Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 106
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    69
    There will be limited quantities of the new 19/20 skis available through certain retailers starting in February.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by couchsending View Post
    There will be limited quantities of the new 19/20 skis available through certain retailers starting in February.
    Got it.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    3,132
    Quote Originally Posted by CaliBrit View Post
    Is this chat about the 19/20 skis?
    Yes. The Zero G 95's in the store now are the same as last year's. We'll see if they are indeed improved for '19-'20.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    Quote Originally Posted by couchsending View Post
    Torsionally stiff... I think you will find the new skis slightly more ďbalancedĒ than the old ones. The tail was the primary focus. To make it release easier and less prone to catching especially when conditions are gnarly and youíre carrying a large pack.

    Honestly the tweaks are subtle. Theyíre not meant to be totally different skis but were redesigned based on feedback from people that spend a ton of time on them in all sorts of conditions. They will always be on the stiffer end of anything in this weight class that is for sure. Again this refers more to the 85 and 95.

    I skied the 178 95 for three or four hours in bounds at Alta on the first day of our sales meeting in early December. Alpinists and Cochise 130s. Iím all of 220 without gear and had a blast on them and skied them pretty hard all over the place. Granted it was about 15Ē of snow but it got rather skied out and was pretty variable underneath. I was expecting them to kind of suck in those conditions as I hadnít enjoyed the previous 95s skiing anything in bounds at all. They were much more stable and didnít deflect nearly as much as the previous versions.
    Any info on mount point and rocker profile on the 95? I know Lee has the 105, but I thought maybe you'd know more about the 95. Very interested in the new 95.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    Any info on mount point and rocker profile on the 95? I know Lee has the 105, but I thought maybe you'd know more about the 95. Very interested in the new 95.
    Headed to Denver now so I donít have the skis near me. I believe the mount point is very similar. Rocker profile change is simIlar to how the rocker on say the Bonafide changed. Thereís more splay but the rocker might not go as far down the ski if that makes sense. The rocker gets slightly less in each model from 105 down to 85.

    Iíll take some pics when I can.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    Quote Originally Posted by couchsending View Post
    Headed to Denver now so I don’t have the skis near me. I believe the mount point is very similar. Rocker profile change is simIlar to how the rocker on say the Bonafide changed. There’s more splay but the rocker might not go as far down the ski if that makes sense. The rocker gets slightly less in each model from 105 down to 85.

    I’ll take some pics when I can.
    Great, thank you. Too bad you can't bring them to Denver!

    But are you saying the mount point is similar to the old 0G 95 or the new 0G 105, because it seems like the mount was moved forward substantially with the redesign of the 10X size -- the old 0G 108 was -11.5 (ish?) and Lee said the new one is -7 so that's huge.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    1,586
    How in general would they compare to the Helio 105?

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    Great, thank you. Too bad you can't bring them to Denver!

    But are you saying the mount point is similar to the old 0G 95 or the new 0G 105, because it seems like the mount was moved forward substantially with the redesign of the 10X size -- the old 0G 108 was -11.5 (ish?) and Lee said the new one is -7 so that's huge.
    95 and 85 mount points should be the same. 105s will be slightly forward of the 108s due to obvious length differences. They might be slightly more forward as well just due to a little more modern design for our wider skis. Iíll try to get the list of mounting points.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    Quote Originally Posted by couchsending View Post
    95 and 85 mount points should be the same. 105s will be slightly forward of the 108s due to obvious length differences. They might be slightly more forward as well just due to a little more modern design for our wider skis. I’ll try to get the list of mounting points.
    Thank you! I realize I'm in the minority, especially for <100 mm UL touring skis, but I have an aversion to super rearward mount points so my interest in the 95 is pretty dependent on the mount point.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    11,294
    auvgeek I haven't been able to track down a ZG95 from this year's batch to check. What couchsending said too as they ZG105 has a more pronounced tip and tail splay. Haven't forgotten to do this but need to get a 2019-20 ZG95

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    Haven't forgotten to do this but need to get a 2019-20 ZG95
    Hey, thank you and no worries! I just thought maybe it would be easier for couchsending since I didn't think you had a pair. Really, I should just be more patient but I got excited about it.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Access to Granlibakken
    Posts
    7,058
    I really appreciate the info in this thread, thanks. It convinced me to pull the trigger on some 192 cm ZeroG 108s.

    I donít want anything narrower, shorter, or softer for my typical winter tour. So that rules out the 2019/20 version...despite the added rocker.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    794
    I also dislike how far back mounts ski. Anything past -8.5cm or so and I'm not a fan. Why is that? I have no formal ski training.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    11,294
    Found this from gregl and reposting it without his permission as it's good confirmation bias for me
    http://www.randosaigai.com/incoming.html

    "I didn't test too many touring skis, but I made a point of checking out the new Blizzard Zero G 105 an Zero G 95. The Zero G 105 sports an all-new mold and lighter construction, while both skis have been "toned down" a bit in terms of torsional rigidity. I shouldn't have worried about Blizzard going too "wimpy" - the skis still charge hard and have exceptional edge hold for their weight, but are less demanding and won't require as much detuning straight out of the wrapper as the originals."

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    Found this from gregl and reposting it without his permission as it's good confirmation bias for me
    http://www.randosaigai.com/incoming.html

    "I didn't test too many touring skis, but I made a point of checking out the new Blizzard Zero G 105 an Zero G 95. The Zero G 105 sports an all-new mold and lighter construction, while both skis have been "toned down" a bit in terms of torsional rigidity. I shouldn't have worried about Blizzard going too "wimpy" - the skis still charge hard and have exceptional edge hold for their weight, but are less demanding and won't require as much detuning straight out of the wrapper as the originals."
    Iím betting the ZeroG 105 ends up not dissimilar to the Helio 105 that Blizzard makes for BD.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,373
    Quote Originally Posted by thejongiest View Post
    I also dislike how far back mounts ski. Anything past -8.5cm or so and I'm not a fan. Why is that? I have no formal ski training.
    Looking at you avatar pic, I could make a good guess why you'd dislike mounts like that.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    6,061
    Quote Originally Posted by CaliBrit View Post
    I’m betting the ZeroG 105 ends up not dissimilar to the Helio 105 that Blizzard makes for BD.
    Pics from Lee's link make it look like the Zero G still has much less camber than the Helio.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    1,586
    Skimo has them in stock.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    69
    The Helio and ZeroG are very different skis in construction and profile.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    Quote Originally Posted by CaliBrit View Post
    Skimo has them in stock.
    Just the 105, unless I'm missing something.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by couchsending View Post
    The Helio and ZeroG are very different skis in construction and profile.
    Care to elaborate? Seems the ZeroG is heavier with a more pronounced tip and tail rocker and perhaps a softer tail (from blister dimensions). My helio seem to have more camber than the blister numbers too.

    Interested in construction differences.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    Just the 105, unless I'm missing something.
    Yeah I think thatís all couchsending said would be available this season.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    Quote Originally Posted by CaliBrit View Post
    Yeah I think that’s all couchsending said would be available this season.
    I'm not trying to start anything, but I don't read his comment below that way. But regardless, it won't change what's available.

    Quote Originally Posted by couchsending View Post
    There will be limited quantities of the new 19/20 skis available through certain retailers starting in February.
    I'd be stoked if the 95 was available, but I probably won't end up with new skis this season anyway.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    11,294
    Found something negative to say about the ZG 105 for a review after 25+ days on them. Had 30+cms new low density wind-transported snow on supportive well-bridged N facing 45 deg slopes off Little Baldur at Sol Mountain Lodge's tenure.

    Scoped out chutes and steeps on the trees and (a couple of days after the storm) skied them. Had to straightline about 10m down a chute into a massive powder bowl. Came out hot turned and submerged tips promptly tomahawking. Reasonable conclusion is I have to be lighted on skis, or get lighter or that 105mm underfoot may be undergunned for that type of skiing.

    Skier 78kg meadowskipper; Tecnica ZeroG Tour Pro boots; Blizzard ZeroG 105 skis.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    Found something negative to say about the ZG 105 for a review after 25+ days on them. Had 30+cms new low density wind-transported snow on supportive well-bridged N facing 45 deg slopes off Little Baldur at Sol Mountain Lodge's tenure.

    Scoped out chutes and steeps on the trees and (a couple of days after the storm) skied them. Had to straightline about 10m down a chute into a massive powder bowl. Came out hot turned and submerged tips promptly tomahawking. Reasonable conclusion is I have to be lighted on skis, or get lighter or that 105mm underfoot may be undergunned for that type of skiing.

    Skier 78kg meadowskipper; Tecnica ZeroG Tour Pro boots; Blizzard ZeroG 105 skis.
    Thatíll get yah! No substitute for a big ski.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •