2015 Åsnes Combat NATO

Real reviews by real skiers. What a concept! Add your own today. Reviews only please, questions can be posted as replies but new threads looking for opinions should be posted to the main Telemark Talk Forum.
User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 1095
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:20 pm
Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada

Re: 2015 Åsnes Combat NATO

Postby lilcliffy » Sun Jan 08, 2017 6:50 pm

VERY SORRY TO HEAR ABOUT THE LOSS OF YOUR CANINE COMPANION MY FRIEND. :cry:

This is terrible news of the sort that I feel very deeply for you.

I have a personality type that naturally tends to avoid light social interaction (I have worked very hard on getting better at this :oops: )- but I do form very powerful bonds with people- and, this also extends to animals. I cannot remember a point in my life where I did not have a dog as a 24-7 companion (I often take one or more of my dogs with me to work). The loss of my animal companions has been very, very painful.

I know what you are going through man. Sorry to hear about it.
The pursuit of XCD balance: cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry

User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 1095
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:20 pm
Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada

Re: 2015 Åsnes Combat NATO

Postby lilcliffy » Sun Jan 08, 2017 7:25 pm

fisheater wrote:Most likely, the ski I should want to add to my quiver is an E-109 waxless. However, Fischer stopped making these skis,

I will keep my eyes open for a E-109 Crown for you!

As a very good alternative, consider the Fischer S-Bound 78/Traverse 78.

There are still a few 199cm S-78s kicking around- I was eyeing a pair for months- and really should have just bought em...

(FISCHER- are you hearing us- if you are going to make a distance-oriented XCD ski- please make it long enough for people that actually weigh something!)

Perhaps the 189cm Traverse 78 is long enough for you anyway? The Easy-Skin on the T-78 is an awesome upgrade...

It was interesting Gareth, when you rated the E-109 as an easier turning ski than the Anses Combat Nato,

The E-109 is more cambered than the Combat Nato- but the total resistance underfoot is pretty close. The Combat Nato is just low profile...The biggest difference between the two on the downhill are the open tips on the E-109. The effective edge of the E-109 is MUCH shorter than the Combat Nato.

however I have enjoyed the pleasure of Nordic rocker rising up through the powder.

Me too- but the S-112 is WAAAY more of a floating powder ski than the E-109/Combat. In very deep snow the the E-109/Combat are not wide enough to float- unless you are flying down a hill! :D

From a downhill perspective I have always enjoyed even flexing skis, albeit with a preference for skis that are a little stiff, with a kick. I enjoy utilizing that kick when I unweight to put a little air under my skis.

I like a little "pop" in turn transitions as well. If you would prefer a ski with an even flex- and are considering ordering an Asnes- I would SERIOUSLY consider the Nansen over the ingstad/Nato. Although I find the Combat very smooth flexing and stable, it is a double-cambered ski- therefore, no matter what, the mid-section of the Combat is stiffer than the tips/tails.

UTE magazine's test drools over the smooth, even flex of the Nansen- even ponders why people don't still telemark ski on narrow skis like the Nansen anymore...
http://www.utemagasinet.no/Utstyr/TEST-Ski-for-fjellet

If I was looking to "XCD" ski from the point of view of downhill skiing on XC tech- the Nansen would be the ski.

I like the Combat Nato primarily for its BC-XC performance.

My thought is while an E-109 may have easier turn initiation, my particular style of skiing would probably make up for the shortcomings of the Nato / Combat in relation to tip rise. This is based upon an assumption that an even flexing ski, being pushed at a bit of speed will be arcing to the surface regardless.

Please don't misunderstand my perspective on the Combat Nato- I find it remarkably smooth flexing for a double-cambered ski. The Combat is not as round flexing as a ski like an Epoch, Annum...Even the Eon- though "double-cambered" has a more even flex than the Combat...

Klister greatly extends the operability of a waxable base- I use it on the groomed track- but have had the nightmare of bringing back a load of lichen and twigs when using it in the woods...

The integrated kicker skin greatly extends the operability of a waxable base.
The pursuit of XCD balance: cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry

User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 1095
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:20 pm
Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada

Re: 2015 Åsnes Combat NATO

Postby lilcliffy » Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:30 pm

MikeK wrote:I've skied my 98s in similar conditions and actually on the same trails, and was never that tired. So I find there is definitely a limit in these type of skis for deep trailbreaking. I trust Gareth when he says the Ingstad are a better ski for this, but I'd still probably grab my 98s for really deep or heavy snow.

I here you here- I am not about to part with my Annums for touring in deep, soft snow! I suspect that the float-worthiness of your S-98 vs. my Annum may be another context that is climate related...

But- I am very pleased to discover how well the Combat/Ingstad breaks trail when XC skiing through very deep snow. And- forgive me if I am unclear here- I am not speaking of flotation here. The Combat sinks in truly deep, soft snow just as much as any of these mid-width skis. BUT- I find that it feels stable and I feel more effectively supported by the entire length of this ski- compared to skis like the Eon and the E-109. The effectiveness of that broad, raised tip is not just a function of its shape, it also a product of the flex pattern of the entire ski...

Finally, I don't really know your area Bob, but for around Rochester, given the relatively large amount of easier terrain (we have steep gullies but you need deep snow to ski them), I definitely prefer my waxless S Bound 78. It's really a shame they stopped making the waxless E109 and the 199cm 78. I would say, from what I know skiing them, and what I've read abou the 109, that would be the ski to get. For climes like I live in, a waxless ski is just so much less hassle and actually performs really well 90% of the time.

I guess Fischer is assuming that the E-109 Tour with the Easy-Skin will perform where skiers prefer waxless scales?

I don't see it that way- I don't see the kicker skin replacing waxless scales- I see the kicker skin augmenting the performance of either a waxless OR a waxable base. And- I think it is an awesome upgrade to both the waxable and the waxless setup. When the conditions are right for kick wax, I want it- and nothing feels better. When the conditions are perfect for waxless scales, why would I obsess over kick wax- especially in the variable conditions of the backcountry? The quick addition of the integrated kicker skin is effective in both contexts, IMO. I wish my E-109/E-99 Crown had the Easy-Skin system.

I am very impressed with the Skin-Lock system. Do I think that you can get away without a waxless ski? Probably- but I still want good waxless scaled skis for the BC- for conditions that are ideal for scales, and without them I would be constantly taking the kicker skin on AND off. :twisted:
The pursuit of XCD balance: cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry


Return to “Community Ski Reviews”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest