Skimo Co

Atomic Backland 100 Ski

$749.95 From $499.95

In Stock & Ships Today

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.

Update 2023/24: Same lovely ski with a new paint job.

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]
Sidecut   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 Bruce
Hi Skimo team. Does anyone have a comment on the Backland 100 vs the Movement Alp Tracks 100? I'm a light skier (135, 5'8') and considering these two for Wasatch BC in 170/172. It looks like they're both going to be great in pow, but the Movement may have a longer effective edge and so might be more versatile for mixed/firm conditions or resort skiing. What are your thoughts?
Answer from Carlos M
Hi Bruce,

You're right, both will be great in powder, and they are both light skis. The Movements are a bit more powerful and will be able to handle some higher speeds and bigger turns, as long as the snow is consistent. They aren't an excessively demanding ski, but they are a very satisfying ski for a stronger skier. I would say the Backland would be a bit more forgiving and have a bit turnier attitude.

I would rather ski steep, firmer snow on the Movements, they do have a long edge and a supportive tail so they are a very confident ski. That said, I wouldn't recommend them for resort skiing other than uphill laps. Their construction is very light, premium for touring, but not as strong or damp as a resort ski or beefy touring ski.
Answer this question:

Question from Janet Kowalchick
I am looking for my first touring ski. I am an intermediate "plus" and advanced "minus". I am comfortable on all blacks unless conditions are icy. At 5'11 and 157 lbs, I ski Atomic Bents 174 cm (100 mm) on resort. I am reading lots of reviews on the backland 100 which may seem too light for my need for stability on firm snow? I ski mainly in the Sierra's, and will tour there as well. I am trying to improve on trees and tight turns so any help there is a plus!!
Answer from Gabriel I
Hi Janet, the Backlands tend to do pretty well on firmer snow, they have some stiffness to them and are supportive underfoot. At the same time, they offer friendly turn initiation. With a flatter tail, they'll ski a bit longer size-for-size than a Bent Chetler and feel a little more locked in. For a touring ski, these aren't too out of line for weight, many lighter options! Feel free to reach out to us at if you'd like to get into more details or discuss other skis.
Answer this question:

Question from Serge
Hi skimo team,

I am looking at these as a replacement for my broken 2018 Fischer Hannibal 183cm.
I've enjoyed Fischer quite a bit in all conditions apart from skiing with the heavy 10kg back pack, they became wobbly on hard steep terrain.

I am 186cm, 71kg + 5-10kg back pack.
Doing 70% touring, 30% resort.

Thinking of blackcrows Camox freebird as well. Or may be even K2. I do not need extra light skis as those tend to break in hard turns In heavy snow + they are wobbly. So smth like Hannibal but more reliable, less wobbly
What would you recommend?
Answer from Jeff
Serge, I liked the Hannibal too. But most light skis will probably have times they don't ski as well as we would hope. But maybe some of that is on us.
For what you describe, The K2 ski may be better, or the TransAlp 98.
You can contact us at for more assistance.
Answer this question:

Question from Al T
I’m on the 178cm atomic 95 backlands from several years ago with the backland bindings. I like them a lot. I’m 5’10” and 170 and pretty old but I get out a fair amount and am a solid, if unimpressive skier. I only ski in the BC in the Rockies. Any recommendations on sizing for the atomic 100 with the backland bindings? I still use TLT 6s but will be up grading them as well at some point. Thanks
Answer from Jeff
Hi Al! Great question. Having enjoyed the Backland 95 in a 178cm, I'd suggest considering the 180cm. Due to the increased rocker profile (20% vs 15%), the 180cm skis slightly short, making it comparable to your previous ski length. You'll also likely find an increase in soft snow performance in the 180cm compared to the 172cm, which is the type of snow the Backland 100 prefers. On the other hand, if you are looking to prioritize uphill efficiency, the 172cm would be suitable and a supportive length on the down. Thanks!
Answer this question:

Question from Seamus
Trying to decide between the Backlands 100 and the Carbon Pagoda Tour 100. Obviously a HUGE price difference, but I was curious about the differences in performance. Any ideas? Thanks
Answer from Carlos M
Hi Seamus,

The DPS Pagoda Tour construction will be more damp in variable snow, and is overall stiffer and more substantial for the weight. We would also expect the performance lifespan of the ski (how long it retains its flex characteristics) to be much longer on the Pagoda, due to the unique core and layup which resists flex fatigue much better than a traditional wood laminate.

In terms of downhill performance, the RP shape from DPS has a very unique feel - very easy to turn in powder and soft snow. The shape and rocker profile makes powder skiing very easy, and very enjoyable. The Backland 100 might have a little more pop to it, whereas I would expect the DPS ski to be more surfy and maneuverable. Both are good soft-snow-focused touring skis, but the DPS will feel a bit different (compared to almost anything else out there).
Answer this question:

Question from Adam B

I'm torn between the 180 and the 188. I'm 6'2", 175 lbs. My resort ski for the past decade has been a Line Sick Day 95 in a 186 and I really like that length for the resort - I'm wondering if you think the 180 would be too short for me. I'd like to save some weight, but I haven't ever owned a ski under 185, though I'm just getting into touring - I've spent several days on a 165 cm splitboard this season and I want to expand to skiing in the BC. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.
Answer from jbo
Hi Adam, I would go with the 180. It's nice having a bit shorter ski for kick turns and booting, quite normal to chop 5cm off your resort length. Still nice float in that length.
Answer this question:

Question from Andrew
I’m 5’11”, 155 and between the 180 and 172 for an all around do it all touring ski. Any suggestions on size?
Answer from Carlos M
Hi Andrew,

I'm your size, and for an all-arounder, I'd lean towards the 172 unless 1) you prioritize high-speed stability over maneuverability, or 2) you're used to skiing longer skis and prefer that feeling. You will get more float and stability out of the 180, but it might feel a bit long in the tighter trees and bushy backcountry exits. So if it's your pow ski for open bowls, the 180 has benefits, but for all-around use, leaning towards the 172.
Answer this question:

Tjaard B (used product a few times)
I got the 188 cm version, I am 196cm/6’5” tall, ~175 lbs and usually my pack is around 7-11kg /15-25lbs. Low intermediate skier.

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.
Comment on this review:

Question from simon x
Hey mountain people. Just curious if for my medium build 175@70kg the backlands in 180 would be easily manageable in all conditions other than powder (easy stuff). Of course, their low weight/rockers is a plus but all my other/directional pairs of waist up to 96 come to the 170s...
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?
Answer from eric
Simon- The short answer is yes you could easily ski 180 at your height and weight. Given that this ski is very friendly and easy to ski this should not be a problem. With that said, if you ski all your other skis in the 170s range I would strongly suggest the 172 in a backcountry ski. The Locator is a much stiffer, solid ski that demands more attention and rewards a stronger skier more than other skis.
Answer this question:

Question from Ryan
Hi, I think I found the ski Im looking for, I’m 6’2” 205, intermediate at BC. See that there is a 180 last years model. Would this be too small for me?
Thanks so much!
Answer from Patrick C

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.
Answer this question:

Question from Fabs
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.
Answer from Gabriel I
Hi Fabs, the Backland 100 splits the difference between the 95 and 107. It's a tad wider than the 95, but has more tip and tail rocker, which will lend itself better to flotation and softer conditions. At your height and weight, the 180 will provide a good mix of uphill and downhill performance.
Answer this question:

Question from Phillip
Hello, I'm torn between the Backland 100 and the 95. I'm from Austria and mostly tour throughout the season in the pre-alpine regions with more tame terrain and one to two week-trips with some challenging tours in the central alps. I'd also like to use the skis in the resort, although I only ski piste if it's necessary; I'm really looking for a do it all kind of ski. Which one would you recommend?
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.
Thank you!
Answer from Gabriel I
Hi Phillip, the Backland 100 here has a little more rocker and tip rise than the 95 and will lend itself slightly better to softer conditions, whereas the Backland 95 would be better geared towards your do-it-all criteria.
Answer this question:

Question from nick
Looking at these and dynastar m tour 99 as a one ski quiver for the mammoth lakes area, any suggestions on which would be better? Also question on size, I'm 6'3" 175 seem to be kinda caught between on the backlands. I ski 186cm enforcers in the resort.
Answer from jbo
Hi Nick, you've narrowed it down well! The M-Tours are a bit damper with better edging on hard snow. The 100s are looser and can be more fun in powder. It might be OK to pick based on available lengths in this case! I would go shorter than your resort length for a one-ski BC quiver, however, just for practicality.
Answer this question:

Question from Taylor P
How do these compare to the Backland 107? I love how the 107 skis, but am looking for a narrower ski for better performance in firmer snow conditions.
Answer from Emmett I
Hi Taylor,

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.
Answer this question:

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:

Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.

Model: Backland 100

Follow us on social media

View full screen version