Atomic Backland Touring Boots

onenerdykid

onenerdykid

Active member
Esteemed touring NSers,

Inside the 15-16 Gear Rumor thread in Gear Talk I put a link to our mini-site dedicated to our new Backland touring boots.
http://www.atomic-content.com/backland/

Not that I want to create double threads, but I figure it might get more traction and generate more interest here in the new touring forum.

Feel free to check out the boots and ask me any questions about the boot range. I'll do my best to answer them and keep you guys up to speed with any and all info that I'm allowed to share.

Cheers!

nerdy
 
13294325:.MASSHOLE. said:
Is it just me, or do they seem to have less sole rocker than a TLT or similar boot?
Click to expand...

My only complaint about our boot tech video is that it makes the sole look like it has less rocker than it does. I would say it's on par with TLT 6/F1-Evo but not nearly as much as La Sportiva's Spitfire. With all of these boots, the sole/binding interface is the type that is not regulated by any norm, so any company is free to do what they want. We wanted to provide ample rocker but not as much as Sportiva's since that can cause binding step-in compatibility issues.

That said the boot is pin-binding only and it is compatible with many automatic crampons.
 
13294418:.MASSHOLE. said:
I assume its Warden Compatible too? Or no?
Click to expand...

No, it is not. The only way to accurately describe it is pin-binding only, or it is sometimes referred to as a "short sole" because it does not meet the requirements for WTR nor Touring Norm. There is no norm governing the sole/binding area.

This allows the boot to achieve a lighter weight, more rocker than Touring Norm, and a more efficient placement of the tech insert (closer to the foot).

Other boots that have a simiar sole/binding area: TLT 6, F1-Evo, Spitfire/Sideral, Syborg, and then even lighter rando race boots.
 
13294440:paige. said:
What's the smallest true size these will be available in?
Click to expand...

All models will go down to a true 22/22.5 MP (248mm boot sole length).

Size 26/26.5 is 288mm, and shells are scaled by 10mm per size. 22-31 MP
 
13294765:Lucas said:
Shitty link because mobile:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=K3K0VLGcApSNoQSctYKYAg&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DkMYUhRW8w6A&ved=0CCMQtwIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNGGfk0eZX3ulJ2mFLjN1KCk-PSOsA&sig2=YRXCwcbb3IlBh6J7S3iwEQ

But does this video show the new atomic tech binding also?
Click to expand...

Yes, there are new pin bindings from Atomic & Salomon coming out but the info on these will come shortly. We fear that if we release info on the boots and bindings at the same time that the internet will melt and potentially cause some adverse effects on the Earth's tilt. Stay tuned for more info closer to SIA/ISPO time.
 
13295243:onenerdykid said:
Awesome! Glad you are liking them. Were you able to try them on for a carpet test at least?
Click to expand...

Nah, boot wasn't my size and I didn't want to bother anyone. Didn't have an appointment with them, but I'll check them out more next year
 
i finally got to hold one of these babes this past saturday and god was i impressed far and away the lightest boot i have ever held. the liner seems really thin but i guess it comes witht the deal. the most impressive thing about them to me was forsure the rage of motion that these boots allow once the tongue is removed the boot essentially turns into a regular human ankle with full back and forth rang. this boot is beyond impressive and i am stoked to pick them up next year
 
13311600:brov1 said:
i finally got to hold one of these babes this past saturday and god was i impressed far and away the lightest boot i have ever held. the liner seems really thin but i guess it comes witht the deal. the most impressive thing about them to me was forsure the rage of motion that these boots allow once the tongue is removed the boot essentially turns into a regular human ankle with full back and forth rang. this boot is beyond impressive and i am stoked to pick them up next year
Click to expand...

Stoked you got to try one on! The cuff range of motion is really awesome, something we worked super hard on. It's really the culmination of the mechanism, frictionless pivot, and our tongue system. Without a tongue, the boot is capable of 74 degrees of mobility (measured with a liner and a leg last, not just simply boot only). But even with the soft tongue, you can still get 70 degrees, which is still really really good.

Even at this weight (heaviest model weighs in at 1,161g per 27.5) it can still adequately power a 100mm ski without any issue. Hopefully some of you will be at the SIA on-snow and get out on some and see for yourself!
 
People are talking about these boots to go with skis with a max waist of 95mm maybe 100.. I was hoping for more..

Would I be crazy to get these and use them on wider skis? 107 and 115mm..

Pros/cons? I leave the resorts as much as possible, tour powder but also enjoy the way down. With skis that are light but still ski good, are fun and keep their liveliness. So I want to save weight with bindings and boots..
 
13323816:Camembert said:
People are talking about these boots to go with skis with a max waist of 95mm maybe 100.. I was hoping for more..

Would I be crazy to get these and use them on wider skis? 107 and 115mm..

Pros/cons? I leave the resorts as much as possible, tour powder but also enjoy the way down. With skis that are light but still ski good, are fun and keep their liveliness. So I want to save weight with bindings and boots..
Click to expand...

The Backland Carbon can easily power an Automatic 102 no problem. In terms of our "marketing position" the boot is mated with skis that are 78-95mm underfoot (especially if you are talking to Europeans who view anything over 90mm as a "freeride powder specific ski"). But since this boot has the same flex pattern as our Hawx 2.0 110 you can for sure ski it on skis around 100 underfoot no problem.

The only problem that will arise is that the boot weighs 1.1 kg and the ski is 2.4kg + 1.5kg binding. Backland boots are so light that there will for sure be a point where it doesn't make sense to mount it with a heavy ski and binding combo. It will simply ski weird.

So if you pick a lighter 100-110mm ski and a suitable binding, there will be no problem at all.
 
13325711:onenerdykid said:
The Backland Carbon can easily power an Automatic 102 no problem. In terms of our "marketing position" the boot is mated with skis that are 78-95mm underfoot (especially if you are talking to Europeans who view anything over 90mm as a "freeride powder specific ski"). But since this boot has the same flex pattern as our Hawx 2.0 110 you can for sure ski it on skis around 100 underfoot no problem.

The only problem that will arise is that the boot weighs 1.1 kg and the ski is 2.4kg + 1.5kg binding. Backland boots are so light that there will for sure be a point where it doesn't make sense to mount it with a heavy ski and binding combo. It will simply ski weird.

So if you pick a lighter 100-110mm ski and a suitable binding, there will be no problem at all.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
13323816:Camembert said:
People are talking about these boots to go with skis with a max waist of 95mm maybe 100.. I was hoping for more..

Would I be crazy to get these and use them on wider skis? 107 and 115mm..

Pros/cons? I leave the resorts as much as possible, tour powder but also enjoy the way down. With skis that are light but still ski good, are fun and keep their liveliness. So I want to save weight with bindings and boots..
Click to expand...

Personally, I think touring on 107-115mm skis is fucking stupid; regardless of the boot you would use. The post you read (I know which one) is written by another person who shares the same viewpoint, albeit in gentler language. People have been skiing powder with no problem on skis significantly narrower than 95mm for years. While a quick view of the movies would have you believe the back country is just an oasis of untracked powder, my experience indicates you may find significantly different conditions, even on a powder day. YMMV.
 
Personally I would not worry about wider skis too much. Obviously OneNerdy will know better but having skied these boots I would feel confident ripping on a wider ski. I really wanted to try them on some bents when I was testing them but non of the bents had tech bindings. I tried the automatic 102 though and it felt fine. The boots are pretty stiff "relatively speaking" and I was having no problems skiing almost as hard in them as I was my waymakers. I really was very very impressed
 
13326494:cobra_commander said:
Personally, I think touring on 107-115mm skis is fucking stupid; regardless of the boot you would use. The post you read (I know which one) is written by another person who shares the same viewpoint, albeit in gentler language. People have been skiing powder with no problem on skis significantly narrower than 95mm for years. While a quick view of the movies would have you believe the back country is just an oasis of untracked powder, my experience indicates you may find significantly different conditions, even on a powder day. YMMV.
Click to expand...

There is for sure a lot of truth to what cobra is saying, and personally I think there is a limit to what any boot (especially light touring boots) are capable of since their success is greatly dependent on the other gear-ingredients you are using.

With that said, in our new Airtime edit one of our guys is ripping lines on the new Backland Carbon and Backland 85

 
13326494:cobra_commander said:
Personally, I think touring on 107-115mm skis is fucking stupid; regardless of the boot you would use. The post you read (I know which one) is written by another person who shares the same viewpoint, albeit in gentler language. People have been skiing powder with no problem on skis significantly narrower than 95mm for years. While a quick view of the movies would have you believe the back country is just an oasis of untracked powder, my experience indicates you may find significantly different conditions, even on a powder day. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Always good to hear other peoples opinions, thanks.

Touring on my Exit Worlds is not for mega long tours. I have Plum Yaks on inserts + BD Factors. These Exit Worlds have the same shape as the old Bibby, really fun and versatile. I know that while touring you get a lot of different conditions and shit on your path but I go up to have fun going down when I'm on the Exit Worlds. (I'm not new to touring if thats what you think) I dont go skiing couloirs with them. But to be honest, I like the EW so much I would not be surprised if I would take them on a trip where we use a hut as basecamp and ski cool lines. Setup is a lot lighter than setups lots of people use with frame bindings..

I now have Tahoes on the side but with them I do miss some float sometimes but that also because I'm a big guy. So thats why I want to get the Tallac next year. I had the Governor and loved the shape and said I wish this was in a narrow and lighter version (guess I wasnt the only one who emailed Luke about a ski like that), so I cant wait to get them. Also the Tahoes have a twintip wich sucks.

I'm thinking about getting new boots and the Backland carbons look so tits that I was thinking about getting them. Extra weight saving is always nice but they do need to handle my skiing and setup..

About: 'The post you read (I know which one) is written by another person who shares the same viewpoint, albeit in gentler language.' I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you can post a link?
 
After fondling these at SIA, I'm very excited to report that they are probably, most likely, the sex. Way more comfy on my foot than the TLT6.

My only major gripe, and this is legitimate given the insert issues that Amer has had in the past: why no Dynafit standard inserts up front? They just work so much more nicely.
 
13328150:Literature said:
this is legitimate
Click to expand...

No, it really isn't. One guy getting hurt 5 years ago on an early release prototype does not constitute an issue.

The dynafit is a name, with a lot of ego attached. The other names are about to clean house in everything other than ski mo racing.

There is no issue using the backland to rail 95mm skis at 45 mph over shitty snow and hopping over rocks.
 
13328150:Literature said:
My only major gripe, and this is legitimate given the insert issues that Amer has had in the past: why no Dynafit standard inserts up front? They just work so much more nicely.
Click to expand...

The tech inserts used in Backland are the same tech inserts used for the past 3 years with Waymaker Carbon/Tour. The inserts are made by Atomic in Italy using the lost wax casting method (also known as investment casting) and use the exact geometry of Dynafit's original (expired) patent. We never wanted to invent our own geometry (for obvious reasons) and we wanted to make sure the parts were the strongest pieces possible, which is why we chose to make them via the lost wax casting method. This method is extremely expensive but it is the only way to ensure that the proper material hardness is the same throughout the entire piece. In fact, it is the same process by which Ferrari makes their engine blocks. Crazy expensive, but crazy strong.

Scarpa is the only brand that Dynafit licences their Quick-Step insert to at the moment. Other brands (like Scott and Fischer) have agreements with Dynafit to source their "original" inserts. Talks are in the works with Dynafit, but there is also a big push to get an ISO norm for tech inserts and binding pins. Personally, I would rather see the later option since it would be controlled by a 3rd party (namely the TÜV) rather than a company that has an obvious interest in selling their own parts.
 
13328218:onenerdykid said:
The tech inserts used in Backland are the same tech inserts used for the past 3 years with Waymaker Carbon/Tour. The inserts are made by Atomic in Italy using the lost wax casting method (also known as investment casting) and use the exact geometry of Dynafit's original (expired) patent. We never wanted to invent our own geometry (for obvious reasons) and we wanted to make sure the parts were the strongest pieces possible, which is why we chose to make them via the lost wax casting method. This method is extremely expensive but it is the only way to ensure that the proper material hardness is the same throughout the entire piece. In fact, it is the same process by which Ferrari makes their engine blocks. Crazy expensive, but crazy strong.

Scarpa is the only brand that Dynafit licences their Quick-Step insert to at the moment. Other brands (like Scott and Fischer) have agreements with Dynafit to source their "original" inserts. Talks are in the works with Dynafit, but there is also a big push to get an ISO norm for tech inserts and binding pins. Personally, I would rather see the later option since it would be controlled by a 3rd party (namely the TÜV) rather than a company that has an obvious interest in selling their own parts.
Click to expand...

That norm should have been there the moment that patent expired.
 
13328218:onenerdykid said:
The tech inserts used in Backland are the same tech inserts used for the past 3 years with Waymaker Carbon/Tour. The inserts are made by Atomic in Italy using the lost wax casting method (also known as investment casting) and use the exact geometry of Dynafit's original (expired) patent. We never wanted to invent our own geometry (for obvious reasons) and we wanted to make sure the parts were the strongest pieces possible, which is why we chose to make them via the lost wax casting method. This method is extremely expensive but it is the only way to ensure that the proper material hardness is the same throughout the entire piece. In fact, it is the same process by which Ferrari makes their engine blocks. Crazy expensive, but crazy strong.

Scarpa is the only brand that Dynafit licences their Quick-Step insert to at the moment. Other brands (like Scott and Fischer) have agreements with Dynafit to source their "original" inserts. Talks are in the works with Dynafit, but there is also a big push to get an ISO norm for tech inserts and binding pins. Personally, I would rather see the later option since it would be controlled by a 3rd party (namely the TÜV) rather than a company that has an obvious interest in selling their own parts.
Click to expand...

Awesome. Thanks for filling us in, and I hope that the TUV standard comes to pass.
 
13328166:cobra_commander said:
No, it really isn't. One guy getting hurt 5 years ago on an early release prototype does not constitute an issue.

The dynafit is a name, with a lot of ego attached. The other names are about to clean house in everything other than ski mo racing.

There is no issue using the backland to rail 95mm skis at 45 mph over shitty snow and hopping over rocks.
Click to expand...

obviously if you almost lost your leg or had to have multiple surgeries a shit load of pain and suffering and knees replaced

or it was your friend it'd be a much fuckin bigger issue to you

and while im not gonna tell you how much amerisports lost in the law suit over their piss poor designed and tested peice of shit boot and cheese dick inserts there were enough zeros involved that i bet it was a big issue for them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top