Do we have any sense as to how these compare to the Backland FR 102, in terms of how they ski? Aside from being heavier, obviously.
My first touring setup was a pair of FR 102's. I loved the way they skied - confident on the steeps, floaty in powder, but also manageable in firm conditions. They preferred a center-balanced weight distribution (no tail gunning!) They were too heavy, though, so now they're my resort ski.
These might be exactly what I'm looking for.
Atomic Backland 102 Ski
Taking the reigns from the ever-popular Backland 100, the Backland FR 102 from Atomic ushers in a new era for Atomic's flagship do-it-all ski. With a revamped construction, the Backland FR 102 features more wood with less fiberglass, metal, and resin, reducing its carbon footprint while maintaining a damp feel. Increasing the amount of rocker to 35% compared to 30% in years past, maneuverability is increased ever so slightly, helping you navigate through tight and technical terrain. The HRZN 3D Backland tip reduces unnecessary weight in the tip, resulting in easier turn initiation while increasing float in deeper snow. Finally, the Dura Cap Sidewall assists with durability and increases edge pressure, helping with edge hold in firm and steep terrain. With a design that strikes a fine middle ground between all the ski categories, the Backland FR 102 is a versatile ski that can handle any adventure you embark upon.
- FreeTour Profile strikes a versatile balance between weight and stability,
- HRZN 3D Backland tip uses a perforated and beveled tip to help with turn initiation and decrease the swing weight.
- Ultra Light Woodcore combines Caruba and Poplar with a hardwood mounting insert to keep weight down without diminishing performance.
- Dura Cap Sidewall assists with power transfer to the edges while helping to fend off rock strikes.
| Specifications | |
| Lengths (cm) | 164, 172, 179, 186 |
|
Weight |
1215g [164] 1295g [172] 1370g [179] 1400g [186] |
| Weight (pair) | 2430g [164] 2590g [172] 2740g [179] 2800g [186] |
|
|
127-101-117.5 [164] 129-101.5-119.5 [172] 130.5-102-121 [179] 132-102.5-122.5 [186] |
|
Turn |
17m [164] 18m [172] 19m [179] 20m [186] |
|
Skin |
Square tip & flat tails |
| Specs Verified | Yes |
| Design | |
|
|
Powder rocker 20/65/15 |
|
|
Generous shovel, medium radius, tapered tail |
|
|
Dura Cap Sidewall |
|
|
Poplar and Caruba core with fiberglass laminates |
| Skimo Co Says | |
| Usage | Everyday touring |
| Notes | A more damp and playful version of the beloved Backland 100 |
| Bottom Line | A versatile quiver of one |
| Compare to other High-fat Skis | |
Related Products
Questions & Reviews
10/31/2024
11/1/2024
Hi A R,
Without having skied the FR 102, I can offer you some thoughts from comparing the specs and having skied the newer generation of Backland skis!
As you said, they are quite a bit lighter. They ski very well for the weight. In an effort to be eco-friendly, Atomic has made a core with more wood in it, which feels pretty damp for the weight and has nice energy.
Compared to the older generation of Backland skis, the newer Backlands have a little more rocker, and a bit rounder flex. I would say they are a little more playful. I think this ski would still meet your description of being confident on steep terrain, floaty in powder, and manageable in firm. Maybe with a bit more nod towards powder performance than in years past!
Without having skied the FR 102, I can offer you some thoughts from comparing the specs and having skied the newer generation of Backland skis!
As you said, they are quite a bit lighter. They ski very well for the weight. In an effort to be eco-friendly, Atomic has made a core with more wood in it, which feels pretty damp for the weight and has nice energy.
Compared to the older generation of Backland skis, the newer Backlands have a little more rocker, and a bit rounder flex. I would say they are a little more playful. I think this ski would still meet your description of being confident on steep terrain, floaty in powder, and manageable in firm. Maybe with a bit more nod towards powder performance than in years past!
Answer this question:
8/30/2024
Not quite a review. I just received my pair and I'm very excited to ski them!
They came in under weight (1415g/ski in the 186!). They feel quite torsionally stiff for the weight.
The camber/rocker profile is ideal for a touring ski, and is a welcome departure from very high camber touring skis. There is about 1mm of camber, with tip and tail rocker that is relatively low. The tip rocker extends I think a bit more than the advertised 20%.
The top sheet looks very cool to boot.
I'm very psyched to ski these. I think they are a great shape and appear to be a good balance of weight/stiffness for those days that are still soft but not the deepest.
They came in under weight (1415g/ski in the 186!). They feel quite torsionally stiff for the weight.
The camber/rocker profile is ideal for a touring ski, and is a welcome departure from very high camber touring skis. There is about 1mm of camber, with tip and tail rocker that is relatively low. The tip rocker extends I think a bit more than the advertised 20%.
The top sheet looks very cool to boot.
I'm very psyched to ski these. I think they are a great shape and appear to be a good balance of weight/stiffness for those days that are still soft but not the deepest.
Reply to this comment:
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.
