Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 101
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,284

    2019 Atomic Backland 107

    I decided on getting some MTN bindings this year.

    And wanted a light bc ski for them.

    Looked at lots. Always came back to the Backlands....

    I also have both R11s and Bentchetler 120s with Shifts, so was looking at a 100mm skis for spring etc.

    Got this years 180cm Backland 100s (130-100-119 specs) for $649cdn.

    There is not much written about these as the 100 Backland width is new this year. Anyone tried them?

    I ski more centered so I mounted at +2cm. I really like how Atomic gives a huge mount range (ie marks at +1, +2cm and -1cm, -2cm).

    Havenít skied these yet. But they are so light. 1,400gm ski and 300gm binding.

    Could see adding a wider Backland if I like these.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_8342.JPG 
Views:	89 
Size:	216.6 KB 
ID:	347882Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_8343.JPG 
Views:	93 
Size:	700.5 KB 
ID:	347883
    _________________________________________________
    I love big dumps.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,877
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    As you already have Steeples which can charge straight and run over people get the 182s. The 189s favour open ( but can be turned). The 182s favour tight ( but can go straight). A minor difference perhaps but it's there. Me 155lbs
    That's what I was thinking, but wanted to get some input since some people say they ski short. I'd definitely be using them in more tight terrain, mostly front range-ish colorado and not a lot of ripping big lines fast. Thanks.
    "High risers are for people with fused ankles, jongs and dudes who are too fat to see their dick or touch their toes.
    Prove me wrong."
    -I've seen black diamonds!

    throughpolarizedeyes.com

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Fish
    Posts
    3,779
    Quote Originally Posted by kc_7777 View Post
    I decided on getting some MTN bindings this year.

    And wanted a light bc ski for them.

    Looked at lots. Always came back to the Backlands....

    I also have both R11s and Bentchetler 120s with Shifts, so was looking at a 100mm skis for spring etc.

    Got this years 180cm Backland 100s (130-100-119 specs) for $649cdn.

    There is not much written about these as the 100 Backland width is new this year. Anyone tried them?

    I ski more centered so I mounted at +2cm. I really like how Atomic gives a huge mount range (ie marks at +1, +2cm and -1cm, -2cm).

    Havenít skied these yet. But they are so light. 1,400gm ski and 300gm binding.

    Could see adding a wider Backland if I like these.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_8342.JPG 
Views:	89 
Size:	216.6 KB 
ID:	347882Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_8343.JPG 
Views:	93 
Size:	700.5 KB 
ID:	347883
    Essentially a Bent 100 with a flatter tail.
    a positive attitude will not solve all of your problems, but it may annoy enough people to make it worth the effort

    Formerly Rludes025

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Eluder View Post
    Essentially a Bent 100 with a flatter tail.
    Not to mention about 400 grams lighter...

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Fish
    Posts
    3,779
    Quote Originally Posted by thejongiest View Post
    Not to mention about 400 grams lighter...
    sorry, it has a different core. Same shape, and its something to search that has some history.
    a positive attitude will not solve all of your problems, but it may annoy enough people to make it worth the effort

    Formerly Rludes025

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    +3 ogdens
    Posts
    205
    Debating between the 107 or the 100 backland. Ski the QsT 106 as my daily driver with shift. Want the 100 in 180 length but have reservations about it's float in powder. I'm 190, 5' 10" ok skier.

    Can anyone weigh in on how the 100 floats in powder?

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    12,949
    Quote Originally Posted by NBABUCKS1 View Post
    Debating between the 107 or the 100 backland. Ski the QsT 106 as my daily driver with shift. Want the 100 in 180 length but have reservations about it's float in powder. I'm 190, 5' 10" ok skier.

    Can anyone weigh in on how the 100 floats in powder?
    I use the 180cm 100 and the 189cm 107.

    The 100 is good for coastal heavy snow and floats fine in 5 - 10 new which is fairly common in Whistler.

    The 107 is quite a bit better when its lighter snow and when there's more of it.

    Both ski short imo due to that light semi rockered HRZN tip. I'm about your height and weight fyi. Experienced pow skier

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    I use the 180cm 100 and the 189cm 107.

    The 100 is good for coastal heavy snow and floats fine in 5 - 10 new which is fairly common in Whistler.

    The 107 is quite a bit better when its lighter snow and when there's more of it.

    Both ski short imo due to that light semi rockered HRZN tip. I'm about your height and weight fyi. Experienced pow skier
    Did you mount the 100 on the line, or back?

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    12,949
    Quote Originally Posted by trogdortheburninator View Post
    Did you mount the 100 on the line, or back?
    I'm +1 eyeballing off the rocker line, sidecut and comparing to my Backland 107 where I mounted +1.5. Not that it really matters but skiing them with Xenics which has the bindings very close to the topsheet (which I like)

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    I'm +1 eyeballing off the rocker line, sidecut and comparing to my Backland 107 where I mounted +1.5. Not that it really matters but skiing them with Xenics which has the bindings very close to the topsheet (which I like)
    Based on one day on the 100s, I'm surprised that you went forward. You still liking it there?

    To me it felt like the line was well forward of the center of sidecut. No idea if that's actually the case, the stiff tail and relatively softer tip could be the culprit, but to me it definitely felt like the ski would be better balanced 1-2cm back. Fwiw I own skis with mount points from -4 to -11 and seldom feel compelled to move from rec.

    Anyone else skiing the 100? Where'd you mount it?

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    12,949
    Quote Originally Posted by WhetherMan View Post
    Based on one day on the 100s, I'm surprised that you went forward. You still liking it there?
    I compared to the 102 Automatic which I also liked and mounted on the line fwiw. The 100 line was close to the 102 line.

    Still liking it. 20+ days on it so far

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    I compared to the 102 Automatic which I also liked and mounted on the line fwiw. The 100 line was close to the 102 line.

    Still liking it. 20+ days on it so far
    Interesting. Thanks Lee.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    4

    how about the 117?

    Been on 107's for 3 yrs and love them.

    Anyone tried the 117's and can share opinion on them?
    Obviously fatter, but camber profile looks pretty similar - wondering its a lot better in deep snow or just a tiny bit better......maybe I need to go to the Bent chetler instead?

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    4

    +2

    Due to ref's from a few Atomic riders, I mounted mine +2, and went up in size.

    Been skiing 170-175 skis forever, and was recommended to go up to 182. Glad I did - they ski short, but super surfy. Its my ideal PWN touring ski.

    Only complaint is mega tip chatter on groomers and choppy snow (which I try to shy away from)

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,499
    Any mounting recs for the shorter ones?

    I'm mounting up a pair of 107W's in 167 for my wife. She likes her Access (ancestor of the Bent/Backland 100). She's coming from 161's there, so stepping up in length slightly. Looks like she's about +0.5 or so on her Access. I'm thinking +1 might suit her, but I'd like to hear any thoughts on that (asking her didn't help).

    She's an ok powder skier, more capable than confident, and that's probably my biggest reason to hesitate--don't want to make her less confident pressuring the tips.

    This will be with Tectons, her touring setup and occasional inbounds pow ski for deeper days (hopefully).

    Thanks!

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,064

    2019 Atomic Backland 107

    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    Any mounting recs for the shorter ones?
    Well not specific to the 167 or the W version but my mounting decision essentially involved lining them up to next to my enforcer 110.

    I went on the factory recommended line even though itís a tiny bit behind the enforcer line because it seemed to fit the rocker profile - Backland tip rocker is longer and tail rocker shorter so puts the line effectively same spot between contact points.
    I also thought the factory line looked to line up nicely with the sidecut.
    Now on my pair there are 5 lines from +2 to -2 so I reckon atomic thinks thereís a fairly large sweet spot so you probably canít go too far wrong depending on style but if I wanted a super jibby center mount I would have gone with Bentchetlers.

    Given what you wrote I would think erring a little too far back is better than a little too far forward - I donít think you want to make a hesitant powder skier even more hesitant by mounting too far forward and then back seating or being scared to carry speed.

    Edit: my wife is on line on her Backland 102W and likes them there too

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,499
    Thanks for that. I lean the same way, particularly since I used to find that 7 or 14 mm back in deep stuff was sometimes helpful on my own pair of Access (demo binders). But I also notice that she's a little back on firmer snow, too, and when her skis don't turn in for her (aka whenever she gets back on them) she gets more tentative, then more back, until the quads say it's over.

    So the counter-argument would seem to be that getting more weight forward for a centered skier might help with turn-in. I'm more forward myself, so I don't know how much credence to give that idea.

    Does that make any sense, or am I just overthinking it?

    My exercise in comparing the two skis shows a ton of similarity, apart from tip and tail (more rise/less length on the old skis) they're just 8 mm wider everywhere. So probably keeping it close anyway.

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,064

    2019 Atomic Backland 107

    Well thereís many better experts on mounting point and technique around here than I so I could be completely wrong. But if a centered skier was dropping back not forward when initiating a turn Iíd probably address technique and/or stance thru forward lean (or maybe binding ramp) before Iíd move bindings further forward.

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rossland BC
    Posts
    1,472
    For the love of god. The Backland 107 is as traditional as a ski of this width gets. Mount it on the line and ski it using standard ski technique. If thatís beyond your capability, you bought the wrong ski.

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    12,949
    Quote Originally Posted by dcpnz View Post
    Well thereís many better experts on mounting point and technique around here than I so I could be completely wrong. But if a centered skier was dropping back not forward when initiating a turn Iíd probably address technique and/or stance thru forward lean (or maybe binding ramp) before Iíd move bindings further forward.
    Yeah. I don't want to get in the way of micro parsing but you're all overthinking this. Just go on the line. I went + 1 on the 189 length but I can't think on the line would have been noticeable

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,499
    That makes sense. I can see going forward on a long ski, whereas she's really coming from too short (and very slightly forward anyway).

    I'm definitely not looking to correct technique with mounting, just trying to figure out whether (slightly) forward or back keeps it most consistent with her (unspecified but still real) expectations from the skis.

    Overthinking my wife's gear can be a thing, though. If her boots show up today I can start on the screw adhesive. Thanks for all the feedback!
    A woman came up to me and said "I'd like to poison your mind
    with wrong ideas that appeal to you, though I am not unkind."

  22. #97
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    1,086
    Looking for a new Backland 107 182

  23. #98
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SLC, Utah
    Posts
    2,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Beder View Post
    Looking for a new Backland 107 182
    Atomic Backlands 107 182cm https://classifieds.ksl.com/listing/66112192

    Not my sale but I'm local and I can help

    Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Ogden
    Posts
    7,275
    Quote Originally Posted by tgapp View Post
    Atomic Backlands 107 182cm https://classifieds.ksl.com/listing/66112192

    Not my sale but I'm local and I can help

    Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk
    Ha, I know who owns those. What do you think they are Ďworth?í

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SLC, Utah
    Posts
    2,748
    Quote Originally Posted by zion zig zag View Post
    Ha, I know who owns those. What do you think they are Ďworth?í
    Oh shit I didn't realize that was him! I know who that is too.

    Those skis are probably clapped out, ha. Lots of walking on them.

    Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

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