I've had my Backland 100s for a couple seasons now and combined with the Salomon MTN Pure bindings they are awesome in the backcountry. Lightweight for the uphill and very easy to transition to downhill and truly enjoy the ride. Float well above their 100mm waist and yet can handle the crusty snow layers as well. Truly impressed with the lightweight yet stout performance of this ski. Highly recommend them and honestly the whole setup with Salomon MTN Pure as well.
I loved my Backland 100's so much that I got Maverick 100's for the resort, but both delaminated between the bindings after about ~25 days use. Luckily, it was an obvious factory defect so I was able to get them both warranted, no questions asked. The only issue is both skis delaminated at the beginning of April, and missed out on late season Presidential ski tours I had planned. Hopefully my replacements last longer...
love the videos you have been producing lately! small question: what length would you advice for me? im an intermediate/advanced skier. Im planning to put a shift binding on here and do about 50/50 touring and skiing on piste (maybe some trees but not much). im 175cm (about 5'8") and 55 Kg. thank you in advance!
Hi Jeff, how does the backland 100 compare to the Dynastar M tour 99 and the Faction La Machine Mini 2? Would be very interested hear your view on the strengths and weakness of each ski as a dedicated touring ski for variable conditions. Is the backland 100 more damp compared to the backland 107 or are they similar? Many thanks!
The 100 and 107 are very similar, and both are more poppy than the M-Tour and Faction. For dedicated touring in variable conditions, it's nice to have the width of the 107--that ski has been put through the paces for sure.
Hello, i am a big fan of your work. I have a question. I use an atomic backland 100 172 for skitouring (i love it, thanks for your recommendation). Now i want a ski that is as similar as possible (flex, quick, playfull, ...) in 90-95mm which is just a bit more «sturdy» and maybe «carvy», for cruising throug «bad snow conditions». Should be my resort/allmountain ski (i have one for big powder days and the backland for skitouring, but i am still missing one for the rest). Can you give me a recommendation? Thx a lot
What length would you advise for a 5'10 skier for dedicated backcountry? My front side skis are the Atomic Vantage 86TI at 181, which are just a tad bit long for me but they ski fine at the resort. Would the 172 in the backland 100 be too short?
If you don't mind a slight loss in flotation and stability, the 172 will be fine. If you felt that the 181 is too long and are looking to change it up, then by all means get the shorter ski. It's all about preference as long as you're not going too long or too short.
Would you think for east coast conditions this would be good "do-it-all-touring" pick...? What I mean by that is... go up the resort in the morning before its opened, and you ski down the frozen cord, or you go up some single track and ski down through tight woods, with default east coast conditions -- meaning not necessarily freshies, nor powder -- it could be crusty, icy, refrozen chop, etc... for someone who like to tour, but cannot pick the days, do you think this is a good ski that could handle the variety of conditions, mostly not great? Just wondering. Thanks!
The 100 is a more versatile ski, so from a do it all perspective, I like the 100. I have a lot of friends who actually use the Backland 107 for this application, but when they ski frozen cord in the mornings, they all have Kendos with Shifts. Pretty interesting two ski tour quiver. I do think the Backland 100 is a great mix--light, stiff, grippy and fun.
Haven't skied the Dynafit, but can certainly attest to the Backland's amazing energy and edge grip. It has a stiff tail, so it's not terribly rewarding of poor technique.
Was curious what the mount point is like? Is it more in the middle of the ski like a Bent or will it feel more “natural” for directional alpine skiers. Thanks!!
@@SkiEssentials I guess my question was more, is the mounting point much further forward on the ski than let’s say a rustler or a hustle? Would it feel like it’s more mounted in the middle? Thanks so much!
The Backland is stiffer and more responsive--it feels like a traditional touring ski in that regard. The Unlimited feels more like a modern freeride ski but at a lighter weight. I'd much rather ski the Nordica in the resort--the Backland is more efficient and direct, but the Nordica is more playful, floaty, and fun.
The 107 has made a lot of skiers very happy in that it is capable of handling a lot of different terrain and snow conditions. The only think keeping the 100 just out of its reach is that powder performance, and if you're touring and finding soft snow, that's a big one.
Where do you live and what do you ski? If you ski a lot of technical higher consequence terrain and conditions or do long tours go 100. If you are more about having fun and finding freshies and live in the West go 107. Any good skier can ski pow on the 100 just fine, the 107 is just more fun and playful in soft conditions
I skied the 100 now 4 times and was deeply disappointed. I don’t know exactly what I don’t like but it skies kinda short or weak. It s kind of too reactive and especially terrible on hard pack. Some friends also didn’t like it and after they mounted the binding +2cm they loved it. Not sure if I should try that too. Too me it s a mystery because normally I can trust your reviews 100%. From 10 pair of skis it’s my worst.
The Backland feels more like a real ski from an uphill and downhill perspective--it just has a lighter weight than something like the Bent 100 or Maverick 100. The Zero G is very carbon-based so that gives it a very efficient climbing performance but isn't as compliant or capable on the descents.
