The Atomic Backland XTD is a solid middle ground between lightweight and hard-driving.
Atomic Backland XTD 120
Big changes are afoot in the Atomic touring boot range. Previously, the 1kg(+) Backland and the 4 buckle Hawx XTD were categorical choices— beefy freeride boot or lightweight touring. For 2023/2024, the Hawx XTD gets a category bump into 50/50 territory with ~1800g weights and a full PU construction. Meanwhile, Atomic literally and figuratively mixed the Backland and Hawx XTD platforms to create the Backland XTD, a whole new model to fit into the newly coined “2+ Buckle” category.
What we have here is a weight and performance upgrade from 1kg boots, without the more severe touring compromises of 4 buckle, beef boots. As I spend more and more time in my 1kg boots, my appetite for big tours in my 4 buckle Technica Zero G Tour Pros gets smaller and smaller. I am too spoiled by the high ROM walk mode of my 1kg boots. As I discussed in the Fischer Transalp Carbon Pro First Look, the 2+ buckle category hadn’t previously appealed. Getting my foot into the Backland XTD has me as an optimistic convert. The walk mode friction is quite comparable to the Tecnica Zero G Peak, but in ski mode it is a significant upgrade in overall stiffness.
Atomic seems to have achieved this performance balance with a highly sculpted shell that is heavily reinforced in some areas (especially around the walk/ski mode bayonet), then thinned and minimal elsewhere. The upper buckle is similar to a proper alpine buckle with a wide footprint and rigid wire, and the powerstrap is wide and has a nice quick release cam buckle. The lower buckle has a “Z” cable with a brass pulley on the lower redirect that does a great job clamping down evenly over my low instep.
A closer look at the foot retention system on the Backland XCD.
Sole Norms: ISO 9523 (touring norm/MNC compatible).
Speaking of low insteps – I was initially disappointed to see that the Backland XTD is based on Atomic’s mid-volume “Prime” last, rather than the low volume “Ultra.” Never having tried on a Prime last boot, but fitting well in the Ultra, I figured the Backland XTD would be a non-starter. So far, this hasn’t been the case at all. I threw in a molded and broken in Intuition Pro Tour LV for a short tour to gauge the fit, and was really happy with it. The fit feels very similar to the Tecnica Zero G Peak—plenty of toe height/room to stay warm, a roomy instep that can be squished using the Z buckle, and a medium width heel that I need a well molded liner and perhaps a bit of padding to mitigate heel lift.
The stock liner looks excellent. It appears to be heavily engineered with dual density foam, a perforated toe box, and great looking Achilles padding for a tight heel pocket. While I don’t think I’ll need much bootfitting work beyond a liner mold and adding my footbeds, the boot is Memoryfit ready—so the shell can be molded and expanded to accommodate a wide range of foot shapes, especially on the wide end of the spectrum.
Atomic literally and figuratively mixed the Backland and Hawx XTD platforms to create the Backland XTD, a whole new model to fit into the newly coined “2+ Buckle” category.
Overall, the fact remains that touring boots are full of compromise. A tongueless, two buckle boot will almost always walk better and ski worse than a 4 buckle overlap boot. Similarly, a 1kg boot will walk better and ski worse than a 1300-1500 g 2+ buckle boot. Well engineered boots narrow these margins, and as consumers, we are graced with a marketplace full of great options to pick exactly which compromises we want to accept. I’m looking forward to exploring the Backland XTD as I get less and less tolerant of poor ROM boots, but still want a robust option to wrangle more demanding skis or conditions.
Forward Lean is adjustable to 13, 15 or 17 degrees and the ski/walk throw is solid.
Backland XTD Specs
Weight (Size 28.5): 1515g (including stock liner and footbed)
Construction: Carbon infused grilamid w/ more flexible army green upper cuff overlap and instep area
Sole Norms: ISO 9523 (touring norm/MNC compatible)
Closure Systems: Cable/Z Buckle on Lower shell, Alpine style cuff buckle, Camming powerstrap
Range of Motion: 74 degrees – Amazingly low friction over most of this range.
Liner: 3D Platinum Tour – 320g w/ out footbed
Forward Lean: Adjustable 13, 15 or 17 degrees.
Price: $899.95
I am super happy to see this category. After all, most of the time spent touring is skinning and walking, making that part less pleasant really makes the whole outing less enjoyable.
At the same time, weight in and of itself, does not have nearly as great an effect as people often make it sound like. I suspect this is because, until recently, heavy boots walked poorly and light boots skied poorly, and there was little in the middle.
So, this newish category of boots that focus on uphill and downhill performance, while giving up a bit of weight, seems like it would have the biggest demand of all:
Fast n light folks who want a boot in addition to their Aliens for their ‘big skis’? Check
Gnarly freeirde folks who want something in addition to their big 4 buckle boots for those big spring missions? Check
The big group of regular old troping folk, who want one boot, and need it to help them out in bad snow but also on big days when they regret swapping training sessions for Netflix sessions (asking for a friend)? Double check
Nice 1st look writeup! Just curious what the breakdown is of the shell and liner separately.
Apologies, I didn’t read the specs carefully enough!
Really interested in how they ski on mid-fat skis like a 105. Also curious how these compare in flex to other 1500g boots like the Maestrale RS that are/were light 3 buckle boots but don’t walk as well. Is it a 120 wall or somewhat progressive?
I echo alot of sentiment here. When considering new boots, my priority was ROM. As a 190lb guy I tend to gravitate towards heavier boots, but they often fall very short on my desired ROM. The light two buckle boots have excellent ROM, but I tend to fold them in half or struggle with the heavier skis i enjoy. I think there’s a very good market for “burlier” boots that have excellent walking characteristics, and it seems many companies are working to get a product that fits that.
Interesting boot, but I don’t see the justification in not using my Dynafit Radical Pros for 80g of weight saving and a bit more ROM. I’m much more excited about the new Dynafit Ridge Pro.
Its worth noting that in a 27.5, the Backland XTD is 115g lighter than the Radical Pro (according to Skimo.co). I would bet that fit would be the main deciding factor for XTD vs Radical – the Radical is unworkably roomy for me, while the XTD is roomy but with thick footbeds and a shim, useable. Also, the ROM on the XTD is a step above, its really, really good.
Echo your sentiments/excitement about the Ridge Pro – we should be receiving a test pair soon!
Cool, didn’t realise the delta was quite so much. Dynafit really seems to work with my weird feel/calf combo. Hoping the Ridge Pro is as good as it looks. At the moment I’m cramming my feet into the (too short for my mondopoint) Tecnica Peak Carbons. Tecnica did some weird things with the fit on those. I had a pair of the Zero G Pro Tours that needed work to fit, but length was never a problem. It is the exact opposite with the Peaks.
I just bought a pair of these for my oldest child. The main reason was fit, these fit their feet better than anything else, and they tried on 10 boots.
So I’d say, a new boot doesn’t have to do “better” than the existing ones from other brands, as long as it isn’t much worse, it’s already great to just have another fit option. For example, the Radical mentioned above didn’t fit my kid at all.
Second, the walk mode of the shell is really good. It is actually better than that of my Backland Carbon. When you pull the liners and look at the shell, the lower shell doesn’t come up as high in the back as the “regular” Backlands, and it has a noticeably more resistance free range forward as well, and that’s comparing to one of the better walking boots out there.
For those concerned about the weight, the liner is one the heavier side. We pulled out a slightly softer, fully closed cell foam liner from their Hagan boot (can’t remember if it’s Palau or Intuition) and that was noticed lighter in the hand. I didn’t weight the liners, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you could shave off another ~100g with a lighter liner. But, the stock liner is nicely made, with large anti scuff patches at the instep/ankle to prevent the shell from wearing holes in there. And also good stiffeners around the cuff.
So, I think the weight of the liner is put to good use.