Bliz zero g 108 - Urge to live vicariously through others

[North]

last year i skied the 102L, wasn't thrilled, sold it and got zeroG95. Haven't been on them much yet, but TO ME, they are way more intuitive. The 102l Has a rather long tip rocker, yet stiff tails. I would constantly be trying to get forward but there was not much there, due to the sofer(er) flex and tip rocker that started almost in front of my binding.

I felt the same way about my 102s. Couldn't find the sweet spot. Went back and forth deciding between ZeroG 95s and MTN Explore 95s - ended up finding a good deal on MTN Explores last week. Can't wait to try 'em out!

[smooth operator]

I felt the same way about my 102s. Couldn't find the sweet spot. Went back and forth deciding between ZeroG 95s and MTN Explore 95s - ended up finding a good deal on MTN Explores last week. Can't wait to try 'em out!

Funny, I had exactly the same dilemma. finally decided on the MTN, but then it was sold out in my size and I ended up getting the zeroG. I think one can hardly go wrong with either, both seem pretty capable ski's for their weight.

[WMD]

I like the sound of the Zero g 108, and I'm a cheapskate, so I've got a dilemma. REI had the 178 on sale for a good price but they are sold out of 185's. I grabbed a pair of 178's just so I wouldn't miss out but am worried they are too short. I'm 5'11", 190-195, and looking for a touring ski that I might use for side country too. I'm old 55, with shitty knees, and don't huck anything of note or ski Mach 10 in the backcountry, but I appreciate a ski that can actually ski. Is the 178 ridiculously short for me?

[I've seen black diamonds!]

^^^Probably fine if you're not using it to ski powder much.

[auvgeek]

^^I disagree. I'm WMD's height and a good 35# less, and I need to lean back a little in lower angle pow to get the 185 to float, even at speed. They measure like 2.5 cm short also. If you're not concerned about pow performance, I'd get something narrower personally.

It sucks because the 185 isn't on sale anywhere, but that's my sincere opinion.

There are better skis on hard snow; there are better skis in pow. But I've yet to find a touring ski I like as much for everything.

Edit: Here's some more ZG 108 stoke from last season. Photos by kevino.

[WMD]

Yeah, I can't find the 185 on sale and I'm not paying retail. I mostly tour for powder in Montana and nearby states, but the Zero G sounds solid enough I could take it as my one travel ski for inbounds and out, so that makes it sound like a great choice. But not at 178. Damn.

Nice action shots by the way!

[gregL]

Yeah, I can't find the 185 on sale and I'm not paying retail.

Zero G full retail is like Volkl BMT or DPS on closeout, plus the new graphic is way better . . .

[WMD]

That's true, but I'm hoping to find something cheaper.

[djhutch]

PSA - Just last night, I returned a pair of new but last years ZeroG 108s 178cm to the Seattle flagship REI. With tax they ran about $525. Go get 'em if you want 'em.

[WMD]

Thanks. I've got a pair of those (178) arriving from REI tomorrow. I really think I need the 185.

I've found last year's 186 Volkl BMT109's on sale for about the same price as the Zero G. For a powder touring ski that I could use inbounds too, what would you get?

[turbomike15]

Did you end up remounting them +1cm? I originally had mine mounted on the line but moved them forward 1cm. Haven't had the chance to really ride them since though.

Anyone have comments on mounting? I'm about to mount up a pair. +1cm?

[WMD]

Would you guys be happy with the 108 as a quiver of one for 50/50 resort and BC? For years I skied a 122 waisted Liberty Double Helix as my only ski (I rarely skied if there wasn't fresh snow) but my knees are trashed so narrower and lighter are a better idea. Plus I'm going back to my roots and touring more. I have a Fischer 95ti for hard days but I'm wondering if the 108 could be my soft snow / touring ski as part of a 2 ski quiver. I appreciate any thoughts. From above comments it sounds like some of you feel it does fine in bounds.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

^^^ It's not a great powder ski. It's more than adequate if you're a good skier, but compared to a Praxis Backcountry, which has similar dimensions, it's not going to be as automatic in deep snow. Zero G's are a damper ski though- a shockingly smooth ride for the weight and a better resort ski for sure. But If you're skiing mostly powder, Praxis BC's are better.

[LeeLau]

^^^ It's not a great powder ski. It's more than adequate if you're a good skier, but compared to a Praxis Backcountry, which has similar dimensions, it's not going to be as automatic in deep snow. Zero G's are a damper ski though- a shockingly smooth ride for the weight and a better resort ski for sure. But If you're skiing mostly powder, Praxis BC's are better.

Agreed with this especially given where you live with that light snow. It's a not a gimme powder ski but something you've got to drive and watch out for. That torsional stiffness and flex has tradeoffs. But yes on the shockingly smooth ride aspect.

I'd add one thing. I like to be in the snow as opposed to be surfing on the snow so - for me - I love the Blizzard 108 in the deep snow. But its not for everyone

[WMD]

Thanks guys. Hmmm. I've found reviews where people rave about them in powder so it's good to get your feedback. I've got a pair of 180 Black Diamond Carbon Converts that I just don't like. I've only skied them a couple times and was having boot fit troubles, plus I was new to tech bindings (speed radicals), plus the snow sucked, and they are probably too short for me. But, they seem way too turny and not substantial enough. I tele'd for over 30 years, until two years ago, so I thought I'd adjust to the bindings pretty well. I just somehow haven't like the skis and am looking for something else light enough for big tours but powerful enough to ski inbounds before heading out of bounds.

[whatsupdoc]

I'll add my short review here. I think the Zero G 108 is a great all-around touring ski, and it will probably be fine pulling some resort duty here and there, depending on which boots/bindings you mount with. I'm 5'10" 180 lbs and feel totally fine on the 178. Mine are mounted with G3 Ion LTs. Scarpa Maestrale RS boots. I detuned the rockered sections pretty heavily with a gummi stone back to the contact points. I even lightly detuned the ski underfoot, which I think helped. I'm an average skier by TGR standards.

I can go back to a few specific tours (these aren't consecutive days mind you) to recall how the 108 did in a variety of conditions. I did ski them once at the resort to get the hang of them. All groomers. They were fun on the groomers, felt very solid for the weight. They might get pushed around more in heavy set-up resort crud, but that probably isn't a surprise at this weight. It's not a metal laminated crusher. I can't speak much more to resort capabilities.

First day (which was my first day on the skis) was just perfect light pow on all aspects, probably 18 inches or so of fresh. I had a lot of fun, but the snow was perfect, so just about anything would've been awesome. I was a little worried about float on such a 'traditional' ski, but they were a piece of cake.

Day 2 started with a steeper N facing chute, 40 degrees or so, and the snow was chalky wintery snow, fairly firm. They held a good edge and were pretty easy to get around on jump turns. Next we dropped into a NE aspect in great pow (where they were fun as expected), but we traversed over to a more SE aspect (to avoid a cliff band). that had some refrozen skier triggered pinwheels Definitely variable. They did surprisingly well here, and I remember thinking they didn't get deflected much at all given the shitty conditions. That day ended with nice soft pow in typically Tahoe-spaced trees (not that tight) that transitioned to dust on crust down low, and they were no problems here.

Day 3 started with a long N facing descent in mostly cold pow, but also some mildly variable wind buffed snow. The first turns were pretty steep, transitioning to big, open, fast turns. So good and they smoothed out the transitions between pow and wind buff nicely. We ended up on a SE facing aspect getting back to the car, with some heavy pow and crust. Variable. Once again they performed nicely. They were predictable in the crust and were stable through variable snow. Breakable crust is never easy but these skis don't make it harder than it needs to be, probably due to the longish radius.

Day 4 was a pretty long tour, and we skied mostly open alpine terrain on cold wind buffed snow. It was a little variable due to the wind effect, but again the skis managed it well. Tight turns from steeper entrances gave way to big, open turns where they shine. I do remember the exit was low elevation wet glop, and they were a bit of a chore here, but pretty much anything would've been.

Day 5 was a nice tour that started with a long S facing descent on really nice corn. I could let them run here on the corn. We ended the day on horrible frozen wind funk, and although it was survival skiing, they didn't make my job any harder than it needed to be.

Day 6 started with some nice NE facing pow on an open slope, and they were a blast here. Next was was a pretty steep line in variable snow (due to a lot of prior skier tracks). They didn't let me down here, but due to the steep, variable conditions I was skiing very deliberately. This gave way to some hot/grabby pow in open terrain, and they were fun here, making big turns. The skis themselves were not at all grabby considering the hot pow conditions.

Day 7 was another steep line (at least for me). It was decent snow for steep skiing. Chalky, not too firm, but not exactly uniform. The skis did well with the jump turns and the sections of weird snow. I was able to let them run a bit on the apron below.

Basically, it's handled all of the above conditions quite well. It's a versatile ski, especially for touring. You can ski pow fast but also drop into a steep, firm couloir and know you won't be held back by the skis. They're pretty light, predictable, and pretty stable, especially at the weight. I can't say the shine in 1 particular area. Their strength is the versatility. They prefer larger turns but can make short turns when needed. Yes, something like a Praxis BC is easier in soft snow but the Zero G 108 is better in the other conditions.

[WMD]

Thanks for the review.

[Andyski]

Quick question: How "edgy" and twitchy is the Zero G 108 on reasonably decent corn?

Blog version: I've been using 178 Blizzard Scouts as my non-pow touring ski for several years in the PNW - lots of volcanos. I love the shape: Flat camber means lots of edge contact for hard snow, but I can pivot, smear or just chill when not doing full-on skiing. This is key on volcanos where there is lots of low-angle deproach typically, or some deep slop. I ski a Katana inbounds as well - I'm 100% sold on that shape.

But, the Scout is heavy - not fun on trips where it's on my back for 8 miles. The Zero G comes out and I figured: Problem solved. BUT, then I saw how much camber it had and backed off. A carbon ski that stiff with that much camber would ski VERY differently than my flat, fiberglass Scouts, even if the sidecut/radius/dimensions are identical.

I've spend a lot time on Wailer 105s (first year of ABS sidewalls, so still Pure 1 tinny) and Zero G 95s and didn't like either. They're fine if you're carving smooth snow at some speed and locked in, but they get kicked all over the joint in anything weird and you can't just cruise flats or lower angles without worrying about them catching and edge due to the stiffness of the layup - even with massively detuned edges.

I get that's the price of light and stiff, which is why I replaced W105s and then W99s with the Scouts, but the Zero G 108 is alleged to be far better about this. Is it? Lee and others say it punishes you in the backseat, which, combined with the camber, feels like a no. Having to constantly mind a stiff-ass tail for the last 2k vf coming off Rainier or Shasta sounds like shit.

The BMT 109 is probably what I really want, but it's expensive AF.

And: I don't want a much narrower ski. I know it's overkill for post-consolidation volcanos, but i like the way ~105 underfoot skis way better and am willing to pay the weight penalty.

What you say? It the 108 high-strung and locked into its turn radius, or can it be skied more flowy and greasy like flat cambered/tip+tail rockered skis? Thanks for supporting my blog

[rod9301]

I like mine a lot. Mounted them with Ion LT's and ski them in Scott Cosmos II's. They ski deep snow really well, better than the waist width would indicate and love to go fast. I'm constantly surprised by the power and control I have when I pick up too much speed and need to hammer a hard turn. Super fun ski.

There are a few things they suck at. One is going slow. Just go ahead and mount up a two by four if you don't plan on opening up the throttle a bit.

They have a weird balance while kick turning that is a little awkward, even once you're used to it. When mounted at recommended for a 306 bsl my 185's seem so perfectly balanced that the tip won't want to rise on it's own but I can't quite kick the heelpiece to boot it around either. Pretty minor annoyance though.

The chatter when trying to round out shorter than radius turns on hard, steep snow is pretty horrifying and caused me a nasty prerelease the other day. They don't seem terribly durable either, though I can be a little rough on gear so ymmv.

For reference this season I have toured primarily on these Zero G's, 184 Salomon MTN Labs with IONs and 186 G3 Zenoxide C3 105's with Speed Turn 2.0s. The Zero G's do everything vastly better than the MTN Labs, but I'd much rather have the Zens then either of them in hard conditions.

ququba, you're pretty much describing the exact use for which I feel this ski is least suited in any length. Again, ymmv. The chatter is easier to manage in the 178 than the 185, though the 178s I tried had alpine bindings on them, so no big surprise there.

What did you set the ions at and how much do you weigh?

Curious because of the pre release.

I ski the vwerks katana with ion 12, set at 11, I weigh 185.

Haven't pre released, but I wonder now if I should lock then on firm.

I lock them in no fall zones though.

Thanks

[Norseman]

Quick question: How "edgy" and twitchy is the Zero G 108 on reasonably decent corn?

Blog version: I've been using 178 Blizzard Scouts as my non-pow touring ski for several years in the PNW - lots of volcanos. I love the shape: Flat camber means lots of edge contact for hard snow, but I can pivot, smear or just chill when not doing full-on skiing. This is key on volcanos where there is lots of low-angle deproach typically, or some deep slop. I ski a Katana inbounds as well - I'm 100% sold on that shape.

But, the Scout is heavy - not fun on trips where it's on my back for 8 miles. The Zero G comes out and I figured: Problem solved. BUT, then I saw how much camber it had and backed off. A carbon ski that stiff with that much camber would ski VERY differently than my flat, fiberglass Scouts, even if the sidecut/radius/dimensions are identical.

I've spend a lot time on Wailer 105s (first year of ABS sidewalls, so still Pure 1 tinny) and Zero G 95s and didn't like either. They're fine if you're carving smooth snow at some speed and locked in, but they get kicked all over the joint in anything weird and you can't just cruise flats or lower angles without worrying about them catching and edge due to the stiffness of the layup - even with massively detuned edges.

I get that's the price of light and stiff, which is why I replaced W105s and then W99s with the Scouts, but the Zero G 108 is alleged to be far better about this. Is it? Lee and others say it punishes you in the backseat, which, combined with the camber, feels like a no. Having to constantly mind a stiff-ass tail for the last 2k vf coming off Rainier or Shasta sounds like shit.

The BMT 109 is probably what I really want, but it's expensive AF.

And: I don't want a much narrower ski. I know it's overkill for post-consolidation volcanos, but i like the way ~105 underfoot skis way better and am willing to pay the weight penalty.

What you say? It the 108 high-strung and locked into its turn radius, or can it be skied more flowy and greasy like flat cambered/tip+tail rockered skis? Thanks for supporting my blog

Bumping this thread after searching a few.
Andyski perfectly summarizes my own concerns with the Zero G 108 as we share the same terrain. I'm waffling between it and the BMT 109.
Can anyone comment on these points?

[auvgeek]

I don't think it's super locked in to it's radius or anything other than intuitive. Not in love with the taper on very firm, steep snow and I still with the mount point was more progressive, but whatever.

They feel quite a bit more like a "real" ski to me than my 185 Flex3 W95s, but I guess I can't exactly say I found even those skis to be hard to ski without catching an edge, even at the end of big days on the mighty Tahoma.

[auvgeek]

Finally got some time on my pair mounted at +1.5. They kill it, especially at speed. Tried reasonably hard, and haven't found their speed limit yet. They are just great for a do-it-all midwinter touring ski. They especially love sunny, stable, N facing pow.

Took a few laps in the resort, and I still find them mounted unreasonably far back. But that vanishes in 3D snow, which is mostly what they see while touring. Also I spent the whole season on ON3P Jeffreys, which are mounted like -4.X from true center, so that's going to make them seem even farther back. Would still love to try a carbon 189 RX @ 106 underfoot because the mount point is much more progressive, but will probably keep and ski these for the next few years. Very happy with them.

Edit: No detuning out of the plastic for me.

[skibrd]

Bumping this thread after searching a few.
Andyski perfectly summarizes my own concerns with the Zero G 108 as we share the same terrain. I'm waffling between it and the BMT 109.
Can anyone comment on these points?

I made the jump from the 193 Blizzard Scouts (2 seasons of use) to the 192 Zero G 108s at the start of this season. Both skis were mounted on line, I initially skied both with Dynafit TLT6Ps.

The 108s felt twitchy, they would lock into a turn unpredictably and did what they wanted no matter how I tried to ski them. By that I mean if I tried to drive the tips, stood over the middle or got a little in the back seat, the skis did what they wanted. I had them out on hard groomers, slush, and up to 18" of pow. I could not get comfortable and to a point where I felt that I was in charge of the ski, not the other way around. I thought I maybe didn't have enough boot for a 192 cm ski, and tried them with my Lange RS140s (CAST toes allowed this, I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS, ITS NOT WHAT THE MODIFICATION IS DESIGNED FOR). I had more control over the 108s, but they still did not do what I asked. The tips wandered, the tails seemed to have a mind of their own for what they wanted to hold on to or slide off. These issues might be due to me not skiing many carbon skis before, but I didn't want a ski I couldn't trust.

After 10-15 days on them, I sold my 108s and went back to my Scouts. I'm a lot happier, the ski is more comfortable to ski, more stable and forgiving. I used the money from the sale of the 108s to get a pair of 184 Volkl Nanuqs for spring ski mountaineering, and really like them. The Nanuqs, Dynafit Superlight 2.0s and Atomic Backland Carbons come to 10 lbs total. They all seem to work well together.

TLDR: I didn't like the Zero G 108s in the 192 length.

On a side not about the Scouts, I ended up switching from the TLT6Ps to Lange Freetours. With the increase in BSL, I needed to remount the Kingpins. I moved the mount to +1 and really enjoy the Scouts there. The Scouts are not the lightest ski, but they are predictable and stable. They will be my deep snow ski for the near future.

[shroom]

did you de-tune the zero-G much?

[Norseman]

Yeah, sounds like they were too sharp, but I'd be surprised if you didn't mess with them.