Please make an appointment for boot fitting.

Skimo Co

Atomic Backland 100 Ski

$699.95 From $499.95

In Stock

Free shipping

Long noted for manufacturing durable skis with reliable performance, Atomic has stepped up its powder-touring offerings with the Backland 100. With a touch more rocker than its little brother the Backland 95, but plenty of camber for long days on the skin track, the Backland 100 brings a refined take on the rocker-camber-rocker profile. Up front, Atomic's unique HRZN Tech tips make entering turns a breeze with their upturned sides, while the rounded tail makes for easy turn release even in the densest of spring snow. Compared with the 95, Atomic has opted for a rounder flex with the Backland 100, making short-radius turns a breeze without losing the top-end speed that has long made the Backland series a favorite of fast descenders on both sides of the Atlantic. Pressed into service on hard snow, the Backland's heritage in the Alps quickly comes to the fore, and the skis don't balk at hard edging and inconsistent crust. With many ski tourers across western North America looking for a versatile board in the 100-underfoot category, the Backland 100 is sure to show its talents all the way from Arizona to Alberta.

  • HRZN Tech tip shaping increases flotation in deep snow, and decreases deflection in less-than-ideal conditions.
  • Carbon backbone provides the right amount of stiffness for a responsive but supple ride.
  • Atomic's Powder Rocker profile yields easy turns in powder and crud alike.
  • Full sidewall construction increases durability and creates solid edge hold.

Update 2021/22: Topsheet update.

Update 2022/23: Atomic made the topsheet even more stylish.

Lengths (cm) 164, 172, 180, 188
convert to ounces
1165g [164]
1230g [172]
1325g [180]
1430g [188]
Weight (pair) 2330g [164]
2460g [172]
2650g [180]
2860g [188]
Dimensions   127.5-98-118 [164]
128.5-99-119 [172]
129.5-100-120 [180]
130.5-101-121 [188]
Turn Radius   14.6m [164]
17.0m [172]
19.2m [180]
21.6m [188]
Skin Fix   Semi-round tip and tail
Specs Verified Yes
Profile   Rockered tip and tail (20%/10%), light camber underfoot (70%)
Shape   HRZN Tech tip, medium radius, roundish tail
Construction   HRZN Tech, Carbon Backbone with Ultra Power woodcore
Core   Carbon fiber and Karuba wood
Skimo Co Says
Usage Ski touring in soft snow and mixed conditions
Notes HRZN Tech spoon on a rockered tip is a powder slayers dream
Bottom Line Above average performance in all categories
Compare to other High-fat Skis

Related Products

Questions & Reviews

Question from Enruk
How do the backland 100 ski compared to the Salomon mtn 95? It will be my quiver of one, rarely inbounds, and mainly for steeps in the alps late spring. I like the edge hold and float of the mtn 95 (widest I ever skied) and ski with pins/scarpa f1
Answer from Tristan M
Hi Enruk,

Two great skis! The Salomon MTN 95 is heavier than the Backland 100, with a more forgiving construction. The added weight of the MTN 95 makes it damper in more variable snow, and it will be easier to initiate a turn on these skis.

In contrast, the Backland 100 will hold an edge better in firm snow, and has a longer turn radius. Also, as a lighter ski it will be better for the way up, at the expense of some dampening. If you are looking for a spring specific ski, you could probably go lighter and narrower than either of these ski options. I would put both the MTN 95 and the Backland 100 solidly in the quiver of one covers all conditions category.

If you would like to chat more ski options, feel free to reach out to!
Answer this question:

Question from Drew
Good afternoon Skimoco Team -

I have been doing 90% of of my Wasatch/Canada tours for the past several years on a pair of Alp Tracks LT 94s. Love them for the most part and they are holding up OK. I am wanting to shift this pair to a rock/spring/alpine role and get something new. Boots are an older pair of Spitfire 2.1s that I will upgrade this year too.

The LT 94s, for myself at least, require that I stay 'on it' when skiing them, and if I relax to much I find myself having to ski pretty defensively (and aggressively forward) to recover.

It sounds as though the Backlands 100 are about the same genre, but perhaps a bit more on the 'kinder/gentler' side of the skiability spectrum (if that makes sense).

So curious if I am thinking correctly, or if I should just stick with what I know and get another pair of Movements. Thanks!
Answer from Tristan M
Hi Drew,

The Alp Tracks 94 is a great ski.

As for the next quiver slot, the Backland 100 is very versatile. It is fairly stiff and supportive underfoot. However, it is relatively easy to initiate turns with, and the medium turn radius is by no means unwieldy. I even find the tails are pretty easy to smear, despite how flat and supportive they are. 100mm underfoot is more than enough for deeper conditions. I skied the Backland 100 in variable snow inbounds, and found them to be adept in those conditions as well. This ski does not possess a ton of energy when exiting the turn, but it makes up for it in its ability to handle a wide range of conditions. If you are looking to cover your bases, but maybe want a ski that is easier to handle than your current Alp Tracks 94, the Backland 100 would be a good place to start.
Answer this question:

Question from Slim
How would you compare these to the Wayback 106 that I ski in 186 cm currently?
(6’5”, 175lbs intermediate at best), and the M-Tour 99?
Especially wondering about float, looseness and pivoting in low angle powder, for midwinter safe skiing?
Answer from Emmett I
Hi Slim,
The Backland 100 is a great, neutral ski. It has a relatively early rocker, meaning it will pivot easily, and overall a great choice for low-angle powder skiing.

The Wayback 106 is the most playful of the three skis you mentioned. An early rocker as well as a little bit of extra width makes it float nicely in powder and pivot fairly easily. It's also going to have a decent amount of power underfoot.

The M-tour 99 is the most powerful, traditional ski of the three you mentioned. It has less of an early rocker than the other two, so it won't pivot as easily. That said, it will still turn fairly quickly in powder thanks to a wide shovel, but it won't pivot quite as well as the Wayback or Backland.
Answer this question:

Question from Brian
Hey Skimo team,
I'm 6', 185lbs, intermediate skier in the Pacific Northwest (mostly Mt. Hood area). I plan to use them as my only backcountry ski for everything from trees, to volcanos, to the occasional hut trip. Am I off track considering the 172" instead of 180"? Afraid I might regret it down the road but the weight savings and shorter turn radius is definitely appealing... let me know what you all think!
Answer from Tristan M
Hi Brian,

Ski length can be pretty preferential. The 172cm length will be more maneuverable in restricted terrain, easier to kick turn, and lighter weight.

In contrast, the 180cm length will favor stability at speed, and more ability to punch through crud.

If you put a premium on ripping GS turns on an open face at the expense of maneuverability in the trees, I would go with the longer length. If you primarily find yourself making controlled turns in the trees or tight terrain, and favor efficiency on the skin track, go with the 172cm length.

If you have further ski questions, feel free to reach out to!
Answer this question:

Question from Tom
Hey guys, a question about which length to go for on these Backland 100s....I currently ride a 180cm pair of Rossignol Soul7 - brilliantly light and playful. I haven't owned a touring setup before as have usually rented or borrowed kit (toured approx 15 days and an advanced backcountry skier). I am 176cm (5ft 9") and 70kg (154lbs) - I am tempted to size down to the 172cm Backlands for a bit more manoeuvrability in the trees and ease for kick turns on the uphills, or would I be better sticking to the 180cm length? Based in Europe and ski approx 30 days a season and would hope for 10 of those to be touring days so would add a Shift binding.
Answer from Jeff
Tom, These skis are more of a Powder ski and as such, the 180cm will be better. You can go with the the 172cm if you generally skiing less then a foot of fresh snow and more maneuverability. I would not recommend this ski with a Shift and for use in resorts. The Backland 95 would be the better all mountain ski and on Piste performance.
Answer this question:

Ben (used product a few times)
These skis are some of the lightest 100mm wide skis available, and most skimo-co customers would probably consider that a pow-ski size. If you're using these skis for powder or really any soft snow, they are fantastic. Great float and very stable for their weight. The tips don't get hung up on dense snow and crusts as much as most other touring skis I've used. They are extremely maneuverable in tight spaces, making jump turns, chutes, and brushy exits easier.

My one complaint is that these skis don't hold an edge very well and have a hard time gripping firm snow. With a good tune this isn't as much of an issue, but I'm not the kind of person who tunes my skis regularly and I haven't had issues with edge grip on my other skis. I kind of think this issue is inherent to the Atomic 100mm shape. I have demoed the Bentchetler 100 and Maverick 100 ti, which both share a very similar shape to the Backland 100, and all 3 skis struggled on firm snow. I know the Bentchetler 100 has a lot of fans, so if you like that ski and want a lighter touring version that doesn't sacrifice too much performance you will love the Backland 100. I know a lot of us on this website have narrower skis for firm snow, if that is you then the Backland 100 is a great lightweight powder tool.
Comment on this review:

Question from Drew

Curious for recommendations on mount point for 100% backcountry use? Generally ski more forward, so thinking of going a ways back from centre. Also heard these have a stiff tail to manage... Any thoughts?
Answer from Jeff
Drew, Skimo's shop techs pretty much always recommend mounting on the recommended mounting point. The Backland 100 does not have a stiff tail, which may be confused with the Backland 95. As the description says, these have a more rounded flex that the 95 and favor Powder. Center mount skis quite nicely.
Answer this question:

Question from Maxime E
Hi, I'm 5' 9 and weigh 160lbs, intermediate skier, torn between 180 or going shorter to 172, any advice?

Mostly 60/40 resort/backcountry, would the Backland be a good choice? Any other recommandations would be appreciated.

Answer from Zak M
Hey Maxime, I would stick with the 172cm if you are thinking you are skiing at an intermediate level. Especially for backcountry skiing, we can afford to go a bit shorter in length. It depends also a bit on what length you are used to skiing though, so if you are used to some longer lengths that could work out too!
Answer this question:

Question from Vince
Looking into buying the Backland 100 as my first official touring ski. I've been using old 1080s 169cm for a couple years with scout bindings. I'm 5'8" 175lbs, thinking about getting the 164cm for the North East wooded backcountry, but I'm afraid it might be too short. Am I better off with the 172?
Answer from Tristan M
Hi Vince,

The Atomic Backland 100 is a solid option for daily driver! When it comes to the length, the 164cm will certainly be maneuverable. Also, they will be easier to kick turn, as well as lighter. The 100mm underfoot is more than enough for the snowpack in the White Mountains or elsewhere in the east coast. If you want something a little more stable at speed, maybe go for the 172cm length.
Answer this question:

Question from Doug F
Would you have a “straight tape pull” measurement for the Backland 100 in the 188 size? Concerned about kick turns and going too long in the 188 length. Thanks a ton, Skimo!
Answer from Patrick C

Thanks for the question! Tip to tail "straight tape pull" measured out at 185.5cm. Hope this helps!
Answer this question:

Question from Phil
Has anyone skied both the Backland 100 and 95? Comparisons? I'm currently skiing a fat (112 waist), soft powder ski and a pair of old K2 Wayback 88s. It's time to replace the K2s and I'm looking for a do-everything ski for everything but the deep powder days. Including some occasional inbounds (25%?). I'm not looking for an ultra stiff ski, but easy, fun (but still stiff enough and carry enough for hard snow).

The 95 waist is appealing, but the 100s get some quite positive reviews. Any opinions?
Answer from Zak M
Hey, Phil thanks for the question! I will start off by saying I haven't had the opportunity to ski both skis but here are a few opinions on the matter. Overall I would say the Backland 100 will have just a tad more tip and tail rocker with less camber than the Atomic Backland 95 making it slightly more playful and an easier turning ski. The Backland 95 will have a flatter tail and be a bit more directional ski and slightly less forgiving than the Backland 100, and along with the tip notch on Backland 95 would be an excellent choice for more firm and less than confidence-inspiring conditions. Both skis tend to be a bit more on the damper side of the spectrum when it comes to lighter weight touring skis and will perform quite well in a wide variety of conditions. Let us know if you have any more questions!
Answer from jbo
Hi Phil, I've skied both and Zak is pretty spot on. Since you have a 112, I would lean towards the 95 as a more versatile ski, performing better on hard snow than the 100. I love the tip rip as well. Hard to beat the 100 as a one-ski quiver though!
Answer this question:

Comment from DonnyJim
Took a pair of these last year with a Shift as an in/out resort set-up (skiing in Switzerland). I am not making multi-day tours so the weight of the Shifts was not a big deal for me - but I understand for others putting a Shift on such a light ski might seem strange.. I am 5'11 and 165 -170 lbs and ski the 180cm. In the end due to the amount of time I got on snow last season I ended up in-resort most of the time, but still wanted to give them a good number of days. On piste these were a revelation (even if not what I bought them for), not a match for my Stockli front side skis of course, but for the weight and waist their ability to get on edge and hold was a revelation. Easy to cruise with comfort, feeling stable/safe at up to 50mph in good conditions and a really nice radius length for me. In the powder on the few times I got to have a blast the float was good and control felt great. I did think with the tail profile they might be a bit more tricky in the trees making shorter turns, but at the 180 length this was not a problem. Looking forward to testing them more in uphill mode this season!
Reply to this comment:

Question from Dan
Wondering how you think these would work in New England? Mix of resort and backcountry. Athletic intermediate skier. Salomon shift bindings. Thanks!
Answer from Zak M
Hey Dan, the Atomic Backland 100's would work fairly well as 50/50 backcountry to resort ski definitely compared to some other skis in the category. One thing to keep in mind is that the Backland 100 is still a fairly lightweight ski and in tricky conditions or at higher speeds on hardpack, the ski might not be as desirable compared to an on piste oriented ski. Feel free to shoot us an email at if you have any other ski-related questions!
Answer this question:

Christopher S (used product regularly)
I am 5'11", 185 lbs and my previous ski was Blizzard Zero G 108. The Atomic Backland 100 in 188cm is easy to turn but with a strong solid finish like a real carver. It is lively but doesn't have too much camber, great in light powder, great in slushy deep corn, and very comfortable on firm snow as long as it’s smooth. It struggles a little in chattery refrozen snow and in heavy or wind damaged powder, but that’s what you get with the approx 1400g per ski weight (compared to a heavier "freight train" like the Zero G 108).
Comment on this review:

Question from Jordan
How damp are these skis? I have older Scott speedguides which are not damp and poor at crud busting

Trying to decide between these and paying the weight penalty for Camox Freebird 96 or Volkl RiseBeyond 98 for a crud-buster
Answer from Tristan M
Hi Jordan,

The Scott Speedguides are quite a stiff ski, which means great for crud busting, but not as damp as a more forgiving construction. Based on the waist width of skis that you mentioned, it looks like you are looking to move towards a more daily driver oriented waist width. If you want a ski in this category that is going to eat up vibrations from frozen or variable snow, I certainly have a few suggestions:

Take a look at the DPS Pagoda Tour 94. This is an extremely versatile ski that will shine in conditions from midwinter to late spring. It is quite damp, and will have no issues eating up variable terrain.

Also, you mentioned the Volkl Rise Beyond 98. The rockered tip and camber underfoot provide a great balance of midwinter float and enough effective edge for the spring. A surfy and playful ski, the Rise Beyond 98 will also handle variable snow quite well!

The final ski that you mentioned, the Camox Freebird, has a forgiving construction and is quite damp. It is a very obedient ski, and will not have quite the same energy as the Pagoda Tour 94 or the Volkl Rise Beyond 98.

If you have any further questions in this waist width category, reach out to us at!
Answer this question:

Question from Tom
Hello, does anybody have a sizing recommendation? I have a Black Diamond Helio 105 186cm now – I’m tall (6’4, 175lbs). Not sure if 188 or 180 would be better. I like the Helio in 186 (currently mounted -1cm from rec) but I’m looking for something as light, with a bit more edge grip on the uphills..and maybe a bit more playful?
Answer from eric
Tom- The Atomic will definitely fit the bill of being more playful. You will keep the same kind of higher-speed stability by staying in the 188 length. You will gain more maneuverability by going to the shorter ski. So 188 might be the ticket if you liked your current length ski.
Answer this question:

Adam L (used product regularly)
Potential quiver of one for the Wasatch!
I picked up the 188's after giving up on finding a pair of the 180's. While they're a touch longer than I'd like at 5'11" 145, they still ski awesome. These things will make you rethink owning anything bigger. They tour amazing with their light weight design, and float and charge too. Especially with the longer ski I notice how well they handle higher speeds. Combined with the Backland/MTN binding, this makes for a sweet setup.
Reply from Travis
What boot did you pair with them?
Reply from Adam L
I ski this year's Backland Carbons with them. It's enough to drive this ski.
Reply from Nad
Thanks for the review, it was very helpful! Have you mounted the binding on the recommended position?
Comment on this review:

stormy (used product a few times)
I'm skiing the 188's with Atomic Backland Tour's w/ brakes. I'm 6'1" 200 lbs. I don't have a ton of time on them, but I've skied them in enough different conditions to give an initial review. Mine are around 1800g per ski w/ bindings and brakes (one slightly over, one slightly under). These skis are a revelation for me. I usually have a hard time liking the way light skis perform on the down. Granted, I'm pretty big and a physical skier. I just couldn't believe what these skis were doing for me, at the weight they are. I skied some real firm sastrugi today and was able to just tear it up on these skis. Weirdly stable, for the weight. Had them on some rain crust, they edged like a champ, very strong torsionally. Skied a foot of cold pow on them, and they surfed/floated great, and loved taking speed on the run outs. So I was thinking, "what's up with these light skis, why are they so good?" Determined to find their limit, I took them to the resort. I was skiing up to 40mph on the groomers, and the Atomics were rock solid. Even fun. Determined to whip them, I found some heavy, tracked up, sun warmed after lunch mank, and then I found their limit. But to be fair, they performed pretty well for their intended use. I should mention, I ski in Scarpa Maestrale RS's, which are out for the recall repair, so I've been in my old Salomon QST 130 pro's. They aren't the stiffest touring boot, so I don't feel like they are skewing my results.
On the uphill, they are just great. For my weight and skiing, I don't need to go any lighter. I was really tentative to go this light, but this setup totally out skis my last rig, and is 400gr lighter per ski. BTW, the Atomic Backland Tour bindings have exceeded my expectations as well. I'm usually a leash guy, but these bindings are changing my mind. The brakes provide some noticeable support under the rear pins, and stiffen up the boot/ski connection. I love turning the heel pins 90 degrees on the up, and having the brake plate under my heels on the flat approaches. I haven't had a single issue with releasing, or any other function with the bindings.
Bottom line, at 1450gr, these skis still have some muscle. From my experience, if you are a bigger, pretty aggressive BC skier, and you have a hard time liking the way really light gear skis, you should give these a serious look.
Comment on this review:

Question from Seth Fineman
How is it possible that the atomic Backland 100s in the 172 length are lighter Per ski than than the Backland 95s are in a 169?
Answer from Julieana
Hey Seth, there are some differences in the core and sidewall construction between the two, as well as a different topsheet material.
Answer this question:

Comment from Joel
FYI, I purchased these in the 188 size and weighed them. 1355 for one and 1375 for the other. Very happy with those weights for 100 underfoot. Can't wait to ski them.
Reply to this comment:

Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.

Model: Backland 100

Follow us on social media

View full screen version