snow shoe opinions

[WinterWarlock]

C'mon, we all know what that is, it's a trailer hitch.

Ah, it's obvious now...must be for pulling sleds.

 

[Tobit]

Shoes for Big Guys

Rather than start yet another snowshoe thread, I'm going to tag onto this thread as it's one of the most recent ones. I'm a pretty big guy and having a hard time trying to figure out which shoes to go with for my first pair.

I'm 6' 2" and weigh 285 pounds so, with a winter pack, I'm going to be over 300 easily. I'm losing weight but, with my frame, I'm never going to weigh 200 - 210 pounds like the average 6' 2" person does. Up until recently, I was pretty much decided on a pair of MSR Denali Evo Ascents and getting their tails for added flotation as needed. However, I've read a few reviews stating that the tails are more of a PITA than they are worth so I started researching other shoes with larger decks.

I'm now looking at 36" deck offerings from Northern Lites and Tubbs. I know skiguy really likes his NL's but are there any big guys here using them? I must say that I'm intrigued by their light weight. However, if their light weight makes them too fragile for someone as big as me, I'm not sure if I'd still be interested in them. I'd like something that can start me out on the smaller peaks but also take me up to some of the 4K's. Are there any other manufacturers besides Tubbs and NL I should take a look at?

I know the general rule of thumb is to have two pairs of shoes. However, for my size, is it really going to make a difference? I'm going to need pretty big shoes to begin with, eh? Initially, I will be staying on lower elevation peaks here in NH such as the Belknaps, Ossipees, and Monadnocks and slowly working my way up to the 4K's. I have no desire to do anything stupid and rush into the 4K's. I've only hiked two 4K's so far, both this last summer, and I'm content with that while I stick to building up my lungs doing lower elevations peaks.

Thanks folks.

 

[NewHampshire]

Consider Yukon Charlie snowshoes. Inexpensive, and while not "top of the line" will give you years of good service. The crampons are aluminum, so don't expect them to take TOO huge a beating on heavily rocky areas, but in that case you should be using crampons or other traction anyways.

Brian

Edit, also consider going with 30's instead of 36". The extra 6 inches ain't gonna offer you much more in proportion to what they do to annoy you. 30" will be a good compromise.

 

[Lawn Sale]

I recommend renting the 30" and 36" to see which one would suit you better.

 

[Tobit]

Consider Yukon Charlie snowshoes. Inexpensive, and while not "top of the line" will give you years of good service.

Inexpensive is right, wow. There's an eBay store selling the Trail 930's for $102 with shipping. The certainly look adequate for stomping around the Belknaps and Ossipees. Will definitely have to consider these. Thanks Brian.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I have MSR Denalis, with 4" tails. I borrowed some 8" tails for a 2' of powder trip to South Kinsman and back, via LL and FJ. I'm 6'3", 200#. I will say the tails are not as valuable as advertised. Mainly because they don't add anything to the front of the shoe. That said, the 4" tails offer a little bit of snow packing ability over the straight shoes, without throwing off my balance like the 8" tails do.

I've been considering trying to score a deal on Atlas xx30s or xx35s. Being that the Denali-style and width are sort of standard fare for the Whites, the tracks tend to be of those widths, and a 36" show is not going to fit in existing tracks very well, or so I am told. Even older tracks which have gone from a U profile to more of a V profile have caused my knees problems (which were already there) so I am not inclined to jump on the wider shoes...

Any opinions on the width issue? Given I have the Denalis, I'm not sure the xx30s are really that much better, flotation-wise. The bigger shoes would be primarily for deeper powder situations.

1225s are rated 120-200
1230s are rated 150-250
1235s are rated 180-300+

I have a pair of 30" Tubbs which are not for steep terrain which I used in the woods / powerlines behind my house last winter with some success. I do know that if I tracked with the Denalis and went back with the tubs, they were a bit wide for my old track The width is really what puts me off a bigger shoe.

Tim

 

[sardog1]

I'm 6' 2" and weigh 285 pounds so, with a winter pack, I'm going to be over 300 easily. I'm losing weight but, with my frame, I'm never going to weigh 200 - 210 pounds like the average 6' 2" person does.

I started on 46-inch wooden 'shoes back in the day. I upgraded to 35-inch Sherpas (the original version) lots of years later. I currently own MSR Denali Ascents (predecessor to the Denali Evo Ascent) with 8-inch tails. The tails stay on all the time. They're not a PITA if you're accustomed to wearing snowshoes. I weigh 215 and carry a 25-35 pound pack most of the time I'm on snowshoes. I will also admit to having sold hundreds of pairs of snowshoes to the public in the last several years.

A person north of 250 pounds needs 35/36 inch snowshoes for those occasions when having 'shoes makes the difference between getting there and not getting there . . . or not getting back. Unless you have six friends who are always willing to break trail in front of you without complaining that you're a parasite, buy the long snowshoes. Don't buy the Denalis, even with the 8 inch tails, however much I might like mine. They're inadequate for the flotation you need. Yeah, I know the White Mountains trails get packed quickly -- buy the long snowshoes. You're certainly tall enough to handle them.

 

[DougPaul]

Any opinions on the width issue?

Wider snowshoes will have problems on trails packed with narrow snowshoes. Narrow trenches...

I have a pair of 13x28 flat bearpaw snowshoes from the good old days. They still work perfectly well (and have more flotation than my MSRs), but most other people use narrower shoes and the trails are packed out a lot faster than they used to be.

Doug

 

[islandside]

Another snow shoe question

I have been using Tubbs, solid and reliable.

I have read much about the MSR's and their various models, and I am interested in them.

What I have not read yet is how the MSR's traction is on DESCENTS. This is the only time I have any traction problem, but all the info I have seen on MSR's web site and on our own forum has not mentioned their traction on descent. Mostly talking about ascent and then snow boarding back down..... I usually wear the snow shoes on ascents and the Tubbs have had enough traction to get me there, but I almost never dare to wear them heading back down because their downward traction... (IMHO) SUCKS!! I usually switch to Microspikes or crampons.

I have a few trails on Mt Major I have adopted and plan to keep beaten out through the winter. I can see myself packing the trails out on the way up, but I would like to be able to pack out an unbroken trail on my descent also.

If I get some new MSR's, I am eyeing the "Lightning Ascents," are they going to keep me stable going back down the side of the mountain on an unbroken trail?

 

[RickB.]

If I get some new MSR's, I am eyeing the "Lightning Ascents," are they going to keep me stable going back down the side of the mountain on an unbroken trail?

The Lightenings have excellent traction by virtue of the metal frame with serrations around the perimeter of the bottom. The bindings handle well and are trustworthy. On an unbroken trail, though, traction isn't usually the issue as the crampons/teeth don't engage. As long as flotation isn't an issue, the Lightenings should be as good as anything else. Be forewarned that said serrations can lead to tripping if they contact the opposite shoe, particularly if you're moving fast.

 

[WinterWarlock]

Consider Yukon Charlie snowshoes.

I just found a pair of 25" Yukon Charlie's at Marshall's, of all places, for about $50. If you have one in your area, you may want to check it out.

 

[NewHampshire]

Inexpensive is right, wow. There's an eBay store selling the Trail 930's for $102 with shipping. The certainly look adequate for stomping around the Belknaps and Ossipees. Will definitely have to consider these. Thanks Brian.

The key is, don't get yourself too financially wrapped up into something you are not sure you will like. If you do find yourself wanting to get into winter hiking then upgrade gear from there. All my winter gear satrted life as Campmor deals, Sierra Trading post deals, and EMS sales. Since then I have upgraded what needs to be.

Brian

 

[DougPaul]

What I have not read yet is how the MSR's traction is on DESCENTS.

Can't speak for the Lightnings, but the Denali line has good traction up, down, and sideways.

Doug

 

[The Hikers]

We have the MSR's and have used them for the last 3 or 4 years. We are usually the first ones out to break the trails. Last year I got extensions, I believe 8 inches. It was good timing with our record snowfall. In addition, I have the "televators" on mine which are great for climbing. I am very satisfied with these shoes, but they are HEAVY when you have to carry them.


We hiked without the shoes in 6 inches of snow today, so get ready

 

[Peakbagr]

Tim raises a really good point...the agony of following a narrower snowshoe track with wider shoes.
I take the snowshoe weight charts as advisory at best. They are the most correct in heavy, soft powder or deep snow. Good if you're alone.
With a group taking turns breaking or more consolidated snow, I don't feel the longer and wider shoes are worth the weight or extra effort.
Everyone will have their own experience, but for me, at 6'2" and a buck eighty carrying a healthy pack, 22" to 24" shoes works fine on 95% of mountain hiking routes. The slightly larger other shoes on very rare occasions.
And on anything like a bushwhack where you're climbing over, crawling under, or making sharp turns around stuff all day, the longer the snowshoes the more fatigued your legs will be back at the car. I use the smallest I can find.
Like any tool, suit your shoes for how you hike, where you hike, and have extras for differing conditions.

 

[Tobit]

Very interesting comments guys, I appreciate it. I've got 100 lbs. over Peakbgr who says he hikes with a 22-24" shoe. Also, I'm going to be hiking solo 90% of the time so I may actually need a bigger shoe if there is no one ahead of me breaking trail. It's looking like a lightweight 30" or 36" shoe will probably be best for me and that means Northern Lites most likely.

 

[jniehof]

Rather than start yet another snowshoe thread, I'm going to tag onto this thread as it's one of the most recent ones. I'm a pretty big guy and having a hard time trying to figure out which shoes to go with for my first pair.

I'm 6'4" and between 215 and 230 pounds over the years. I use a pair of Atlas 1030's. My experience has been that it's a little too much shoe if the trail's well-packed and it's not that much float if I'm breaking trail. On the plus side I haven't had too much trouble following the little guy in the 1025's when it's *his* turn to break trail..the shorter footprint doesn't bug me.

If I had infinite money and a teleporter, I'd want a smaller/lighter shoe for when the trail is broken and probably the 35" for breaking trail. But I'm not going to be carrying two pairs of shoes up so the 30" is not a bad compromise. The 35 might be better for you.

Two warnings: one, if you're planning on solo trailbreaking, it's at least as slow and tiring as everyone says it is. Two, any knee issues from being tall and carrying a lot of weight (whether on the back or in the body) seem to be exacerbated by snowshoes and crampons. Take extra care of them (proper hydration, stretching, warmup, etc.)