2023-2024 Atomic Backland XTD 120

23 comments on “2023-2024 Atomic Backland XTD 120”

1. My biggest gripe with the Fischer Transalp Pro and now these, is that they go and ruin what could be a really good long trip boot for people who like to ski, by putting full toe lugs on them so they can be used in downhill binders – this makes them average to walk in vs. toe lugs that are only designed to accept a crampon bail…

   • Hi Tom, fair point – a non-norm sole would be lighter and walk more naturally. But the big reason for an ISO 9523 sole is binding compatibility, not just for alpine bindings but for hybrid bindings like the Shift, Kingpin and Tecton. You can’t use those bindings with a non-norm sole.

     • So what Tom wants to know: how much plastic can one grind off the front off the toe before the tech insert becomes insecure? ;-)

     • I have a Scarpa F1 from 2018/2019 that has a non-norm toe but works OK in a Tecton binding

   • This boot comes damn close to the original 19/20 Hawx Ultra 130 XTD in terms of weight. A direct comparison regarding touring and downhill performance would be great!

     • Are these filling the region that the previous model Hawx XTD 130 covered? Since the new model got quite a bit heavier and more 50/50 oriented I was hoping they’d cover the gap and this seems to be it.

     • Hi Karl – think of it this way: Hawx XTD boots are alpine boots that can go touring and the Backland XTD boots are touring boots that ski really well. You can use our Hawx XTD boots in the resort, all day long but I wouldn’t do the same with a Backland XTD. The Hawx XTD boots will ski circles around the Backland XTD, but the Backland XTD will leave the Hawx XTD far behind on the skin track. It just depends on which compromise is more important to you. And remember- compromises aren’t a bad thing, just part of the reality we live in and an honest discussion about them will help make gear choices clearer and easier. -Matt

       • Today I have Hawk XTD (old model 2021-22) that I use for all types of skiing. I’m thinking maybe replace them with Backland XTD but it might be better to complement the Hawk with Backland Carbon? The Backland XTD is probably not that good in piste? But it is also nice to only have one pair of boots.

     • Hard to imagine just by basic construction knowledge that something with less overlap and material will perform as high as something with actual full overlap.

   • I think it makes sense for boots in the beefy touring category to be compatible with beefy touring bindings. I know lots of people want a binding like Tecton, Shift, Duke or at least Kingpins.
     I am not one of them, but look around at trailheads or the Internet, and people who worry about skiing performance and don’t mind a bit of weight(ie the same customers who would buy this boot or the Transalp), are often picking those bindings.
     The other group is people like my wife: her Alpine skis are not too heavy, and have Shifts on them. If we are doing a trip with only a day or so of touring, she might bring just her touring boots, along with her alpine boots and skis.

     The one place where I do agree with your question, is that this boot, unlike any other AT I know of, comes in two sole versions: AT and GW.
     So, if it was up to me, I’d have made a GW version, for those who want max binding compatibility, and a short, non norm, rubber sole version.
     But, Matt knows all this too, and being a professional, I am sure he has looked at market research to see what would sell best, which isn’t always what’s best for you and me, or even objectively the best for most people.

2. Is the boot mouldable with the Memory Fit process? Didn’t notice any mention about that.

   • Hi Joel – sorry, we just have too much to talk about and not enough time to do it in haha. Yes, the shell is heat moldable either through traditional stretching or Memory Fit, depending on how many areas of adjustment you need. If you don’t need any of that, the liner is 100% heat moldable to help make a good fit even better. – Matt

3. “Free Mountaineering” it’s what happens when a company that knows how to make a WC Ski boot messes around with walk modes and lightweight shells. Unlike these “leather boot” companies trying to make a plastic walking boot, that skis.

4. Hi everyone,
   this boot looks really interesting to me and I will be excited to try it on. I definitely like the fact that it has a full ISO 9523 sole. I have a Shift binding on my touring skis, like this binding for a lot of reasons and would be very hesitant to change to something with less consistent retention and release characteristics (meaning all other pin bindings). But I wouldn’t mind my boots walking more effortlessly with more forward ROM, so I certainly see an application for this boot.
   It’s also great to see that this boot has what looks like a proper instep buckle and the non-overlap shell design in combination with that buckle should permit adjustment to a wider range of foot instep heights. And Luke is the first reviewer that I am aware of to point out the value that lies in this adjustability, rather than just classifying boots as low or high volume, as is often the case elsewhere, thank you!
   In my case, an adaptability for a very low instep would be great. This is also my gripe with the Hawx Ultra XTD boot, which is my touring boot and that has a bit too high of an instep for me.
   I have a couple of fit questions on this boot.
   – I love the narrow and relatively deep heel pocket of the Hawx Ultra, is this similar on the Backland XTD? On previous Backlands it seemed to be wider.
   – the Hawx Ultra stance angles are the best for my anatomy and skiing style that I’ve come across, so are the boot board ramp angles comparable when in a Shift binding? Of course, a heel wedge can permit some adjustment, but raising the heel also lifts the foot upwards out of the heel pocket, so it’s always preferable to have the manufacturer design it in.
   – it looks as though the last is not as low down in the boot as with the Hawx, where the toes of the feet sit somewhere behind the toe lugs. This is great for the low stand-over height in the Hawx, but it makes punching or molding the boots for big toe length impossible at home and for my bootfitter. Here it seems the foot might be placed more above the upper end of the toe binding lug, is this correct? Can they thus more easily be stretched for extra legth if required? This is my usual issue which prevents downsizing for ankle fit.
   Cheers

   • Partly answer on the first question by Matt in the Year of the Boa Gear:30 podcast, the Backland XTD is built around a Hawx Prime last. So presumably, the heel pocket is wider than with the Hawx Ultra.

     • Hi Philipp – that’s correct, this is based on a Prime last, so a medium volume fit.

5. Stoked on the new design. Love my current Backland Carbon. They ski incredible for their weight and the freedom of movement on the climb is awesome. First pair of “uphill boots. That said, the Boa system has been a hassle. Slips, and needs replacing, falls off occasionally so i have become an amateur expert. Ready to never look at a boa again! And have some features like binding compatibility and a buckle on the front. What to do with used boots that have a broken boa but are otherwise good?

   • Hi Nate, you can get the BOA repaired and sell it once it is fixed. The current (22/23) Backland Carbon now comes with our Cross Lace, very similar to what is pictured here on the Backland XTD. The Cross Lace system generates more closing force than the M-series BOA system but still offers a clean lateral side vs. other buckle-operated closure systems. – Matt

6. As someone who used and still uses the original 17/18 Atomic Hawx Ultra XTD 130 exclusively for touring, how would you describe the differences or similarities in terms of fit, stiffness and flex between the new Backland XTD and the original Hawx Ultra XTD.

   ever since my original liner started to deteriorate, I have been looking for a boot to replace my Hawx. something that would be a bit lighter, better for touring, with a proper rubber sole and better for transitions aka less annoying on the buckle-side. All this with still delivering a similar comfortable fit for my feet as well as flex.

   Looks like the Backland XTD could be a contender. just worried now that its built on the prime last, so therefore I guess bigger volume compared to the Hawx Ultra XTD? I recently shop-tried the Fischer Transalp Pro which was the first getting somewhat close to what I’m looking for. Intriguing now that Luke seems to see some parallels between these two boots. Do I need to wait for next winter season to give the Backland XTD a serious look or do I just go with the Fischers now..?

   Also a question on the new BOA technology: why didn’t they put it on the Backland XTD?

   cheers

   • Hi derfredl – the new Backland XTD will be lighter and tour far better than your current Hawx Ultra XTD, but it will be a wider fit. Honestly, it’s more similar in purpose/fit to the Transalp you tried than your current boot. But, I honestly think you’ll find the fit, flex & cuff ROM to be better than the Transalp too.

     Re: BOA – the new BOA system on the Hawx Ultra XTD is purpose built for heavier, thicker alpine boots with a traditional, overlap shell. On a true touring boot (like the Backland XTD) there just isn’t the space for the new BOA and it’s quite heavy, too. So for the Backland XTD it made more sense to use our Cross Lace system which still powerfully wraps the foot & offers a clean lateral side, but is noticeably lighter and won’t interfere with forward cuff ROM. -Matt

7. Thanks Matt for your explanations! Much appreciated and all makes sense. Decided to wait now for next Winter to check out the Backland XTD. Quite excited to get my feet into it!

8. For those wondering, I got a pair of these and as expected- tongueless/and partial overlap construction will never achieve a true 120 flex. While these may be ok for very light skiers and do have a progressive flex, they are probably a 100-110 at best. There’s is absolutely no way I would ski anything that needs gripwalk sole bindings. Just another weenie boot for weenie skis. If it fits you well I probably wouldn’t ski anything over 1500g with this, esp in anything other than perfect conditions. The irony with this boot is that the scarpa Quattro is basically the same weight, walks very good, and is a true 130.

9. Love these boots. Found issue with the liners not drying out on a recent hut traverse, which may be problematic for me as I move into skimo season.

   The fit is the best I’ve ever had in a ski boot. Is the fit comparable to any of the lighter more uphill oriented boots?

   Thanks