Skimo Co

Atomic Backland 95 Ski - 2022/23

$699.95 $499.95

In Stock & Ships Today

Free shipping

Rare is the time we sacrifice peak-bagging prowess for pure power on the descent, but luckily with the Backland 95, you don’t have to. Borrowing geometry cues from Atomic’s larger powder skis and core construction secrets from its lighter-weight brethren, the Backland 95 is a big mountain ski put on a substantial diet. Or maybe a mountaineering ski that was put on a fattening diet? We're not certain. What is certain though is the Backland 95 brings substantial influence from both free-ride touring and ski mountaineering to create a ski that is capable of it all. A free-rider's spring ski, a mountaineer's powder ski, maybe your only ski. At any rate, the lightweight Poplar and Caruba core keeps things light and powerful while a full-length sidewall increases durability and edge-hold. The tip is spooned on the sides to make turning a breeze. The Backland 95 is Atomics' contender for the quiver-of-one.

  • AT Tip 2.0 is shaped to reduce hooky tips in challenging snow, allowing you to ski the way you want to no matter the conditions.
  • HRZN Tech is a lateral tip rocker (think of a spoon) that increases effective surface area in the tip for increased flotation, decreased deflection, and easy turn-initiation.
  • Carbon Backbone increases power transfer, dampens vibrations, and keeps the ski light.
  • Full sidewall increases edge grip in steep, firm snow while reducing chatter and vibrations at high speed.
  • Ultra-Light Woodcore is the Poplar and Caruba backbone in the Backland 95.

Update 2021/22: Atomic has updated the topsheet to keep it fresh.

Update 2023/24: This Backland 95 has been replaced by a redesigned version, which can be found here.

Lengths (cm) 169, 177, 185
convert to ounces
1255g [169]
1350g [177]
1455g [185]
Weight (pair) 2510g [169]
2700g [177]
2910g [185]
Dimensions   125-95-113.5 [169]
126.5-95-115 [177]
128-95-116.5 [185]
Turn Radius   17m [169]
18m [177]
19m [185]
Skin Fix   Tip notch, flat tail
Specs Verified Yes
Profile   Rocker tip 15%, camber 85%
Shape   AT Tip 2.0, tapered tail
Construction   HRZN Tech, Carbon Backbone
Core   Poplar and Caruba wood core
Skimo Co Says
Usage Powder hunting, quiver of one
Notes Tip is spooned laterally to ease turn-initiation
Bottom Line Easy to ski, all-around confidence inspiring
Compare to other High-fat Skis

Related Products

Questions & Reviews

Question from Fab
I had this ski in length 177 and look for a replacement. I realy enjoyed them but at times they felt short. Only in some conditions like wind crust or deep wet snow I had to lean back :( which I don't like.
I did demo the 185cm model as well. It felt very stiff to me, I guess my body weight is to low for them. (188cm, 70kg)
Can you recommend an alternative ski?
Answer from Carlos M
Hi Fab,

Sure! I would look at the  Salomon MTN Carbon 96 as an alternative to this ski. It comes in a 182cm length, so in between, and it is a bit softer and rounder in its flex profile than the Backland 95. A great all-around ski for various conditions in the backcountry.

Unfortunately wind crust and deep wet snow are very difficult conditions on any ski, especially a lightweight touring ski. But going a little bigger will help with float.
Answer this question:

Question from Donatas
I currently have Salomon QST 106 174cm with Fritschi Tecton bindings and want something lighter to use on most days when there's not enough fresh powder to justify dragging heavy QSTs up.
One of the main candidates are Backland 95, but I'm not sure whether I should opt for 169 cm or 177 cm. I'm 178 cm, 88 kg naked. Which length would you suggest?
Another candidate is K2 Wayback 92, which are 200g lighter. How do you think they compare?
Planning to use the new skis with Fritschi Xenic bindings.
Answer from jbo
Hi Donatas, understood! For an all-around ski I would go with the 177. However, since you have a powder ski, you can go shorter with this one, making it more manageable on the up, on your pack, etc. The 169 would do just fine on harder snow and be more maneuverable in tight spots.

The Backland 95s are lighter than the Wayback 92s in similar lengths. That ski uses the cheaper/heavier construction found in the 84 as compared to the 88, 98, and 106 which are higher-quality builds. K2's lineup can be confusing and is really hit or miss.
Answer this question:

Question from Alex
What binding would you put on an Atomic Backland 95? I'm going with a Scarpa F1 LT as boot, and currently torn between ATK Haute Route, ATK Crest and Marker Alpinist.

For reference: 5'10" and 148lbs, really love to go hard uphill (originally wanted to get the Backland 85UL but then opted for the 95 as a jack of all trades) but I'm looking for a light ski setup that can be good for all-mountain use from hard and icy snow in the Alps to powder in Norway, and perform decently downhill too.

Thanks in advance.
Answer from Lrow
Hi Alex,

We have an almost identical set up so I'll give you my recommendations. I'm a fan of the ATK RT Evo bindings and the ATK Crest is its predecessor (the difference being a few grams and brake operation).

Weight is comparable by a few flecks of sugar between ATK models and Marker, so the biggest consideration for you is if you want more features. This includes fully adjustable lateral and vertical releases, a longer bsl track, etc. Erring on the side of features, I'd recommend the Crest.
Answer from Alex
Thanks Lrow for the quick answer. Although I love the sleek look of brakeless skis, I'll probably go for the Crest over the Alpinist since it offers more for the same weight.

Do you know if the brake can be removed from the Crest? And how is its skiability compared to the ATK Haute Route and the Marker Alpinist?

Thanks again.
Answer from jbo
Hi Alex, yes you can remove the brakes from the Crest. It skis exactly like the Haute Route, except if you flex the ski past the 4mm gap (e.g. on a landing) in which case the Elastic Response System kicks in. The Alpinist is a gapless design so you can feel rebound coming out of a turn...a great ski feel at the cost of a fixed U-spring vertical release and (optional) brake without an AFD. Nothing but tradeoffs in this category which is why we send people to our binding finder (the binding needs to match you as well as the ski).
Answer this question:

Question from Przemek
Hi, how would you compare backland 95 to volkl blaze 94? Looking for allround skies, 65% backcountry/touring and 35% resort skiing.
Answer from Carlos M
Hi Przemek,

They are pretty different skis. The Blaze 94 is heavier and more damp, and will have a very different feel due to the nearly flat/full rocker profile, whereas the Atomic is a more typical touring ski that is lightweight, rockered in the tip, and cambered underfoot. The Blaze will be able to ski more aggressively through variable snow and will be a little bit looser/easier to turn in variable and off-piste conditions. It is a turn-y ski with a tight underfoot turn radius of 17m, but can still ski fast. The Atomic will have more of a traditional ski feel, with some pop out of the turn and a slightly longer effective edge at lower edge angles. The Atomic will be a solid backcountry all arounder coming in at a pretty light weight, whereas the Volkl will likely be more rewarding for an aggressive skier in and out of the resort.
Answer this question:

Ben (downright abused product)
I am on the 2018/19 version of these skis and after putting a couple hundred days on them I can say these are the most durable and versatile skis I have ever owned.

They've been drilled twice and have some delamination (long story but not from skiing) for 50+ days now and are still holding up fine

The 177 length is a little long for my 5' 8" height but provides stability at speed and float in powder. The HRZN tip is not a marketing gimmick either it provides a noticeable difference in powder over other similar-width skis. They also handle well on hard pack paired with mtn pure bindings I can rip through icy moguls no problem. One downside is the stiffness of the ski prevents it from holding an edge deep into a turn while carving and they prefer short radius turns in steeper terrain.
Comment on this review:

Question from Chris
I'm 6'4" and weigh 188 lbs. Would you recommend 177 or 185 cm? I'm new to ski touring. I would also like to use the ski in crappy conditions, but nothing too extreme.
Answer from Gabriel I
Hi Chris, at your height and weight, you'd have no problem skiing the 185. The 177 will drop about 100g per ski and give you some maneuverability, and the 185 will offer more stability, so it'll be a question of what you want to prioritize.
Answer this question:

Question from Bryce
Hello again!

Would these skis (or another similar width/weight ski) at 176cm be too much to be driven by the dynafit tlt7 boots? I've been skiing the backland UL 85's, but it would be nice to have a more all-around one ski quiver. If you think these are too big a ski for the TLT7's, what is the max size ski I could comfortably manage with these boots? Thanks! Oh.. I'm 6'2, 195lbs.
Answer from Emmett I
Hi Bryce,

What ski will work for what boot is very personal. You could certainly ski the Backland 95 with the TLT 7. You might not be utilizing as well as you would be in a boot from the Freeride section of our website, but they would still be plenty fun. Something like the Blizzard Zero G 85 would be very well suited to the TLT 7 if you want to go lighter than the backlands.
Answer this question:

Question from sevve stember
Hello! I ride to 178 DynaStar high mountain Cham, 107 under foot currently. I am considering getting the ski, I’m 58, 140 pounds. Typically can ski difficult terrain. Would I just want the 177?
Answer from eric
Sevve- I would agree that you would ski on the 177cm length.
Answer this question:

Question from Marc B
Hello, yet another comparison question: how do these compare to the blacklight 95, in terms of float, edge hold, poor snow ability and overall feel?
Backland 95 seem like they are pretty decent at everything, but in which area the blacklight would be better?
Answer from Jeff
Marc, Yes, the specs are pretty similar for both skis. But the Blacklight 95 is even stiffer. Maybe giving them an edge in difficult or icy conditions and they are quite damp for a light ski. They do come in a 165cm for you.
Answer this question:

Question from Rodney
I saw that there were no telemark mounting restrictions to the Backland 95 in 2018 in the previous questions. Is that still the case in 2022? Thanks!
Answer from Brett S
Hey Rodney, it would appear that is still the case as Atomic doesn't have language expressly stating not to use telemark bindings.
Answer this question:

Question from MarcB
Hi, do you guys know why Atomic offer these skis only in 169 and above? (and if there are any plans to extend the range of sizes?) I am 170cm "tall" and I am looking at these... but I usually like to ski -5 to -10cm.
Or maybe you have an alternative to suggest? I have the backland 85UL that I really like but I am looking for something a bit beefier to pair with my bigger boots for down-oriented days, deep days and more difficult snow conditions.
Answer from Jeff
Hi Marc,
No new sizes for next season. For this style of ski, the 169cm should be good for you. Sizing down for the UL85 is right, but for deep days, 169cm is as short as you would want. If you want to discuss more in depth, contact us at
Answer this question:

Question from Kuba
I’m thinking about Backland 95 or Backland 85 UL
Which one will be more versality?
Answer from Zak M
Hey Kuba, I really think it depends on what quiver slot you are trying to fill and what you are used to skiing, and where! Both the Backland 85UL and 95 have the same rocker profile, but the 95 will have a slightly beefier and heavier construction than the 85UL. So in essence, the added width and heavier construction will make the Backland 95 ski better in a mixed bag of snow conditions while still being very light on the uphill. If you are looking for one ski to do it all, I think the Backand 95 would be an excellent choice.
Answer this question:

Question from Tom P
Considering moving my Dynafit touring bindings to Backland 95s/100s or maybe Ripstick 96s, as my early Dynastar Cham 97 HM we’re never really stiff enough for my hard-charging 6’1” 240lbs if I’m on firm or icy piste.
I know you love them on touring descents, but do you think Backlands &/or Ripsticks are stiff enough to support a full-sized mammal on the inevitable inbounders?
Answer from Ian C
Hi Tom, these skis offer nice energy and dampness while still being easy to ski. They could be a good candidate for the occasional inbounds day. If you wanted to dial up the blasting power to the next level, take a look at the Scott Superguide 95!
Answer this question:

Question from Sean O
Thanks Ian! Is there a woman’s model? Or an alternative ski you’d suggest?
Answer from Ian C
Hey Sean, there is a Backland Women's 98, whose 156cm could work nicely for your daughter! Another favorite of mine in this category would be the Voile Hyper Manti - Women in 158cm!
Answer this question:

Question from Sean O’Connor
I’m 5’10”, 165. I mostly ski in NH, usually inbounds, but I do a lot of uphill skiing. I use Icelantic Natural 111s when I visit Utah, but I need a new set up for the East Coast (so does my daughter-5’5”, 110). I have ‘18 BD Route 95’s, but their performance in East coast conditions isn’t great. The Atomics look like a good option. What do you think?
Answer from Ian C
Hi Sean, I have used skis in the 95 waist width extensively in VT on everything from groomers to ice to slush and found them totally appropriate! The Backland 95 will be damp enough to soak up the bumps and light enough for your uphill laps. Your daughter may want a shorter length as we only have the 177cm in stock at the moment.
Answer this question:

Question from Andres
hey everyone, wondering if you think the backland 95, 100, or another ski (have been contemplating the elan ripstick tour) is the right choice for me.

i'm an intermediate skier who loves long and fast uphill days. but i'm not the most technically skillful downhiller (yet) so, while weight savings are extremely important to me for big ascents, I still like a confidence-inspiring platform that performs in a wide range of snow conditions (guess i'm looking for that single quiver magic).

i'm 5'9, 135lbs, and track between Sawtooths Idaho, NE Oregon, and BC Canada. is this the right ski for me? is there another i should be looking at?
Answer from Brett S
Thanks for reaching out, Andres. To me, it sounds like the Backland 100 would be the clear winner. It's easy-going and lightweight, but can be pushed hard when it needs to be. The Backland 95 is a great ski, but it's geared for more aggressive skiers who want a damp yet stable ride on a lightweight platform.
Answer this question:

John P (used product regularly)
I am on the 21/22 version of this ski and have now been on 10-15 tours with them in the pacific northwest. I am 6"4' 190lb on the 185cm length.

The full setup (which I highly recommend) is the atomic backland 95, ATK raider 12 (brakes removed) and the fischer transalp pro.

This skis lightweight and reasonable waist make it a great all around ski for day in day out tours. It provides confident edge hold in firm conditions and the rearward mount point help keep the tips afloat in powder.

I am using the pomoca free pro 2.0 skin and I was able to swap out the tip loops for dynafit tip connectors that fit well in the groves of the atomic backland.

The downhill performance of these skis is good considering their weight, they are fun and easy to ski in most of the conditions I have had them in.

In feet of new cascade concrete I wanted something wider and with more mass. On several spring like days (freeze thaw conditions) they were an absolute blast. I cannot wait to get these bad boys up a volcano.

I was looking to shed some serious weight from my previous setup but still retain a durable, fun on the down touring setup. These skis have delivered on that goal, I would buy them again.
Reply from Turner G
Do you also have ski crampons? Is the BD Helio 97mm crampon wide enough?
Reply from Ian C
Hi Turner, not sure if you were asking the original reviewer, but the BD 97mm crampons would definitely be wide enough for this ski!
Reply from Turner G
Perfect, thanks Ian. Very helpful
Comment on this review:

Question from Paul S
How would you rate this ski for edge hold on steep, icy terrain (East coast pow)? Is it comparable to models like the Zero G or Mistico? I'm looking for a good all-arounder that's fun in the glades but also can perform in rained-out, wind-hammered alpine conditions
Answer from Brett S
Thanks for your question, Paul. For what you've described, the Backland 95 would be the best choice. It'll be damp enough for the resort, float well in powder, and will hold an edge when you need it to. Out of the three skis you listed, the Zero-G 95 will have the best edge hold, however, it is a very "demanding" ski that insists on impeccable ski form at all times. While we're huge fans of Ski Trab, for resort usage I think you'd be better served with the Atomic. Please let us know if you have any other questions!
Answer this question:

Question from marino
Hi guys, I'm interested in the Backland95 and I'm not sure which size is right for me. I'm an expert skier but not that advanced with ski touring yet (getting there).
I'm 158lbs and 5'11'' (72kg and 180cm).
I'm thinking of getting the 185 version, what do you think?
thanks, happy skiing
Answer from Julieana
Hey Marino, with touring skis most people size down a little as that generally saves some weight and also is easier to maneuver for the uphill. We usually suggest a ski length that is somewhere between your nose and the top of your head. My suggestion for you would be to choose a ski length just a bit shorter than you normally would for your alpine ski.
Answer this question:

Question from Priy
How do the atomic Backland 95 Skis measure in reality, vs the stated length? To be more precise, how long is the 177cm, measured with a straight tape pull?
Thanks a lot,
Answer from Zak M
Hey Priy, we don't currently have the 177cm in stock but I did measure the 169cm and it measured spot on. You could then concur that the 177cm would hopefully be spot on too.
Answer this question:

Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.

Model: Backland 95

Follow us on social media

View full screen version