Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 106
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    11,299

    Blizzard ZeroG 105s95s 85s new for 2019

    BLIZZARD ZEROG 105's ZeroG 95's ZeroG 85's ---->NEW FOR 2019

    Placeholder for intellectual dentistry and 3d-printed microparsing here

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    4,011
    Additional discussion and review of 105 to be placed here.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    162
    This will be a question about which one is right for me, but I won't tell you where or how I like to ski.

    I'll also stay broke, ensuring no impending purchase.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    11,299
    Quote Originally Posted by JPaul View Post
    This will be a question about which one is right for me, but I won't tell you where or how I like to ski.

    I'll also stay broke, ensuring no impending purchase.
    But carbonium mmmmmm

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    Reserved for hype and speculation based on the mfg specs and maybe some photos
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    4,432
    reserved for a post complaining how anything under 2200g doesn't ski well

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The bottom of LCC
    Posts
    5,108
    Quote Originally Posted by mall walker View Post
    reserved for a post complaining how anything under 2200g doesn't ski well
    Whatever they end up weighing they arenít light enough.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    752
    yeah, but are they red?
    TLDR; Ski faster. Quit breathing. Don't crash.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    3,132
    Hoping losing the Carbon Drive construction won't dumb the skis down too much. There isn't much about the current Zero G series I don't like.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by gregL View Post
    Hoping losing the Carbon Drive construction won't dumb the skis down too much. There isn't much about the current Zero G series I don't like.
    Still has carbon drive, profile has just changed slightly.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    11,299
    Here goes

    Trying it out in 180 length. Dimensions for that is 134-105-120 with a turn radius of 23m

    Weight in that length with Marker Alpinist is 1890g and 1892g (each ski).

    Deducting the Alpinist weight (335g) that's 1555 and 1557g per ski. Ridiculously light! Fairly close to 1550g per ski which was Blizzard's stated weight.

    New Carbon Drive "2.0" technology; essentially a carbon frame of woven sheets around a wood core wrapped in 3 dimensions (theoretically with the loads arranged to tune for stiffness yet lightness)

    More on the new Blizzard ZeroG line from their site
    https://www.tecnicasports.com/zerog/ski-collection/

    Measurements
    A straight pull measurement of the ski is 178.8cm
    Tip splay is 34cms from tip
    Tail splay is 22 cms from tail
    Mount is -7cms from ski centre

    Compare and contrast with the ZeroG 108 which was an insanely fun, fast, stable yet powerful "light" ski coming in at 1740g at the 185 length which I reviewed here https://www.tetongravity.com/story/g...kis-teton-test



    Alpinist. Not going to dive into the Marker Alpinist in any detail but here's more info about it

    https://www.wildsnow.com/24743/zero-...st-first-look/

    and https://blisterreview.com/at-binding...er-alpinist-12



    Marketing stuff
    Last edited by LeeLau; 01-26-2019 at 09:15 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    1,586
    Alpinist with brakes right?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    794
    That shape looks quite refined and looking nice. More rocker on both sides?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    4,011
    105 has a noticeably softer shovel than the current 108. Should help for general float and with use of 1kg boots, where I felt the current 108 can be a little overmatch for a TLT6 or similar boot.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    Interesting. Too bad about the softened flex and reduced radius, but will have to try them and see. I don't think the world really needs another light, rockered, soft, turny touring ski. I did think the OG 0G 108 was begging for that rocker profile, which was kind of my only gripe with it.

    The increased radius and hopefully a little more rocker in the 95 has my interest piqued.

    Question: Any word on the mount point? Still stupid far back, -11.X or whatever?
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    6,062
    Quote Originally Posted by XavierD View Post
    105 has a noticeably softer shovel than the current 108. Should help for general float and with use of 1kg boots, where I felt the current 108 can be a little overmatch for a TLT6 or similar boot.
    I prefer to tour on my F1's. 185 Zero G 108's were too much ski. 178's are a great match.

    There is some significant variation in rocker profile on the original Zero G's from pair to pair. And my 85's actually change with the ambient temperature. Wonder if this "feature" will continue.

    Softer, friendlier Zero G's is bad news. I'm no bad ass BC charger and I love them all the way they were. If they wanted to offer something with more float they should have added a model.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    Quote Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds! View Post
    I'm no bad ass BC charger and I love them all the way they were. If they wanted to offer something with more float they should have added a model.
    Or just added a touch more tip and tail rocker to the 108. I mean, it had very little splay.

    But agreed -- the 0G 108 is still my favorite blend of attributes in a BC ski. So easy to grab 90% of the time and not worry about it.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    69
    Just to clarify a few things:

    Old ZG 108 was just a lighter weight Cochise. It shared the same mold so it had some restrictions on what we could do with it. 95 and 85 were their own molds and were drastically different skis than the 108.

    They all have their own unique molds now so the whole series is much more similar.

    The goal of these skis was to make subtle tweaks to the original series without changing why people liked them and what made them unique. Taking feedback from a lot of folks that ski them all the time the goal was to make the tails a little more forgiving and improving the rocker profile on all the skis.

    Overall the ends of the skis are torsionally not as stiff as the old ones. To say they are soft would be a bit of an exaggeration. The old ones were almost as stiff as a Bonafide torsionally. When you get into the lighter weights it just made the skis feel a little unbalanced and incrediby skittish in variable conditions.

    New ones are easier to control and maintain your balance on especially with a heavy pack.

    For their weight classes theyíre very much at the stiffer end of the spectrum. Designed for skiers that like to ski hard and push the skis. Theyíre not your typical 1300g noodle.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,150
    Stop with the black topsheets on touring skis, seriously. Not everyone lives where it's consistently cold enough for the sun to not fluctuate topsheet temperature above and below freezing throughout the day.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    385
    The black topsheets are just the prototype. The actual retail version has a blue and orange topsheet. I have a pair in hand and the flex is much softer than the current 108’s. THey will be a much more forgiving, less chargey ski. Not much similarity at all to the current model.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    6,062
    Quote Originally Posted by couchsending View Post
    made the skis feel a little unbalanced and incrediby skittish in variable conditions.
    Nope.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    Quote Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds! View Post
    Nope.
    certainly not the 108. That ski was dialed for hard snow.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,092
    Iím reading this as keep my unskied 108s. Was going to send them down the road after falling in love with Ď19 BC Corvus & Shift

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds! View Post
    Nope.
    No not the 108 of course... cause itís heavy. Itís not light enough to really be a touring ski. Itís a bit of no mans land.

    I was referring more to the 95s and 85s.

    I too have pairs of both next yearís 105s and this yearís 108s both brand new in the wrapper. The only thing that is softer when hand flexing is the tail. The tip and forebody are very similar with the forbody and under foot being probably stiffer in the 105. The new 105 is torsionally stiffer in the tip than the old one actually.

    The focus of changing the 108s was to make them float better and make them lighter. Sure they wonít be as damp cause they weigh less but for how much they weigh Iíd press you to find something that skis better.

    The other tweaks I was referring to were more in regards to the 95 and 85. Those skis were too stiff for their weight class.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    6,062
    Quote Originally Posted by CascadeLuke View Post
    Iím reading this as keep my unskied 108s. Was going to send them down the road after falling in love with Ď19 BC Corvus & Shift
    Put some lighter bindings on them and enjoy. Best spring couloir ski out there (ignoring the issue steep sidehilling and kick turns)

Posting Permissions

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