Also, I don't agree with you on the Eon - to have a round flex, you need near equal stiffness tip and tail.
Mike- what I mean is that the flex of the Eon is "rounder" than either my E109 or my Combat Nato. BUT- it is certainly not as round flexing as any of our Guides/Annums or 10th Mtns/Epochs. Our Eons- depsite being soft and "roundish"- have noticeably more of a XC flex than the wider, rounder Annum/Epoch- and I see and feel that the tip on our Eons is softer than the rest of the flex of this ski.
The tip on my Combat Nato is stiffer than any of our Eons and the two E109s we have.
That being said, both the camber underfoot, and the tail of the Combat Nato are stiffer than its tip (the Combat Nato does not have a "roundish" flex). And once the camber is squashed underfoot, the Combat Nato has a very resistant flex.
I think the flex is poor for turning as both the Eon and S Bounds feel more balanced and round.
This ski should be a lot more balanced for XC and DH than its competitors. And duly so if it is a military ski.
I hate to say it, but my USGI ski actually was easier to ski DH than this Ingstad. And I'm not a huge fan of that ski.
Well- I am a big fan of our USGI skis- but, my Combat Natos are WAAAY more manageable downhill than the USGIs we have.
Personally, if I was going to put in the BC miles in mountainous terrain, I'd choose the Eon hands down over this ski.
Well- again I disagree- my 210cm Combat Nato is twice the XC ski that my 205cm Eons are, and it is still very manageable and fun on MODERATE slopes (I would need a Telemark boot and binding to ski either of these skis on very steep terrain). Personally, I would NOT choose either of these skis if I wanted to shred downhill- I choose more downhill-oriented skis for that. Neither the Ingstad/Combat Nato or the Eon have ever been promoted as being downhill-oriented skis.
From my perspective the Combat Nato is a distance-oriented ski- so, I am not sure what you are arguing about?
If you find the Eon and 78 to be better downhill skis- great. But, my limited experience suggests that downhill and xc performance are at opposite ends of a camber/flex continuum- a ski that truly excels as a downhill ski must do so with some loss of XC performance- this is at least my experience.
The Eon is easier to turn than the Combat Nato- never said it wasn't. But- in turn- the Combat Nato is a better XC ski than the Eon- the Eon feels almost as dead as the Epoch under my XC foot- and the deeper the snow gets, the more the Eon sucks.
Which brings me to this-
Clearly your Ingstad is different than my Combat Nato- don't know why.
Sorry to hear you are so disappointed with your Ingstad- you seemed pretty excited about when you first got them!