Blizzard Zero G 105 Touring Skis, 172 cm review: specs, sizing and what it costs you
The Blizzard Zero G 105 Touring Skis, 172 cm sits in the under-$1,000 budget tier. Published specifications: Waist 105 mm, Build Carbon, dedicated touring, Use Deep snow touring. Best for: Deep maritime snowpacks and powder-focused touring.
The Blizzard Zero G 105 Touring Skis, 172 cm is a touring ski in the under-$1,000 budget tier, and this page is the short version of everything published about it: the manufacturer's own specifications, who it suits, what it gives up against the alternatives, and where it sits on the shelf it competes on. We have not skied this item and we do not pretend to have. Everything below is researched from published specifications, published certification standards and verified owner reviews.
The same construction at 105 mm, for tourers whose objective is soft snow rather than vertical. Width is float, and float is what makes a long climb worth the descent.
On a touring ski the advice inverts completely: every gram is lifted thousands of vertical feet, so weight is the specification you shop on and the ski gets less damp and more nervous as it gets lighter. The honest question is what fraction of the day you spend going up.
Published specifications
These are the manufacturer's figures, not measurements we took. Specifications change between model years and between sizes, and a listing tied to one size is exactly that, so confirm the numbers on the retailer page for the size you are actually buying before you commit.
| Category | Touring skis |
|---|---|
| Brand | Blizzard |
| Budget | Under $1,000 |
| Tier | Expert |
| Waist | 105 mm |
| Build | Carbon, dedicated touring |
| Use | Deep snow touring |
| Used for | Backcountry touring, outside a ski area boundary |
Who it suits
Deep maritime snowpacks and powder-focused touring.
What it costs you
More ski to lift and more skin to buy. On a firm spring morning the extra width does nothing for you.
That trade is worth stating plainly because it is the thing a product page will never tell you. Nothing in snow sports is free: every gram removed from a ski comes out of its damping, every degree of cuff rotation added to a boot comes out of its downhill stiffness, and every dollar saved on a shell comes out of either the fabric or the features. The question is never whether an item has a weakness, it is whether that particular weakness lands on the days you actually ski.
The limitation: you carry the float whether or not the day needs it
A hundred and five millimetres underfoot is float, and float is only free on the way down. Every millimetre of width is lifted through every vertical foot of the climb, it needs a wider and more expensive skin, and on a firm spring skin track it gives you nothing at all in return. The days this ski is built for are deep days in a maritime snowpack. If your season is mostly continental snow and refrozen morning starts, this is a ski you carry uphill for a benefit that arrives a handful of times a year.
The second limitation is the one that inverts against everything a resort skier is told. Mass damps chatter. A carbon touring ski is light on purpose, and the direct consequence is that it is less calm than a heavy ski when the snow is chopped up or refrozen. Read the waist width chart alongside this: a wide light ski is a specific tool for soft snow, not a wide heavy ski with the weight removed for free. On hard snow it is busier and more demanding than a resort ski two hundred grams heavier, and no amount of price fixes that, because the weight is the product.
The third is the bill after the ski. Skin width is chosen from the widest point of the ski, not the waist, so a hundred and five millimetre waist means a wide skin and a wide skin is a genuinely more expensive consumable. Work the width out in the skin size calculator before you buy, and see the climbing skin roundup for what that costs. A tech binding and a mount are on top of that again.
Where it sits on the shelf
It is the most expensive touring ski on this shelf, so the question to answer before buying is what the money buys you over the next one down.
Compared with the rest of the shelf
| Touring skis | Tier | Budget | Where to buy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blizzard Zero G 105 Touring Skis, 172 cm (this page) Widest touring ski | Expert | Under $1,000 | BC category Amazon |
| Atomic Bent 100 Skis, 165 cm Do it with what you have | Beginner | Under $500 | BC category Amazon |
| Salomon QST 100 Skis The one touring ski | Intermediate | Under $1,000 | BC category Amazon |
| Blizzard Zero G 96 Touring Skis, 171 cm Dedicated touring ski | Expert | Under $1,000 | BC category Amazon |
Prices are what the retailer listed when this page was last checked and change constantly. We earn commissions from Backcountry and from qualifying Amazon purchases, and every outbound link in this table is one or the other. A button reading "BC category" opens a Backcountry search for that category rather than that exact model, so it finds comparable gear alongside it.
What owners consistently report
Nobody here has skied this item. What follows is the consensus of published owner reviews across retailers, summarised rather than quoted, with no invented owners and no invented quotes attributed to anybody.
Published owner reviews agree on two things. It climbs well for the width, which is the whole point of the carbon construction, and it skis better than the weight suggests it should in soft snow. Owners who tour in deep snowpacks describe it as the ski that makes a long approach worth doing, and the construction gets consistently positive comment for stiffness relative to mass.
The recurring criticisms are the price and the feel on hard snow. A pattern across reviews is buyers who bought it as a one-ski quiver, used it inbounds, and found it nervous in chopped-up resort snow, which is what a light ski does and is not a defect. The other frequent note is the cost of the wide skins the width forces, which is a real ownership cost people report underestimating.
Alternatives worth comparing
Blizzard Zero G 96 Touring Skis, 171 cm Under $1,000
The same carbon construction at ninety-six millimetres. Lighter to lift, cheaper to skin, and a width that still floats adequately while holding an edge on the refrozen exit track that ends most spring tours. For most tourers this is the version to buy and the hundred and five is the second pair.
Salomon QST 100 Skis Under $1,000
Around forty percent less money at a similar width, with a less aggressive construction that is more forgiving in variable snow. Heavier on the climb, which is the honest cost, but a better first touring ski for anyone not doing four thousand foot days.
Atomic Bent 100 Skis, 165 cm Under $500
Less than half the price at a hundred millimetres. It is heavier and not a dedicated touring construction, so it will be felt on a long climb, but it is the honest starting point for someone finding out how much they actually tour before spending nine hundred dollars on carbon.
Every alternative here is a product already verified on this site, so the listing behind each link resolved live through CreatorsAPI and the returned title was read against the product the entry claims to be. Both buttons are affiliate links, and prices move constantly.
How to shop this category
On a touring ski, weight is the specification and everything else is a consequence of it. Every gram is lifted through every vertical foot of the climb, and a pair that is 400 grams lighter each is a genuinely different day on a 3,000 foot tour. Manufacturers publish weight per ski at a stated length, and the only honest comparison is at the same length: a light ski quoted at 170 cm against a heavy one quoted at 184 cm is not a comparison at all.
What weight costs is damping. A ski calms chatter in proportion to its mass, so the lighter the ski the more nervous it is on wind-scoured hardpack and refrozen crust, which is what backcountry snow actually is a large fraction of the time. That is the trade every touring ski makes, and the honest question is what fraction of your day is spent climbing. A 50-50 tourer who skis inbounds on the same skis wants something in the 1,700 gram range with real material in it. A dedicated tourer chasing vertical wants 1,200 grams and accepts a ski that skis worse.
Waist width for touring sits in a narrower band than resort skiing suggests: roughly 90 to 105 mm covers almost everything. Below 90 mm you are giving up float you will want on the one deep day that made the tour worth doing, and above 105 mm you are carrying weight and buying skins wide enough to cover it, which are themselves heavy. Match your skin width to the ski tip, not the waist.
Why light is the whole specification here
A touring ski is lifted through every vertical foot of the climb, so its weight is paid for continuously and its stiffness is paid for only on the way down. Manufacturers publish weight per ski at a stated length, and the honest comparison is at the same length: a light ski at 180 cm and a heavy one at 170 cm is not a comparison. Expect a dedicated touring ski to give up damping on hard snow, because damping comes from mass and mass is the thing being removed. Match ski waist width to your skins, since a skin narrower than the tip leaves the shovel bare on a firm skin track.
The three mistakes this category produces
Comparing published weights at different lengths
Weight scales with length, so the spec sheet flatters whichever ski is quoted shortest. Normalise to the length you would actually buy before you compare anything.
Buying the lightest ski available for a 50-50 setup
A race-weight ski is miserable on the firm snow of a spring descent and unpleasant inbounds. If you ski the resort on the same pair, buy weight back deliberately.
Forgetting the skins are part of the purchase
A wider ski needs a wider skin, and skins are the one consumable in the kit. Budget the skin, the tail clip and eventually the reglue alongside the ski.
Looking after it
Dry the topsheets and edges after every tour, because a ski that lives in a cold car with wet edges rusts fast. Check the binding screws at the start of the season: tech bindings put a lot of load through a small insert pattern and a loose heel piece is worth catching in the garage rather than on a skin track. Keep the base waxed, and wax it more often than a resort ski, because touring bases spend hours under a warm skin glue and in abrasive spring corn.
None of that is glamorous and all of it is cheaper than replacing the item. The pattern across every category on this site is the same: snow sports equipment is destroyed by water, heat and neglect far more often than by use, and the difference between gear that lasts three seasons and gear that lasts ten is almost entirely what happens to it in the twenty minutes after you get home.
What to read next
If you are still deciding between models, the full touring skis roundup ranks the shelf by tier with the same published specifications used here. If you have not settled on the rest of the kit yet, the first backcountry touring setup budgets a complete setup line by line with a running total, which is a more useful way to spend a budget than optimising one item.
For sizing, the calculators cover ski length, snowboard size, mondopoint boot sizing, skin width and the skier code your shop uses to set a binding. The reference charts hold the same numbers in printable table form, and the comparisons work through the decisions where two reasonable options genuinely pull in different directions.
If this is your first piece of backcountry equipment, read avalanche safety basics and how to get into backcountry skiing before you buy anything else. The order that keeps people alive is training first, then the three minimum items, then practise, then everything on this page.
Frequently asked questions
Who is the Blizzard Zero G 105 Touring Skis, 172 cm best for?
Deep maritime snowpacks and powder-focused touring.
What are the drawbacks of the Blizzard Zero G 105 Touring Skis, 172 cm?
More ski to lift and more skin to buy. On a firm spring morning the extra width does nothing for you.
Is 105 mm too wide for a touring ski?
It is wide, and whether it is too wide depends entirely on your snowpack. In a deep maritime snowpack a hundred and five millimetres is a reasonable dedicated powder touring ski. In a continental snowpack with firm spring mornings it is width you carry uphill for a benefit you rarely collect. Count your genuinely deep days honestly over a season, and if the number is small, a ninety-six or ninety-eight millimetre ski is the better tool.
What width skins do I need for a 105 mm ski?
Skins are sized from the widest point of the ski, which is the tip, not the waist, because a skin narrower than the shovel leaves bare base on a firm track and the ski slips. That makes a wide ski a meaningfully more expensive ski to keep in skins. Measure the tip width rather than reading the waist number off the marketing, and check it against the skin size calculator before ordering.
Blizzard Zero G 105 vs Zero G 96: which one?
Buy the 105 if your objective is soft snow and your snowpack delivers it, and if you already own something narrower for firm days. Buy the 96 if you want one touring ski that handles the whole season, because it is lighter, cheaper to skin, and holds an edge better on the refrozen surface that ends most tours. The 96 is the more useful ski for more people and the 105 is the more enjoyable one on the right day.
Can I use the Zero G 105 at a resort?
You can, and most people who do end up disappointed. A resort ski is calm at speed because it is heavy, and this ski is expensive specifically because weight has been engineered out of it. In chopped-up inbounds snow that shows up as chatter and deflection. Light skis are also more exposed to core shots from rocks in thin early-season conditions. Keep it for the days you earn.
How light should a touring ski be?
Under about 1,300 grams per ski is dedicated uphill equipment that skis nervously on firm snow. Around 1,500 to 1,700 grams is the practical all-round touring band for most people. Over 1,800 grams is a freeride touring ski that skis well and climbs slowly. Choose by the fraction of the day you spend going up, not by the descent you are imagining.
Can I use touring skis at the resort?
You can, and a heavier touring ski at the top of the weight range does it acceptably. A light touring ski inbounds is unpleasant: it chatters on hard snow and deflects in chopped-up crud, and the tech binding under it is not designed for repeated hard inbounds skiing.
Should a touring ski be shorter than a resort ski?
Slightly, usually by a few centimetres. A shorter ski is lighter and much easier to kick-turn on a steep skin track, which is where you will spend real energy. The exception is a dedicated powder tourer, where length is float and worth the grams.
Does the ski need to match the skin width?
The skin is chosen from the ski tip width, not the waist, because a skin narrower than the tip leaves the shovel bare and the ski slips on a firm track. Skins are then trimmed to leave 1 to 2 mm of steel edge showing on each side so the ski can still hold a sidehill.
How we choose: we compare published manufacturer specifications, published certification standards and verified owner reviews across retailers. We do not test equipment in person, and every figure quoted here is the manufacturer's published number unless we say otherwise. This is researched buying guidance and not professional instruction: binding release values are set by a certified technician on a calibrated jig, and avalanche terrain requires formal training and a current regional forecast that no article can replace.
