MSR Denali Ascent Questions

[Waumbek]

Can anyone tell me what the difference is between the older Denali Ascents and the newer Denali Evo Ascents, other than color? The bindings look different. Anything else?

Do the Evos come in different sizes or OSFA?

Do the tails for the older model fit the newer?

Thanks.

 

[Maddy]

Waumbek...I can give you this info that I obtained from MSR customer support just last week. I called them to inquire as to whether or not they would be OK for a male, size 9 shoe, wearing plastic boots to snowhoe in the mountains.
I told them I was concerned that the binding might not be adequate as compared to the Evos.
The reply I received was that they should be just fine. They said the EVO was the next model up and the binding was a bit different but that the Ascents should should still perform well with plastic boots in varied terrain.

I did like them a lot and they were the first "new age" snowshoe I purchased since my Sherpa snow claws. I never abused them.
I now enjoy my Lightnings because they are light but I never did upgrade to EVOS because I felt no need to.

When I first posted the shoes to sell, I did make a mistake and referred to them as Evos.
Someone has purchased them and I hope they enjoy them as much as I did.

 

[DSettahr]

The main difference between the Denali and the Denali Evos is that the Denalis stay the same width for the entire length of the snowshoe, while the Evos are tapered in the back to decrease the likelihood of stepping on one shoe with the other. Because of this difference in width, the tails for the Denalis will not fit the Denali Evos, so make sure you are purchasing the appropriate tail for the appropriate model.

Both models come in a regular version (Denali and Denali Evo) without the heel bar, as well as an ascent version (Denali Ascent and Denali Evo Ascent) with the heel bar. The coloring seems pretty variable- black, red, gray, or blue options are available although not all stores carry each color, and not all colors are available with each model.

They are indeed one size fits all, with the intention being that you can use the tails (sold separately) to increase the surface area as conditions and body weight require. The size of the tailess snowshoe is in about the low to mid-size range of snowshoes. The Denali and Denali Ascents have 4 and 8 inch tails available, while the Denali Evo and Denali Evo Ascents have 6 inch tails available.

I've had a pair of Denali Evo Ascents for several years now, and I've really liked them. The binding straps are starting to break, but they are easily replaced. There is definitely a trade off with the binding straps being somewhat flimsy, but it is very easy to put the snowshoe on and take it off without getting your hands/fingers cold. The snowshoes grip incredibly well, and the ascent bar makes a huge difference on uphill climbs. There is definitely no reason not to pay the extra money for the ascent version of either model of snowshoe, as it is well worth the money.

They definitely are not for everyone though- it's a mountaineering snowshoe, and while they perform well in rugged icy terrain, the limited size decreases their effectiveness in flat deep snow. If you're planning on doing a lot of winter mountain climbing, I'd say go for them. If you're just looking for a pair of snowshoes for flat lowland hikes, I'd say go with a more traditional type of snowshoe.

As for ultimately deciding which shoe to go with, I'd say that if you are small or average build, go with the denali evo ascents and the tails. In the high peaks, I've found myself hardly ever needing the tails for my evo ascents in the winter (5'11" 175 lbs). If you're of a larger build that needs the extra surface area, it'd probably be better (and more comfortable for you in the long run) to go with the denali ascents instead.

I personally have no experience with the Lightnings, but I've heard lots of good things about them- especially that they are lightweight. They look like they wouldn't be as durable as the Denali's, however, and I'd rather carry a little more weight of my feet if it means my snowshoe will last longer. But I have absolutely no personal experience with the lightnings to back that opinion up.

 

[una_dogger]

When I bought my Evo's (three winter's ago?) the regular Denali's had a squared off shape (as opposed to tapered like the Evo's) and they were made of a slightly different plastic -- which at the time -- was causing the regular Denali's to crack and snap along the plastic frame.

Not sure what improvements have been made since then.

 

[sardog1]

DSettahr has nailed all the important points. I will only add the corollary advice that if you're ≥ 200 pounds without pack, you'll probably want another design for frequent travel in deep, unconsolidated snow. I weigh 215 and carry a pack that ranges from 25-45 pounds. In mountain snow that is packed from wind exposure, or wet or icy New England snow, or on packed-out trails, my Denali Ascents with 8" tails are fine. The traction is excellent, and the only failure of the plastic deck material has been from my carelessness in stowing a heavy gear bag in my vehicle. I haven't had a binding strap break in several years of use.

But if I were frequently in Aroostook County, or another location with deep, unconsolidated snow, I'd find them insufficient for flotation. Don't believe MSR when they indicate otherwise on the packaging. That's when my Sherpas come out to play.

 

[Waumbek]

Thanks to all. Very helpful. This answers the questions I had. In fact, I've owned a pair of Denali Ascents for years and love them. I now have a young (and penniless) relative coming up who would love them, and I was trying to decide whether I can justify upgrading to the Evos and passing the DA's along, minus the tails, which I would keep for my new Evos. But it's now clear I'd have to buy those as well for deeper snow days. So, I'll go back to the checkbook and re-do the numbers with that in mind....

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I'll add that the tails are less cumbersome going up. I almost always take them off coming down - but in most cases that means retracing my steps so it's already somewhat packed. I bought 4" tails with mine, carry them too often, and use them rarely. I borrowed 8" tails for the Kinsmans in 18-24" of snow and they were better than nothing, but not as balanced as my 30" Tubbs, the only other shoes I own, and they are not mountaineering shoes.

One thing I did to my Denali Ascents was to add a few layers of duct tape in the televator tab so it would stay centered under my heel - w/o this, it tends to slide around the corner(s).



Tim

 

[DougPaul]

The Evos also have a larger toe hole--important if you have big boots. (The toe holes on my non-Evos were rubbing on and wearing the toes of my supergaiters.)

Doug

 

[bikehikeskifish]

FWIW, My size 13 Columbia Ice Dragon IIs fit fine in the Denali Ascents.

Tim

 

[DougPaul]

The Evos also have a larger toe hole--important if you have big boots. (The toe holes on my non-Evos were rubbing on and wearing the toes of my supergaiters.)

FWIW, My size 13 Columbia Ice Dragon IIs fit fine in the Denali Ascents.

My size 9 leather double boots (Galibier Makalu) with supergaiters were rubbing on the front edge of the toe hole on my non-Evo Denalis. Not a problem with the Evo Ascents. Also not a problem with my flat Bearpaws.

Doug