As is so often the case in the skimo world, we get really excited about the little things. So when we heard that the redesigned Atomic Backland UL 85 was 10% lighter and made in hard-to-find lengths, we got pretty excited. Integrating several of their proprietary technologies, the witches and warlocks at Atomic were able to shave grams from an already light model. This while maintaining the intuitive, stable feel that the Backland series is known for. In its second generation, this version of the Backland UL 85 has the Atomic HRZN spoon shaped tip that was first introduced on the Bent Chetler and has now spread to the farthest corners of the Atomic freeride line. This improves steering and float simultaneously. The tips of course still have a race-notch to streamline skin attachment, which is a huge plus for efficient transitions. Carbon fiber sheets sit above and below the Ultra Light Woodcore, making a sandwich that offers a snappy ride without compromising on stability. We used the word 'workhorse' to describe the previous model of this ski, and it still applies. Now, the Backland UL 85 is just a slightly leaner workhorse that skis even better.
Atomic's Cap Sidewall transfers power through the core to the edge, all while keeping things light for long approaches and big days.
The Carbon Powered laminates and Ultra Light Woodcore combine to give an incredibly powerful downhill ride, especially for a ski this light.
True to typical Backland UL form, this updated 85 is stable and predictable, providing a reliable ride across the board.
The 15% rocker, 117mm-wide tip [172cm] provide a stable, steady ride even in heavy, choppy, or just plain bad snow.
The Tech Tips make for seamless skin attachment, perfect for tight transitions and windy peaks.
HRZN spoon shaped tip slices right through snow and won’t hook up on crust.
Stable and reliable; comes in hard-to-find lengths
A badass ski brought back and made even better
Hey, I'm 6', 155 lbs. I ski mostly on Navis Freebirds that are 184. I'm looking at these skis for something lightweight but more practical/versatile than a skinny rando ski. Mostly for long tours, spring couloirs, and Rainier/Bolivia volcanoes. Think I should go with 179's or do you have any good arguments for or against going shorter with 172's? Thanks!
Hey Chris, solid choice with the Backland 85! If you are committed to skiing longer boards, you may find the 179cm more like what you're used to. That said, the 172 would be more than enough ski for most of those consolidated-snow missions such as skiing volcanoes. With a mountaineering ski, a little less length pays dividends for making lots of kick-turns, easy hop-turning on steep terrain, and putting a ski on/taking it off your pack a bunch of times over the course of the day. Since you wouldn't be hitting lots of fresh snow, the reduced float of a shorter ski shouldn't be a problem.
Hey Casper, that's a good question. The Backland 85 might take a slight durability edge over the Movement or Blizzard offerings as it has a bit more wood in the core, which dampens potential impacts against rocks or other obstacles, and maintains consistent strength through all kinds of demanding skiing. We've also seen excellent durability on the Zero G series. If you're looking for the most durable mid-fat skis in the business look no further than the apparently indestructible Ski Trab Magico and Mistico.
Hey Robert, the Xenic should pair nicely with the Backland 85! The mounting plate is more than wide enough to accommodate the toe piece. Leave it to the Swiss to design a binding that works well with a midfat ski. :-)
Just got a pair of 85UL-172. These are supposed to weigh 1040+-30g, but mine are 1100/1125. The same scale shows 1340g for Mtn Explore 95-169 (~1380g), so the numbers should be close. Anybody else found them substantially heavier? I know the differences are small, but I was strongly considering Hyper Vector BC which is "listed" ~1160g for 95-171.
Hi Kenji, we weigh our skis so have confidence in the weights for skis in our inventory (if you see Specs Verified = Yes). We're happy to exchange on our dime if the weight doesn't meet your expectations (I don't see an order from you though?).
Sorry, they are from a local store, but I did get a pair of Trab bindings from you to go on these skis. The store had another pair about 100g lighter and swapped w/ mine. Thanks!
Hi! I'm looking for an all-arounder ski... I've got some fatter powder planks and a race setup, but nothing in the middle. This ski seems like it'd fit the bill: mid-fat, tight turning radius, pretty damn light... I'd probably use it as my daily driver, but would also want to use it for ski mountaineering / tight couloirs. I'm 5'6", 130 lbs, and tend to like shorter skis so was thinking of going for the 158s. Also I'm a crap skier. What do you guys think, is this ski (with some light boots and mounted with a set of race bindings) a decent way to go? Also, I noticed using the 'compare' tool that you guys don't list 'ski mountaineering' as one of the uses, and was just wondering why not? Is there a reason you wouldn't recommend it for ski mountaineering objectives? Thanks!
Hey Paul Magnus, I would say the Backland 85 would be an excellent choice given everything you're saying about yourself and your skiing! You might find the 165cm a little better in deep snow if these will be your all-around ski, although the 158cm functions better as a mountaineering weapon, and would still float nicely in the soft stuff. And yes, we do love these skis for steep skiing off of summits and traversing the high hills! The Usage listing is mainly gesturing to the way that the Backland 85 is designed for and excels in everyday applications, not just on cold and chossy north faces. Hard to go wrong with these zebra rippers!