat unusually early over the years. We've gotten it rectified through Blizzard for our customers.
Answer this question:

Murph (used product regularly)
Purchased in spring ‘21 as a lightweight touring setup. Pretty sure new graphics are the only difference between this year’s and last year’s models.
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.
Reply from John K
for your "mid-winter touring setup that’s 106mm-ish underfoot, softer & more forgiving and playful in deeper or heavier/chunkier snow" take a long look at the Atomic Backland 107. A phenomenally fun and versatile ski.
Reply from Henry R
thanks for the detailed review. also check out the line vision 108. you probably already bought a ski but others may be reading this.
Comment on this review:

Zach W (used product a few times)
I only skied these two days, so take this with a grain of salt. But I've skied a decent # of other lightweight touring skis, so I think I have a good perspective. I'm an intermediate-advanced skier, self-taught. 5'8", 145 lbs, skied the 171 with Zeds.

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.
Reply from Henry R
it would be helpful to know what generation / year ski you used.
Reply from Zach W
Hi Henry, it is the generation that is listed on this page. Hope that helps.
Comment on this review:

Question from Shane
Hi there,
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.
Answer from Will McD
Hey Shane. As far as construction/binding retention goes, the Zero G would be a great match for a telemark binding. The ski is quite stiff, however, so keeping the tip of the rear ski from sinking will be trickier than on a ski with a softer tip flex. They are amazing on open slopes and groomers, but the longer turn radius can be a bit much for maneuvering through tight trees.

The Wayback and the Backland will also make great teleskis, though the Backland will give you more maneuverability.
Answer this question:

Question from Sergi

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.


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!!
Sergi EG
Answer from Tristan M
Hi Sergi,

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!
Answer this question:

Question from Mani
Hey there,

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.
Answer from Tristan M
Hi Mani,

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
Answer this question:

Question from Alex H
Hi folks!

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?
Answer from Ian C
Hey Alex, thanks for the question! First thing, you may have already noticed but we are not carrying the Wayback 96, just the 88 and 106. As for the Zero G, Blizzard has made these skis a bit more user friendly but they will still be a bit more demanding than the Waybacks with a larger turn radius.

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.
Answer from jbo
Hi Alex, we weren't big fans of the Wayback 96. That line is really hit or miss imo. I'd say the ski that most fits your target is the Backland 95 which is friendly but scales up well, absorbing chop without much sidecut interference on steeper terrain. Lower top speed than the Zero G and not quite as solid on super steep+firm.
Answer this question:

Benski (used product regularly)
(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.
Comment on this review:

Question from Seth H
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!!!
Answer from Brett S
Thanks for reaching out, Seth. If you're primarily seeking out powder turns, the deeper rocker lines and more girth underfoot of the 105 would be welcome. The 105 is a great ski and is more at home making big, fast turns down the apron. For a more playful ski that is still light and capable, the K2 Wayback 106 would be worth consideration. In terms of bindings, both the Marker Alpinist 10 and ATK Raider 12 will allow you to get the most of either ski, while still remaining light. For sizing, either the 179 (Wayback 106) or 180 (Zero G 105) would work. You could bump up to the next sizes if you valued stability at speed over easier kick turns, however, it could be a bit much to work with in tight spaces. Please let us know if you have any other questions!
Answer this question:

Question from Joseph
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?
Answer from Zak M
Hey Joseph, thanks for the question. The Zero G 95 should hit you lengthwise a bit below the top of your head, but compared to the Camox Freebird is a fair amount stiffer of ski, with a fairly flat tail. So in essence it might take just a bit more effort to drive the Zero G 95 in certain conditions but you will have a slightly shorter ski, so that could possibly make all the difference. If you were looking for a ski with similar attributes to the Camox Freebird ( meaning a touch heavier, with a slightly damper feel) the Atomic Backland 95 ski could also fit in nicely, and at 185cm would be right up your alley. Feel free to email us at with any other ski questions!
Answer this question:

Question from Dave
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!
Answer from Will M
Hey Dave,

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 if you have any further questions.
Answer this question:

Question from Gary
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?
Answer from Will McD
Hi Gary,
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.
Answer this question:

Question from bill wilson
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?
Answer from Zak M
Hey Bill, thanks for the question. At 6'1 the 185cm length will land height wise right at the top of your head, so basically either length could work but it really depends on your skiing ability and length preferences. For an experienced skier looking for an everyday backcountry ski, the 185cm for your height wouldn't necessarily be too long but if you are looking for something a bit easier to turn or something for steep skiing I would size down to 178cm. Feel free to give us a shout at for any other in depth questions!
Answer this question:

Question from Ben Jaffe
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.
Answer from Jeremy L
Ben, thanks for reaching out. The Zero G 95 would be more than adequate for your intended purpose. It would also allow you to break out of the resort and have a great all-around touring ski. If you wanted a ski for just resort uphilling I'd probably go with something a bit narrower like the Dynafit Blacklight 74 or the Atomic Backland UL 78.
Answer this question:

Question from Eric
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?
Answer from Tristan M
Hi Eric,

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!
Answer this question:

Question from James S
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!
Answer from Zak M
Hey James, as per Scarpa's recommendation using any ski bigger than 65mm underfoot would not be advised. However, there are a fair amount of folks that would consider that combo doable but a ski like the Zero 95 would be pushing the envelope quite a bit and be at the point of breaking the boot in weird situations. Feel free to reach out to us at for any other questions regarding potential skis.
Answer this question:

Louis G (used product regularly)
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) 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.
Comment on this review:

Jackson B (used product regularly)
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 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.
Comment on this review:

Question from Scot H
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?

Answer from Cole P
Scott, great question. If you are looking for a great steep/spring ski then the Zero G's would be a great option, but they lack floatation in soft snow. If you want more versatility I would suggest looking at the Movement Alp Tracks 95 here, which will perform great in soft snow as well as corn and steeps.
Answer this question:

Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.

Model: Zero G 95

Follow us on social media

View full screen version