Carbon Convert: Anyone skied 'em?

[ctw55]

Very curious. Heard they are stiffer than the regular convert as well as being more damp. Can anyone confirm?

[swerve]

Wildsnow put a somewhat worthless review up today.

[JONG Q Public]

I heard directly from Black Diamond that the carbon version is stiffer. I have not skied them but would be skeptical that adding carbon and making them a pound lighter would make them more damp.


I really like the Convert for soft BC snow but they will chatter like mad on firmer snow. I think the width, sidecut profile and rocker make for the perfect BC ski for what I do most of the time.

[neck beard]

Wildsnow put a somewhat worthless review up today.

It didn't really say much, did it.

They be struggling for content all season IMHO.

[ctw55]

Bummed on that "review." Was quite skeptical on the dampness claim as well. Good to here it is however stiffer. Figured it will make a great east coast quiver killer ski for me.

[JONG Q Public]

I don't think I would use the term damp to describe any of the carbon skis I have skied. It might be semantics but I think carbon skis are very lively and sort of spring or rebound out of a turn. I have owned a few pair of pure DPS skis. The stiffest being the 112 RPC. These skis don't chatter like some of the other rockered skis I have skied and will certainly plow thru things better then most other skis but I still don't think I would call them damp.

If the Carbon Converts are a mix of the Converts and the 112 RPC for stiffness and performance then I will pick up a pair for sure.

[Lindahl]

^^^^ needs to try pm gear carbon skis (and maybe Praxis?)

[JONG Q Public]

^^^^ needs to try pm gear carbon skis (and maybe Praxis?)

For sure and I would certainly like to. Again may be we all have a different opinion of what damp is and I am not being critical of the DPS skis I have skied I really like them and think the pop or lively nature of their skis is a good attribute for a soft snow BC ski. I have other skis that I would say are damp for resort use.

[Mudfoot]

I was at the BD store in SLC this week checking out the carbon Converts. Had the 188 cm regular and carbon side by side. I talked to one of the employees who had been skiing the regular Convert and has switched to the carbon version. I am a big guy (like the guy I talked to) and I'm worried about the 188 cm Convert being enough ski for me. The carbons seemed minutely softer to flex, but they are definitely a lot stiffer torsionally than the regular model. He said the carbons are more lively and have more snap out of the turn than the regular version.

At this point, not having skied them, my impression is that the carbon Convert is a good choice for that width category for someone who is weight conscious and is not going to be pushing them too hard. Serviceable on hard snow, an excellent meadow skipper, but not something for crushing the terrain. Just like the old Converts, they have quite a bit of tip rocker. They also saved weight on the carbons by stopping the edges a coupled inches back from the tips and tails, which might affect durability if you encounter rocks.

[ctw55]

I was at the BD store in SLC this week checking out the carbon Converts. Had the 188 cm regular and carbon side by side. I talked to one of the employees who had been skiing the regular Convert and has switched to the carbon version. I am a big guy (like the guy I talked to) and I'm worried about the 188 cm Convert being enough ski for me. The carbons seemed minutely softer to flex, but they are definitely a lot stiffer torsionally than the regular model. He said the carbons are more lively and have more snap out of the turn than the regular version.

At this point, not having skied them, my impression is that the carbon Convert is a good choice for that width category for someone who is weight conscious and is not going to be pushing them too hard. Serviceable on hard snow, an excellent meadow skipper, but not something for crushing the terrain. Just like the old Converts, they have quite a bit of tip rocker. They also saved weight on the carbons by stopping the edges a coupled inches back from the tips and tails, which might affect durability if you encounter rocks.

How heavy are you? I am 6ft and 145 pounds. East coast BC skier so will be pushing through alot of variable conditions so I think the 188 should be fine for me given my weight.

[Mudfoot]

How heavy are you? I am 6ft and 145 pounds. East coast BC skier so will be pushing through alot of variable conditions so I think the 188 should be fine for me given my weight.

I'm 6'5" and 215 lbs, and I would guess the BD employee I talked to had a few pounds on me. He had no complaints about the carbon Converts performance, but the reviews all seem to mention a "speed limit" and that they get knocked around in heavy funky snow, which is to be expected for a light rocker tipped ski, but for my purposes I think I can live with that. I'm in the classic big guy fix, I climb like a brick to so I need lighter gear to keep up, but because I am heavier I need a beefier ski on the down. The carbon Convert seems like a pretty good option since I am not catching air or going very big in the bc, other than some steep chute skiing. I'm skiing the Wasatch, and usually do not go unless there is good snow, so I can get away with a softer ski than you.

The other new ski in this category is the 191 cm G3 Zenoxide C3 with a 105mm waist. The only problem is that when I bent them in the store they flexed like a steel beam compared to the Converts, and all the reviews use terms like "works best at speed" and "requires a lot of energy", which are a nice way of saying they are really too damn stiff. I'd love to hear a comparison by someone who has skied both of them.

[icelanticskier]

Very curious. Heard they are stiffer than the regular convert as well as being more damp. Can anyone confirm?

east coast quiver killer? volkl kendo 177 for you brah. go metal for the variable.

rog

[JONG Q Public]

I'm 6'5" and 215 lbs,.... I'm in the classic big guy fix, I climb like a brick to so I need lighter gear to keep up, but because I am heavier I need a beefier ski on the down.

It is really hard to say with out knowing you but the Carbon version would have to be a whole lot stiffer then what it sounds like to work for a guy your size. I am 6' 3" 190# and like the regular version but that is because I only use it in the BC some of the time and am willing to sacrifice the trade offs. If I have any intention of amping it up I go with my Wailer 112 RPC. To be honest I bought the Converts for a trip to Selkirk Mountain Experience and for any super long days I might do and I am already looking to get the Carbon version because it is stiffer.

[ctw55]

I'm 6'5" and 215 lbs, and I would guess the BD employee I talked to had a few pounds on me. He had no complaints about the carbon Converts performance, but the reviews all seem to mention a "speed limit" and that they get knocked around in heavy funky snow, which is to be expected for a light rocker tipped ski, but for my purposes I think I can live with that. I'm in the classic big guy fix, I climb like a brick to so I need lighter gear to keep up, but because I am heavier I need a beefier ski on the down. The carbon Convert seems like a pretty good option since I am not catching air or going very big in the bc, other than some steep chute skiing. I'm skiing the Wasatch, and usually do not go unless there is good snow, so I can get away with a softer ski than you.

The other new ski in this category is the 191 cm G3 Zenoxide C3 with a 105mm waist. The only problem is that when I bent them in the store they flexed like a steel beam compared to the Converts, and all the reviews use terms like "works best at speed" and "requires a lot of energy", which are a nice way of saying they are really too damn stiff. I'd love to hear a comparison by someone who has skied both of them.

Hmmm. Zenoxide surely seems out of the question. They must be trying a little to hard. Have you seen the G3 Synapse Carbon 101? Looks like it could be toned down verson of the Zenoxide?

[Mudfoot]

I have been skiing some Goode full carbon 95s for a while, which are super light but very stiff and I really want something softer. The difference in flex between the Zenoxide and Convert carbon skis was startling. I'll have to check into the Synapse.

As for the new Converts being stiffer, I spent quite a bit of time playing with the regular and carbon versions, and the tip flex was actually a tad softer on the carbon version, and the tail flex about the same. I also spent a lot of time talking to the guy who had skied both extensively and the carbons are more poppy and torsionally ridged, but it did not sound like they ski all that much differently in soft snow. I believe BD's goal was to make a lighter version of the Convert and not a different stiffer ski.

[endure]

Hmmm. Zenoxide surely seems out of the question. They must be trying a little to hard. Have you seen the G3 Synapse Carbon 101? Looks like it could be toned down verson of the Zenoxide?

I'm also wondering which may be better between the carbon convert and synapse (either 101 or 109).. both look like they have good potential

[Mudfoot]

One of the issues with the Zenoxides and Synapses is that the top sheets are black, which makes them tend to collect a lot of snow sticking to the tops when climbing, thereby negating the lightness of the skis. I have this same problem with my black carbon Goodes. The Black Diamond carbon skis all have white topsheets to help resolve the problem, as does the new Sportiva Vapor Nano carbon model.

[neck beard]

The Black Diamond carbon skis all have white topsheets to help resolve the problem,

It does help, but in the end sticky snow will still be sticky:

[ctw55]

I'm also wondering which may be better between the carbon convert and synapse (either 101 or 109).. both look like they have good potential

Love the shapes of both as well. For some reason I can just see the Synapse being similar to a 2x4 and not living up to its shape. But I suppose that is just because I have weird feelings towards g3 skis. Time will tell.

[ctw55]

It does help, but in the end sticky snow will still be sticky:

Also, the ridges in the converts are just begging for snow collection. I use silicon spray from time to time and sometimes it helps.

[kootenayskier]

FWIW, I was told that the G3 Synapse 109 skis closer to the fun/easy/slower end of the spectrum compared to stiffer G3 offerings like the Zenoxide/Empire/District.

[endure]

Skied the 188 carbon convert yesterday on Vermillion in Kootenay National Park, with the Vipec's on them. Conditions were 10 cm new snow on an isothermal snowpack. Snow was powdery near the top and wet in the burned trees to the highway, with very predictable wet slides from ski cutting (i.e. a little surfy on top of the moving snow). I really enjoyed the skis. They were relatively light on the way up (though heavier than my trabs/plums), and super fun on the way down. As some people have stated, the divots in the ski attract snow which is unfortunate but the mostly white colour limits the ski from melting and grabbing too much. I had to wipe them clean with my pole every 30 mins or so. They were very responsive on the down, wanting to gain some speed but still quite agile and playful. I think I may be leaning towards 180 cm, as I could have gone a bit faster through tight trees and I don't think I'd lose much float (I'm 6'1 170 lbs). All in all, a good day with them and enough positive response to make me want a pair for next year.