D'hostie wrote:Tip seems a bit softer than other reviews would suggest. Particularly in torsion. If I hold the tip of the ski against the wall and twist at the binding I can get a hell of a lot of deflection. More than any other ski in this class.
Which skis are you comparing this to? I guess we have to assume that the Combat Nato is actually the same ski as the Ingstad- I didn't which is why I started a separate review from yours. But- if I group at least my Combat Nato with similar skis like the Eon and the E-109, it definitely has a stiffer tip in every dimension (I have flexed them all repeatedly since your post- and I have skied them all this week). (It also has a stiffer tip than my E-99).
I didn't notice any remarkable difference in trail breaking with the tip. It seemed about on par with other skis in this class although some stiffer snow may change that thought.
Again- what are you comparing it to? And- what were you skiing on? Have you actually tried this ski in truly deep snow?
Descending was what I found to be its weakest attribute. I found it was neither very willing to initiate of very easy to hold in a turn once started. I'm not entirely sure why this is true as nothing on the ski stands out as being off. The grabbiness of the edges was a detriment in turn initiation on a groomed surface, combined with its length and lack of willingness to want to initiate a carved turn. Mostly the skis skidded, grabbed, and skidded. This reminds me characteristically of a ski that has too little torsional stiffness to hold an edge and hence why I investigated this. Not really a huge issue as this is not what this ski is meant for, but it is the weakest in its class when it comes to this.
Again- I would appreciate what you are comparing this to?
Overall, I find it the worst in class for downhill performance.