Hi,
I’m 177cm, 155#, wear backland XTD carbon 120 boots. Would this good be a good pairing? I would put ski trab Vario 2 bindings on them.
If so, should I go with 165cm or 172cm?
I’m coming off some line vision 98s, and want a more serious bc/ski mountaineering ski. But not toooo serious. I generally wear a backpack and don’t plan on racing.
Atomic Backland 86 SL Ski
If you're after a solid, lightweight touring ski that will have minimal impact on both the environment and your wallet, look no further than Atomic's Backland 86 SL. As the heavier sister ski to the much-loved Backland 86 UL, the "SL" will offer a less expensive construction while retaining many of the positive traits we love about the UL line. The 86mm width is exceedingly versatile, making this ski an equally good companion for skimo racers looking for a powder ski to pair with their race boots or heavy-metal downhill skiers looking for a lightweight, objective-focused mountaineering ski. Choose your usual ski size and ski it with your beef boot, or size it down for mountaineering and fitness. With a supportive but forgiving flex pattern, the 86 SL offers an engaging ride for skiers of various abilities and won't punish you in difficult conditions. The larger shovel and HRZN Tech tip help this ski to plane up in powder, and the shorter radius makes for a very nimble ski that turns quickly and carves well on firm snow. Paying heed to the needs of ski mountaineers, Atomic has generously included tip and tail notches with this ski so that you can enjoy quick transitions and efficient travel in the backcountry. For a fun, versatile, and affordable ticket into the backcountry, the Atomic Backland SL 86 is an excellent choice.
- Short radius and cambered shape make for quick, energetic turns at lower to moderate speeds.
- HRZN Tech tip floats well in powder, breaks trail efficiently, and is easy to steer.
- Factory edge bevel offers excellent edge hold and confidence in firm, steep terrain.
- Moderately stiff flex and flat tail are suitable for mountaineering, but not too demanding to ski.
- Substituting carbon for fiberglass in the construction makes the ski more compliant and affordable.
- Women - Please note the 157cm length has a different topsheet that Atomic calls the "86 SL W".
| Specifications | |
| Length(s) cm | 157, 165, 172, 179 |
|
Weight |
1010g [157] 1110g [165] 1180g [172] 1255g [179] |
| Weight (pair) | 2020g [157] 2220g [165] 2360g [172] 2510g [179] |
|
|
117-84.5-105 [157] 118.5-85-106.5 [165] 120-85.5-108 [172] 121.5-86-109.5 [179] |
|
Turn |
14.2m [157] 15.2m [165] 16.2m [172] 17.2m [179] |
|
Skin |
Tip notch, flat tails |
| Specs Verified | Yes |
| Design | |
|
|
All-Mountain Rocker with flat tail |
|
|
HRZN tip, shorter radius, tapered tail |
|
|
Fiberglass with Carbon Backbone |
|
|
Ultra Light Woodcore |
| Skimo Co Says | |
| Usage | Backcountry exploration |
| Notes | Low-impact design with reduced production waste |
| Bottom Line | Excellent value measured in grams per dollar |
| Compare to other Low-fat Skis | |
Related Products
Questions & Reviews
2/9/2026
2/9/2026
Hi Jessie,
I think for mountaineering and backcountry in general, I recommend the shorter option for ski length. In steeper terrain, shorter skis provide a quicker edge change, and in tight terrain, they turn more quickly to avoid hazards. Not to mention, shorter skis are easier on the up for kickturns and also for quickcarrying.
With that said, I don't think the 172 cm would be too long. It's really just a matter of preference.
RE: the boot/ski combo. With that boot, you are right on the cusp of having a little more boot than you might need to drive that ski. I think the pairing works just fine, but the XTD best resonates when matched with something in the 95 underfoot category - or at least something stiffer in the 85 range.
One fix: You could loosen up the power strap to soften up the boot if it ever felt like a problem.
I think for mountaineering and backcountry in general, I recommend the shorter option for ski length. In steeper terrain, shorter skis provide a quicker edge change, and in tight terrain, they turn more quickly to avoid hazards. Not to mention, shorter skis are easier on the up for kickturns and also for quickcarrying.
With that said, I don't think the 172 cm would be too long. It's really just a matter of preference.
RE: the boot/ski combo. With that boot, you are right on the cusp of having a little more boot than you might need to drive that ski. I think the pairing works just fine, but the XTD best resonates when matched with something in the 95 underfoot category - or at least something stiffer in the 85 range.
One fix: You could loosen up the power strap to soften up the boot if it ever felt like a problem.
2/9/2026
Thanks for the rundown! Do you have any other recommendations? I am more accustomed to softer, more progressively mounted skis. I was looking at some of the Voile options too.
I typically like a more forgiving ski, but I don’t want it to be unsupportive when I need it. I primarily ski PNW volcanoes, and have been mostly happy with my twin tips, but they are definitely on the heavy end. I’d like to try something a bit more precise and obviously lighter.
I typically like a more forgiving ski, but I don’t want it to be unsupportive when I need it. I primarily ski PNW volcanoes, and have been mostly happy with my twin tips, but they are definitely on the heavy end. I’d like to try something a bit more precise and obviously lighter.
2/9/2026
Of course!
My first thought would be the Dynafit Blacklight in the 165 length.
Alternatively, you could go with the Kastle TX94, although we don't have the ideal length for you (but the 171 would work).
My first thought would be the Dynafit Blacklight in the 165 length.
Alternatively, you could go with the Kastle TX94, although we don't have the ideal length for you (but the 171 would work).
Answer this question:
2/5/2026
Hey, what do you all think of skiing these with a dynafit ridge pro boot? Too much boot for this little ski? I’m looking for a light, fast, reliable spring ski. Just not sure if my boot is too stiff for this ski. I’m broke and this seems like your most affordable option!
Thank you!
Thank you!
2/6/2026
Hi Jonny, those would pair fine! Definitely on the light side for the Ridge Pro, but not so much that they wouldn't be plenty of fun. You could consider going up a length as well.
2/6/2026
Thanks for the reply. What about the Salomon mtn 86 pro? Would my boot be too much for that ski? Just trying to decide between the two…
I’m 5’8” 165lbs advanced skier and already have a pair of the alp tracks 95. Would the backland 86 or mtn 86 pro make sense as a narrower, more techy ski?
I’m 5’8” 165lbs advanced skier and already have a pair of the alp tracks 95. Would the backland 86 or mtn 86 pro make sense as a narrower, more techy ski?
2/7/2026
The Salomon is quite similar to the Backland. The Zero G 85 might be a good option, they're quite stiff and capable for the weight. Less damp and not much rocker so they're harsher in bad snow, but they rip hardpack, corn, and denser pow.
Answer this question:
1/22/2025
What is the different between Backland vs Backland SL?
Which one will be more versatility?
I’m think about 157 86 Sl W or 88 W length?
Which one will be more versatility?
I’m think about 157 86 Sl W or 88 W length?
1/22/2025
Hi Ola,
The main difference is that the Backland SL models are made with a lighter construction than the standard Backland! They are a bit more uphill-optimized as a result. The shapes are the same between the Backland 85 and the Backland 86 SL, as well as the Backland 88 and the Backland 89 SL. They will ski quite similarly to their counterparts, although you may be able to tell the difference in less ideal snow conditions where the regular Backlands may be damper than the SL models.
If you want to save weight, go with one of the SL (or UL!) models. If you're not as concerned about weight, the regular construction will be a little damper.
The main difference is that the Backland SL models are made with a lighter construction than the standard Backland! They are a bit more uphill-optimized as a result. The shapes are the same between the Backland 85 and the Backland 86 SL, as well as the Backland 88 and the Backland 89 SL. They will ski quite similarly to their counterparts, although you may be able to tell the difference in less ideal snow conditions where the regular Backlands may be damper than the SL models.
If you want to save weight, go with one of the SL (or UL!) models. If you're not as concerned about weight, the regular construction will be a little damper.
Answer this question:
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.
