"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.
| Specifications | |
| Lengths (cm) | 164, 171, 178, 185 |
|
Weight |
1160g [164] 1215g [171] 1300g [178] 1360g [185] |
| Weight (pair) | 2320g [164] 2430g [171] 2600g [178] 2720g [185] |
|
|
125-95-109 |
|
Turn |
19.5m [164] 22m [171] 23m [178] 24m [185] |
|
Skin |
Roundish tips, flat notched tail |
| Specs Verified | Yes |
| Design | |
|
|
Mild rocker, camber underfoot |
|
|
Cruising radius w/ arcing tip & tail |
|
|
Sidewall sandwich w/ Carbon Drive |
|
|
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
1/25/2021
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)?
1/25/2021
Hi Charlie, this version was introduced in 2019/20.
Answer this question:
1/23/2021
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?
1/23/2021
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.
1/23/2021
Thanks @Erick. I'm on F1s, w' Dynafit Speed Turn 2.0s. Sounds like 171?
Answer this question:
12/8/2020
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.
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.
12/8/2020
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:
11/12/2020
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.
11/12/2020
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:
11/5/2020
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 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?
11/5/2020
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!
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!
11/5/2020
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:
9/27/2020
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!
9/28/2020
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:
9/8/2020
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?
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?
9/8/2020
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:
11/27/2019
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.
11/27/2019
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:
10/8/2019
Any concerns and recommendations for mounting tele bindings to these skis?
10/8/2019
Hello Casey, mounting these with telemark bindings would be fine! I would recommend mounting them a centimeter or two behind the boot center line.
Answer this question:
10/1/2019
What is the recommended mount point (cm from center) on the updated version? Interested in the 178, if it varies by size.
10/3/2019
Hey zjh!
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!!
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!!
10/3/2019
Okay, thanks Cole. So that's approx -9.X cm from center (depending on the straight-tape pull of the ski). I was asking because I heard Blizzard moved the mount point forward with updated 0G series. I dislike very traditional mount points, despite understanding it's easier to kickturn with less tail.
10/3/2019
Hey Zak! We had a older 0G that I measured for you and it measured 98.4 cm straight from the tip. Blizzard did move the mount point 4 mm forward from previous years. Hope that helps!!
Answer this question:
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.
