Atomic Backland 100 Ski

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!

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.

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.

Hi,

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?

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.

Thanks

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?

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!

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?

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!

Wondering how you think these would work in New England? Mix of resort and backcountry. Athletic intermediate skier. Salomon shift bindings. Thanks!

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).

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Has anyone tried this ski with a lighter boot? Specifically, I am curious if my Alien RS's would be sufficient to steer this ski in sub-optimal snow conditions. I currently ski a 178cm Blizzard Zero G 95 with this boot and have no issues turning in cruddy snow. I'd be looking at the 180cm version of the Backland 100.

Hey guys, those dimensions look very much like the Bentchetler 100 - is the rocker profile the same, or is it more directional like the other Backland skis?