2017-2018 Atomic Backland FR 109

(Click on images to expand)

Cy Whitling reviews the Atomic Backland FR for Blister Gear Review.

Atomic Backland FR 109

 

 

Cy Whitling reviews the Atomic Backland FR for Blister Gear Review.

Atomic Backland FR 109

 

 

Cy Whitling reviews the Atomic Backland FR for Blister Gear Review.

Atomic Backland FR 109 – Tip Profile

 

 

Cy Whitling reviews the Atomic Backland FR for Blister Gear Review.

Atomic Backland FR 109 – Tail Profile

 

 

Cy Whitling reviews the Atomic Backland FR for Blister Gear Review.

Atomic Backland FR 109

 

 

Cy Whitling reviews the Atomic Backland FR for Blister Gear Review.

Atomic Backland FR 109 – Bases

 

22 Comments

  1. Blister Member
    Perkin March 22, 2017 Reply

    Looking forward to your comments on these. Am 6′, 165 lbs, directional skier mostly Lake Tahoe looking to replace an OG 185 cm Cochise with something a little less demanding and more playful. Liked the QST 106 in the 188 length (demo bindings on the line), except felt a little too much tail especially in the bumps and deeper mank. Also considering the SN 108 which am very interested to try based on your descriptions here as well as the 100eight. The new Blizzard Rustler 10 looks interesting as well. Love to hear your thoughts on any of these!

  2. DB Cooper March 23, 2017 Reply

    I use the Backland 109 inbounds in Utah. Love the ski. Very nimble in tight spots and feels great charging down an open face. I use it as part of a 2-ski quiver: the Backland for 6+ inches and an Enforcer 93 for everything else and it works like a charm!

    • davide December 7, 2017 Reply

      Hi.. Where did you mount the bindings? I installed them factory recommended, but I have the doubt that maybe it is better to mount them -1 or -2. What do you think about it? P.s. I mounted market tour 12. Thanks

  3. DB Cooper March 23, 2017 Reply

    Forgot to add that as a bigger guy (6’3″, 215), I find this ski plenty stable.

  4. Blister Member
    Perkin March 23, 2017 Reply

    Thanks for the feedback, what length are you on? Guessing the 189?

    • DB Cooper March 23, 2017 Reply

      Yes

  5. Mat April 28, 2017 Reply

    How does this compare to the automatic? And any thoughts on the 117?

  6. Jason October 21, 2017 Reply

    is your Blister’s Measured Tip-to-Tail Length: 185.7 cm
    for the 189 or 182? Is it measuring shorter or longer than stated?

  7. Dave K.L. October 23, 2017 Reply

    Has anyone skied the Backland 102? I haven’t seen many good reviews on that ski, but it seems to be the perfect dimensions for typical Colorado resort skiing…

    • Matus Kuchyna October 27, 2017 Reply

      I am about to test my Backland 102 skis this weekend. I will let you know how they ski. My previous skis were Volkl Nunataqs.

      • Dave K.L. October 29, 2017 Reply

        Looking forward to hearing how they ski. I’m 190lbs, a bit worried they might be too soft.

        • Matus Kuchyna November 1, 2017 Reply

          Dave, I spent 3 days on Atomic Backland FR 102 16/17, 188cm long. I am 181cm/83kg (naked). The skis are definitely not soft. I could ski the groomers (not too icy ones), powder… The ski turns easily and is playful. I liked it very much. But, I ski in Scarpa F1 shoes and I think that I can ski. For me this is one quiver ski.

  8. DB Cooper October 27, 2017 Reply

    when is the full blister review of the 109 coming? the preview was posted on march 20…

    • Blister Member
      petermck November 25, 2017 Reply

      +1
      Looking forward to the full review.

  9. mark horn January 7, 2018 Reply

    love the 102 light and quick great for backcountry

  10. Blister Member
    Michael February 2, 2018 Reply

    Any idea when the full blister review of the 109 is coming? I’d love to get thoughts on this ski as a backcountry one ski quiver…

    Thanks!

  11. Andy February 9, 2018 Reply

    At some point i’d love to see you guys more globally address “pivotyness” or “slarvability” or whatever you want to call it as it relates to construction and shape. I often think of flat cambered skis as super pivoty based on my experience with Katanas, Scouts and old Megawatts. That shape clearly does this. However, once things get cambered, knowing how loose a ski will be is a total crapshoot, and it’s not reliably covered in reviews.

    I see this ski’s camber and think: not going to be very slarvy. You say here they’re “easy to throw sideways” but is that a slarve turn, or is is that the rocker and light weight just provides less resistance to a more forceful motion?

    The OG Squad 7 was awesomely pivoty, and had a ton of camber. The OG pure carbon DPS W112 was similarly shaped (less camber, more sidecut), and didn’t pivot worth shit. The ZeroG 95 has pretty minimal camber and rocker and didn’t pivot at all for me (super locked in) even after an aggro detune.

    The ability to slide turns and slarve is super important to me in the BC, but it’s hard to know without demoing what ski will do this reliably aside from the few rocker-flat-rocker models out there, especially when a demo tune might be off.

  12. Blister Member
    Michael February 24, 2018 Reply

    Can you give me your thoughts on the Backland 109 vs. the Volkl VWerks BMT 109? I’m trying to decide between these two skis as my one ski backcountry quiver. Performance in pow, steep firm couloirs, etc? Thanks so much!

  13. Ian Faurot March 7, 2018 Reply

    I have been on the Atomic Blog 185 for several years. I imagine this to be similar to the backland 109… 132-110-124…but certainly with differences. The one knock I have on the blog is the tails seem too soft, and this seemed to be echoed by most people who review them. Does anyone have an idea of how these two compare, specifically in the tails? Thanks,

    Ian

  14. Ryan May 10, 2018 Reply

    Curious where you guys mounted them? I have a 189 and will be using it primarily as a touring ski. While being around 195lbs im not exactly a finesse skier but i do enjoying bouncing around off natural lips and hucking cliffs.

  15. Jonny July 18, 2018 Reply

    Hi, everyone! I hoped, there is going to be a review of Atomic Backland FR 117.. but, nothing!
    I’m sure many skiers wants to know the differences between 109 and 117, and many of them- between Backland 109/117 and Automatic 109/117…. still nothing on site.
    So… For the next season I have two new pairs of ski- 17/18 Atomic Backland FR 117 (186 cm) and 16/17 Scott Punisher 110 (189 cm). Wondering which to pair with Marker Kingpin, every opinion about these two pair will be appreciated!
    I have 50 + days on Scott Punisher 110 – my favorite skis, so far.
    And while expecting Atomic Backland FR 117 – I was unpleasantly surprised to find, that the weight of the skis is 2167 g per ski, nor 2050 g, what is written on the label and in the official specifications! 117 grams more- WTF?!? Bought these for touring, but now I’m wondering- The Punisher is about 2150 g per ski….
    Is anyone in the similar situation? Will be very helpful not only for me.. thanks!

  16. Blister Member
    Mike September 16, 2018 Reply

    Any thoughts on how these compare with Moment’s Wildcat Tour 108? Would love your A/B thoughts. Thanks!

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*