Blizzard Zero G Skis

[@stephenkrause6059]

For the lady who did the written review (for some reason I cannot leave questions/comments on the web site). I am a similar ski profile as you are in weight, ability, and ski terrain except I am male. Were you able to ski on the 105's also? If you (the female tester, not Brad) had to choose between the 105's and the 95's which would you? My thought is that for someone who weighs 125 lbs the 95's would be sufficient, especially if that person is more of a finesse skier. But maybe I am wrong and the 105's have some advantages, besides float, such as carving ability that the 95's do not have.

[@Backcountryskiingcanada]

Thanks for the question Stephen, I am going to get her to answer this for you since I only have experience on the Zero G 105 skis but for reference I am 6'1" and 180lb. Also, you can leave questions on the BackcountrySkiingCanada.com web site but you first need to create an account which is then approved. Stay tuned for more info on your question.

[@Backcountryskiingcanada]

Hi Stephen, Unfortunately I haven’t toured on the Zero G 105s to compare, Brad tours on the 105's and loves them but he is 55lb heavier and a few inches taller so probably needs the additional surface area. I just got home from a full day touring on the Blizzard Zero G 95's and felt no handicap with the narrower width. The 95's are 300g lighter per ski than the 105's so they feel amazing on the up. For the down I am incredibly satisfied with the buoyancy. A few weeks ago we had heavier deep snow which had me in the back seat a touch but the length was enough to compensate. I guess the question is: If the conditions I skied most of the time trended toward predominantly heavy powder, more chop or variable I would consider scaling up - but based on my experience with the 95s to-date I would need some convincing -I would say I am a finesse skier also and these are a finesse ski. The 95's actually have better carving ability than the 105s based on the fact that you can lean in to the turn and put them on edge more quickly due to the narrower waist. I would say the advantage of the 105s is that they offer additional float in deep snow, therefore more speed for more aggressive skiing and perhaps a little more beef and power in chop and heavy conditions, though no light ski ever really excels there. All the best with your decision! Marian

[@fouglasdir]

Thank you for the review. What boot, or stiffness of boot would you recommend pairing with the 105? Binding?

[@Backcountryskiingcanada]

Hey Jeff, good question! Since the Zero G 105 is a super light backcountry pow ski, I would also stay light with the bindings and boots. For boots, I use the Hoji's but there are lighter boots such as Scarpa's new F1 LT, you can read all our AT boot reviews here: www.backcountryskiingcanada.com/Ski_Boot_Reviews For bindings I am a big fan of the simplicity, weight savings and performance of the Marker Alpinist 12's, you can read that full review and see all the other binding reviews here: www.backcountryskiingcanada.com/Binding_Reviews

[@fouglasdir]

@@Backcountryskiingcanada Thanks for the in depth reply. I'll check those links out. I was looking at the Scarpa F1 LT, glad to have the confirmation.

[@Backcountryskiingcanada]

@@fouglasdir Glad to help, enjoy the boots you end up with - sounds like a killer set up!!

[@hugolemieux710]

What is your opinion on putting hybrid bindings (shifts) on the 105?

[@Backcountryskiingcanada]

Shift bindings are pretty heavy compared to pure tech bindings and in my opinion negate some or all of the weight saving advantages of this ski. I’d go light weight and then you have a pure touring machine!

[@hugolemieux710]

@@Backcountryskiingcanada thanks

[@conor1423]

I have shifts and I would not buy them again. They try to do too much and end up being very mediocre in almost every way. They'd be ok on a side country ski but not on a dedicated touring set up

[@hugolemieux710]

Update: I have gone for some G3 bindings and I love them