Blizzard ZeroG 105 2019/2020. The relaxed 23 meter radius is obvious to the experienced eye.
When winter hit, I began skiing the slick new version of the Zero G 105, intending a quick review. But I could not get what I wanted out of these planks. After a few struggles in backcountry soft-snow conditions — trouble initiating turns — I realized it wasn’t the ski. It was me. Then I procrastinated, reaching for an authentic review of a ski that’s a fine ride for most of you, but is probably too much for yours truly.
This is where I depart from my old style of WildSnow.com blogging. Now with Manasseh and our incredible cadre of guest bloggers carrying the torch, I’ll be speaking more personally about the physical limitations — and triumphs — of skiers pushing past middle-age.
Let’s put it this way: A lot of guys and gals in their sixth decade or beyond enjoy ski touring. Especially in Europe. At the same time, most blogging, gear reviewing and the like, not to mention advertising, is geared to skiing the steeps, dealing with radical avalanche terrain — youth-oriented stuff. I was there once, and still am at heart. But you’ll see a shift in my content. Where it’s appropriate and makes sense (e.g., skis, boots), I’ll now review gear from the view of a guy in his sixties, who’s a little beat up but still going uphill, and skiing down.
With that out of the way: my “mature” take on the Blizzard Zero G 105, in 180 centimeters.
Uphill
You know the answer. At 1,500 grams plus skins and bindings, hauling these guys uphill used too much energy — for the simple reason I did not wring out their full potential on the down. Read on.
Hard pack
Midwinter laps at the resort are my hard snow laboratory. I can’t lay a ski over like I used to, but I can still carve if I’ve got a somewhat tight sidecut radius to work with. The Zero G 23-meter radius was somewhat relaxed for that. A bigger, taller guy would have an easier time, with their weight and leverage bending more arc out of the ski. Me, at around 66 kilos, 178 centimeters, did not have the mass nor the torque. Would moving down a step in length have helped? Probably a little, but that would compromise the fun part of the Zero G on hardpack: its speed and stability. Would more speed have helped? A hundred percent yes on that as well — but I’d have had to exceed my comfort zone. So my hardpack conclusion: Fun, excellent for nearly everyone, but hold some speed and don’t expect a ride on the couch.
Tip rocker on my 180cm testers is about 20 centimeters. Measured from the tip.
Tail rocker about 17 centimeters.
Soft snow
When I rode the Zero G in mid-winter Colorado powder, I could grok the potential. The width is there. The energy storage is there. I got a hint of the Zero’s joy factor when I caught a few pitches of hippy pow, and bounced my smiling way down the slope like I was auditioning for a 1984 Miller flick. If time travel existed, they’d have probably contracted me for a segment. Perhaps something in the Monashees, you know, one of these iconic scenes with six skiers at once wriggling their merry way down a thirty-two-degree slope, red helicopter hovering above for effect.
But I had trouble on steeper, less perfect snow. I’m now the proud owner of a fully fused left ankle. Thus, my right turn initiation requires a perfect melding of boot cuff angle, ramp angle, side-cut and flex. To that end, I’ve set up several pairs of heavily customized boots, but they need a certain ski. They need a lot of rocker, a tight radius, no camber and a soft flex. This is a ski the Zero G most certainly is not. And that’s good, as many if not most WildSnow readers would not want my “relaxed” version of a ski, and prefer the Zero G.
(All this begs the question: what is actually working for me? My top two: a 100mm waist-width heavily rockered, soft flexing plank in 170cm, 16.5 meter radius, and my skimo inspired 164cm x 79mm, 17 meter radius wings. Even if I’d gone to the 172 cm Zero G, it still has a 20 meter radius.)
Weight
My pair of testers, 105 width 180 cm, tickled the scale at 1,500 grams (single ski). I’ve heard blather about these being “one of the lightest in its class.” Ignore that. The Zero G 105 is average in mass per our weight/width spreadsheet (at a score of 74). But, if you can wring above average performance out of an average weight ski, what’s not to love? That’s indeed the case here.
Construction
Blizzard touts their “flipcore” construction, an arcane technology that’s been around for at least eight years — and confused shoppers for eight years. Here is my take: The normal ski core is somewhat flat before molding, and receives its shaping as it’s bent in the mold, the flipcore core is pre-shaped as to rocker and camber. That’s it. Whether this is marketing spreech or truly adds performance is impossible to verify.
Let’s just say Blizzard flipcore skis well. Thus no need to quibble. Besides, every company should be forgiven their own claim to cool, self referential tech. If nothing else, such is high-power ammo for chats at the Simony Hutte, which is where I might have been at this very moment but for the pesky particles of RNA drifting around.
Zero G 105 2019-2020 numbers
Sizes available: 164, 172, 180, 188
Weight: 1,500gm (180cm)
Dimensions: 132/105/117
Radius: 23m
Rocker profile: Tip/Tail Rocker
Core: Paulownia/carbon
Read our other Blizzard reviews.
Shop for it, good deals to be had!.
24 comments
Really nice to see an upfront description of what adjusting to age means. I’m not the athlete you are: 65 y.o. 60 years skiing, 5’7″, 185 pounds *when I train and diet meticulously*. I am weight training (powerlifting basic lifts) to build knee strength, cycling to build aerobic capacity. For me, it’s a game to maximize potential and not ignore changing capacity. Slow as heck uphill, picture a very determined fire plug. Thanks, Lou, love the site.
I enjoyed your comments on “the ski”. Being in my mid 70’s, I still enjoy the up and down part of the snow covered mountains. My body parts have an “aged feeling” at times of ski equipment? 🙂
Ah, interesting comparison, Lou. I’ll chime in, too, to fill in some with some of my experiences on the ski. I own the original ZeroGs in 85, 95, and 108 (85/95 comparison buried somewhere here on WS), and now have a new 95 and this 105 you’re reviewing here.
The new-gen ZeroGs (full line up) has shortened true sidewall section of the ski by several centimeters and transitions to a cap construction. This relaxes the tip and tail a bit and I think you’d call it “more forgiving, lower speed limit,” Lou, while Blizzard calls it “more approachable.” This echoes a bit of your discussion of Flipcore! One person’s marketing is another person’s …
Anyway, I found this ski a bit twitchier at speed than the original 108, but also a bit more indulging of my errors, glitches, and yeah, well, pilot error. In consistent snow (be that firm piste or a good 50cm of storm snow), I’d take the old 108 over this any day. With any trickiness (upside-down snow, a surface crust, etc), I prefer this 105.
Both set-ups (old 108 and this one) mounted with the BD-branded ATKs. I’ve grown to really like the 180 and 200 models. Psyched to check out the heavier 350, as it’s full metal, wide bolt pattern. I think that binder is what they call a “Raider” in Europe. Only seen it in the shop and the young gent down there was pushing me that way instead of a Vipec for a heavier, 50/50 (piste/off-piste) set-up.
But I digress! I’ve ridden this 105 with both a TLT6 and a Tecnica ZeroG Pro—I think the Tecnica is more boot than you need for this ski. And to your point about weight—add the weight of the Tecnica boot (which is a phenomenal boot, btw), the rig becomes heavy for a long day. Not unworkable … but it’ll bite ya after a few days of touring with that much extra tonnage on the feet.
All told—super durable ski. Blizzard construction for sure. I have 35ish days on them so far, including surfing some hateful granite at speed over in Italia before the border closed. I was certain I was going to find a blown edge and much wood/carbon exposed in the base—friends videoing from 150m away recorded the sound of me hitting rock and my corresponding yelp of “Oh *&^!” All that, though, and just a fleck of P-Tex missing, so kudos to the Austrians for building tough sleds!
For a Colorado and Canada ski, I’ve enjoyed the 105 a bunch. Week at Sorcerer Lodge, two weeks down by Nelson, bunch of days here in the Alps, too—and for slightly heavier, more humid Alps snow, I found the 105 getting deflected a bit. Now I know why skialper evaluates skis for “humid” snow. As a Colorado guy, I always scratched my head at that category. Living here now … I get it!
Good write-up, Lou, and here’s to crossing paths with you in 2021 … when we’re back at it! Stay healthy in Carbo, my friend!
At seven decade’s old, please keep these reviews comming
By the way, I’ve had a hoot on my volkl vta 88’s this year in most all snow conditions. They do come up a bit xhort in the crud, however they do float in the pow: just a bit deeper
Please, please, Lou, keep up the reviews for the “mature” audience. I’m a Wild Snow reader (in my 6th decade) who wants to hear your take on the “relaxed” version of a ski.
Thanks guys, I’ll keep the reviews going! I’m finding the search for a “relaxed” ski to be interesting. That latest one I hint at in the review is working well, but doesn’t have quite enough edge hold on hard snow. I’m thinking it might simply have too much edge/bottom bevel. I’ve not played around with bevel much over the past few years, as it’s often a hassle to change in the home shop. More bottom bevel on the Zero G might have made it initiate easier in the soft, but then it wouldn’t have been as reactive and fun on the hardpack. Fun. Lou
It’s always great to read anything from you these days and this article touched other things aside from the ski. What do you do in the off seasons to stay in a reasonable semblance of fitness for those first tours when the snows begin? Thinking about the ski, you mention the factor of being softer and that reminds me of the old AK Launcher at 90 underfoot, which in my experience was the softest flexing ski I ever owned,
I am 74 this Sept. and always interested in the longevity factor for the continuation of the uphill. Great article.
I have the last year of the Zero G 108, and really like the ski . Bindings are Salomon MTN with ski brakes. So I tend to buy skis with “structure” as Skialper would say, for better edge hold and stability, then mount a lighter binding.. Unlike the ZG 105, the ZG 108 has full length vertical sidewalls.
The ZG 108 excels on hard snow, a true carving machine and very stable like it’s stable mate, the Cochise which I also own . Not quite the mach schnell stability of the heavier, damp Cochise though. The ZG 108 is ok in powder, just watch your fore and aft weighting.. not a floaty powder noodle like a DPS ski. I’ve been skiing mine with the Maestrale RS, so the boot, binding and ski are a great carving combo IMHO. Most of my time on the ski has been resort skiing, for now.
I would like to try the new ZG 105, but I have more than enough skis for now. A lighter ski I ski in the same width is the Scott Super Guide 105, I own in a 175 length. This ski is 200 gms lighter, at 1440 gms per ski, than my 178 Zero G 108s. I have toured on these skis a bit this winter here in the East. Lighter ski, carbon, but stiff ! On perfect groomed snow, or Eastern powder a great ski, but easily deflected in bumps. You have to stay on top of the SG 105. Not as relaxing and predictable as the ZG 108. The SG will get a bit too lively on hardpack if you load it up at speed.
Also in my 6th decade..
Hi, I was interested to hear of your fused ankle. I have a “friend” who has been weighing the option of a fused ankle for a few years, but wonders if he will be able to continue ski touring. Reality is that he barely tours now because of the pain. I’d like it if my “friend” could pick your brain about your experience and how you are touring now vs. before the procedure. Hard to find skiers that have done that!
” Ya, at our age the song on the up track is ” staying alive, staying alive”
Lou, I got up this morning and was thinking about your review over my coffee and ibuprophen. Currently in the ski industry we have the labels backcountry, frontside, all-mountain, park, powder, freestyle, and other made-up stuff designed to match the design department’s hopes with ski review readers dreams. Fine. But it’s obvious, after reading your review, that we need a new ski category. And someone needs to lead the effort to convince ski manufacturers and industry tabloids of its necessity. That someone is you. We could call it the “relaxed’ or “mature” ski. But, mature may be condescending and relaxed may is a little too euphemistic like “plus-sized” or “big and tall.” What about “Okay Boomer?” I smell a winner. The demographic is growing. It’s got money. The reviews will provide you a steady income stream in your “twilight” years. The effort needs you to be it’s guiding light. It all starts here.
Such a great review. Now a few months into my 6th decade as well. I find myself more and more opting for the low angle powder vs. the scrappy, icy, windblown steep stuff my younger friends gravitate towards. So good to see the old man still out there testing gear and writing reviews. Would love to hear more about the ankle procedure. So many of old climbers are moving through the mountains on ankles that are deteriorating from foolish climbing injuries. All my best to you and Lisa.
Thanks guys! I’ll keep your feedback in mind. Phil, thanks for the nomination. We’ll see if the contracts roll in (smile). In all seriousness, when it comes to marketing, youth sells. In my opinion that’s fine — I enjoy it — and enjoyed it. Seasoned folks should be able to read between the lines, and yeah, I’ll keep trying to help when the hype gets too thick. Just off the top of my head, I think the most important thing is to have realistic goals, then orient lifestyle choices, gear, and self-care to achieve those goals. It’s a lot like content publishing, in that you keep your eye on the final product, and let that dictate the steps and processes along the way. This may be stating the obvious, and most alpinists do this intuitively . But as the years roll away, you have less wriggle room so being intentional about it is all the better. For example, before the virions began floating around, I was orienting to doing another hut trip in the Alps. Now I’m looking at skiing one of our favorite peaks with my bride on Mother’s day. We’re also looking at our annual WildSnow party on the pass, thinking about how to pull that off while still social distancing and conforming to whatever legal restrictions are in place. There’s no internet up there for Zooming… maybe we’ll all sit in our cars and talk on our BCA Link radios while we eat our sandwiches. Be healthy all… Lou
Nice use of “virions”, Lou! Made me touch my face just reading it.
I reiterate what the chorus has said: I enjoy the new perspective you are bringing. I’m 64, a year out from a very complicated knee replacement, unable to ski now with the confinement in France, and unlikely to ever have the comfort level to push it like I once did even though most of the body is holding up well. So it’s good to have your comments about equipment, skiing, etc. from your current vantage point.
Thanks for all you do.
Late to the article Lou and at 56 I’m in the mature category. I realized a few years ago my preference for 95mm or narrower under foot skis wasn’t changing. So I picked up a pair of Black Crow Orb Freebirds(91mm underfooot) this spring and skinned/skied them in soft, wind crust and wet snow so far. I cannot imagine skiing a wider ski ever again at my semi-advanced age. Now I must admit I am old school and remember my Silveretta 404s or maybe their predecessor mounted on a pair of Rossi GS skis back in the dark ages aka the 80s. But I cannot make the wider skis turn, carve, arc the way I can make a narrower ski do these simple things in junk snow. Granted I can still manage a peddle turn on occasion but need Alleve that evening to kill the pain. But at the end of the day, the new AT gear is incredible and thank you for acknowledging the mature skier’s needs!
OK, now I’m curious! Kevin, my experience is the exact opposite of yours: I can hardly make a narrow ski do anything I’d like off piste, while a wider, rockered ski makes everything easier. My understanding is that, in general, wide, rockered skis are easier to turn, more supportive, and more predictable in rough, changing wild snow, while narrower skis precise, have great edge hold, and are good for harder or more uniform conditions. That seems to be the overall consensus, no? Then, of course, there’s technique. I’d be the first to admit that my technique needs improvement, but there also seem to be big differences in technique between skiers who learned on long, narrow, straight skis, and younger skiers. If you learned the “old way” does that make wide, rockered skis difficult in some way?
My take: The OP’s issue is known to me as “TOO MUCH SKI”. Can happen. Happened to me. I have come to like skis that make skiing safe, easy and enjoyable. That involves shorter lengts for difficult uphills, medium flex in general, and avoiding “stable at speed” and “charger” claims wherever possible. My middle aged bones request skiing in control.
I recall the ZeroG 95 to be super stiff handflexed in the shop and not exactly very rockered. If the 105 is anything like that…
Lou…..thanks for hanging in there as an inspiration…..over the years you have helped me with beta (ie skiing Snomass in the 90’s etc)…..now at 65 years old I just had one knee replaced (Feb 20200 doing great)….I still plan on backcountry skiing but current question regarding ski recommendation for an older guy…mostly Colorado winter and spring ski mountaineering still with spring trips to Canada or Alaska ….want 100+ underfoot I am 6″2″ 200 # tele skied for 35 years before back to alpine/AT last 5 years…..more of a power steering ski for and “older guy” likely NOT the Zero Gs you’ve commented on…..maybe an inspiration for review/suggestion “older guy” skis?! Anyway thanks, Chet Roe
Hi Chet!
At seventy-five, my chief strategy to keep enjoying the backcountry on skis is to minimize weight. Current skis and bindings are La Sportiva Sveltes (2114g) with ATK Trofeo bindings (306g). Boots are comparably light and have plenty of cuff motion to ignore heel elevators, which the ATKs lack. This kit is great uphill, excellent in good descent conditions, and less good in less good conditions. Light weight trumps all for the aging skier.
Would have been great to run into you at the Simony Hütte, Lou – I missed my annual trip their this year as well. As a consolation prize, here’s some video of me making “music” with one of the local guides in 2018:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1tQ-8acrAP37c5fVuYd0WpCKLJwQcSIG8
“there”
As for the Zero G 105, I found it to be quite manageable and intuitive, and more relaxing to ski than the Zero G 108. I’m in Lou’s age group, also coming off a surgery (ACL, MCL, Meniscus) and loved the ski in PNW “heavier” pow with a slight de-tune (changed side edge bevel from 2 degrees to 1 degree, as has been my habit with all the Zero G skis). In general, all the current Zero G models are less demanding than the originals. I’ve got the same quiver as Rob C. and prefer the 105 to the 108, but lean toward the old construction for the 95 and 85.