Black Diamond Carbon Convert – The Review


Post by WildSnow.com blogger | April 15, 2014      

Shop for Carbon Convert.

Black Diamond Carbon Convert is a winner.

Black Diamond Carbon Convert is a winner.

In the ski touring world, as far as I’m concerned white is the new black and carbon is king.

Anyone who has followed WildSnow over the past number of years knows I have been a disciple of carbon construction since it’s inception. My latest carbon footprint is Black Diamond’s new entry into the fray: the Carbon Convert.

The Carbon Convert is a carbon sandwich construction version of their current model, the Convert. Both share the same 105 mm waisted footprint and rockered tip and tail profile with minimum camber underfoot. BD bills the current Convert (which I have never skied) as a touring oriented, powder seeker weighing in at 7 pounds with the Carbon shaving off an additional pound. A 6 pound pair of skis in a 105 mm girth is impressive.

Speaking of the skin track, what a welcome relief that BD and some other AT ski manufactures are finally seeing the wisdom of making skis with white (and other very lightly shaded or reflective) top sheets. Simply put, snow doesn’t stick to the top of white skis nearly as much as black or other dark colored top skins. I like my 6 pound skis to stay as close to their given weight as possible on the way up. White is the new black.

Unfortunately, even though they are white, the top surface of the Carbon Convert is 3-dimensional due to the torsion ribs. This leaves the low lying space between the ribs to collect snow. In the kind of conditions these skis are designed for, you _will_ find that snow or ice may accumulate in the depressions on the tips and tails, somewhat negating the weight savings of these featherweight planks. Fortunately, the Convert’s white color helps keep ice and snow accumulation at a minimum.

I’ve put in three days touring and some lift served on the 172 cm Carbon Convert. In terms of conditions, I have been hard pressed to find anything to ski but powder given the superlative season in Aspen. My very first turn was in a foot of light, dry pow and I knew from the get go the Carbon Convert was in its element. Easy to initiate, smooth as silk with a subtle, little pop out of each turn. With each successive lap that day I went from slower, smaller, conservative turns to faster, larger, swooping turns all bringing a wide grin to my face. A slight change in angulation and I was able to change the turn radius at will.

That said, the Carbon Convert has a speed limit and is not a take-no-prisoners, freeride mountaineering charger. At those speeds it will fold and deflect a bit in the tip. Keep it within it’s speed limit and endless bliss is yours. To take on those higher speeds, more aggro attitude or hard and icy snow the Carbon Convert would need to be a bit stiffer and have more torsional beef.

My second Carbon Convert review day was yet again touring on the backside of Aspen Mountain (my workplace as a powder tours guide). On one run in particular I rolled along on low angle terrain never breaking stride as I dropped over the top of a steep bowl. Gravity pulled me down the open face with snow billowing up around my knees. I let them run on the lower flats until just before everything funneled into a narrow, steep sided terrain trap gully. I stopped to put my skins on, not a soul in sight and headed home via Aspen Mountain thinking it doesn’t get any better than this. It was only my second day on the Carbon Convert but it felt like I had been on them for two years.

Both of those days ended on Aspen Mountain for a final run home. I have to say, I couldn’t find the groove out of the powder and thought maybe this ski is just a one trick pony–until yesterday, or call it the trifecta if you will. The day before was a return to winter with a cold, windy, snowy day of low visibility running laps in Highlands Bowl (on different skis). The snow kept piling up as the day wore on. The forecast was for a cold night and clearing so the green light was on. My partner and I raced up Mt. Hayden in the morning. We ran into a group of Snowmass patrolmen on top and shared a run of untracked from the first turn right off the top. Big smiles and poles taps all around. The Snowmass crew went up for another lap but we had to head down.

Back in town I checked in with my wife who was headed to Buttermilk with our 5 year old daughter. I raced out there to join them for laps on the baby chair at the bottom. When they went in for lunch I jumped on the chair for a couple of cruisers from the top. I stayed on the groomed to take the time to learn where to stand on and how to carve this ski.

What a difference a day and a little patience makes. Like all wider skis, one of the keys to railing on the Carbon Convert is a higher edge angle achieved with a wider stance and increased angulation. Secondly, they really respond when the turn is initiated right at the very tip of the ski. It grabs the ski and pulls you through the turn. If you are lazy in the early phase of the turn they will drift off in some other direction. I went up for a second run on the groomed and before you knew it I felt like I was playing with the mountain. I even managed to whip off a few quick slalom turns (but certainly not their forte).

The third part of the trifecta was a few laps on the gondola at Aspen Mountain after my wife and daughter went home. I started with the cruiser routine and then went looking for the most manky snow I could find. I found it in the form of day old Chunky Monkey sun baked tracked powder with or without bumps, a few inches of baked, left over untracked and the nearly refrozen version of the above mentioned Chunky Monkey. Initiating right from the tips, keeping within the speed limit and making round turns, the Carbon Convert smoothed it all out like molten ice cream. Those unique carbon construction attributes of smoothness and dampness with a little pop rolled right over, around and through the funkiest snow this side of Sly and the Family Stone.

Lastly, one of my pet peeves with BD skis in the past has been their finish or lack thereof from the factory. In some cases I have found some of their skis downright unskiable until retuned. They promised with their new factory those days were over and they have delivered the goods. The Carbon Convert were impeccably finished and ready to roll.

With the Carbon Convert I discovered a surprisingly versatile ski that will make a joy out of powder, corn and all of the funk in between while leaving the heft behind. The profile and dimensions combined with the unmistakable attributes of carbon construction make for a ski that will take you where you want to go and leave you smiling. I know what ski I will be on this spring from here on out. Light and white is right.

Convert tip rocker profile.

Convert tip rocker profile. Rocker on our 180cm pair of testers is 38 centimeters tip, 28 tail.

Black Diamond Carbon Convert tail rocker.

Black Diamond Carbon Convert tail rocker.

WildSnow weight chart: Carbon Convert at 1443 grams per 180cm ski is 9th in weight/surface out of nearly 50 skis we’ve sampled, 10th for weight/length which is exceptional for a 105 mm waisted ski. We also have the Carbon Aspect here for evaluation, 127/90/113 dimensions; it also ranks well in our charts.

Shop for Carbon Convert.

(Guest blogger Bob Perlmutter and his wife Sue live in the Roaring Fork Valley of Colorado, where Bob manages Aspen Mountain Powder Tours, a snowcat skiing operation. Bob has sought adventure skiing over the past thirty years in the nearby Elk Mountains as well as locales around the world. Presently, he is reeling it in close to home and enjoying his biggest adventure yet, fatherhood of his beautiful daughter.)



IF YOU'RE HAVING TROUBLE VIEWING SITE, TRY WHITELISTING IN YOUR ADBLOCKER, OTHERWISE PLEASE CONTACT US USING MENU ABOVE, OR FACEBOOK.
[yuzo_related]

Comments

99 Responses to “Black Diamond Carbon Convert – The Review”

  1. GeorgeT April 15th, 2014 4:08 pm

    Perl: Thanks for your accurate description of the C-Convert. I completely agree with your points especially initiating turns from the tip. Do you attribute the “pop” to the carbon, wood or camber. This ski has more camber than any of my previous skis. I also think the tail stiffness is about perfect for most conditions. If you get in the backseat you can recover without any embarrassing monkey motion due to tail stiffness.

  2. Bob Perlmutter April 15th, 2014 9:28 pm

    Hi George, I am no engineer but I think the subtle “pop” of the C-Convert is the sum of all of those factors. I do feel that carbon provides smoothness, dampness yet a highly reactive ski at a light weight that can not be accomplished with more traditional materials. With more traditional materials you can achieve somewhat similar performance characteristics but not with the weight savings of carbon. I try to limit the “monkey motion” to the dance floor and agree that the C-Convert does not make one pay a big penalty for getting a little out of step.

  3. Mark Worley April 16th, 2014 10:32 pm

    I enjoyed a brief intro to this ski recently, and the lack of weight is very noticeable in a wide ski that handles a lot of conditions well. Wish I could have toured with them, but that will just have to wait.

  4. Lou Dawson April 17th, 2014 7:45 am

    George, good to get your take as I know you’ve been out on those skis quite a bit since you got them. I skied them a few times as well, and pretty much agree with Bob’s take. Since I stick more with the “90-100 mm” waist class skis, good to have you guys on the wider stuff helping out with the reviews. Especially true of Bob, who quite simply skis more natural snow than all the rest of us combined (grin), has experienced hundreds and hundreds of skis, and has a half century of turns engraved on his genetic code.

    Two things I’d add about Convert. First, while they’re white I sure like to see them get rid of the duck ponds at tip and tail. The Carbon Aspect does not have the ribbed depressions, so perhaps we’ll eventually see a Convert that lacks them as well. Also, in a previous blog post we pictured how Black Diamond used very little steel edge at tip and tail. I think that’s fine in the tip, but believe that the skis could do with a bit more steel at the tail for situations such as “back seating” on steep hard snow. In powder, this is a non issue, but worth mentioning overall.

    I’d also like to clarify something: There is a trend in the industry these days to redesign skis and use the same name as a previous design. Super confusing. Convert is an example. While the Carbon Convert shares dimensions with another ski called the Convert, they are two entirely different skis and any comparison of one to the other is no different than doing a comparo between two different brand’s skis that have similar dimensions. Sometimes those types of comparisons are useful, but they’re not the end-all be-all and require the logistical hassles of activating two different pairs of skis on the same day, preferably alternating runs at a resort. We didn’t do that in the case of this review. Perhaps some other time.

    Lou

  5. Chris April 17th, 2014 7:07 pm

    I skied the regular Convert all season and recently picked up a pair of the Carbons. On my scale they are 18 oz lighter which is impressive to say the least. I’ve skied the Carbon Converts three days in backcountry snow – mainly transitional spring funk. The backcountry isn’t always the best place to test skis, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say they’re a totally different ski. In soft, friendly snow I don’t notice much difference. But in challenging conditions they feel a bit more powerful than the standard Convert and you can definitely notice the added stiffness. In corn they have a fair bit of pop and rebound as was observed by the reviewer.

    In short, my limited testing supports the rumor that they ski as well or better than the standard Convert for way less weight!

  6. Lou Dawson April 17th, 2014 8:08 pm

    Chris, thanks for the confirmation! Lou

  7. Bob Perlmutter April 17th, 2014 9:10 pm

    Day 4 addendum: Today I skinned up Aspen Highlands(closed for the season) for some exercise. Perfect spring conditions on corned up corduroy. I really found the sweet spot on the C-Convert today. Ripping off precise and fluid short and medium radius turns. The skis were giving just the right amount of pop, rebound, energy and reactive feedback while still exhibiting a silky and smooth feel. Honestly, prior to today I was hoping for but had not achieved this level of performance from the C-Convert particularly out of the powder. Today we were simpatico and I can’t wait for the rest of the spring season to unfold.

  8. Chris B April 18th, 2014 8:22 am

    Bob, Have you skied the Sportiva Nanos? Anybody’s observations about differences between the Converts and Nanos would be great.

  9. Lou Dawson April 18th, 2014 8:36 am

    Chris, I’ve skied them both. Was on the Nano a while ago, then another day of touring recently out of WildSnow HQ with the guys from Sportiva North America. In my view the Nano is more of a dedicated touring ski in that it didn’t feel as competent on piste, but was just as good in pow and crud, and amazingly light weight. I loved the Nano, and had no problem with the C Convert either. If you’re trying to pick between them, I’d warn you off because you’re picking apples vs oranges. The three mm difference in waist width alone, while not that great, makes them different and in my view makes the Nano closer to the type of touring width (around 100 or a bit less) that I like best. A closer comparo to the Convert would perhaps be the K2 Coomback 104, though Coomback has a bunch more rocker… Lou

  10. GeorgeT April 18th, 2014 10:39 am

    My 2015 C-Convert wish list is a tip that is 4-6 mm wider and ditch the ribs (snow catchers). My thought is a wider tip would make turn initiation easier by simply rolling your knees (angulation) and add some float. The 133/105/117 waist in 180 cm ski does not sink underneath my 170 lb. weight, but a ~138 tip might improve the ski in my estimation. For example the K2 Coomback dimensions are 135/102/121 and turn initiation is effortless. I am not sure how much is due to dimensions versus construction, but it works for me. Applying those dimensions my wish is for a 138/105/124 Carbon Convert in 2015. Lou, I know you love to modify gear, but my skis are not available (grin). What do you think Perl?

  11. GeorgeT April 18th, 2014 11:16 am

    Chris: I agree with Lou. I demoed the Vapor Nano and skied it in powder, moguls and groomers. Since I like to skin Highlands Bowl as much as I BC ski, I wanted a ski that excelled in the powder of the G zones, but could negotiate the bumps at the bottom and run out the traverse straight-lining to Deep Temerity lift. The Vapor Nano excels in powder and chop, but was too much work in the moguls and nervous on straight-lining at speed. I bought the C-Carbon on faith and I am very happy. See my comments above. The new K2 Coomback is appealing, since I have a worn out K2 Anti Piste/Coomback that was my favorite ski, but now that I have the C-Convert I can’t justify another pair. My C-Converts 180 cm with Dynafit Superlite bindings weight 3 lb. 11 oz. per ski and are solid skis. I highly recommend demoing Vapor Nano, C-Converts and new K2 Coomback.

  12. Lou Dawson April 18th, 2014 12:28 pm

    K2 has lightened up the Coomback quite a bit (1656 grams for the 2014/15 104 mm waisted version we have here, see weight chart), but what I hope to see from them is a “Carbon Coomback,” that skis at least 95% as good, or perhaps even better?

  13. Lou Dawson April 18th, 2014 12:32 pm

    I’ll say this: One distinction of a touring ski versus a ski that tours? The touring ski might not be the best mogul ski you’ve ever been on… To that end, I’ve been skiing about 80 days this winter so far, and have probably skied 5 moguls. That shows the extreme bias of WildSnow.com ski reviews (grin). Lou

  14. Bob Perlmutter April 18th, 2014 12:56 pm

    Obviously we all have something to learn from Lou given his ski days vs. moguls ratio. George, my initial impression of the C-Convert before ever skiing them was that the tip should be a little wider primarily to improve powder performance. I have to say they are quite a good powder ski but would be very interested to see what a wider tip would do to both further enhance the powder performance and turn initiation. The new K2 lineup sounds interesting. More ski testing is in order.

  15. Chris April 18th, 2014 1:41 pm

    In my opinion widening the tip would change the ski in a way some (myself included) might not like. I love the newer school geometry with less sidecut and tapered tips and tails – gives it a loser feel and make them fun and smeary. It is a design that is usually only available in wider and heavier designs. A fat tip would also go counter to the semi-pintail design. Of course this is all personal preference!

  16. Mark Worley April 18th, 2014 10:20 pm

    Wider stance and increased angulation to get this ski on edge makes perfect sense, and I guess I didn’t really think about it overtly until you mentioned it Bob. Yeah, that is what it takes. I would personally love to get these out again and let them rip so I can work on the smeary turns more. I like the idea of being able to make somewhat traditional camber turns on a ski, but also having the versatility afforded by rocker fore and aft coupled with the taper. Great design for sure.

  17. Erik Erikson April 18th, 2014 11:51 pm

    Anyone who allready demoed the new K2 skies allready (coomback or wayback)? Do they ski as good as the older version though lighter and more rockered?
    Speaking for all those who do a lot of backcountry skiing but can´t always afford the best available gear: At least in Austria you can get coombacks and waybacks for sometimes only a quarter of the price of a carbon ski (than beeing the post season version), and the durability seems to be quite good. Durability over time of these superlight skis would be interesting, as this is also an issue if you are not ready or not able to invest heaps of money into skiing.

  18. Lou Dawson April 19th, 2014 7:05 am

    Erik, we picked three K2 Backside skis for testing (we don’t demo, we actually get out and ski on them multiple times and multiple days), Wayback 96 waist, Talkback 96 (same mold as Wayback, Talkback supposedly for women), and Coomback 104 waist. We have someone out on the Wayback and Talkback, all reports are excellent. Coomback will be in play soon. All three are in our weight comparison charts.

    All, regarding weight vs durability. No reason a lightweight ski can’t be durable. In other words, I wouldn’t just assume that a heavier ski is more durable than a lighter ski, that’s nonsense. Plenty of quite heavy skis have had durability problems over the years. So have light ones. Sure, it’s probably cheaper to build a durable ski if weight isn’t an issue (use a solid maple core, no carbon, tons of resin and fiberglass, thick edges), but with more care and higher tech materials that same ski can be built lighter, with the same or even better durability.

    Even a bit of extra care with weight gets results. I’m looking at the new Coomback, at 1656 grams for a 104 mm waisted ski, with what I’m assuming is pretty much alpine durability as well as a big beefy binding mount reinforcement (to fix what appears to have been a previous problem). Sure, that’s not the lightest ski out there, but it’s not a monster in terms of weight. All they probably did to lighten it is a little more care with core weight, and some care with the build. The edges are thick.

    Even so, I then consider skis such as the G3 carbon offerings. G3 is not going to make a fragile ski. I thus assume Synapse and other G3 carbons are plenty durable — and they are quite light!

    Black Diamond as well. They’re not going to make a Convert that’s fragile. A big part of Black Diamond’s target market is sidecountry and alpine, those skiers end up pounding their skis at resorts. Any BD ski have to hold up to that, since that’s the image BD decided to communicate in their marketing story. Consider that in light of Dynafit’s marketing story for the Denali, or the Cho Oyu. Sure, a ski for dropping of the summit of an 8,000 meter peak has to not break. But it doesn’ t have to hold up to 200 resort days and 25 machine tunes. Different animals. I prefer the latter.

    Yep, me, I like to see companies that make the claim for human powered skiing, and make skis specifically for that end of the spectrum. Dynafit and La Sportiva, for example. Such skis can indeed be a bit less “durable” as they’re going to receive a small fraction of the downhill use a resort ski gets.

    Again, why make a ski tourer haul around a half-pound of extra weight so their ski can double as a resort ski? Or why should I haul around extra weight so three sponsored skiers can cliff huck on the same skis I’m lugging?

    Answer, if the skier resort skis or the sponsored cliff hucker needs them, then fine for them. But me, or many of you guys reading this? You don’t need to lug around that extra weight. You can watch the cliff hucker in a film, and who cares what skis he’s using…

    One thing to remember is for you guys who don’t care as much about weight, there will always be dozens of choices in skis. Indeed, the alpine ski market is so huge compared to human-powered it makes us look like a gnat on a mountainside. That’s why companies such as Black Diamond, and now Dynafit with the new line of freeride skis they’re hyping, constantly try to sell into the “freeride” crowd. Of course, forty other ski companies are trying the same thing so we’ll see how that goes.

    Meanwhile, if you’re out doing human powered skiing, try a pair of “one kilo class” skis sometime and prepare to be amazed.

  19. Ben April 21st, 2014 12:42 pm

    Bob,
    Very informative review! I’ve been eyeballing these skis for awhile now. I’ve been looking at the 172, but Black Diamond’s size chart indicates that I look at the 180 (@170 lbs; 5’10”). I currently have a pair of 176 Aspects and 172 Insanes. I love both pairs of skis. I’m a bit leery of going up to a 180 both in terms of added weight and messing around with longer skis in trees etc. So I have two questions. How much do you weigh (that will help me put your comments in perspective)? and What are your thoughts on the 172 vs. 180 choice given that these are fully rockered skis?
    thanks

  20. Will S April 21st, 2014 10:04 pm

    Ben,
    Have been skiing the Carbon Converts for 2 months now. I am 6 ft tall and 170 lbs. I think the 180s are the perfect length. Any shorter and stability would be minimal. They are exciting skis in most conditions, but for me in tight trees they are a little too exciting. They have tip and tail rocker but also a lot of camber under foot. Not a fully rockered ski.
    I personally am not aggressive enough to handle them in tight trees. They are much stiffer than the old Converts, which I also own. I imagine many people would not find it to be a problem. But if that is your main concern, you might not like them. You could go shorter, but you would compromise the skis’ great qualities in more open terrain.

  21. Bob Perlmutter April 21st, 2014 10:04 pm

    Hi Ben, I come in at a whopping 5′ 7″ and 130lbs. If I was your height and weight I would most likely be skiing the 180cm. I have skied the 176cm Aspect and the C-Convert is vastly superior and much easier to ski at a much higher level of performance. It’s the historical equivalent of coming out of the Dark Ages into the Renaissance. The rocker does make the turn initiation much less effort and negates much of that concern about additional length. I understand your point about extra weight and trees. The unknown to me is the typical terrain you ski and how fast and aggressive you ski as well. Enjoy!

  22. Will S April 21st, 2014 10:39 pm

    Ben
    In light of Bob’s question to you about what type of terrain you ski, I ski the back country of the Colorado Front Range. We get a lot of wind around here. It really screws with the powder in open country so I spend a lot of time in the trees.

  23. Ben April 22nd, 2014 8:27 am

    Thanks to all for your input. I ski the Wasatch and spend a lot of time in the trees. The Aspects have a good bit of camber under foot as well (this seems to be a typical BD ski characteristic) and I like the rebound it provides. Similar to your comment above about the C-Convert, the Aspects really like tip pressure – with a full rocker I imagine that they can take all the tip pressure one can muster. I’m thinking that I will really need to find a pair to demo next season. Thanks again.

  24. LandonT April 22nd, 2014 3:03 pm

    Hi Lou and Bob,

    What are your thoughts on these vs. the G3 Zenoxide C3s? It looks like they have similar construction, width, etc. The Zen’s appear to be a bit lighter (comparing 178 Zen vs. 180 C-Convert) but have the dreaded black topsheet. Any thoughts are appreciated.

    Landon

  25. George T April 22nd, 2014 4:03 pm

    @Ben, I am also 6′ tall and 170 lbs. and I have 10 days on C-Converts. I ski trees and bumps (Olympic Bowl @ Highlands) and have found the length to not be an issue. The skis are very easy to load up (due to camber) and flick the tails around bumps. The rocker reduces contact length making the ski feel shorter than 180. I concur with Will S. that the 180 cm is the ski for someone of our size and weight. I don’t think the 172 cm would give you satisfactory float in powder compared to the 180 cm.

  26. Bob Perlmutter April 22nd, 2014 8:13 pm

    Ben, I couldn’t agree more with George. I consider the camber on the C-Convert to be minimal to medium, not nearly as much so as the original traditional cambered Aspect that you reference and I skied. Also, a number of people mention that the C-Convert is stiffer than the Convert and somewhat stiff in general, I don’t find that to be the case at all. I consider the C-Convert fairly soft which clearly contributes to it’s excellent powder performance and overall supple feel. The more I ski it the more versatile I find it and the more I like it.

  27. Bob Perlmutter April 22nd, 2014 8:17 pm

    Landon, I have not skied the G3 Zenoxide C3 but every comment I have seen is consistent that it is on the stiff side and I have to believe is stiffer than the C-Convert.

  28. Erik Erikson April 22nd, 2014 10:29 pm

    Lou, very good points about durability. Never saw it that way, but of course you are totally right that a ski solely for human powered skiing (which is the only way of skiing I do) does not have to be as durable or durable in the same way as a resort ski.
    So.. if I can catch a rather cheap one, I´m gonna try one of that “one kilo wonders”.

  29. laurent.F April 23rd, 2014 3:31 am

    Hi there, any comparison between BD C convert & Voile V8? (especially on how they handle “difficult” snow such as crust , refrozen snow, windpack snow and on harpack / icy snow…etc) Thanks!

  30. Bob Perlmutter April 26th, 2014 11:05 am

    Yesterday was a beautiful two peak spring day on perfect corn and creamed corn. After my experience from yesterday, I take back my earlier comments about thinking the C-Convert might benefit from a slightly wider tip. The subtle energy provided by the carbon construction propels the C-Convert effortlessly from one turn to the next while maintaining the silkiest of feels. And while my earlier comments about needing to really engage the tip at the start of the turn hold true, I found myself actually over emphasizing the tip pressure at times. By varying the tip pressure I was really able to play with the turn shape at will matching the terrain and my whims.

  31. Eric Schneider April 28th, 2014 7:37 pm

    How would you compare the carbon convert to the nunataqfor a quiver of one Backcountry ski? I live in Idaho. Thanks

  32. Karl Wolf July 24th, 2014 2:53 pm

    Hey guys, any recommendations on size. I’m in between the 172 and 180 according to the BD size chart (a bit over 162 pounds and a bit under 5’8″)?

  33. Primoz September 20th, 2014 2:41 am

    Great review I enjoyed the reading. Can you maybe compare these to Volkl Nunataq skis? I am about to purchase new skis and I find it very difficult to choose between new Carbon Convert and Nunataq, especially while I have no chance of testing either ones. Greetings from Europe.

  34. Lou Dawson 2 September 20th, 2014 7:26 am

    Hi Primoz, here are some notes from guru obiwhanskinobi:

    1. Both skis will function as an all-around freeride touring ski.
    2. Nunataq would be my choice for 100% powder skiing, Convert would be my choice if I was going to be on piste as well as pow.
    3. Convert is super light in weight.
    4. Convert does not have steel edges in tip and tail areas, could be durability issue in heavy use.
    5. Both skis are fairly wide for a touring ski, be sure that’s what you need and want.

    https://www.wildsnow.com/9657/ski-weight-comparison-surface/

    https://www.wildsnow.com/5879/volkl-nunataq-ski-review/

    http://www.backcountry.com/black-diamond-carbon-convert-ski?ti=U2VhcmNoIFJlc3VsdHM6Y2FyYm9uIGNvbnZlcnQ6MToxOmNhcmJvbiBjb252ZXJ0&skid=BLD005U-ONECOL-S188CM

    http://www.backcountry.com/volkl-nunataq-telemark-ski?ti=U2VhcmNoIFJlc3VsdHM6dm9sa2wgbnVuYXRhcToxOjE6dm9sa2wgbnVuYXRhcQ&skid=VKL0169-ONECOL-S170CM

  35. Primoz September 21st, 2014 3:27 am

    Thanks Lou on your points here. I will use the skis 100% for ski touring, equipped with technical bindings. Since I am looking for a good powder ski, it needs to perform in a hard packed snow as well because conditions are often not pow-perfect. Maybe you can advice which ski performs best in a non-powder conditions and which ski has a better edge grip when used on a way up?

  36. Mike September 21st, 2014 6:41 am

    Did anyone get out on the K2 Coomback 104 and provide a review of it? I have the red white and blue version and am wondering if the new sidewall might help it out on firm snow that we SOMETIME see in Vermont.

  37. Matt Kinney September 22nd, 2014 12:05 pm

    Just ordered this ski to pound powder. It will be my 1 ski quiver, replacing the BD Drift which was a super light touring ski that got little respect from the “AT-stream media”. Despite my knee-bending habits, sure expect to get 3 seasons out of them and continue to work on my freewheel p-turns with super heel retentive O1’s and some rocker to help. Like the Drifts, they have the white top which does work. Should be fun.

  38. Lou Dawson 2 September 22nd, 2014 12:57 pm

    Cool Matt! Testers I respect really like these, as did I, unknown how they’ll be for telemarking but it sounds like you’re getting closer and closer to fixed heel so probably not an issue (grin). Enjoy the width and lack of weight — and the white tops. Lou

  39. David September 25th, 2014 6:45 am

    Hey Guys,

    Tele Skier here. I’m looking for one pair of skis to basically do it all. 5’7 150Lbs.

    I’m debating the 164 C-Convert vs. 170 K2 Coombacks. Would love your opinion!

    Dave

  40. David September 25th, 2014 6:52 am

    Or 172 C-Convert.

  41. Lou Dawson 2 September 25th, 2014 7:30 am

    I’d suggest Coomback for tele, just instinct…

  42. David September 25th, 2014 7:31 am

    Hey Lou, yep… the comeback’s have been calling my name. Just these Carbon skis are appealing!

    The C-Aspet at 166 could also be an option.

  43. Lou Dawson 2 September 25th, 2014 7:44 am

    We like the C-Convert much better than C-Aspect, but then, how in the world can we translate our fixed heel skiing to what you’d like for telemarking? I don’t get it. Lou

  44. Mike September 26th, 2014 4:13 am

    The Coomback for sure. Been tele skiing for 35 years and love my older Coombacks. Telepathic! Just ordered the 104s.

    The only other thing I could suggest is that you look at the Voile line. LOVE my Voile Charger BCs for longer approaches and schmering in tight quarters. They make some other great skis for telemarking.

  45. Daniel Landry October 1st, 2014 9:23 am

    Hello,

    Looking for a new pair of skis for touring. I tour mostly at Rogers Pass, British Columbia. I like long tours with powder skiing and some steep skiing. I dot not do any resort skiing. I am a 50 year old advanced skier, 5′-7″ and 140 lbs. I am debating between the following skis:

    Black Diamond Carbon Convert
    K2 Coomback 104
    Skilogik Yeti
    G3 Synapse Carbon 101

    Do you guys have any opinion on those skis for a skier like me. Thanks for you input!

  46. Lou Dawson 2 October 1st, 2014 9:44 am

    You are Canadian, you will buy G3 or you will experience unpleasant side effects. But if you are comfortable sinning let me recommend Carbon Convert. Idea here is to join up with the lighter weight stuff, since you’re doing all human-powered and mostly powder. Lou

  47. Daniel Landry October 1st, 2014 11:46 am

    Thanks Lou,

    In keeping with the lighter weight stuff, I notice that the G3 Synapse 101 is even lighter but not as wide. Do you think that the floatation would be much different (Synapse 101 – Carbon Convert)??

  48. Lou Dawson 2 October 1st, 2014 12:58 pm

    Daniel, the flotation won’t be very different. Lou

  49. Ryan October 10th, 2014 10:50 pm

    I ski really deeply on NTN Freedoms. When in the ski area, I frequently manage to over-extend and continually rip out the front screw in ultralight soft wood skis.

    Does this ski have a beefy mounting point? I’d love to buy a pair and try them out!

  50. Lou Dawson 2 October 11th, 2014 6:16 am

    Ryan, most of the lighter skis are inappropriate for telemark, in my opinion. The forces on the screws holding a tele binding on the ski are immense, they can build skis that’ll hold those forces, but doing so adds weight. Thus, the lighter weight skis tend to not have as beefy binding mount areas.

    Most ski makers don’t like to put this in writing, as they don’t want to get a bad rap from the tele community (e.g., they’ve given up on tele!).

    I have no idea if the Convert specifically has a mounting point strong enough for telemark bindings, but I’d suggest a ski that’s proven.

    Lou

  51. Ryan October 11th, 2014 6:01 pm

    Thanks for responding Lou. The only response I have to your well written answer:

    :'(

  52. Jonathan November 17th, 2014 10:09 am

    Great review. The comments are just as instructive as the piece!

    I’m 6’3, 215. Right now I have a pair of older (2012) BD Aspect skis (186) with Dynafit FT12 bindings. I pretty much learned how to tour/alpine ski on them, and they are great.

    Now that I am getting into more advanced skiing, I notice that the Aspect behaves a bit differently in the turns that a lot of my buddies newer skis, especially on the steeps- the lack of tail rocker makes it a bit harder to make tight turns. I’m certain that some of this also has to with my skill level, or lack thereof.

    Anyways, I am looking to change things up this season- I’ll probably keep my FT12 bindings and transfer them to the new planks. I was looking into the C Convert, Voile V6, and Coomback. Dunno about length, but probably the longest they offer given my size.

    I’ll be resort skiing about 1/2 the time, backcountry the rest of the time. I’m in North ID (Schweitzer is my home mtn)- I don’t think I can swing more than one setup, and I won’t be able to demo before buying. Any advice would be appreciated.

    Thanks!

  53. Matt November 17th, 2014 1:59 pm

    Bob & Lou,
    Suggestion: for future ski reviews, perhaps Wildsnow could consider making it standard protocol to stand skis up against a wall & take a full-length, base-to-base profle shot of the skis (brakes retracted), plus one straight-on shot of the topskin?
    Isolated shots of tips & tails are very difficult to judge for scale. Given the huge variance in rocker/camber profiles & sidecuts, having a full-length profile and frontal shot really conveys a lot of important visual information about the skis design.
    Most manufacturers are remiss in publishing real side-profile shots of their skis, so I imagine shots of actual profiles would be of similar interest to your readers as actual ski weights.

  54. Lou Dawson 2 November 17th, 2014 2:04 pm

    Matt, we’ll do it, if I forget please remind me. Lou

  55. Matt November 17th, 2014 4:23 pm

    Excellent. Will keep an eye out. M

  56. Mark Worley December 1st, 2014 9:26 pm

    First bc day on Carbon Converts. Was very impressed! Need more time to test, but am very impressed so far.

  57. Mark Worley December 1st, 2014 9:29 pm

    Matt Kinney, did you get your skis yet?

  58. Nicholas December 13th, 2014 11:03 am

    hi there, I would be grateful for some insight as for appropriate length of the Carbon Convert. I am 6’1 and 160 lbs. Thus rather lightweight. I live in Switzerland and use the C-Convert only for touring, I am a pretty good skier, like to go fast and open it up as soon as conditions permit. I would actually like to go with the 188 but am kinda hesitant as regards steep switchbacks / kick-turns and tight run-outs in the forest (of which there are quite a few here in Europe) which makes me lean towards 180 cm.

    Would greatly appreciate any help / suggestions? Or experience from people who have skied it… Thanks!

  59. Lou Dawson 2 December 13th, 2014 4:29 pm

    Hi Nicholas, pretty easy. You’re 185.42 centimeters tall, the 180 is too short for a rockered ski, opened up. You need the 188, that’s a big ski but you’ll get used to it if that’s the kind of ski you tour with. Perhaps you’ll start a trend over there in the land of the 88s. Lou

  60. Erik Erikson December 13th, 2014 11:00 pm

    … That trend needs to be started in the neighbourland of also 88 (or still mostly like 82 in fact – (Austria) too… 😉 Me and most of my buddies try so by using waybacks, BD Drifts, coomback etc.
    BTW: Nicholas: I also like the style of skiing you describe and my about 190 cm skis (coomback 188, myself maybe 2 cm taller and 2 kg heavier than you) though probably much less rocker than the convert work great for me on the down (also in narrow terrain) and quite ok on the up (though heavy)

  61. Nicholas December 14th, 2014 12:48 pm

    thanks to both of you, just made my choice easier! I have no worries for the down, will probably get used to the up after a while too. and as for the trend, I do see it changing slowly, slowly…

  62. Lou Dawson 2 December 14th, 2014 1:04 pm

    I’m actually not sure where the trend will go, nor what is appropriate. It’s pretty cool when a skier is skilled enough to do big tours and descents on skimo race gear. We’ve got a few of those guys around here in Colorado, and in Europe it’s amazing what you see. On the other hand, it’s also cool seeing freeride tour skiers on fatties cutting big fast arcs and drinking lots of WEISSBIER. I’ve seen some guys from Dynafit doing that, but they did use race bindings on the big skis so they are redeemed. As for the bier they do participate. Lou

  63. Daleyo December 15th, 2014 9:44 pm

    Lou,

    First time poster. I really enjoy Wildsnow – so thank you first of all. I’m feeling super conflicted here. I’m between the C-Convert and the Movement Shift. Both skis are made with carbon, have very attractive weights and are priced similarly. The Shift comes in at 98mm under foot (better for the way up) and the C-Convert comes in at 105mm (better for the way down). I know many people are conflicted as well here, concerning waist width. One other interesting thing to note is the Shift comes in 177cm and the C-Convert has the 180cm length (I’m 5’10”). I’m wondering if you can elaborate in some detail about the differing experiences these two will provide? Also, assuming I pick one of these two, would the Freedom SL be overkill and would it negate the weight savings of a carbon ski?

  64. Nicholas December 16th, 2014 3:29 am

    Hi Daleyo,

    Thought I had to reply to this one as I had bought the Shift a month ago and actually brought it back for the C-Convert. In a nutshell: the Shift is a very direct, rigid all-mountain / touring ski that carves well, holds an edge and is ok in powder but not very playful. Despite its width it didn’t float as I expected. Which is also in part due to the almost non-existent rocker. It isn’t very forgiving. But if you’re ok to put in some effort and like to do a day on a groomer form time to time, it’ll be great.

    Now, I am only receiving my C-Convert tmrw, so I can’t elaborate on it yet. What there is to say is that it has way more rocker in the tip, rocker in the tail and is softer. I imagine it’ll also be easier to ski in variable conditions. Finally regarding length, the 180 C-Convert will be like the 177 Shift since it is rockered way more. So that shouldn’t be an issue.

    So basically you’re deciding between a classic AT ski and a freeride ski, which is very light…

  65. Lou Dawson 2 December 16th, 2014 7:19 am

    Thanks Nicholas, perfect information. The operative word here is “rocker,” with width coming in a close second. Daleyo, that Shift is going to be quite different from Convert. You need to self analyse your style of skiing. If the uphill is important and you’re willing to ski a more trad style on the down, go for the Shift. If you want a more “freeride” type of down, go for the Convert, which will still be ok on the up but indeed has the added width, weight and lack of glide from wider skins, etc. In terms of the 177 vs the 180, as Nicholas points out, that’s not a factor in the decision.

    Oh, and another thing, the Convert isn’t always going to be “better” on the down. Get on some ice or hardpan, steep, and I’ll bet the Shift will be “better.”

    Lou

  66. stu January 5th, 2015 9:31 pm

    I’m considering the carbon convert for my girlfriend. She is 5 ft 3 inches, 110 lbs and would use them primarily for ski touring. Any women out there have time on these? Are these appropriate for women?

  67. Andy Mason January 7th, 2015 7:50 pm

    Hey Lou,

    Regarding your length recommendation for Nicholas, I’ve pretty much stopped being concerned with height for ski length, as have many ski length guides, including BD’s. Technically taller people are longer levers, but I don’t think it’s much of a concern. At 160lbs and no other info I’d have said 180cm, but with his description I think 188cm is right. I’ve also read that when unsure, always go for the longer choice (although that wasn’t in reference to B/C where weight and kickturns are considerations, I still think it’s generally good advice, since you’re usually going up to go down after all).

    I’m 180lbs. and about to pick up some regular Converts in 188 (Carbon would be nice, and I’d pay the 12% extra when they’re both at regular price, but not the 57% extra now that the Converts are on sale). But I ski fast and like big silly skis (still love my 14lb Machetes on occasion, and my big skis are 195 Kuro).

    Andy

  68. Chris January 7th, 2015 9:36 pm

    Hoping for advice, please, from those who know the gear.  Started touring a few years ago, now my preferred activity.  Have been on old S7s with old Verticals.  Looking for a new quiver of one. 

    I’m 85 kg, 190 cm, 53 yrs.  Mostly short tours, minor technical, Utah conditions, playful ski style, modest appetite for speed. Sometimes still clumsy on the up.  Considering 188 C-Convert.  Picked up some Kingpins at REI (I know, cancels the weight savings some, but really like the heel). 

    Any opinions or suggestions appreciated, thanks.

  69. Chris January 16th, 2015 12:34 pm

    Also wondering if I should go with 180s instead of 188s. My size (6’3″, 185#) usually makes me go long, and these skis do have some rocker. But it will be my only touring kit, so needs to handle variable conditions, plus I ski differently as I get older (53). Additionally, BDs seem to measure longish (the 188s are physically almost the same length as my Atomic 193s). Thanks, Chris

  70. Lou Dawson 2 January 16th, 2015 11:58 pm

    Hi Chris, with a rockered ski such as C-Convert just go with your body height as the ski length if they’re your only skis. If you go shorter, I think that would be a quiver ski rather than the quiver of one. Lou

  71. Chris January 17th, 2015 5:51 pm

    Great advice, thanks Lou. If my midlife crisis leads to becoming a true mountaineer, I’ll expand the quiver then.

  72. Dave M January 21st, 2015 6:38 pm

    This is an amazing resource. I am struggling with trying to find the right ski without ever skiing it (for both me and my wife). We live in Vermont and tend to ski tight trees and the old CCC cut trails. Heading out to Colorado for a hut trip. The carbon convert (164 for her at 5’5″ 130 lbs, and 180-88 at 6′ 205lbs) vs V8 (165 for her, 186-186 for me). We rarely get to open up a ski at top speed, but love to be able to smear and play in the tighter trees. Who knows what the snow will be, but have vectors if we aren’t expecting much. Any thoughts on a comparison of ski characteristics? I know the bigger V8 is quite a bit bigger ski. Thanks!

  73. Mike morrison January 25th, 2015 7:51 pm

    Might be too late to join this discussion, my apologies. If no one responds, my bad, not yours. Here’s my question. The backcountry skiing I do sometimes (often at times) is in “bottomless” powder (tough luck, I know). I live near Durango and usually ski in the San Jauns. I used to stick to light tele gear bit recently added AT skiing to the list. I started with voile vector bc in 170 length. I weigh around 140 and carry a 15 a 20 lb pack when skiing. The vectors didn’t have enough float early in the season to glide over obstacles. The friends I skied with were on voile v8s and similarly “fat skis. Obviously the fish scales didn’t fit well with the others smooth bottoms either. I picked up a left over pair of voile buster’s and moved my AT bindings to them (and put some switchback tele bindings on the vector bcs but that’s another story – like them much better tele than I did AT – but I overpowered the skis when using them with the AT bindings and boots). The voile busters are 176 length and are fantastic in deep powder and overall fun skis. But I’d like to go lighter and possibly skinnier. So… Can the carbon converts handle “deep” powder? How long would they need to be for someone of my weight?

    Last bit of info – I’m an expert skier. Raced in college – but that was a long time ago – I’m 61 years old. Still very fit and skiing better than most folks of any age (including bumps, steep and trees at the resort). I’m primarily interested in backcountry skis – but might occasionally try them at the resort (but I’ve got resort skis and boots I’m happy with and have no particular need to use my backcountry skis at the resort). I typically put in around 3000+ vertical on backcountry days and get out there 2 or 3 times a week (with resort days thrown in as recovery days:). First season skiing since retiring!

    Again I’m new to using the heavier backcountry gear and I’m not sure how ski is needed to get the float needed in the really deep stuff.

  74. Mike morrison January 25th, 2015 7:54 pm

    Read back over my post and noticed some typos. Probably should use a real computer rather than this ipad. Oh well…

  75. Daleyo February 1st, 2015 10:40 pm

    What bindings are folks pairing the C-Convert with?

    What do you think is the best choice if using the ski as a dedicated touring ski for generally steep and aggressive terrain (@155lbs)?

  76. wyomingowen February 1st, 2015 11:04 pm

    @Mike……it’s built for bottomless…I would be scared though early season, it’s not the most durable looking/ feeling plank you’ll ever ski,

    @daleyo…TLT superlight! If you’re going to be light, why not, most amazing dynafit IMHO

  77. Lou Dawson 2 February 2nd, 2015 1:48 am

    Dale, I’m seeing a trend to go to either end of the binding spectrum, I see quite a few folks doing light with no brake, then others want what’s pretty much a resort rig and they’re going with stuff like Vipec. If your goal is pow laps, go light. Lou

  78. brandon February 19th, 2015 6:50 pm

    comparing coomback and carb. convert for a backcountry ski setup. probabaly with g3 ions. this would be for do all backcountry rig (winter/spring). Any thoughts, preferences.

  79. George February 19th, 2015 7:16 pm

    @Daleyo – I enjoy my C-Convert with Dynafit Superlites for laps and laps.
    @Brandon – I have C-Convert and old Coomback/Anti-piste. The C-Converts are my choice due to weight. Coombacks get the edge for ease of skiing over C-Converts, but 1 LB weight savings have relegated the Coombacks to my rock ski even though they are more damp and easier (big sweet spot).

  80. Andy March 2nd, 2015 8:21 pm

    I just snagged a pair of cosmetic seconds from the B.D. store in SLC for $350 in the plastic! 172. I get to take um out tomorrow for the first day, I will report back.

  81. Alex P March 9th, 2015 11:38 pm

    @ George T
    if you don’t mind me asking – what do you weigh in at? I’m seriously considering the Carbon Converts with the Speed Superlite bindings. Worried about the three screw heel ripping out on the Converts with my 180-190 lbs weight (plus gear).

    Anybody else that has experience with that combo or the superlites and a similarly wide ski and similar body weight, please feel free to chime in, too!

    Thanks! Alex

  82. GeorgeT March 10th, 2015 7:25 am

    @Alex P – I am 170 lbs. on the C-Convert 180 cm. I will defer to Lou on Dynafit Superlite durability.

  83. Lou 2 March 10th, 2015 7:33 am

    In most cases I don’t recommend three-screw bindings for general touring on big skis. While I totally understand weight saving obsession, it just seems a little bit silly, as the weight savings is not huge over basic lightweight touring bindings and you compromise in other ways as well, depending on exact binding brand/model. Something like and ION or Speed Radical seems much more appropriate. Also, while I well know the appeal of skiing without brakes, consider setting up with brakes.

    In the future, I think we’ll see more field-removable brakes and that will be key. Funny the ski companies have not picked up on the need for this and instead put insane amounts of effort, money and engineering into brakes that will retract while in tour mode (and still have problems at retail level). In fact, the history of retracting brakes on tech bindings is nothing less than a Shakespearean tragedy. Removable brakes are yet another thing on the list of gear improvements that will continue to change the sport in positive ways.

    Lou

  84. Alexander Putz March 10th, 2015 7:47 am

    Thanks Lou and Greg.
    Actually, it does seem like the weight savings from the superlite to the next up Dynafit binding with brakes is quite substantial, around 500-600g for the pair. Less so if compared with ATK raider or other bindings.
    Plus i can currently pick up the superlites for around $300 new.
    If course the new model of that binding is very interesting, but will also be double the price incl. the brakes…
    I’ve got two sets of skis running fine with the older TLT FT12, was looking to save some weight though. (and yes, do need to save some on myself, too… 😉

    Coldthistle also had a review on the superlites as a touring setup as well. Hmmm… will deliberate further on this.
    Definitely appreciate your input, Lou.

  85. Lou Dawson 2 March 10th, 2015 8:15 am

    Alex, be sure to check this out as well:

    https://www.wildsnow.com/15143/race-tech-bindings-backcountry-touring/

    I hear you on the weight. As everything else gets lighter the bindings begin to stick out like a sore thumb.

    If you ski mellow and don’t fall often, you can in my opinion indeed go with the three-screw bindings. My take is more in a general sense, that caution is advised. Just be sure you binding choice releases both vertical and lateral, and that the release values are consistent with what you need to prevent injury. Some bindings end up with very high values.

    Lou

  86. Alexander Putz March 10th, 2015 8:29 am

    I don’t ski mellow and i don’t fall often… 😉 My FT12s are set at Din 9, they did release twice on me this time skiing in Aspen and at Highlands (used to live in Carbondale…), both times slightly jumping/ slightly launching a turn in the powder at higher speeds.. (i don’t huck though!)

    The ski slid down quite a bit in the bowl. Reminds me of another time skiing the bowl, where i lost a ski with alpine binding in deep pow . That slid down several hundred yards. Patrol had already gathered us up before we finally found it. Brakes don’t seem to do that much when is steep…

    I was thinking of using the B&D leashes : http://www.bndskigear.com/skileash.html

  87. Lou Dawson 2 March 10th, 2015 8:31 am

    Are you ski touring on these things, or resort skiing?

  88. Alexander Putz March 10th, 2015 8:37 am

    The carbon converts with dynafit speed superlites would be strictly backcountry.

    I have two other sets with ft12, one with Helix Libertys, which i use for skiing inbounds and sidecountry, about 10-12 days a year. The TLT5P boots were the first boots that i didn’t have lots of pain in, so i stopped using my alpine gear altogether.

  89. Lou Dawson 2 March 10th, 2015 8:50 am

    All sounds fine Alex. Quite a few people now use their touring gear for alpine resort skiing. I think that’s unwise due to the bindings not providing the leg protection of a top-line alpine binding, but if you don’t fall much that’s probably a non issue. Indeed, I’ve not heard of any spike in leg injuries and some days I’ve heard that up to 1/3 of the people skiing Highland Bowl here at Highlands resort are using tech bindings instead of alpine.

    Overall, I keep hearing reports of broken legs in avalanches, and have to wonder how many of those are the result of locked or high RV value tech bindings. I can recall two such incidents this year alone here in Colorado.

    Lou

  90. Michael April 7th, 2015 1:28 pm

    Hi,

    Looking for a backcountry specific setup, the ski won’t be used for resort skiing, as I already have powder skis for this (Armada JJ 185cm) I consider myself a strong intermediate skier. I’m 5’9″ * 158 pounds + touring gears, packs, etc… . I’m looking for a ski that would float me well … and more so would be fun to ski in slow/medium speed and in short to medium turn radius … I was looking at this Ski, C-Convert @ 180cm … and the new Wailer-112 Tour1 (Not sure what lenghts). Would be using it to ski in the Selkirks and Monashee … and a few trips on more continental snowpack on the Alberta side (Lake Louise area)

    Thanks in advance!!!!

  91. Obewhanskinoobie April 7th, 2015 1:44 pm

    Carbon Convert is proven. After living for six years on an esoteric glowing moss in my meditation cave, this vision was given to me by the moss goddess. I verified by descending the mountain to the base lodge and having burgers and fries with several freeride touring skiers who said Carbon Convert had converted them. Obe

  92. Jacek April 7th, 2015 3:27 pm

    After skiing 180 C-Converts for a week, I moved bindings 2 cm forward from recommended point.What a difference! No more front slapping, good control in icy conditions. That may something to do with Vipecs having more neutral ramp angle,

  93. Mike Morrison April 8th, 2015 9:23 am

    Michael,

    I had questions about the c converts in deep powder and posted a question several months ago about this. My local shop had a great sale on them shortly after so I got them in a 172 length. Although I ski AT as well as tele, I decided to get serious about my steep and deep tele skiing and put voile switchback x2 bindings on them. I realize I just lost most of the wildsnow crowd by doing that.

    As it turned out some friends went to a very steep area with tight trees shortly after I got them so I went all in and took the c converts. I’ve previously used my AT skiis here and done well. My tele skills weren’t as high, however and I struggled on tele’s. Point of this comment? The c converts had plenty of float in very deep and steep powder (the pilot had some issues, however :}

    Next, I decided to take to the resort to practice before trying the steep and deep again with them. I’ve got about 15 resort days on them now. Since I never teled at a resort before (previous tele skiis all had fish scales) I had some learning to do. Took an all day tele clinic which cleaned up some bad habits I had acquired in the backcountry. I can reassure folks that the ski doesn’t have problems with binding screws coming out. At least not with a 150# skier and skiing expert bump runs with them. I initially didn’t like them on hard pack, but with my technique cleaned up I can now say they do fine there and hold an edge well. They are also a very quick turning ski that like short and medium radius turns. They are stable at medium speeds – say up to 30~40 mph (I don’t care to test at higher speeds). They are happiest in soft snow and powder – but are surprisingly good in harder snow.

    I’m a level 3+ alpine skier and would rate myself a level 2+ on tele’s. Hope this helps – all from a tele perspective but also coming from someone with extensive alpine experience. In my humble opinion I think this ski would be a lot fun with AT bindings.

    Mike

  94. Michael April 9th, 2015 9:50 am

    Thanks a lot for the details Mike!!!!

  95. Hans December 5th, 2015 9:40 am

    180 vs 188?

    I’m a lifetime skier, picked up touring a couple years ago, looking to get new gear. When it comes to length, some people give advice like “get what you normally ski”. My downhill skis are 190 and 192. I’m 6’3″, 195#, 54 yrs.

    Do I really want touring skis that big? I like all kinds of terrain, but it seems that the conditions I usually encounter when touring might not need that much ski. So do I go with 180s to have solid manageable gear for vast majority of days, or do I go for 190s that will reward the occasional big run but be more of a struggle to get around? Also BDs tend to run a bit long. Thanks

  96. Philipp May 3rd, 2016 7:26 am

    Redrilling the CC’s

    Lou, do you have experience with re-drilling the Carbon Converts? Mounted is the rental version of the Vipec, and I want to get rid of the adjustment plate, that causes some play between the actual binding and the ski. Should I hesitate because it’s a carbon ski?

    I’ve been skiing / skitouring the Carbon Converts this season with the Vipec 12 bindings in TLT6s, and I am very impressed with the ski in mostly all conditions. They like soft snow – so do I – but they also perform surprisingly well in harder conditions and on the steeps. I’ve been mostly skiing around Chamonix in the Valais / Switzerland and the CCs are quiet a rarity down there.

    Thanks!
    Philipp

  97. Lou 2 May 3rd, 2016 11:08 am

    Shouldn’t be a problem if you can keep the new holes at least a centimeter from the old. Can you re-use a pair of the heel unit holes? Toe unit remains the same? BTW, just because a ski uses some carbon in construction doesn’t mean it’s weaker, or stronger for that matter. But sometimes the lighter skis do lack much of a binding reinforcement plate. In that case, it’s more about not stripping the screws than anything else. Lou

  98. Philipp May 4th, 2016 10:29 am

    Thanks Lou! I won’t do it by myself, but my local mech is worried about redrilling the skis, because it’s carbon… it’s good to know, that you think different about that matter. The toe unit holes won’t fit, maybe I have more luck with the heel. I hope the result will be worth the efforts. Cheers and thanks again, Philipp

  99. Lou Dawson 2 May 4th, 2016 11:07 am

    Wellll, no mech is going to guarantee a used ski that’s been redrilled, just on general principle. But it can be done on those unless you’re a gorilla skiing at 70 mph routinely. Lou

  Your Comments


  Recent Posts




Facebook Twitter Google Instagram Youtube

WildSnow Twitter Feed



 



  • Blogroll & Links


  • Welcome to Louis (Lou) Dawson's backcountry skiing information & opinion website. Lou's passion for the past 50 years has been alpinism, climbing, mountaineering and skiing -- along with all manner of outdoor recreation. He has authored numerous books and articles about ski touring and is well known as the first person to ski down all 54 of Colorado's 14,000-foot peaks, otherwise known as the Fourteeners! Books and free ski touring news and information here.

    All material on this website is copyrighted, the name WildSnow is trademarked, permission required for reproduction (electronic or otherwise) and display on other websites. PLEASE SEE OUR COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK INFORMATION.

    We include "affiliate sales" links with most of our blog posts. This means we receive a percentage of a sale if you click over from our site (at no cost to you). None of our affiliate commission links are direct relationships with specific gear companies or shopping carts, instead we remain removed by using a third party who manages all our affiliate sales and relationships. We also sell display "banner" advertising, in this case our relationships are closer to the companies who advertise, but our display advertising income is carefully separated financially and editorially from our blog content, over which we always maintain 100% editorial control -- we make this clear during every advertising deal we work out. Please also notice we do the occasional "sponsored" post, these are under similar financial arrangements as our banner advertising, only the banner or other type of reference to a company are included in the blog post, simply to show they provided financial support to WildSnow.com and provide them with advertising in return. Unlike most other "sponsored content" you find on the internet, our sponsored posts are entirely under our editorial control and created by WildSnow specific writers.See our full disclosures here.

    Backcountry skiing is dangerous. You may be killed or severely injured if you do any form of ski mountaineering, skimo randonnee and randonnée skiing. The information and news on this website is intended only as general information. Due to human error and passing time, the information, text and images contained within this website may be inaccurate, false, or out-of-date. By using, reading or viewing the information provided on this website, you agree to absolve the owners of Wild Snow as well as content contributors of any liability for injuries or losses incurred while using such information. Furthermore, you agree to use any of this website's information, maps, photos, or binding mounting instructions templates at your own risk, and waive Wild Snow owners and contributors of liability for use of said items for ski touring or any other use.

    Switch To Mobile Version