Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 65
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    2,858
    Quote Originally Posted by 1000-oaks View Post
    ... I'd rather have a so-so day on hardpack instead of a so-so day in pow.
    Sig worthy.
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    789
    Can anyone give me a straight pull measurement on the 182? I have the 186 Backland 117 that I'm really digging, but just a little wide. I am looking into this, the Bent 100, and the old Backland 109. I'm real interested in the length since I feel that the 186 Backland 117 (184 straight pull) is just about perfect. The 109 comes in 182/189 too, and the Bent 100 is 180 or 188. Ugh.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,110
    71-3/8"

    FYI: the "100mm" Tecton brake fits the Backland 107 great, just needs a tiny grind off the inside tip of the brake ends. (Doesn't really need a grind, but a little bevel helps the brake slide down the ski sidewalls.)
    Last edited by 1000-oaks; 01-04-2019 at 11:13 AM.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    31
    So I've had some days on these. Using them as a touring ski. Couple thoughts...

    1. They float really well even in the deep deep where I thought they would be under-gunned.

    2. I do not like the HRZN tech on a touring ski as snow easily works it's way between the base and skin due to the raised edges on the tip

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,110
    ^ Could probably cut away the skin there, the tip isn't providing traction.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by 1000-oaks View Post
    ^ Could probably cut away the skin there, the tip isn't providing traction.
    For sure, I've thought about it will probably do so. I think because of the fairly wide tip loop design on the skins I'm using (Voile) I would still have the same issue, though maybe less so if I cut some material away. Even the Atomic skins that they recommend look like they would have the issue with the Backland 107 (also they retail for $250?? wtf).

    It looks like they've addressed the issue on the rest of the Backland series with a rando/race style tip attachment and then pre-cut the tip of the skin to match the ski -

    https://shop.atomic.com/en-us/produc...95-al0033.html

    I think maybe G3's tip attachment might work best for this ski (and others with HRZN tech such as the new Bent Chetlers) -

    https://us-store.genuineguidegear.co...climbing-skins

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    91
    I have the Atomic skins for the Backland 107s - I believe they are made by Contour and have a plastic section from the tip loop to about 8Ē back. I get virtually zero snow build up under the tip of the skin which is amazing. This has been a problem with almost every other skin Iíve used. Not sure if it has to do with the plastic tip section or the Contour glue, but even with the skin over the beveled HRZN tip, snow still doesnít creep in. Iíve used this set up about 30 days and so far they are the best skins Iíve ever used. Iíll reserve full judgement until around day 75.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,628
    I'm considering 107s for my next bc ski. I'd ski the 182 length, (I weight 182 lbs and am 5' 11") mount them with very lightweight tech bindings, and ski them with Hawx 130 XTD boots. My bc ski for the last 5 years has been original BD Converts which are light, float very well for a 105 waist ski and are easy to turn, but extremely soft/reactive and not great in anything but good, untracked snow. Intended use is winter touring in the PNW and BC, mostly powder with some other soft snow (crust, wind hammered, etc.) I generally prefer easier turning, floaty skis.

    I have a few pairs of Atomics that I love, including the 182 Backland FR 109 mounted alpine (which to me feels extremely light and easy to ski with alpine boots) so this seems like the no-brainer touring ski. My only hangup is that looking at them in the shop, the rocker seems relatively moderate for a powder ski - yet everyone seems to say they ski deep snow and make short turns very well. I just want to make sure I don't end up over-gunned at all since my touring often involves tight tree skiing and fast turns.

    The other ski I'm considering is the G3 Seekr 110, which appears stiffer and more rockered, kind of a similar by different animal. Ideally I'd get out and just try them all, but it's pretty tough to arrange especially when talking about touring specific skis with tech bindings. Thanks to all who posted great reviews in this thread already.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1

    Skins

    Any update on the Backland 107's? Any issues with snow getting under tip of skin?

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    91
    Loving the skis and the Atomic skins. The skins are the best Iíve used in 25 years of touring. See my post above, Iím pretty sure theyíre made by contour. I probably have 60 days of touring on the skins and the glue looks almost brand new. The Atomic skins for my Backland 95s are Colltex I believe. They work fine but the glue is balling up like it normally does. The Backland 107/Contour skins are very pressure sensitive. Especially in cold temps it seems like they arenít going to stick unless you rub them on hard. But then you start skinning and never think about it again. At the top, give them a flick and they peel right off the ski. These skins have had the least snow build up under the tip that Iíve had in a fatter ski - rarely any. Whether thatís due to the Contour glue or the stiffer plastic tip section Iím not sure. The only issue Iíve had is with the tip loop - Iíve caught it with my other ski tip (poor technique but it happens) and pulled the metal loop out of the plastic. I stuck it back in and it seems fine.

    To be clear, I have these skins with what Atomic calls the Hybrid (Contour) glue:
    https://skimo.co/atomic-rocker-skins...hoCmQYQAvD_BwE

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Winthrop, WA. Methow valley
    Posts
    742
    Well, I'll throw in a contrary opinion to this 107 lovefest. Just for reference, I'm 5'11 and 220. My touring daily drivers are BMT 94's and 109's in 186cm; total boner for both. At the recent WWSRA demo at Mission I took out the 107's in a 189cm with MTN clamps. First impression..........fucking crazy light setup. Second impression, not sure how much of it was the bindings but really weak on edge cruising down the groomers, totally the opposite of the VTA 108 (skied the VTA's last year on bulletproof and they were outstanding for a touring ski). And lastly, in deep snow, they didn't float my heavy ass all that well and were easily deflected by chop, crust, etc. Overall I didn't like them at all. Pretty much the opposite from my experience on BMT 109's. So take my comments for what what their worth. I know guys that love the shit out of them and use them with shifts as an inbounds daily driver, but they are not for everyone. I always encourage anyone to demo before buying, well worth the effort and expense

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    189
    yesterday a guy took backland 107 from my friends shop test fleet and brought them back with both skis delamed underfoot and cores cracked in half. Said he jumped one bump and landed on the top part of the other hard bump. Just a quick reminder that light skis aren't that durable. And also that test skis are not for trashing and dropping cliffs all over the mountain.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,544
    Having broken my 185cm Synapse 109s a couple weekends ago, I recently picked up the 189cm Backland 107s. I would have gotten the SEEKr 110s, which seem to be the successor to the Synapse 109s, but couldn't find any in my desired length. The Backlands, like my Synapses, are mounted with Plum Guide heels and Dynafit Radical toes. After a few days, here are my very initial impressions:

    *First off, I loved my Synapse 109s. They may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I loved the fat rocker in the front, which was really confidence inspiring on any kind of textured snow and particularly fun in powder. Despite the full rocker and no camber, I felt equally at ease whether smearing/slarving or what the kids these days call "directional skiing."

    *The 189cm Backlands feel longer than the Synapse 109s.

    *They also feel heavier in the hand, but they are not heavy. I've done a couple longish days on them and they were fine.

    *The Backlands have a lot of camber.

    *I did a pre-work lap at my local resort on frozen groomers with the Backlands and was surprised at how easy they were to turn and their edge grip. The edge grip sensation may be because the edges of my ZeroG 95s are currently as sharp as carrots, but the Backlands are definitely easier to turn despite their girth.

    *I skied 10" powder and the Backlands felt fine. I still prefer my old Synapses, whose tips were nearly impossible to bury, but, again, I'm still adjusting to the Backlands. I've read that it's hard to sink the tips and am eager to test this out in deeper snow.

    *The Backlands were fun in corn, but is there any ski that isn't?

    *The Backlands seem like they'd make a pretty good inbounds ski, although I'd prefer more metal and weight.

    In short, my still-developing but current opinion of the Backland 107s is that they are good but long at 189cm. I prefer my old Synapse 109s, but that could change in the future as I adjust to the Backlands.





    RIP

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,628
    Myself and a friend both got 182cm Backland 107s, mounted them with lightweight tech bindings, and went on a 7 day hut trip in interior BC.

    Likes

    • Very lightweight and great feel while skinning. One ski weighs only 1526 grams!
    • Ideal length/width for me
    • Stable enough for for me at a decent clip over variable snow. Has a fairly smooth feel considering the very low weight.
    • Handles firm snow fairly well for being wide and lightweight
    • Super fun on wide open terrain, corn, shallow pow, etc



    Dislikes

    • This ski has more camber and less rocker than my previous touring ski the BD Convert. I find this means that low speed turns in tight terrain require more effort and active unweighting of the skis. I'm not super happy about this, but think it may be how they get a stiffer feel and better performance on variable snow at a very low weight.
    • I skied some unsupported snow in steep trees (dense pow over facets) and struggled a bit. I have no idea if another ski would have been better.
    • My friend cracked the core / delamed one of his after ~10 days of touring - no resort skiing. He is a bit bigger and much faster than me.



    Unsure

    • I haven't skied true deep powder in these yet and have spent little time in tight trees, so I'm reserving judgement there.




    Quote Originally Posted by AKbruin View Post
    *The Backlands have a lot of camber.
    Truth. I also considered the Seekr 110 in a 180 but thought the stiffness just seemed excessive - perhaps the increased rocker balances it out? I feel that a high camber ski may have not been the best choice for a 100% touring ski that will spend 80%+ of its life on soft if not deep backcountry snow.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,544
    A couple more notes. (1) I continue to be impressed with the ability of these skis on frozen groomers, which I sometimes climb and ski before work. They are much more playful and easier to arc than my ZeroG 95s, despite their girth. (2) My gym has been showing the FWT at Hakuba on repeat, and I noticed that two different competitors had next year's Backland 107s (which I think are identical to this years). I'd think they'd go for something heavier and damper (like the Vantage 107s), but it speaks well to the Backland 107s.

    Dromond- I'm not sure if the Seekr 110 is stiffer than the Synapse 109s, but I never had any problem with the stiffness of the latter. They were easy to turn going slow in trees but felt solid at speed, too.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,628
    Quote Originally Posted by AKbruin View Post
    A couple more notes. (1) I continue to be impressed with the ability of these skis on frozen groomers, which I sometimes climb and ski before work. They are much more playful and easier to arc than my ZeroG 95s, despite their girth. (2) My gym has been showing the FWT at Hakuba on repeat, and I noticed that two different competitors had next year's Backland 107s (which I think are identical to this years). I'd think they'd go for something heavier and damper (like the Vantage 107s), but it speaks well to the Backland 107s.

    Dromond- I'm not sure if the Seekr 110 is stiffer than the Synapse 109s, but I never had any problem with the stiffness of the latter. They were easy to turn going slow in trees but felt solid at speed, too.
    Interesting that youíve skied both. Do you prefer the backlands in general?

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,110
    No idea why a FWT competitor would be on such light skis, maybe just Backland 107 topsheets?

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Swiss alps
    Posts
    442
    I sincerely doubt that they are riding the comps on a light touring ski. I know a few FWT riders rock the 117 backland, maybe that is the confusion?

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Whistler
    Posts
    1,779
    It can handle heavy use. Proof from Whistler this week.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2019-04-17 at 10.05.08 AM.png 
Views:	94 
Size:	779.1 KB 
ID:	278839

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,544
    The topsheets for both competitors definitely read Backland 107. I could tell because the gym has huge HD tvs. It's possible that they used the Vantage 107s and switched the topsheets, but I don't understand why they wouldn't just promote the Vantage 107s. Also, the conditions in Hakuba were soft and powdery. I doubt they would have used the Backlands on hard-packed gnar in, say, Verbier.

    Interestingly, Daron Rahlves won the Redbull Raid at Squaw this weekend, which combines uphill and freeride, on the Vantage 107s. Conditions were spring corn but much firmer than Hakuba.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromond View Post
    Interesting that youíve skied both. Do you prefer the backlands in general?
    Just to be clear, I've skied the Synapse 109s and Backlands, but never the Seekrs. The Synapse was one of my favorite skis ever. I just found so much confidence in the hugely rockered tips, not just in powder but also in variable snow, crust, suncups, etc. And they could be skied "directionally" if the snow was at all soft. One of my BC partners, however, was not as high on the Synapses. Anyhow, other than their length, which I'm simply getting used to, I don't have any complaints about the Backlands so far. But I'm still adjusting to the fact that my prior skis had no camber and a ton of rocker and the Backlands have a lot of camber and less rocker. So I can say that I like the Backlands, but I'm reserving judgment as to whether they are as good as or better than the Synapses.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,628
    Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I guess Iím in a similar spot in that Iím sure they are good skis, but 50/50 on if they are my personal favorite. Iíll have to go skiing some more to find out...

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    1,730
    Thanks for the reviews yall. Found some 189s on Corbetts for the disturbingly cheaply price of 479 CAD / 357 USD. So I pulled the trigger.

    And figured y'all might wanna know too.
    sproing!

    FS: 187 Praxis GPO with STH14 binders https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...TH-14-bindings

    FS: crampons, lightweight winter down sleeping bag, and stuff https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...ost?highlight=

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,628
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    Thanks for the reviews yall. Found some 189s on Corbetts for the disturbingly cheaply price of 479 CAD / 357 USD. So I pulled the trigger.

    And figured y'all might wanna know too.
    Savage!

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,544
    That's a screaming deal. Despite my preference for heavier resort skis, I'm tempted to pick up a second pair and mounting them with alpine bindings as an all-around resort ski.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    1,730
    On mount point - I mounted at recommended, and did not like how far out and vague the tip felt. Remounted at +1.5 cm - perfecto! They seem way more balanced there, but have not had them out yet in soft wintry snow.

    On hardpack and spring conditions, these things shred.
    sproing!

    FS: 187 Praxis GPO with STH14 binders https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...TH-14-bindings

    FS: crampons, lightweight winter down sleeping bag, and stuff https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...ost?highlight=

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •