Blizzard ZeroG 105s95s 85s new for 2019

[CaliBrit]

Except one or fifty less subs.

Nope. There’s no substitute for big skis

[LeeLau]

Said straightline chute to tomahawk. I took my skins off first

[Cladragon04]

I wonder how this will play out


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[auvgeek]

PSA: the new 95 is available on bc.com: https://www.backcountry.com/blizzard-zero-g-95-ski

171, 178, and 185 currently in stock -- no 164 but I suspect not too many people here care about that.

Really want a pair for this spring/summer, but I'll probably wait until I can afford some UL boots, too, so I can drill once for SSL 2.0.

[SupreChicken]

Wow. So the 178 is lighter than last years? Meaning less than 1250 g per ski. And someone is riding this thing in bounds?

[1000-oaks]

That review sounds like it was by a sponsored pro.

[gregL]

My 171's weigh 1186/1182g (last year's were 1207/1205g).

[LeeLau]

Wrote this up

https://www.newschoolers.com/news/re...105-ski-review

[gregL]

Nice review, Lee. Pretty much sums up my limited impressions so far.

[DolphinSki]

Wow. So the 178 is lighter than last years? Meaning less than 1250 g per ski. And someone is riding this thing in bounds?

Are you talking about that Backcountry.com "review?" That's from a sponsored pro and she just goes around spewing marketing quips and giving everything 5 stars. https://www.backcountry.com/profile/...quit/784317984

It reminds me of when the 95 first came out and Blister reviewed it by mounting kingpins on it and skiing lift-served.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

Thanks, Lee. Sounds promising. I think my 108's have a couple more years left in them, but it's good to know there is a viable replacement.

[couchsending]

Are you talking about that Backcountry.com "review?" That's from a sponsored pro and she just goes around spewing marketing quips and giving everything 5 stars. https://www.backcountry.com/profile/...quit/784317984

It reminds me of when the 95 first came out and Blister reviewed it by mounting kingpins on it and skiing lift-served.

He.. works for backcountry, not sponsored by anyone in particular but I’m sure gets his fair share of product. He probably has more days on zeroG skis in the backcountry over the last 4 years than anyone I know off hand. Both the old and new models. He’s a great skier, good dude, and a solid follow on IG.

[mall walker]

^ I think he also does the Powderkeg every year and slams a beer at each transition, which is pretty rad and hilarious I think.

[DolphinSki]

He.. works for backcountry, not sponsored by anyone in particular but I’m sure gets his fair share of product. He probably has more days on zeroG skis in the backcountry over the last 4 years than anyone I know off hand. Both the old and new models. He’s a great skier, good dude, and a solid follow on IG.

Thanks for clarifying, not saying anything about him as a person. Just that every single review he's given on Backcountry.com is 5 stars and mostly filled with marketing buzzwords.

[jorion]

There’s an ice axe he only gave four stars to. I’m not buying that ice axe.

[meter-man]

Wrote this up

https://www.newschoolers.com/news/re...105-ski-review

Can you just take over Blister and write their reviews please?

[NWFlow]

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.

Any update on the mount point for the new 95s? If they have been made slightly "looser" for lack of a better term and the mount point is more forward, I'll go 95. If not, I'll go 105.

Incidentally, auvgeek, sounds like we are in the same boat. Have you found a good ski for this application with a relatively forward mount?

[NWFlow]

And Lee, at your weight would you have been comfortable on the 188? I weigh about the same but am 186 cm and still am a bit afraid of short skis, but am not strong enough or a good enough skier to really flex super stiff skis, especially while touring.

[Skeeze]

I skied the old 85s for the first time today and was impressed, all things considered. I’m 5’11”, 155lbs and got the 171s as a volcano/long spring mountaineering mission ski. They’re waaaay smaller and lighter than anything I’ve skied before, and although I’m not going to say they ski anywhere near as well as my larger skis, they were surprisingly decent today at Squaw.

I detuned the tips and tails a bit before use, and in slush bumps/mashed potatoes, I was able to release the tails pretty easily. Then when I hit some steeper terrain with a few firm spots, they held an edge well, although the tips do get deflected in firmer suncups. They even carved halfway decently on groomers. There’s a clear speed limit, but I’d say it’s something like 30-35 MPH, which I’m fine with for a 1000 gram ski.

I know the new 85s are supposed to be more approachable and easier to ski, but if you’re already sizing down for weight purposes, the current edition seems to perform quite well and I’m not sure why I’d want them any softer.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[LeeLau]

And Lee, at your weight would you have been comfortable on the 188? I weigh about the same but am 186 cm and still am a bit afraid of short skis, but am not strong enough or a good enough skier to really flex super stiff skis, especially while touring.

I think so but I wonder how much more float the 188s would give and whether I could really be as all-around in that 188 length.
I already have 189 Atomic Backlands 107s and they are a lot of tip and tail when I get into super tight low elevation and thus manky snow skiing situations; and the last couple of seasons that's happened a lot. Resigning myself to the fact that I'm not good enough a skier to get through these tight trees with long skis I wanted to try a 180cms ski that was reasonably stiff; reasonably playful (but not super duper new school reverse camber style if you know what I mean) but could handle all types of variability decently well.

The ZeroG 108 was a bit more biased towards straightline fallline charging. The ZG 105 a bit more biased towards turning. That's kind of what I found. And despite my dreams of being Hoji I'm realistically always going to be a bit of a bumwiggling meadowskipper with pretensions of bigmountain skiing. So when I know I have tours or slackcountry where I dont have to deal with tight shitty snow trees then I grab the Backlands in the 189s. And if I was a stronger skier or hardly ever encountered shitty snow tight trees then maybe I would also get the ZG105 in the 188 length

[NWFlow]

Thanks that helps. Decisions...

[I've seen black diamonds!]

I skied the old 85s for the first time today and was impressed, all things considered. I’m 5’11”, 155lbs and got the 171s as a volcano/long spring mountaineering mission ski. They’re waaaay smaller and lighter than anything I’ve skied before, and although I’m not going to say they ski anywhere near as well as my larger skis, they were surprisingly decent today at Squaw.

I detuned the tips and tails a bit before use, and in slush bumps/mashed potatoes, I was able to release the tails pretty easily. Then when I hit some steeper terrain with a few firm spots, they held an edge well, although the tips do get deflected in firmer suncups. They even carved halfway decently on groomers. There’s a clear speed limit, but I’d say it’s something like 30-35 MPH, which I’m fine with for a 1000 gram ski.

I know the new 85s are supposed to be more approachable and easier to ski, but if you’re already sizing down for weight purposes, the current edition seems to perform quite well and I’m not sure why I’d want them any softer.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

85's are more ski than the 95's. Very different than 108's which are significantly heavier.

Sent from my Pixel using TGR Forums mobile app

[gritter]

Lee - what length would you suggest for someone 145lbs / 5'7" in the 105? For day tours and a bit of hut to hut in the alps. I normally ski something in the 174-178 range. Go up to the 180 or down to the 172?

[LeeLau]

Lee - what length would you suggest for someone 145lbs / 5'7" in the 105? For day tours and a bit of hut to hut in the alps. I normally ski something in the 174-178 range. Go up to the 180 or down to the 172?

That's a tough one as it's almost in between sizes but I'm inclined to say 180 because the turn shape lets you use body english and weight Shifts to make turns happen quickly or elongate turns

[XavierD]

Lee - what length would you suggest for someone 145lbs / 5'7" in the 105? For day tours and a bit of hut to hut in the alps. I normally ski something in the 174-178 range. Go up to the 180 or down to the 172?

Not Lee, but I’d go 172; especially if that 174-178 is a resort/crossover ski length.

I now hove a couple handfuls of days on the 188; I’m 5’10” 200lb; and wish I was on the 180. The 188 is great for a open alpine runs, but can be a bit big in tight trees below the freezing level and route finding through chutes. Also a lot of ski for kick turning up steep stuff. Normally ski 186-190 skis.