2015 Åsnes Combat NATO

[lilcliffy]

The Ousland must have easier turn initiation and a shorter effective edge than the Gamme-
I was amazed at how much tip rocker the Ousland has- even more than the current E-99 Xtralite!:
http://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.p ... =30#p29438

It's almost as much as the Ingstad BC!!!

[Petetheswede]

This is interesting since I have a 200cm Gamme but think about a longer ski, mainly for floatation but I worry about maneuverability.

Allround ski Ousland 210 vs Gamme 200. I should post it in another thread probably! Thanks for your invaluable input!

[lilcliffy]

The shape of this ski is a thing of beauty:

This ski has blown me away over the last week.
An extreme mix of brutal trail breaking and wonderous forest trail/road skiing.
This is still the one.

[biocandy]

This ski has blown me away over the last week.
An extreme mix of brutal trail breaking and wonderous forest trail/road skiing.
This is still the one.

Hey

Sounds like you still use and enjoy them
Feeling inspired and convinced by this thread, I'm gonna go for a pair too.

I ski mostly in the taiga with my Åsnes Taigas, but feel the urge for a wider ski hoping it will make trail braking easier in early seasons soft snow. My taigas ain't funny downhill either, on any snow surface.

Haven't decided on length though, 190 or 200cm. I'm 188cm weighing 77kg. Should I go with a weight or length appropriate ski?

Quite small wax pocket on my taigas, only 40cm on a 200cm ski. Are my skis just tired and can't support a longer pocket or how long should a wax pocket be really? 70cm on my 205cm Ragos, fairly new. Going with the nato 45 x-skins which are 60cm long. Maybe skin drag is just bagatelle? My concern is that the combat 190 won't support a decent wax pocket making the x skin drag. But what if the 200cm combats are too stiff? hmm help

[lilcliffy]

Hello and Welcome Biocandy!

Although the Comabt Nato is stiff and resistant underfoot- it is not a very cambered ski.
It will feel quite dead when XC skiing on hardpack.

I weigh 80kgs and I completely squash the camber of my 210cm Combat Nato.
I love this ski at 210cm.
I love making wide open turns with it as well as its XC performance in deep soft snow.
I cannot make tight-radius turns with it, but that is not what I would use this ski for.

As far as a "decent wax pocket"-
The Combat Nato will release the its wax pocket/kicker skin in soft snow- do not expect this on hardpack- even at 210cm- it does not have enough camber.

[CwmRaider]

In use a 210cm Combat Nato feels quite a bit more cambered than a 205cm Nansen FWIW.
I have spent my only 2 hours free time since picking them up, skiing them rather than squeezing them face to face. Hopefully I will have some time to do home tests this weekend.
Although it is a bit counter intuitive, this is my initial impression:

I climbed the same route (300m vertical) with FT62 with 30mm skin and both Crispi Bre and T4 boots, Nansen with 30mm skin and Crispi Bre leathers, and Combat Nato with 58mm skin and T4 boots. I had somewhat worse grip with the last option. My impression of worse climbing performance so far is a bit uncertain, as the snow conditions are worse and the snow became a bit tricky in the past week as wind redistributed the soft snow exposing older harder snow in patches, and deeper windblown softer snow in some slopes. So these observations are just preliminary.
FT62(196cm) + T4 - very safe downhill, almost comparable to a downhill telemark setup.
FT62 + Crispi Bre - Very tricky in steep downhills with irregular snow, but quite nice in deep untouched snow, even when it gets quite steep. Have not tried on groomers yet.
Nansen + Crispi Bre - Great on groomers or 15-20 cm powder on harder base general cruising,
Combat NATO + T4 - can be steered down anything safely, I think a bit more reluctant to turn than the Nansens (though I have not tried either ski with the same boots), they are a bit less nimble. Weight and length also play a role perhaps.

The wider and more cambered NATO is probably better XC, somewhat worse climbing performance (due to less pressure directly on the kick zone) and worse turnability than the Nansen. Simultaneously I agree with previous comments here that it is more stable in deep snow. None of this is really surprising except for the design, normally one would expect wider skis with more sidecut to be better turners and worse XC performers.

I think this is because, the Nansen is an updated design of a classic touring ski with an intention of providing a jack-of-all trades with good turnability while maintaining tourability. It still has acceptable XC performance from a narrower sidecut.
The Combat NATO was designed for the military according to specifications requiring higher stability especially with heavy loads (hence the wider and stiffer ski) allowing people with packs to traverse tricky terrain and snow conditions, and travel long distances off track.

In any case, the plastic Scarpa T4 boots (or similar) vs any currently new available leather boots is an unfair contest. XC skiing with leather boots (eg Crispi Bre) is much more comfortable to me, especially over longer distances. On the other hand the T4 transfers so much more power to the skis that poor technique and difficult conditions are almost irrelevant to turning down safely.

Now with 3 different BC skis and 2 very different BC boots I hope my quiver of needs is broadly adressed...

[bgregoire]

In use a 210cm Combat Nato feels quite a bit more cambered than a 205cm Nansen FWIW.
I have spent my only 2 hours free time since picking them up, skiing them rather than squeezing them face to face. Hopefully I will have some time to do home tests this weekend.
Although it is a bit counter intuitive, this is my initial impression:

I climbed the same route (300m vertical) with FT62 with 30mm skin and both Crispi Bre and T4 boots, Nansen with 30mm skin and Crispi Bre leathers, and Combat Nato with 58mm skin and T4 boots. I had somewhat worse grip with the last option. My impression of worse climbing performance so far is a bit uncertain, as the snow conditions are worse and the snow became a bit tricky in the past week as wind redistributed the soft snow exposing older harder snow in patches, and deeper windblown softer snow in some slopes. So these observations are just preliminary.
FT62(196cm) + T4 - very safe downhill, almost comparable to a downhill telemark setup.
FT62 + Crispi Bre - Very tricky in steep downhills with irregular snow, but quite nice in deep untouched snow, even when it gets quite steep. Have not tried on groomers yet.
Nansen + Crispi Bre - Great on groomers or 15-20 cm powder on harder base general cruising,
Combat NATO + T4 - can be steered down anything safely, I think a bit more reluctant to turn than the Nansens (though I have not tried either ski with the same boots), they are a bit less nimble. Weight and length also play a role perhaps.

The wider and more cambered NATO is probably better XC, somewhat worse climbing performance (due to less pressure directly on the kick zone) and worse turnability than the Nansen. Simultaneously I agree with previous comments here that it is more stable in deep snow. None of this is really surprising except for the design, normally one would expect wider skis with more sidecut to be better turners and worse XC performers.

I think this is because, the Nansen is an updated design of a classic touring ski with an intention of providing a jack-of-all trades with good turnability while maintaining tourability. It still has acceptable XC performance from a narrower sidecut.
The Combat NATO was designed for the military according to specifications requiring higher stability especially with heavy loads (hence the wider and stiffer ski) allowing people with packs to traverse tricky terrain and snow conditions, and travel long distances off track.

In any case, the plastic Scarpa T4 boots (or similar) vs any currently new available leather boots is an unfair contest. XC skiing with leather boots (eg Crispi Bre) is much more comfortable to me, especially over longer distances. On the other hand the T4 transfers so much more power to the skis that poor technique and difficult conditions are almost irrelevant to turning down safely.

Now with 3 different BC skis and 2 very different BC boots I hope my quiver of needs is broadly adressed...

You're comparison of the Combat Nato vs Nansen sounds very fair. Thumbs up to you.

Even though I really enjoy pointing my Ingstad BC (and pre-rockets Ingstad = Combat Natos). The Nansen is surprisingly good, especially on harder snow.

[CwmRaider]

I tried to measure the weight required to press two skis together but couldnt get reproducible results for both Combat and Nansen. My qualitative squeeze tests still suggest that the Nansens are a little bit, but not hugely softer.
Here are some other observations about the flex.
I placed blocks between the skis at the tips and tails at the zone where the tips start rising (similar distance from the tips in both instances) and clamped the skis together on the front riser plate just to the rear of the 75mm bindings, presumably close to where the most of the foot pressure would be.
Åsnes Combat Nato 210 cm:

Åsnes Nansen 205 cm:

These pictures highlight a major difference in flex pattern between the skis.
The Combat Nato bases are in contact from behind the heel all the way to the skin lock. And the skis are actually partially separated in between these two contact points at the front of the riser plate. This highlights a long stiff central portion and significantly softer tips.
The Åsnes Nansen are in contact from behind the heel to just in front of the riser plate. The flex is more gradual. I suppose this is what is meant with round flex. They pressure naturally into an arc.
I think this is why the Nansen feels like a better turner, in spite of the Nato having more sidecut

[lilcliffy]

Very, very helpful photos Roelant! Amazing how different the flex pattern of these two skis is!

There is only 2mm difference in sidecut-geometry between the Combat Nato and the Nansen.

Combat Nato:
84-62-74 = xx-22+12

Nansen:
76-56-66 = xx-20+10

Agree it is the flex pattern that is producing different performance between these two skis.

[CwmRaider]

By the way, and I don't think this has been mentioned in this thread so far:
The milled out area in the base under the skinlock is shorter in length than the x-skin attachment.
So it will reduce friction only with the older "metal" clip Åsnes short skins, or the X-skin NATO or X-skin Extreme.
AFAIK the latter two are only available in nylon. If you want a low friction solution with metal clip you have to hunt down an older model 35mm mohair short skin.
I like the X-skins but, on consolidated firm snow, the plastic attachment lifts the ski base and edges up from the snow and negatively affects tracking. This is probably true for all Åsnes skis without high double camber.
On looser snow it isn't really noticeable.