Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Atomic Backland 78UL

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Atomic Backland 78UL

    Click image for larger version

Name:	CDDA8FBA-FC35-41D6-9F85-74E8C843F132.jpg
Views:	109
Size:	817.7 KB
ID:	120103 My treat for this season, teamed up with a Meidjo 3.

    Primarily for days with a long hike in, they save 700g over my previous set up. The ski weighs all of 1040g.

    I have just been in the French Alps for the Titan Telemark event, a week of training culminating in the British Championships. Not having used them I brought them along to try out, and also there is a Skimo style mountain race.

    I had intended to race on junior GS Race Tigers, but surprised to find the Backlands ski a lot better. For such a light ski this is amazing. Although I am no racer I am managing to almost keep pace with good guys on full race ski. No chattering or instability at speed.

    They do as expected excel at tight turns and can be flicked around with ease. We did get some fresh snow later, of course they don’t float anywhere near a dedicated powder ski, but managed ok…until you find a sudden deeper spot.

    The big question is how they will last, time will tell. They do have a plate under the toe for binding fixing. Though this isn’t long enough to cover all the screws in the toe piece. The rear most set are into the plain ski, here I widened and deepened the hole and filled with epoxy with added carbon fibres. So far all good.

    Meidjo 3. Really enjoyed the step in, and yes it does work with chewed up duck butts. I did find it a bit more tricky to line the pins up to click in, need to mark the boot which should help. I did get a bit of snow packing in the spring box claw recess, though readily removed if you remember to look. Skis great of course.

  • #2
    I have the UL65 in a 160cm length. they basically don't weigh anything. but the UL65 have very little shape and my skis are very short.. basically terrifying going down hill. I didn't realize that a UL ski could handle a tele binding.

    Comment


    • #3
      My wife has the Backland 98W (in 156)... not the UL, but it is ridiculous how light they are. Even with bindings on, you pick them up and are shocked. She likes they way they ski too.

      She ended up also getting the 107w (in 159) for deeper days and finds no drawback to them. They are obviously heavier though (without a scale).

      Comment


      • #4
        I should have said they are 169s, with a 17m radius.
        i weigh 63kg 140lbs. And am light on my skis.

        Comment

        Working...
        X