Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 106
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,233
    Quote Originally Posted by CaliBrit View Post
    That’ll get yah! No substitute for a big ski.
    Except one or fifty less subs.
    I started a dating advice app because I always need advice
    ó
    Charmed Chat lets you tinder for your friends

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by margotron View Post
    Except one or fifty less subs.
    Nope. Thereís no substitute for big skis

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    11,307
    Said straightline chute to tomahawk. I took my skins off first

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	172french-westernwall.jpg 
Views:	92 
Size:	123.3 KB 
ID:	274044

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Albuquerque
    Posts
    33
    I wonder how this will play out


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    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.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,534
    Wow. So the 178 is lighter than last years? Meaning less than 1250 g per ski. And someone is riding this thing in bounds?
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,189
    That review sounds like it was by a sponsored pro.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    3,157
    My 171's weigh 1186/1182g (last year's were 1207/1205g).

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    11,307

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    3,157
    Nice review, Lee. Pretty much sums up my limited impressions so far.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    NAZ
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by SupreChicken View Post
    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.
    It sucks to suck.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    6,092
    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.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by DolphinSki View Post
    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 Iím 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. Heís a great skier, good dude, and a solid follow on IG.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    4,420
    ^ I think he also does the Powderkeg every year and slams a beer at each transition, which is pretty rad and hilarious I think.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    NAZ
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by couchsending View Post
    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.
    It sucks to suck.

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    529
    Thereís an ice axe he only gave four stars to. Iím not buying that ice axe.

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    Can you just take over Blister and write their reviews please?
    sproing!

    FS: crampons, lightweight winter down sleeping bag, and stuff https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...ost?highlight=

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    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?

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    318
    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.

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    589
    I skied the old 85s for the first time today and was impressed, all things considered. Iím 5í11Ē, 155lbs and got the 171s as a volcano/long spring mountaineering mission ski. Theyíre waaaay smaller and lighter than anything Iíve skied before, and although Iím 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. Thereís a clear speed limit, but Iíd say itís something like 30-35 MPH, which Iím fine with for a 1000 gram ski.

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


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    11,307
    Quote Originally Posted by NWFlow View Post
    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

  22. #97
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    318
    Thanks that helps. Decisions...

  23. #98
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    6,092
    Quote Originally Posted by Skeeze View Post
    I skied the old 85s for the first time today and was impressed, all things considered. Iím 5í11Ē, 155lbs and got the 171s as a volcano/long spring mountaineering mission ski. Theyíre waaaay smaller and lighter than anything Iíve skied before, and although Iím 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. Thereís a clear speed limit, but Iíd say itís something like 30-35 MPH, which Iím fine with for a 1000 gram ski.

    I know the new 85s are supposed to be more approachable and easier to ski, but if youíre already sizing down for weight purposes, the current edition seems to perform quite well and Iím not sure why Iíd 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

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    163
    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?

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    11,307
    Quote Originally Posted by gritter View Post
    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

Posting Permissions

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