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.
Update 2023/24: Same lovely ski with a new paint job.
|Lengths (cm)||164, 172, 180, 188|
|Weight (pair)||2330g 
||Semi-round tip and tail|
||Rockered tip and tail (20%/10%), light camber underfoot (70%)|
||HRZN Tech tip, medium radius, roundish tail|
||HRZN Tech, Carbon Backbone with Ultra Power woodcore|
||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|
Questions & Reviews
First off: these are light! Unbelievably light for such a big ski. In fact, if you look, you’ll see that it’s even lighter than the 95, despite being wider and longer (in each relative size).
I find edge hold on firm/icy snow extremely good, but have to say, I am comparing to generally looser, more rockered and tapered skis, like my inbounds QST 98.
(Both with freshly sharpened edges).
Of course, in soft chop inbounds they got bounced around a lot, simply due to the light weight.
Conversely, in more consistent snow they are plenty stable for me.
Most of my skiing on them has been on corn. Of our we, most everything skis well on good corn.
Two days in deep low angle, powder they were ok. Enough float and loosened to turn and plane up a bit at slower speeds.
In deep spring slush they were a handful. Slightly shorter, more rockered skis, beefier boots and better skills would have helped there.
I know it could be an opportunity to upgrade my skills but are these forgivable enough?
Was also (out of fear) considering the locators 96 for similar weight, capabilities and fun. Thoughts?
Thanks so much!
Ski size is certainly a personal choice, but from what you mention I think the 180cm would be just fine. A longer ski will give you more stability at speed and more float in the deep stuff, but as long as your keeping the speedometer in check and don't mind skiing just a touch lower in the powder this is a nice match.
I am looking for a fun Ski that can handle windpressed and heavy snow well. While providing enough float to enjoy more than a feet of fresh snow.
Currently I am mostly using a Backland 95 in 178cm length. I like it a lot for being so agile and versatile.
I own a Backland 107 in 189 too. It is great in skiing difficult snow conditions and deep powder. But I miss the fast transitions. It feels like I get much less feedback from the ski.
Is it worth to give the 100 a try? Or is it very similiar to the 107? Which length would you recommend? I am 6'2 and 165.
I'm 6'4, I think I'd choose them in 180cm for more maneuverability uphill and I'll be pairing them with shift bindings.
The 100 will give you faster edge-to-edge and slight weight savings. Basically, you'll be able to end one turn and go into the next easier. The 107 will float better, of course. For firm snow, the 100 will have the edge for agility and control. However, keep in mind that they are essentially the same ski. The only difference is the width! So if you're really looking for a ski for crud and firm snow, maybe have a look at the Dynastar M-Tour 99 F-Team.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org!
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!
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.
(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?
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.
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!
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 email@example.com!
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.
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?
Mostly 60/40 resort/backcountry, would the Backland be a good choice? Any other recommandations would be appreciated.
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.
Thanks for the question! Tip to tail "straight tape pull" measured out at 185.5cm. Hope this helps!
The 95 waist is appealing, but the 100s get some quite positive reviews. Any opinions?
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.