Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    SW Montana
    Posts
    205

    2019 Atomic Backland 107

    Well, well. What have we here?

    https://www.evo.com/skis/atomic-backland-107

    I looked around here and found nothing on it. Maybe my internetting is not bigly enough. If I missed something, please redirect me. And if you industry mags have tried it, please chime in. I've been loving my Backland 95s, so I am hopeful that this is will fulfill my midwinter Wyoming/Montana touring ski.

    This is the ski I've been wanting someone to make. I've vocalized this to more than one touring partner, who were probably thinking "Nick, shut the fuck up and ski whatever skis you already have". But do I listen? Not when it comes to the never-ending search for Animal Chin. After skiing the (real good) ZeroG 108 for a couple of seasons, and having skied the (not real good) BD Helio 105, I am stoked to try this puppy out.

    Comparison specs per mfr:
    0G 108 (185) - 1750g
    BD Helio 105 (185) - 1520g
    Atomic Backland 107 (182) - 1550g

    Looks promising...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    2,977
    Here's what I wrote last spring: "Super fun ski, easy to turn at any radius, lightness makes the tips flap a bit at speed." I liked the Vantage 107 better, but keep in mind this was on groomed snow on a blue run at Mission Ridge. I gave the Backland 107 2 stars (very good in my rating system) and the Vantage 107 got 3 (excellent). The Zero G 108 was a 3 star ski as well, and I own it.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    3,851
    Really promising ski. It’s more Helio 105 then ZG108. Not sure what you didn’t like about the Heilio 105. I thought it was a solid competitor to the ZG108, just a bit more soft snow focused.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    10,797
    Wrote this. Rocker pics etc

    https://www.newschoolers.com/news/re...Binding-part-2

    About the Atomic Backland 107 (replaces old 109). Dimensions suggested that it would be turny but undergunned in deeper pow for skier of Toby and my weight. But the numbers lied.

    Maybe it's the magic HRZN tech; maybe its the pronounced tip rocker. Whatever it was the Backland had no problem going straight and it certainly had no problem skipping over and driving through powder, or chopped up snow. In fact Backland was alarmingly happy going sideways at high speed in sluffy pow. The only part where the Backland was a tad lacking was in hardpack where it felt vague. But that certainly was not something one would expect of a wider ski so that's a minor issue.

    New - HRZN tech (formerly just the Bentchetler) adding surf area to the tips and more floatiness. TPU plastic

    New - Ultra light Karuba woodcore with carbon backbone

    Cap sidewall

    Dimensions: 137-107-124 18.5m turn radius (182cm)

    Weight per ski -1530g (182cm)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,076
    Nice review Lee. Backlands look like great skis...fat tip, high, long rocker splay, light weight. Just curious, do you own/have the Backlands? If so, wondering if you can measure the rocker splay base contact point from boot center mount point with bases pressed together? I've done a lot of testing this past winter trying to come up with a plug in the numbers formula for tweaking optimum personal ski rocker/camber profiles and considering the praise for float of the Backlands, wonder if their numbers fit with some of my formulaic obs.
    Last edited by swissiphic; 06-13-2018 at 11:59 AM.
    What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    10,797
    Quote Originally Posted by swissiphic View Post
    Nice review Lee. Backlands look like great skis...fat tip, high, long rocker splay, light weight. Just curious, do you own/have the Backlands? If so, wondering if you can measure the rocker splay base contact point from boot center mount point with bases pressed together? I've done a lot of testing this past winter trying to come up with a plug in the numbers formula for personal ski rocker/camber profiles and considering the praise for float of the Backlands, wonder if their numbers fit with some of my formulaic obs.
    I had to give them back as there were limited demos and they needed them. But I've ordered some for next year and will let you know when i get them

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    2,351
    This latest iteration of the Backlands sounds as if they're really nailing the design. I've always liked their heavier predecessors - the Automatic 109s.

    This also reminds me that the time is nearing to bump the annual Summer buy thread for Down skis. Their CD 104s really impressed me, and if I were looking for something in a lighter ski, the CD 104L's (1575g) would be on my short list, along with the Backland 107s.

    ... Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    8,942
    For a light, easy turning ski the 109's have good edge hold, reasonable crud busting and stability. They have good, not great, float. The 107 I assume will float a little worse (a little less rocker) and at 300gm less per ski would be a little worse in crud busting stability and edge hold. The 109 is a good everyday ski for a non charger like me; I think the 107 would be strictly a BC ski for me, but then I haven't skied it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    82
    I assume this would make a good tour ski?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    4,764
    Backland 107 is a bit lighter than VTA 108 and has a slightly more narrow tip, probably more versatile. Any comparison comments from those who have skied both?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    4,764

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,590
    Thanks for the reviews, guys. I've been on an Atomic kick and bet these will be my next pair of touring skis....

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    801
    Yup


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Buy used mount your own skis build a quiver

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    82
    I loved the Atomic Automatic 109's, but some ass face stole them. I sold my Pinnacle 95's and picked up a pair of Enforce 100's to replace them. Icelantic Nomad 115 for a dedicated powder ski. The backland looked to be more of a powder tour ski then a resort ski compared to the automatics.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    107
    Will be interesting to see skiing and durability reviews on all these new Atomics. Weight savings are crazy, Bentchetler is 1700gr @ 184 with 120 underfoot, Backland 107 is 1550gr @ 182... Hope they will not delam and bindings will not come out. Still remember Faction using pauwlonia cores in CT3.0 which ended in every second pair getting delammed or snapped in half.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    87
    Ended up with a pair of these at the end of last season. Donít remember the exact weight when I put them on the scale, but the 182s were within an ounce or two of the 185 Helio 105. They have more tip splay and more underfoot camber than the Helios, not to mention being a bit wider obviously.

    I didnít ski them enough to have definitive feedback but remember really liking them. More playful/less utilitarian than the Helio 105 for sure, and ďfeelĒ relatively solid and durable for such a light ski - if thatís possible to feel. Skied a 50 degree couloir in variable snow and they handled it well - thatís one place playful skis often suffer.

    I feel that the marketing on these has been more freeride oriented - I just saw these got Backcountry Magís 2019 Editors Choice for freeride skis. But they are exceptionally light and I would think their primary use would be almost exclusively in the backcountry. But who knows.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    10,797
    Just weighed my Backland 107 in 189cms length. .1580g. Crazy

    Will mount them +2 from the line.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    SW Montana
    Posts
    205
    Deleted my thread about mounting recommendations for these as to capture it all on one thread. Lee, thanks for your input as always. This is from Pass Rat on previous thread:

    "I’ve got the backland 117 from two years ago. I come from a racing background and really like the 0 position but I also don’t think you would find an issue at +1 or +2. The skis can be playful at 0 but you definitely need to work at it."

    Seems like +2 may be the sweet spot...

    Any other thoughts on mounting recs?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    10,797
    Quote Originally Posted by truax View Post
    Deleted my thread about mounting recommendations for these as to capture it all on one thread. Lee, thanks for your input as always. This is from Pass Rat on previous thread:

    "Iíve got the backland 117 from two years ago. I come from a racing background and really like the 0 position but I also donít think you would find an issue at +1 or +2. The skis can be playful at 0 but you definitely need to work at it."

    Seems like +2 may be the sweet spot...

    Any other thoughts on mounting recs?
    Forgot to say that I had the 181 Backlands with Shifts mounted on their line previously and didnt have an issue. But their line is - 11.5cms from ski chord centre which seemed a.bit.much

    So I looked a turn radius. Considered it wasnt a twin tip and being a center of foot skier Im going to experiment with the +2 which makes it -9.5 from chord centre

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    4,764
    I'll mount my 182's on the line, but I'm a traditional mount guy. Given the ample amount of tip rocker on these, consider the contact points when edging on steep unforgiving hardpack and decide where on the ski you'll feel balanced.

    Bike scale says 1,540g for the 182 length, in the plastic wrap.
    Last edited by 1000-oaks; 11-22-2018 at 04:38 PM.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    Just weighed my Backland 107 in 189cms length. .1580g. Crazy

    Will mount them +2 from the line.
    Would definitely be interested to hear how you like them at +2. I just got a pair of the 189's as well and mounted some Shifts on the line per my buddy at Atomic's recommendation...

    I also have a pair of QST 106's in 188cm that I ended up having to mount at +1/+1.5. They seem like pretty similar dimensions to the Backland 107 so it'll be interesting to see which I like better

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    685
    I got a pair of 182's sitting waiting for clamps too.
    3062g for the pair in plastic - crazy light. Don't expect them to be crud killers but hope they ski decent in soft conditions.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    SW Montana
    Posts
    205
    Here goes...

    (preface – I am 5’10”, 150lbs sans gear. Skiing F1’s and Solly MTN bindings with these. I’m indiscriminate with my turn shapes and I usually gravitate towards the “lightisrightnotleft” movement. Just trying to make skiing great again )

    Hemmed. Hawwed. Studied. +2 just looked too far forward, which I've experienced in Hojis and a Helio 116 in recent years - not enough tip and too much tail. +1 looked to be centered over sidecut and camber. I found myself a beer into it and pulled the trigger at +1. Seemed prudent given info here and there and in front of me. We've had snow here lately, so I got out to testing the theories.

    A couple of days (~24 miles and ~15K) on the 107 in good powder skiing of 6-12" fresh, mostly low density pow has given me some initial thoughts. I'll say that thus far, this ski is what I have been looking for in a mid-fat (mid-to-upper 100’s) bc ski. They are playful, surfy, and stable at speed. They are equally at home skiing large and small radius turns, while being able to scrub speed and wiggle-it with minimal input. Relative to the 178 ZeroG 108 that I have previously held in high esteem, I find the Backland 107 to be a lighter, more forgiving, and more powder-centric ski. I’d wager that the 107 doesn’t rally on hardpack like the 0G108, but that is not what I’m personally looking for in a 105+ waisted bc ski.

    If I were to do it again, I’d be fine to mount at factory rec. My main reasoning here is that I experienced minor tail overlap while doing the low-angle, uphill herringbone shuffle, and while skating. As a caveat, the 182 is a couple cm’s longer than I have been skiing lately, so this may be factoring into my experience. Regardless, I’m fairly certain that Atomic’s factory rec is well thought out and balanced for most skiers.

    PS: 1540g per ski in 182 on my scale.
    PPS: Pic is of this mid-November here. No joke.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	peow.jpg 
Views:	60 
Size:	523.5 KB 
ID:	258608

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    4,764
    Quote Originally Posted by truax View Post
    PPS: Pic is of this mid-November here. No joke.
    FKNA, that is juicy.

    With a boatload of F1 forward lean, can see how +1 might be too far forward. Might be just fine with an upright boot like Alien RS. Can't wait to get out on mine, went with these over 0G-108 for the exact reasons you mentioned. I'd rather compromise on hardpack than in pow.
    Last edited by 1000-oaks; 12-05-2018 at 11:23 AM.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    10,797
    That is quite the snowpack! I have mounted mine +1 (same reason as you - hem'ed and haw'ed). Funnily enough this is replacing a ZeroG 108 in 185 mounted on the line. I already have a Prior Overlord 115 for running over small kids. I haven't picked my Backlands up from mounting yet

Posting Permissions

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