Even the packaging is fine wine.
Could the Atomic/Salomon Backland/MTN be the best tech binding ever made? I’ll leave that conclusion up to you, dear commentators. But consider: It’s easily available, by all accounts one of the most durable, and above all it forgoes the problematic “ski flex compensation spring” that has become all the rage — and curse — among the other binding powers.
In other words, Backland is simple, light, and just works. Along with all that, the current iteration boasts a number of subtle improvements that make a good thing better. Before we begin, note there is no difference in how any versions of this binding ski, so this is not a redundant repeat of our previous reviews. Rather it’s a heads-up to keep us all current.
The good stuff. We did see a few of the original Backland with broken wings. The binding is now about a millimeter thicker in this vulnerable zone.
The simple and elegant U-spring design remains intact with no change I could discern. This includes the enigmatic and politically incorrect naming of the middle strength spring with the initial “W,” presumably standing for “Women” as the medium stiff spring is labeled “MEN.” I’m not getting why they’re not at least labeled “Herren” and “D,” or for that matter “Homme” and “F.” May I suggest 1,2,3? Joking aside, you can not fine-tune the Backland release settings beyond what the three springs give you, and you can not adjust upward and side release independently. Fine for Igor, but some of you may want a binding with more refined adjustment capability. More here regarding Backland release value (RV).
Breath a sigh of heavenly bliss, as before, all screws are the same length.
As before, you run the Backland with a 4 millimeter tech gap at the heel. For those of you just now crawling out of your five year snowcave sleeping session, tech gap is the little flash of genius that minimalist U-spring tech bindings use to compensate for ski flex. Note the included leash clips (when you acquire version with no brakes) are 4 mm thick so you can check your tech gap before you shoot the gap.
Mystery clips. The Dynafit type ski crampon is a good design. Simple, just slide it into the slot and go — works the same way with Backland. With one possible glitch: If the crampon hinges up past a certain point it can slide out of the attachment slot and be lost. This is unlikely with your skis on your feet, but could occur while carrying your skis over your shoulder and other such shenanigans. More, during use there is an aluminum on aluminum rubbing friction happening, caused by how the crampon remains centered. If you use ski crampons extensively, this could cause wear and eventual slop or damage. These smart little clips help the crampon remain attached and centered no matter what.
Crampon clip in action.
Current binding’s tower is thicker. Strength here is critical when ski flex closes the tech gap and the boot heel impacts the binding. Also regarding the heel tower, Version 1.0 of Backland/MTN had a problem with slop in the heel track, this appears to be handled.
Comparison, early Backland (right) with current (left). While the colors alone might be a way to ID, a more reliable marker is the different appearance of the to wings, indicated by arrows.
Now for the good stuff. I’d been off coffee for a few days, then had one Starbucks pod this morning. Look what happened. I spent two hours saving five grams. I removed the boot toe click-in assistance bumper, which I’ve found to be nearly useless. I’m anticipating my uphill speed boost to resemble a nitrous oxide retrofit on a Prius. Look out world.
In process. It was a bit of chore. Would this make a good project if you’re sheltering in place? If so, it goes something like this: Remove rivet-pin holding the toe wing opener locking lever. Remove bumper. Grind all but necessary steel from the bumper piece. Re-assemble, using 3 millimeter bolt to replace rivet-pin. Let me know how much faster you storm up the hill.
A few other things: Toe (single) is 3 grams heavier than the original, heels are identical according to my scale. The available ski brake remains the best in the business. Why? It is entirely divorced from the heel unit, and 100% manually operated compared to the often overly complex, failure-prone offerings from other brands, that attempt integration of the brake with the heel unit. (Note the binding version without brake is the Backland Pure.)
Shop for Atomic Backland ski touring binding
WildSnow.com publisher emeritus and founder Lou (Louis Dawson) has a 50+ years career in climbing, backcountry skiing and ski mountaineering. He was the first person in history to ski down all 54 Colorado 14,000-foot peaks, has authored numerous books about about backcountry skiing, and has skied from the summit of Denali in Alaska, North America’s highest mountain. For more about Lou, please see his personal website at https://www.loudawson.com/ (Blogger stats: 5 foot 10 inches (178 cm) tall, 160 lbs (72574.8 grams).
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lou.dawson.writer
24 comments
Lou,
In your opinion does the proliferation of tech binding design further refine a solid working binding (I am still on TLT/ Speed Dynafits for my quiver) of Fritz’s innovation? Or rather blur the field with options few need and the rest of us have to filter through?
Scott, in truth the years of attempted innovation I think have been more of a blur for consumers than anything. I mean, just consider the endless defective or problematic offerings. And the funky brakes… Within that hurricane, there are gems. But really not many. I’ve tried to keep it sorted out here, but doing so 100% has proved to be nearly impossible. Indeed, I’ve often succumbed to the blur myself. I still believe that frequenting a good ski shop is pretty much essential for the average ski touring consumer. But even then, the tales of companies doing poor support of defective product, even in conjunction with dealers, are legendary. From what I understand this is mostly the result of a product development cycle that’s too short for proper testing and vetting. It’s no one person’s or one company’s fault. Somehow Atomic/Salomon avoided much of this, though Backland 1.0 did have that weakness in the wing arms, that I allude to above. Lou
Indeed this is a really inspring design, especially the elegance of the heel. In terms of weaknesses, you might wanna mention how much this magic brake weighs….that’s the non-magic bit. an apples to apples weight comparo would inform readers of how things compare all added up.
I love my Salomon MTN bindings! I alternate them between my skis and my splitboard, the full set(quiverkillers). Convenient on the up and solid on the down. The bumper works for me.
Cam, thanks. And of course there’s the issue of wear on the heel pins because they don’t rotate while stomping in, and skiing on them. I’ve not seen this to be a huge problem, and it’s easy to swap in new springs, but high mileage skiers need to watch for it. As for the brake weight, yeah, could be an issue. But it works… Lou
“Elegant U-spring” seriously thats akin to military intelligence or a jumbo shrimp
IMO the design is really not any better than any dynafit binding with a rotating heelpiece
if a tech binding mfger can’t make a 6-12 (or 14) din like binding with seperate adjustment
for horizontal and vertical release then l am not impressed
I have two sets of these Salomon branded binding. I bought my first set, sans brake while skiing in France, now mounted on an earlier pair of Atomic Backland 95s. I took these to France twice, after adding brakes, expecting to tour in 3Vallee but conditions weren’t right. So just some piste and off-piste with friends.
Have a second set now on my Blizzard ZG 108s. Both setups have been reliable, at my 195 lbs, using the Men U spring. Ski them with the new Maestrale RS boots.
I only ski them in ski mode, not locked out. Have skied some pretty chattery icy conditions on them here in Vermont; never had a pre-release; with no falls that required a release..
You can buy the ski brakes separately in different widths, from Skimo. Also the PLUM ski crampons work much better than Dynafit crampons. They just drop in vertically and stay centered, no need for the nylon clip.
Back East here, haven’t toured on them much, I prefer a setup without brakes for touring.
Love this simple style of binding! IMO, since Dynafit’s patent (non-compete clause, whatever) expired, we have been inundated with complex, heavy bindings. Not my cup o’tea. My next pair will be these, ATK Trofeo/ BD Helio, or good ol’ Dynafit Speed Turns. As for the U-spring wearing out, come on, pffft.
Lou, you really should edit your various posts about this binding to make it clear that Plum crampons work in them. I keep running into folks that have these bindings but don’t know this. Best crampons! And no need for that little plastic clip.
Yet one more reason this is a great binding (though I would love to see them use something like ATK’s “roll in” system.)
If you consider the Backland/MTN to be a contender for “best tech binding” then I think you almost have to include the ATK Raider 2.0 / Hagan Core (and their brakeless variants) in the discussion. Very slightly heavier, but with rotating pins (less wear) and separate/continuous lateral and vertical release adjustments. Obviously shop support is a problem, to the point where I simply bought the jig.
I think that BD did a very smart thing when they chose ATK for their low-weight offerings, and then again when they moved up the ATK line for next season. I’ve had good experiences dealing with Hagan as well.
Any chance of evaluating the toe closure strength? Would love to see how it compares to the others on your old test:
https://www.wildsnow.com/18803/comparo-toe-jaw-closure-strength-marker-g3-dynafit/
It sounds like the brake-less version is one of the better bindings out there, but I think many people will not realize that the brake version does not ‘score’ well at all:
First of all there is the weight, as mentioned in the comments above. When you add the brakes, these are some of the heavier bindings in this class. (401g).
Much worse, is that lateral release doesn’t work properly with the brakes installed. The friction from the boot heel on the brakepad affects the release force.
In their latest binding test, Alpin.de measured 110% of the supposed realize torque, when using the brakes!
https://www.alpin.de/tests-produkte/38390/artikel_test_die_besten_leichten_pin-skitourenbindungen_2020.html
That alpin.de article linked by Slim doesn’t mention which U-spring is used. Something I’ve never seen mentioned in reviews is that the “Expert” spring is not only stiff in retention (good), it also makes turning the heel piece very hard (bad) and very difficult to step into (bad). I’ve seen friend who deem themselves “experts” having a really hard time getting into the binding in soft snow.
I think the design needs work. The Hagen Core Pro (new this year) = ATK R12 is a far better finding in all respects, something the alpin.de tests agree with.
That all said, I like my MTN bindings. I use “W” spring, which works perfectly well and definitely provides more retention than the nominal 6. That’s fine. I find them easy to step into and they have never pre=released. I suspect 90% of those using the Expert spring don’t need them and shouldn’t use them.
Same applies for the soft “W” spring. Reviewers from Swizerland measured a actual release value of >12 for the “W” spring with a nominal value of 6. No wonder, that there are no issues with pre-releases 😉
https://www.outdoor-guide.ch/test/ausruestung/getestet-salomon-mtn/
Similar problems, but not to such a huge extent were found with the Raider 12 and Freeraider 14 bindings from ATK. However this issue was solved with the reworked R12 and R14 versions.
I’m riding the R14 for a whole season now and couldn’t be happier. By far the best weight to performance ratio that can be found on a AT Binding!
I HAVE been IMPRESSED with these over the last three years. With one exception. The high lifters rotation loosened up quickly (using Maestrales), and due to the shape/surface area they present when in use in fresh snow, they will get flipped back up out of the way as the ski is stepped forward, REPEATEDLY. Presents a SERIOUS headache. Mitigated somewhat by melting some HEAVY grease into them to stiffen things up. Thought I may encounter problems stomping airs with no vert. adjustment (I typically have to run a higher vert. adj. to keep from peeling out on landings) but hasn’t been a problem. Love the climb to descend transition without taking skis off. Similar to G3 Ion operation. And the Brakes Work. Thanks SLIM for the word on the ALPIN test. Will switch to a safer alternative with my next setup. Oh, and the U SPRING IS ELEGANT, but I am not trying too hard to be right….
my “significant other “has 2 pairs of the earlier version of this binding. One Atomic and one Salomon. Both have suffered from the same loosening of the heel lifter, and in her case, when wanting to use the high position, it flips backwards about every other step making me have to hear endless expletives. Meanwhile my ATK Raiders and Hagan Cores simply perform flawlessly and have yet to present any sort of defects or nuisance traits after well over 500k of vert. To be fair, she loves everything about the Backland bindings except for the lifter flip flop and i am planning on McGyvering some sort of fix this summer. I am thinking to remove the pin that the lifter hinges on and replace it with a snugger fitting screw or pin, but am still on the lookout for some more brilliant fix. We have been using thick grease with success but this only lasts for about 3 tours, then need to re-apply. FWIW we are both Atomic fans and own Backland carbon boots, and assorted other products, but to me the ATK raider/Hagan core design is the complete package, if only it were a bit less expensive….but you do get what you pay for. If the new Backland binding has this lifer thing sorted, then i would give it 2 thumbs up as an equal to the ATK.
I also have the loosening high lifter problem. I assume that the arms of the lifter piece are slightly sprung inwards, causing a tiny bump on the arms to push into a tiny divot on the heel piece (or the reverse). It’s easy to see that a little sideways pressure could bend the arms enough to destroy the spring. I’m wondering about inserting something firmly elastic like a tiny o-ring between the arms of the high lifter and the low lifter. But it needs to stay elastic in the cold, and I don’t know if I’ll damage the binding by driving the hinge pin out. Lou, did you try this on your take-apart test? Any other thoughts on this problem or solution?
Like the earlier comment, Plum crampons work the best with Atomic Backland bindings, no plastic clip necessary, as required if using a Dynafit crampon. Yes, the plastic clips do work, but they are fiddly and easily lost anyway. The Plum crampons are an excellent product that attach easily on the Backland, no plastic clip required because the Plum crampons incorporate a center ridge which keeps the crampons centered, which the plastic clip does with Dynafits. Also, I’ve heard from several ski shops that the BD Helio crampon will work with the Atomic Backland, but that is simply not true, which I found out the hard way. The Helio crampon does not have an opening large enough to accept the Backland crampon mount.
Lou,
Can you comment more on how the newer heel towers have eliminated slop? While cleaning up skis this weekend, all four pairs of this binding in our household have a moderate amount of lateral slop, which seems to originate in the heel track that allows for binding adjustment. I have otherwise loved these bindings but seeing this slop develop over the past 3+ seasons is disappointing. Curious what the newer iteration has changed to improve this that you hinted at? Thanks.
trying to decide between the Atomic /Salomon MTN and the Plum Oazo for a simple quiver of one setup to tour in Utah. Seems like the Plum might be slightly beefier but the dealer/support network for Salomon is much bigger/ Thoughts?
Simple, sturdy and light. Atomic got it right.
They tour great and ski like a dream. Dunno if it’s the delta, stack height or lack thereof, but the MTN feels sooo much more natural on descent than my Vertical ST’s that they replaced.
I also have the loosening high lifter problem. I assume that the arms of the lifter piece are slightly sprung inwards, causing a tiny bump on the arms to push into a tiny divot on the heel piece (or the reverse). It’s easy to see that a little sideways pressure could bend the arms enough to destroy the spring. I’m wondering about inserting something firmly elastic like a tiny o-ring between the arms of the high lifter and the low lifter. But it needs to stay elastic in the cold, and I don’t know if I’ll damage the binding by driving the hinge pin out. Lou, did you try this on your take-apart test? Any other thoughts on this problem or solution?
Derek, the lifter arms system on this current binding version appears to be at least somewhat beefed in comparison to older versions. Which version binding are you having the lifter problem with? I have two pair of the older version I’ve used extensively, but I’ve not experienced any lifter problems so this is tough for me to expound on. Lou
According to your picture above, I have the current version. There is a very tiny bit of side to side slop in the high lifter, but you can still see that when you raise it from either end position, the arms are forced to expand minutely outwards. But on one at least, not enough to stop it from getting flipped out of position while skinning. I’m assuming that at some point some sideways pressure has forced the arms a little bit too wide to spring back fully. I don’t see any way to bend it back to sprung position without removing the hinge pin, nor any guarantee that the problem won’t come back if I did. Did you have to grind the head of the hinge pin to get it out, or just hammer with a pin punch? I hammered as hard as I’m comfortable with to no avail. The other side has not flipped inadvertently yet, but it is showing signs of loosening over time. I’m amazed that other folks aren’t having this problem. I’m pretty careful with gear and only weigh 150 pounds. Is it possible I got an earlier one with different heat treating of the aluminum or something?
Comments are closed.