We are now bootfitting by appointment only.

Skimo Co

Blizzard Zero G 95 Ski


In Stock

Free shipping

"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
convert to ounces
1160g [164]
1215g [171]
1300g [178]
1360g [185]
Weight (pair) 2320g [164]
2430g [171]
2600g [178]
2720g [185]
Dimensions   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

$649.95 From $399.96
$599.95 From $479.97
$649.95 $584.96

Questions & Reviews

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 help@skimo.co 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 help@skimo.co 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 help@skimo.co 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 help@skimo.co!
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 help@skimo.co 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)...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.
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 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.
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:

Question from Charlie
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)?
Answer from jbo
Hi Charlie, this version was introduced in 2019/20.
Answer this question:

Question from John W
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?
Answer from eric
John- You could if you wanted. The factors i would think about is the new version is a little friendlier than the old one. So, the longer length will not be as demanding as what you have now. The other consideration would be if you are skiing with a beefier boot like Zero g 130 you might not, but if you are skiing lighter boot like an F1 then yes you would want to size down to 171cm.
Answer from Hays W
Thanks @Erick. I'm on F1s, w' Dynafit Speed Turn 2.0s. Sounds like 171?
Answer this question:

Question from Anthony O
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.
Answer from Julieana
Hey Anthony, here at Skimo Co we are big believers in shorter being the way to go! Like you said, that ski is an aggressive ski with a long effective edge so that 171 should work just fine for you and definitely will be more maneuverable as well. Either length would be totally appropriate for you so I think the best thing to do in this case is to just follow your heart!
Answer this question:

Question from Travis
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.
Answer from Julieana
Hey Travis, my apologies it looks like you are indeed right! The information we initially got on these doesn't match the current specs on their site and after some digging we have confirmed that the 22 meter radius is the correct number. Thank you for pointing this out to us so we can update our listing!
Answer this question:

Question from Serenity
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?
Answer from Will M
Hey Serenity,

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 help@skimo.co

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!
Answer from jbo
Hi Serenity, just a few general notes (agreed you should ring us for a deep dive). One, you'll never be judged for erring on the skinny side here! Two, you're likely feeling the fairly steep ramp angle on your bindings, see here for a numerical reference. Three, the Blizzards will ski powder better than your Volkls, but it's not their specialty.
Answer this question:

Question from Laura
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!
Answer from Julieana
Hey Laura, of the two the Hannibal 96 is going to be a little easier ski to manage and will be a little more playful so perhaps you'll want to go with that one. The Zero G is a great ski but it's super damp and very rigid. It's an extremely consistent and powerful ski but generally takes a little more work to maneuver.
Answer this question:

Question from Michael M
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?
Answer from Julieana
Hey Michael, last year they did change the 95 from it's original version. They made it less rigid and a little more playful and friendly overall. Since they updated it last year they have not made any new changes to this year's model.
Answer this question:

Question from Rory
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.
Answer from Jeff
Rory, the Zero G 85 is the Classic Spring ski, this one is more versatile. It is a bit stiffer overall than the Hypervector and should handle Sierra conditions maybe a bit better than the Voiles. As the description says, Blizzard detuned the tips a bit to allow easier turn initiation. Would be a wonderful choice.
Answer this question:

Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.

Model: Zero G 95

Follow us on social media

View full screen version