2015 Åsnes Combat NATO

[lilcliffy]

Wel,l I am increasingly convinced that this is a deep snow, distance-oriented ski.

The XC and climbing performance of this ski in deep soft snow is truly amazing for such a narrow ski. The combination of low profile, but resistant camber underfoot; full-length, stable flex; and kick-ass trail-breaking tip; make this ski a deep snow mile-crushing machine.

(They have now replaced my 195cm Annums for distance-oriented tours in very deep snow.)

These skis offer wonderful, open, wide-radius turns- if you have the room.

If you need to downhill ski tight lines- these skis are so wonderfully light, that they can easily be forced into step/jump and striding turns- even with light soft BC-XC touring boots (I am currently skiing on these with Alpina Alaska BC boots).

If you want to be able to completely overpower or drive this ski in downhill turns- you need Telemark boots and bindings (surprise ).

These skis do not have the round flex of a downhill/Telemark ski- they have the flex of a XC ski- that is finely tuned for deep, soft snow, and climbing steep terrain.

They are acceptable- if not high-performance- XC skis on dense, compacted trails. They are not as fast on dense snow as truly double-cambered skis like the E-99/Glittertind. ( I now have a pretty clean broken out tracks on my backwoods trail loops (5-15kms)- I took the 210cm E99 Tour out late yesterday afternoon and absolutely crushed about 10kms- significantly faster than the Combat Nato on a dense, stable base.)

They are much faster XC skis than very soft distance-oriented skis like the Madshus Eon- and of course, not only faster than, but also track straighter than wider, more curvy hybrid skis (e.g. Epoch/S-98/Annum/S-112). All of these hybrid skis greatly sacrifice XC performance for moderate downhill performance.

If you want a BC distance-oriented Nordic touring ski- and you need/want to cruise in deep, soft snow- the Combat Nato in a traditional full XC length.

BTW- Asnes has redesigned the Ingstad- review and discussion already started elsewhere on this site- they are continuing to make the Combat Nato. Good stuff.

[lilcliffy]

Confirmed:

The Combat Nato remains unchanged- it is has the exact geometry and flex of the previous-gen Ingstad.

[bem]

Hi,
I will get my Asnes Combat Nato next week. I selected on purpose sligtly longer, 210 cm, then recommended (200 cm in my case)
I use at present Asnes Amundsen Fram (205 cm) Waxless (WL) since Feb 2017. I have came to the conclusion I need some sligtly wider skis then the Amundsen skis, that I can use in deeper snow. I do most back country skiing in rather flat terrain. I was tempted on Asnes Ingstad Waxless but this skii is softer towards the tip that probably is not so good when skiing mostly in flat terrain in deeper snow.
I doubt we will see any Combat Nato waxless but for me it would have been an interesting skii to test if it existed.
But I'm sure the current non waxless Combat Nato will be fine.
I bought one Asnes X-Skin 45mm NATO also, it is nylon, I doubt I will use it regularly but will test it. I will get one 40 or 45 mm mohair skin also and test.
I selected Rottefella BC Magnum binding for the Combat Nato since this ski is rather wide, I use narrow Rottefella BC Manual on my Asnes Amundsen since that skii is not so wide.
I will write some lines later in this thread when I have used my Combat Nato for a while.
/Bo

[lilcliffy]

I was tempted on Asnes Ingstad Waxless but this skii is softer towards the tip that probably is not so good when skiing mostly in flat terrain in deeper snow.

Hello Bem,
I have both of these skis and the current Ingstad actually has a stiffer tip than the Combat Nato. The Ingstad has a lot of tip rocker. The tip rocker is not an asset for XC skiing. The Combat Nato- though very stable and maneuverable on steep terrain- does not offer the tip rise and turn-initiation of the Ingstad- but, the Combat Nato is a better XC ski and more versatile overall.

I selected Rottefella BC Magnum binding for the Combat Nato since this ski is rather wide, I use narrow Rottefella BC Manual on my Asnes Amundsen since that skii is not so wide.
I will write some lines later in this thread when I have used my Combat Nato for a while.
/Bo

I have the standard Manual binding on my Combat Nato. I have the Magnum on my Ingstad BC- only because the Manual bindings were out of stock.
...............
Very much looking forward to reading your experiences with the Combat Nato and in comparison to the Amundsen Fram. Keep us posted!

[Nitram Tocrut]

It’s amazing all the info we can get in this forum, although one would have to be immensely rich to buy all the skis they want, although I did not know before that I « needed » all those skis!

But I could not find the answer to this question : What are the main differences between the USGI Combat from Coleman’s and the NATO combat. I am tempted to do an order with a bunch of friends as they are so cheap. But at the same time I wonder if it is not better to splash more cash but get the later version of these skis? I already have Europa 99 and Alpina 102 so I am looking for a in between ski. I mostly ski on my farm with a mix of open fields and trails in the forest. The closest interesting hill is about 7 km and the ride to get there is mostly rolling terrains and lot of open field. I plan to bring my Alpina with me as well and only use them for telemark for the downhill fun! There is also another summit that I can reach through a horse trail and i go down through the forest with the short Alpinas and that is great fun... but don’t thell my wife . I am also considering other options like the T-78 but I wonder if they are significantly larger than the one I already have? My intuition tells me that I « need » a ski over 80 mm wide at the tip.

I am quite new to this forum but with every question I ask, it seems that I need a new pair of skis:-( I guess I have to work more and ski less in order to afford the all! There should be a warning of the financial risks associated with joining this Forum

Thank’s again for all the infos!

[fisheater]

I do not have a Combat NATO, I can imagine to a degree as to what it may because I do have a Gamme 54. I do have two USGI Combat skis ordered together at 200 cm as Coleman requires the same size skis be ordered together. I was fortunate as my 200's are stiff enough to offer good kick and glide at my 195 lbs. I have one pair mounted 3 pin cable, the other NNN BC.
I would say the USGI is a good backcountry cross country ski. Mine are skied on packed trails or when their is less than 8" of fresh without a base. In deeper snow I break out my Falketind 62. I have resort skied the USGI in mixed granular and glacier base, the camber was difficult to finesse in those conditions. I don't think I would enjoy the USGI as a downhill powder ski.
If you want the USGI as a cross country powder ski, Gareth has given it very good reviews, although he has rated the Combat NATO superior. My FT 62 is very acceptable as a powder cross country ski when touring for downhill turns. I wouldn't think twice about a 7K tour for some good downhill fun. That being said, if you thought about a Falketind 62 I would pose a question to Lilcliffy (Gareth) first. He now has an FT 62, and he has a Storetind which is the forerunner of the new Rabb 68. While I am very happy with the FT 62 it is very possible the Rabb 68 hits the sweet spot better. I would at least ask Gareth's opinion.
So if you want better trail breaking than the Europa, go 210 USGI. By the way, the USGI is heavy compared to the Gamme 54, so it would be heavy compared to the Combat NATO. The USGI is well made, but it is an old fashion wood ski with a plastic top sheet. The Combat is a modern ski glass or carbon reinforced, titanal topsheet a modern ski. It really isn't fair to directly compare them.
The other option, if you want to turn but want better XC performance than FT 62 / Rabb 68 is the Ingstad BC. The rockered tips of the Ingstad BC are reported to open nicely. I have read reports that it encourages speed downhill that might be faster than might be prudent.
Good luck

[bgregoire]

It’s amazing all the info we can get in this forum, although one would have to be immensely rich to buy all the skis they want, although I did not know before that I « needed » all those skis!

But I could not find the answer to this question : What are the main differences between the USGI Combat from Coleman’s and the NATO combat. I am tempted to do an order with a bunch of friends as they are so cheap. But at the same time I wonder if it is not better to splash more cash but get the later version of these skis? I already have Europa 99 and Alpina 102 so I am looking for a in between ski. I mostly ski on my farm with a mix of open fields and trails in the forest. The closest interesting hill is about 7 km and the ride to get there is mostly rolling terrains and lot of open field. I plan to bring my Alpina with me as well and only use them for telemark for the downhill fun! There is also another summit that I can reach through a horse trail and i go down through the forest with the short Alpinas and that is great fun... but don’t thell my wife . I am also considering other options like the T-78 but I wonder if they are significantly larger than the one I already have? My intuition tells me that I « need » a ski over 80 mm wide at the tip.

I am quite new to this forum but with every question I ask, it seems that I need a new pair of skis:-( I guess I have to work more and ski less in order to afford the all! There should be a warning of the financial risks associated with joining this Forum

Thank’s again for all the infos!

My two cents: The E99 is an awesome ski for flat or hill touring. The more you practice turning with the Alpinas, the better you will get on the E99s.

For me, the main reason I would not buy the older USGI Combat skis is the weight factor. Personally, I would save up, keep practicing and having fun with what I own, and then maybe splurge on a new pair of lighter skis in a year or two. I try to limit my skiing purchase mania to one pair a year. This is a disease that has to be watched and controlled furiously.

Enjoy the snow!

[Cannatonic]

the USGI and NATO combat skis are totally different. The USGI are big heavy XC planks - from what I"ve seen they're just extra-wide XC skis. The modern ones are like a telemark ski, much lighter, more sidecut, downhill-turning flex with just enough camber to function well as XC skis.

[fisheater]

^^^^^^ Yes this is true, a little harsh for those of us whom like the USGI, but true. You could also say a well made, old fashion, wide, steel edged cross country ski.
If I had quiver like I believe Canna has, I wouldn't need my USGI. Where I live with too little cover too often the USGI is a tough ski that might be heavy it is still fun and snappy. I guess it's a little old and heavy, like me!

[lilcliffy]

The Combat USGI and the Combat Nato are- as already stated- VERY different.

A bit of a comparison:

The USGI is certainly HEAVY- though this is NOT an issue unless you want to make quick striding/step/jump turns with them. They do not feel heavy as a XC ski. They offer superb BC-XC stability, float and trail-breaking. They offer- or at least mine do- better XC K&G on consolidated snow- both in terms of camber and tracking. The flotation is very close between the two- the USGI might even be a bit better with its 68mm waist...As far as making linked turns with the USGI- I actually find this significantly easier on consolidated snow than on deep soft snow. Both of my USGI have relatively high, moderately-stiff, uniform cambers- the camber/flex profile is very similar to the Karhu Tour 10th Mtns that I just acquired...I find my USGIs VERY difficult to turn in deep, soft snow.
(PLEASE NOTE: reports suggest that there can be VERY significant variation between sets of the USGI...My 200cm and 210cm have identical construction.)

The NATO is very light and responsive- I can easily ski tight-lines with this ski- even at 210cm- due to its light weight. It has a flex pattern primarily designed for XC skiing in deep, soft snow. Though its camber-and-a-half is easy to evenly pressure and it makes simply wonderful wide, open linked turns. The initial camber of the NATO is significantly softer than my USGIs- this makes them easier to pressure- improving both climbing and downhill performance.

Again- depending on the context- one might either not notice the difference between these two skis- or even prefer the USGI!

BUT- for me- the NATO is a much higher performing ski- over a wider range of terrain and snow.

The USGI is a super deal though- especially if you get a number of people together and buy a wack of pairs- I paid VERY little for shipping because we ordered 12 pairs- this also enabled me to buy both a 210 & 200cm.