Review: Blizzard Zero G 96

Blizzard’s Zero G line of skis often elicits strong opinions. Some favorable, some not. Between the fine lines of marketing copy (which we’ll get to) and opinion (we’ll get to that, too), lies some truth. Over the years, Blizzard’s Zero G 95 held rank as a stiff, light, and, generally, fine-tuned for holding an edge in steep-firm terrain. Which means that longitudinally and laterally, these planks were relatively stiff. Over the various iterations of the ZG 95, the early-rise tip began marginally earlier; otherwise, the basic hallmarks of performing well on firm snow remained.

And, too, with each iteration of Zero G, the marketing copy put forth espoused a more forgiving ski. A ski that incrementally, according to those writing copy at Blizzard and the stores we trust with translating that marketing copy, was indeed, marginally easier to ski. What’s interesting about skis, and stiff skiing skis at that, is that they are notably traditional in shape, build (carbon stringer and plates have been around for a while now), flex, camber, yada, yada, yada. But then again, with each new iteration of a ski (which really looks and feels very similar to the past generation), we seek some sort of transformation, convincing ourselves that there’s something new there—some of it good, some of it bad. 

When the ZG 96 was introduced, the buzzing undercurrent (more of a vibe) was that Blizzard had made the new ski more accessible. Which could be read as too soft, and a marked deviation from the ski’s ski-mountaineering roots. The chatter out there claimed the ZG 96 was more all-arounder, and, of course…more “forgiving.” I took that to mean the ski was certainly softer throughout, took less aggressiveness to tame, and, in some ways, wasn’t what it once was: a preferred ski for those looking for some girth underfoot and near-best-in-class edgeability in steep-firm snow, and light enough for epically long days in the hills.

For more comparisons (and photos) between the Zero G 96 and Zero G 95, here’s the first look.

Here’s where some confirmation bias began to creep in. Although the ZG 96 is a mm wider (really 2mm) than the advertised nomenclature (ZG 95 v. ZG 96), I assumed it was something else. Honestly, I wasn’t too stoked about that. Over four seasons, I’d come to rely on the ZG 95 as an objective ski for runs I may get a wee bit nervous on. So the thought of moving on to something else, something softer, something less proficient at edging—even if a Zero G ski in name—didn’t sound too enticing.

In short, this iteration of ZG ski, the ZG 96, remains excellent in steep, firm snow. There, I said it. I noted in the first look that the ZG 96 hand flexes stiff in the tip and tail, if not the same as the ZG 95, then pretty darn close. That strong stiffness transferred onto the slope. Any prior assumptions about what this ski could be, or is, were dispelled this spring. 

Preferred Habitat      

The truth is, we haul light skis on our feet and packs because they lack mass. Overall, it’s less work to move these planks uphill. These ZG 96’s weighed 1240 and 1262g, respectively. A 45g bump/ski from the 171 ZG 95. So not much. For a ski in the 95-100mm range, it’s still a light plank. Indeed, these skis prefer a habitat where ascending is part of the plan. 

In spring, or sustained winter-time high pressure with fewer snow instabilities, I want a ski skewed toward high performance on firm snow. (I live in the PNW, so even in thin-snow years, we are chasing corn cycles into June.) And as I espouse the wonders of at least a two-ski-quiver, the ZG 96 (and its predecessor) fills that habitat niche.

Using the ZG 96, I found as much firm (mostly planar) snow as I could find and skied it. Certainly, in this meager year, the seeking was easily rewarded. I found the ZG 96 to be excellent on firm snow. These skis hold an edge and carve fine turns. The one difference relative to the ZG 95 is that I noticed the ZG 96’s slightly shorter turn radius: 19m compared to 22m at 171cm. This is not to say the ZG 96 wants to swoop around slalom gates; it is to say that the tip (ski’s front ⅓) seems to engage a bit earlier as the turn is initiated relative to the ZG 95. That sensation is most evident in a steeper section’s egress, where the snow remained planar, firmish, and the terrain less tight.

But in chasing corn cycles, I am often—at least I am because I’m less free-ridey—relying on hop/jump turns to navigate steep and firm terrain. The ZG 96s felt precise executing these types of turns. As precise as the 95s? Yup. Is it as stable and solid on just softened blue ice or a near-boilerplate bed surface? Yup. 

The jump turns I mentioned were on all sorts of snow: squeaky styrofoam, harsh-to-the-ear-and-feet refreeze, prime corn, overcooked corn, and cushy powder.   

Boot Choice

This is a ski review, after all. And as much as we’d like to think they are definitive, I understand all this can be somewhat subjective, beyond the fact that over the years I’ve been on plenty of skis. We all like what we like. Which brings me to the boots I mostly used with the ZG 96 this spring: the Scarpa F1 RS. 

I’ll link to Gavin’s review here, but I’ll get a review up myself either this spring or late summer to share my opinions on the boot, which are all very good. I bring up boot choice because I feel it plays an important role in how we experience a ski. In this case, the F1RS has a smooth entry into its flex range, then stiffens quickly, just when I want it to. Furthermore, the boot fits my foot, with excellent heel hold and amazing shin contact. What I noticed is that in the aforementioned firm conditions, the F1 RS provides some suspension. In this boot, no matter the ski, my hop turns felt more precise and somewhat soft-landing as the ski’s edges engaged. To get more granular, I felt like my ankle flexion was more natural, and, generally, my lower body was less stiff than it would be with a less progressive flexing boot. In those, I would anticipate a harsh reality and often inadvertently stiffen my lower body. With the ZG 95, I often used a carbon-cuffed Dynafit Blacklight 1.0, a boot with a shorter cuff height and a harsher flex. 

Back to Habitat 

For the head-to-head test, I used a gift from my pal John. John had a Mt. Bachelor four pack with a day remaining and was gone the Friday before the hill closed for the season this April. It had snowed a few days prior, and the summit chair was open. I found this the perfect opportunity to ski some of the steeper terrain into the mountain’s north-facing bowl. I would take a few runs with the ZG 96s, then repeat those same runs with the ZG 95s, and then return to the ZG 96s. I used the Scarpa F1 RS with both skis. 

For the initial few runs, I wanted to establish once and for all what I had experienced further afield in the mountains, that the ZG 96 edges just as well as the ZG 95. To repeat myself…confirmed. And over the course of the half-day, swapping skis back and forth, I did not find the ZG 96 too soft. I did, however, find the ZG 96 less chattery when at speed. This may be a function of reduced carbon in the 96 compared to the 95.

Some might see the next statement as either blasphemy or nonsense, but I found the ZG 96 just as proficient as the now-retired ZG 95 in terms of its ski-mountaineering attributes. After reading and learning about the ZG 96 online, I expected to keep the ZG 95s as my go-to for spring objectives. The evening after my highly scientific test session on Mt. Bachelor, I pulled the Plum R170s off the ZG 95s. (They now sit in the garage, and will, I think, head to Boulder, CO., where my friend’s daughter will attend CU. My plan is to donate to her cause for those days when the skiing looks better than her chemical engineering classes.)  

Overall, the ZG 96s, with their build combining Poplar, Paulownia, and Ash, were damper. However, if you use the ZG 95 solely as an uphill resort ripper, meaning big, long-radius super-G turns, the ZG 96 will not be an upgrade in that department. 

While I’ll choose a different plank for powder (something wider, longer, and more progressive regarding rocker profile), the ZG 96 is wide enough to serve as a light powder ski in the longer lengths (this is a review of the 171cm length). As for chunkier snow, the ZG 96’s early-rise tip is functional for riding over some debris and 3D situations at speed, but relative to the Rossignol Escaper nano 97, which has a longer, more aggressively rockered tip, you’ll have to dial down the speeds to keep you and the ski happy.   

Closing Thoughts              

For those who missed out on the legend that may be the ZG 95, it’s my opinion that you are not going to experience dulled-down sensations with the ZG 96 when it comes to ski-mountaineering. The ZG 96 remains a high-end ski-mountaineering tool with enough surface area to keep you plenty happy in those circumstances when conditions run the full gamut, which they generally do in the mountains. As for Blizzard making a more accessible and friendlier ski than the ZG 95, I agree with that statement. Overall, the ZG 96 does feel less twitchy. But the friendliness and accessibility do not come at the cost of decreased high-performance when it counts. 

Basic Stats

Weight (g): ZG 96 1240 ski 1 and 1262 ski 2. I am mounting an ATK Haute Route binding (older version) which adds roughly 200g to the overall package. 

Binding: BD/ATK Helio LT mounted at +1.5cm.

Dimensions (mm) ZG 96: 126 / 96 / 110Turn Radius ZG 95: 22m 

Turn Radius ZG 96: 19m

Construction ZG 96: Trueblend RPET Tour (Paulownia and Poplar combo) with an Ash Core Insert and carbon stringers.

Sidewall for ZG 96: Partial ABS that seems to run longer and thicker in zones than on the ZG 95.

Rocker Shape according to Blizzard: Early rise tip and tail with camber under foot.

Price: $850.00