Zero G 95 vs Mtn Explore vs Hannibal

[counterfeitfake]

Pretty specific question... I had my heart set on Blizzard's Zero G 95 but I may have let the pro-deal slip through my fingers.

I am 6'2", 165 lbs, decent skier, used to tour a lot but haven't done so much the last couple years and I want to do a lot more this year.

I love my Blizzard Cochise for skiing resorts. I trust it anywhere in any conditions. It's damp and plows through anything in its way and it floats (just barely) well enough for deep snow. It is heavy.

I used to tour on Coombacks but got rid of them when they started feeling a little too noodly for me. I am currently making do touring with first-gen Cochises, which are also heavy.

I live in Jackson and want to have one ski to tour with this winter. I like touring lots of different objectives, I like sketchy pow day mini-golf and I like ski mountaineering, so I recognize this ski will be a compromise.

I have always toured on skis in the mid-180 cm range.

So if I can't get the Zero G, will I be disappointed if I buy the Hannibal 94? I had a pair of Watea 94s once upon a time and they seemed like fine skis, competent but not remarkable in any way. By the manufacturer's claims these weigh the same amount as the Zero Gs.

What about Salomon's MTN Explore? Seems heavier but I've heard good things about it.

I'm also wondering about Scott's Superguide 95, doesn't seem to be anything written here or anywhere else about it.

Or other thoughts?

[auvgeek]

If you love the 185 Cochise, why not the 185 Zero G 108?

[counterfeitfake]

I thought a little narrower and lighter for longer and firmer touring days.

[CaliBrit]

Just buy the 108.

[garuda]

Just buy the 108.

Ditto. I have the Zero G 108 and it's fine on hard snow. Powder will be 10x better on the 108 than a 95 shape. And there's plenty o' pow in Jackson.

[AKbruin]

I've got the Zero G 95s and Praxis Backcountries (which, I'm guessing, are fairly similar to the 108s). If I had to pick one ski for everything, I'd go with the Backcountries (or probably the 108s). They're better in powder and are more durable.

But the Zero G 95s are dope, and I love them. They're great during the spring and during longer tours. The edge grip on hard snow is phenomenal. Also, I've skied them in hip-deep powder, and they're fun and perfectly capable although not as good as my Praxis. My concern in using them as my only backcountry setup, however, would be durability. I haven't had any problems so far, but the edges are at least half the size of the ones on my Backcountries. I'm assuming their bases aren't as durable either. Mind you, I haven't had any problems yet. Anyhow, if your focus is on long days and/or hard snow, the Zero G 95s will serve you well.

Never skied the Fishers, Salomons, or Scotts.

[counterfeitfake]

Good info- I actually read AKbruin's thread a couple times coming to my original conclusion- but I don't have the Zero G 108 available right now either, I'm trying to pick among the skis I can buy cheap. If I do happen upon the Zero G I won't hesitate.

[trogdortheburninator]

On the hannibal 100 i had, i'd say it was high performance for the weight when edging, but not very playful. Concern on the fishers would be delam durability. Mine delammed after maybe 30 days. I replaced it with a g3 synapse 92 (100 was sold out). It is a super playful ski in 1 to 12" of snow, and can ski very steep terrain fine, although that isnt its strong suit. I am supplementing the synapse with a zerog 85 w/ race clamps for steeper skiing this year.