The range of motion of the Atomic Backland Carbon on display. Photo: Cyril Brunner
Race, crud, powder — how the Backland Carbon stacks up
Written by Aaron Rice
I was ready to tell you a fantastic story about testing the Atomic Backland Carbon in creamy pow and perfect corn as I skied down an Arctic couloir straight to the ocean in the Westfjords of Iceland. Alas, Covid-19 had other plans. My loss is your gain, though, because let’s be real, you can’t tell much about a boot when conditions are perfect. Instead, I spent the past two months putting this boot through the ringer on the icy, crusty, and manky conditions of a Northern Vermont spring. Okay, I may be hamming it up a bit, I also got to ski them in some pretty awesome deep Vermont powder!
For the past seven years I’ve been a 3-buckle boot guy. I spent much of that time skiing in the Wasatch, the Andes, New England and beyond. I spent all of 2016 skiing 2.5 million human powered vertical feet and setting a new world record. I’ve operated under the philosophy that I needed two pairs of touring boots: one for fun skiing (the 3-buckle) and one for long adventures and skimo racing (a one buckle/boa style boot). The Atomic Backland is making a strong case that maybe I can shift this mentality, or maybe there’s room for a third boot in my quiver. In going into testing this boot, I was looking for that sweet spot crossover boot that I could take on long full day adventures without sacrificing too much on the down.
The boot
The Backland Carbon is the second lightest boot in Atomic’s ski touring line, weighing in @ 1094 g/boot for a 25.5. The range is from the Backland Ultimate @ 750 g/boot to the Backland Sport @1206 g/boot. It has a Boa over the foot with one cuff buckle and a lever walk mode. The Backland Carbon lives up to its name with a carbon spine running up the back of the boot.
This boot is intended for efficient touring and real skiing. It’s beefier than a skimo boot but smaller than a full-send 3 or 4-buckle AT boot. With these boundaries in mind, it delivers an incredible free range of motion at 74 degrees, is quite light at just over 1000 g, and can drive a ski surprisingly well for a boot with those specs.
Fit
Before I talk about fit, a little about my feet. I have a relatively standard arch height and foot width along with a very high instep (thick foot). There are a couple small bone spurs and problem spots, but nothing crazy. I also have very narrow calves. I wear a size 8.5 shoe (26 mondo) but almost always size down for ski boots to a 25.5.
At first, I could barely get the boot on. My instep was just too big to easily slide my foot into the boot. Once in, the boot is remarkably comfortable. Due to my small calves, I needed to move the buckle to the next tighter hole position. Easy. However, the power strap was mounted in such a way that I actually maxed out how tight it could get and still wanted it a bit tighter. I’m hoping to make some modifications to the power strap, but haven’t yet done so.
Overall, the boot fit true to size and other than the oddity of the power strap, and the struggle to get the boot on, once in, the fit was snug, cozy, and comfy.
The Atomic Backland Carbon in its natural habitat, but it could be at a fancy restaurant too. Photo: Cyril Brunner
Backland Carbon highlights
The biggest highlight of the Backland Carbon is its SVELTness! It’s one of the cleanest and best-looking boots I’ve ever seen. While this has no relevance to how it skis, I felt like I could wear these things out to dinner!
Back to business, two of the Backland Carbon features especially stood out. The first is the free pivot walk mode (Frictionless Pivot in jargon land), and the second is the easy rear walk lever (Free / Lock 4.0 in jargon land).
Range of motion in action, left. The Frictionless Pivot and Free / Lock 4.0 mechanism that makes it possible, right.
The frictionless pivot truly lived up to its name. I’ve been in a lot of boots that boast a high range of motion, only to find out that to fully experience the whole range you have to overcome a lot of resistance in the cuff and the liner. The Backland Carbon was not this way; I could easily achieve the full 74° range of motion.
I am coming from the Dynafit Ultra Lock walk mode system and have always been a big fan of the integrated buckle/walk mode and do miss it. However, the simplicity of the walk mode lever on the Backland Carbon won me over in the end. There is no finicky spot for ice to build up or weird walk mode shenanigans that we’ve all seen. It’s an easy flip of the lever.
The main highlight of the Backland was its incredible walkability and range of motion. On a scale of 1 – 10 (1 being an old school 4-buckle AT boot with a parking lot walk mode and 10 being the $2700 Pierre Gignoux SkiMo boot), the Backland Carbon scores a 7 for walkability. On a scale of 1 – 10 (1 being a plastic shelled SkiMo boot like the Scarpa Alien and 10 being an Alpine Race boot with a plug liner), the Backland scores a 5 for skiability. So overall, it is geared more for the uphill than the down.
Another feature worth noting, since it is pretty novel, was the magnetic cuff snaps (I guess I’ll call them that). These were a bit gimmicky to me and mostly got in the way more than anything else.
Magnetic cuff snaps.
Durability
In the two months I used the boots, I didn’t come across any major durability issues. The liner is thin and I expect it would pack out a bit faster than a standard boot liner (or an intuition liner). I am also always a bit wary of the Boa systems breaking. This didn’t happen, but is always in the back of my mind.
Ideal uses
I think the best way to define a boot is to figure out what it’s not designed for. To do that I tested these boots at their limits.
As a skimo boot
I brought the Backland Carbon out to my local citizen SkiMo series to see how it could do as a SkiMo race boot. In terms of weight it fared okay against the competition at only ~350 g heavier than a true race boot. In terms of free rotation, it was pretty darn close. On super long stride and gliding portions of the course I noticed the back end of the range of motion, but only just barely. On the downhill… it’s SkiMo, so who cares? But actually, it was miles ahead of my SkiMo race boots, as expected.
If you are looking to be a competitive racer, I wouldn’t recommend this be your go-to SkiMo boot. However, it’s a great daily boot and if you don’t want to own a second pair of boots just for racing, this can 100% work in a pinch and get you much closer to the competition.
As a crud busting boot
To find the other end of the limits of the Backland Carbon, I found myself on top of what I hoped would be a soft corned up New England trail in the spring. However, the clouds rolled in and had different plans for our afternoon. What were soft moguls only minutes ago became bulletproof icy moguls of death.
On the climb, the boots were a dream: comfortable, great range of motion, I was able to keep my heel risers low and still maintain effective contact with the snow and not struggle to hold a grip even in the icy conditions.
I was skiing DPS Cassiar 95s. On the descent I was definitely feeling the lack of a burlier boot and found myself pining for the added stability of my 3-buckle boots. The Backlands had okay lateral stability, but even with a high rear cuff, I wished the sides of the boot were a bit taller (but you have to find weight saving somewhere I guess).
The forward flex was a little soft for my liking. I didn’t notice this in good snow, but when things got spicy, I wasn’t able to drive the boot as well as I would have liked. That said the skiing really wouldn’t have been any better, even in a bigger boot that day.
As a powder cruising boot
I took it upon myself to see what this boot was intended for and then do exactly what it was not intended for, you’re welcome. So now let’s talk about what the Backland was great at.
Aaron enjoying all that the Vermont Backcountry has to offer. PC: Cyril Brunner
I took the Backlands out on a perfect corn day and flew up and down the mountain with ease. Easy walking, and easy to drive my skis on the down. I skied the Backland in pristine Vermont powder and was happy to be breaking trail with 70% the weight I’m accustomed to and with a better range of motion. On the down I was perfectly satisfied with the lighter boot, and found I was able to drive my skis well enough in the nice snow. I took the Backlands on long walks in the woods skinning 5-7k and found the walkability delightful!
Conclusion
Geared for the uphill at just over 1000 g with a true free 74° range of motion, the Backland does an adequate job on the down. While it’s not designed for big mountain sending, with its carbon spine and high rear boot cuff, it performs as expected for its weight class on the downhill. Looking past oddities in fit, and the superfluous magnets, the Backland walks pretty darn close to a SkiMo race boot due to the frictionless pivot. As a boot designed for the crossover athlete the Backland hits the marks on weight, and walkability, and does the job on the down.
SPECS
The 25.5 Atomic Backland Carbon weighing in at 1050 g.
Weight (grams): 1094 g/boot (25.5)
Dimensions: Narrow last
Range of Motion: 74°
Construction: Carbon spine, Rocker Vibram sole
Buckles: 1 cuff buckle + Boa
Shop for it.
Read our other Backland boot coverage.
Aaron Rice loves skiing so much that in 2016 he skinned and skied 2.5 million human powered vertical feet, breaking the record for most human powered skiing in a calendar year. He now lives in Vermont living a slightly more sane lifestyle but still skis daily, getting about 125 days and 350,000’ per year. Follow along @airandrice!
13 comments
Thanks for the great review.
Just bought these boots and excited to get out on them. My 28.0/28.5 weigh 1250ish grams which is the same as my original Backland Carbons with an Intuition liner. The new boots are taller than the originals side by side both on the cuff and the liner which I hope translates to better performance. I’m hoping the gaiter holds up much better than the old ones. Seems like I’ll rip the top quick getting the liner in and out which I do after every use to dry them out.
Hey Matt, I have the older Backland carbon and they’ve been great but are starting to look “well-aged”. They have been quite durable, overall, besides the buckles loosening and the gaiter. Curious how the skiability compares, since they don’t have the tongue but maybe the taller cuff compensates?
Hey Kam. I just went for a 500m vertical run in some sloppy and sticky spring snow. I haven’t lost any grams with these boots so no inspiration on the up. They skied pretty good though and I appreciated the taller cuff. I immediately noticed though that my heal was not being held down and that when I put pressure up front that I could feel the plastic through the tongue. Both sensations that I didn’t get with the older model. I have to say they did ski better than the older Backland with the tongue inserted though. And when I got to the top all I did was flick the ski lever down and I was ready to ski, no longer having to deal with inserting the tongue every run. They were hot though, maybe with all the holes on my old gaiter there was a lot of air flow.
Thanks, Matt. Sounds like a keeper
Aaaron, did you have any issues with the Boa not feeling tight enough? I have a low instep foot and while the boot felt great overall, the Boa closure did not do much to reduce the high instep. This was my first light ski touring boot to demo so maybe I should expect an alpine boot fit. It still walked great and skied decently.
Hey Ethan, I found the boa held my foot pretty well, no noticable heel lift and snug around the instep. That said I have a very high instep. In walkmode I could have the boa undone and barely notice a difference. On the down the boa held my foot snug. Fit wise for me these boots were money right out of the box. But fit is going to be very specific to each person’s foot.
Ethan – I’m also cursed with a low instep foot. The stock liner was tough for me to dial in. After a month or so, I swapped in a thicker intuition and the fit has been excellent ever since. Skiing performance also improved.
Jason-What Intuition Liner did you end up going with? I’m in a similar dilemma myself.
From a maestrale rs
Took an older pair of Backland Carbon to Iceland last year, which are driving DPS Wailer 105 without a problem. When you do get to Isafjurdor and on board the Aurora Arktika you will have a ball.
I bought the Carbon Backlands in late February(‘20) and have skied them with 4 pairs of skis (ranging from 105 to 88 under foot), in various conditions (Utah 3% powder to Utah 90% cement) and so far I am very pleased with the Backlands. Much less fiddly than my TLT6 or even my F1s, and they’re fit my foot better than both. My only complaint is more on my body type (huge calves) so all my ski boots have an awkward, open cuff feel, even when I crank the upper buckle and power strap to tourniquet tightness. I’m worried about the thin liner and it packing out quickly, so I did zero heat molding, and they still feel very good without any modifications. Bottom line line is they skin great, and ski much better than expected, better on the DH than both my TLT6 or F1s.
Hi OMR
the F1 you are referring to as a comparison, is that the new-ish green edition or an older vintage?
General question regarding light AND stiff boots and the Backland.
I have been using light(ish) boots since the Dynafit TLT 5 came out. After some years on the TLT 5 and then TLT 6 I also got the Atomic Backland Carbon (first edition a few years back). I also have a on-hill off-hill rig (Atomic Bent Chetler 188 skis with Salomon Shift bindings and the Tecnica Zero G pro tour boots). This last winter I have been touring mostly with my Atomics due to favourable conditions and I don’t mind a bit of extra weight. But lately, on longer spring missions, I’m back on lighter, smaler skis (EVIskis 170cm, 80mm underfoot) with my Atomic Backlands. Now, being used to the burly Zero G’s, I find the Backlands way to soft, specially on forward pressure in steep terrain. Yes, one has to adapt but this was shocking (I’m about 85kg btw). My question(s):
Is the NEW Backland Carbon way stiffer then the first generation? If not, what boots in the lightweight relme do you recommend if you want something considerably stiffer in the same category (stiff for skiing, good range of movement for skining- and climbing and crampon compatible (NO SHARKNOSE and not the Hoji Free)? My own immediate thought is the Scarpa Alien 1.0 but I would love some good inputs and considerations.