MSR [Mountain Safety Research] Lightning Ascent snowshoes
Field Report
Report Date: February 16, 2005
My initial report may be viewed here
Reviewer Information
- Name: Edward Ripley-Duggan
- Age: 51
- Gender: Male
- Height: 6' 1" (1.85 m)
- Weight: 215 pounds (98 kg)
- erd@wilsey.net
- Catskills, New York State
Reviewer Background
I enjoy walking in all its manifold forms, from a simple stroll in the woods to multi-day backpack excursions. Though by no means an extreme ultra-light enthusiast, from spring to fall my preference is to carry a pack weight of 12 lb, 5.5 kg (i.e. before food and water), more or less. In recent years, I've rapidly moved to a philosophy of "lighter is better," within the constraints of budget and common sense.
Product information in brief
- Manufacturer: MSR [Mountain Safety Research], a subsidiary of Cascade Designs, Inc.
- URL: http://www.msrcorp.com
- Product: Lightning Ascent Snowshoe (25 in, 64 cm version, as stated on packaging)
- Year of manufacture: 2004
- MSRP: US $249.95
- Manufacturer's stated weight for pair: 3 lbs 10 oz (1655 g), for this size shoe
- Measured weight for pair (analog scale): 3 lbs 9 oz (1616 g)
- Manufacturer's stated width: 8 in (20 cm)
- Measured snowshoe width: 8 in (20 cm) at widest point
- Manufacturer's stated length: 25 in, (64 cm)
- Measured snowshoe length (tip to tail): 25.25 in (64 cm)
- Recommended load: 150 to 225 lbs (approximately 70-100 kilos)
- Snowshoe frame material: high-quality aluminum "Total-traction" frame (MSR's terminology), with water-jet cut "teeth"; frame metallic orange powder-coat enamel
- Snowshoe decking material: black urethane (a proprietary formulation)
- Decking attachment on each shoe: 22 small steel plates slotted through the frame, riveted to urethane decking
- Bindings: Step-on molded clear urethane (with raised anti-slip points) with gray urethane straps and steel speed-hook buckles
- Heel plate: protruding serrated steel plate
- Straps: toe, mid-foot and heel
- Hinges: "True-Hinge"; two steel pins secured with rings, joining frame cross-member to steel crampon (to which the bindings are attached)
- Crampons: two steel front-points attached to binding, two carbon-steel cross-members with crampon points (these also structurally stabilize the shoe). To these, the sides of the frame of the snowshoe itself should be added, as it has a series of sawtooth points.
- Heel Bail: "Televator," U-shaped wire bail that fits under heel, raising foot approximately 3 in (8 cm)
Field and Test Information
For this field report, the Lightning Ascent snowshoes were used extensively for a mix of day hikes and backpacking trips in the Catskill and Adirondack Mountains of New York State, at elevations to 4300 ft (1311 m). Much of the hiking involved off-trail excursions and included a number of the more difficult Catskill peaks. For reasons of winter safety, minimum pack load was 15 lbs (6.8 kg) or so for day hikes and up to 28 lbs (12.7 kg) for backpacks.
At times, I was slightly over the 225 pound (100 kilo) recommended load for these snowshoes, but I noted no serious degradation in performance. Snow depths varied from just a few inches on ice and rock to 24 in (61 cm) and over, and snow conditions were similarly diverse—from heavy, icy crust to deep, fresh powder. The lowest temperatures experienced during the testing period were at elevation, at approximately -10 F (-23 C). The winter (and the testing period) began with very mild conditions, with snow only on the summits, often heavily glazed, but intensified in mid-January with a period of intense cold and deep, dry snow. This was followed in early February by a period of remarkable warmth, with temperatures at elevation of close to 45 F (7 C). One could fairly characterize the weather for the Field Test period as wildly unpredictable!
Product Use and Performance
Binding and boots
The snowshoes were worn with a variety of boots, including bulky and heavily insulated Vasque Arctics; a lightweight boot, the Asolo FSN 95 GTX; and a heavyweight cross-country ski-boot, the Alpina BC 2000 (in size, close to many telemark boots); all were US size 13 or 13 1/2. The binding was able to accommodate this diverse range of footwear without difficulty, and functioned well regardless of the boot used. The one time I lost a snowshoe while walking was when I had insufficiently tightened a heel strap.
Ease of walking
I had some initial concerns when I noted that when the snowshoes were worn in the manner recommended by the manufacturer (with the heel buckles to the inside of the foot to facilitate adjustment) my heel tended to gravitate to the inside edge of the snowshoe. Not only that, but the friction created against the heel plate led to some minor erosion to the heel of the Asolo boots I was wearing at the time, obviously not a desirable state of affairs. This appeared to result from the extremely straight tracking of the shoes.
To explain further, my feet (as is commonplace) tend to splay out slightly when I'm walking, but the relative rigidity of the binding was preventing this rotation. In consequence, it seemed that the heels of my feet accommodated by shifting to the inside edge of the shoes. It was instructive to observe my snowshoe prints next to those of a friend who was wearing Tubbs snowshoes. His prints were clearly angled out to fifteen degrees or more as he walked, whereas my tracks showed little or no such rotation.
In many regards, this is a virtue, allowing for very accurate foot placement on difficult terrain, but (though the positioning of my foot caused no discomfort) I was concerned that the off-center heel placement was not as mechanically effective for walking, and was also bothered by the potential for further heel damage to my boots. I should stress that this displacement of the heel occurs with many snowshoe binding designs. It is only worthy of special notice here due to the serrated metal heel plate and its slightly detrimental effect on boot-heels.
I called MSR and spoke with Eric Flink, an employee who was involved in the design of the snowshoe. We had a friendly and (for me) instructive conversation, in which he described the process by which they had come to the final product. He mentioned that the heel plate design was, of all tried, the best in terms of weight saving and structural integrity. As to the issue with the foot positioning, he told me that people walk with a diverse range of foot angles, and many point their feet pretty much dead ahead (something I've confirmed by subsequent observation).
His suggestion was to switch the shoes so the heel buckle was to the outside of the snowshoe (the shoes are essentially symmetrical so this is easily accomplished, though the "buckle inside" position is the one recommended by the manufacturer). Rather to my surprise, I found this helped considerably—it seemed that the binding permitted a certain amount of splay in this orientation. I didn't find that strap adjustment was terribly awkward, and I have worn the Lightnings this way since.
I still have some minor heel wear to my boots, but that (and my foot position) is significantly improved. The only negative aspect attributable to the straight tracking of these shoes is that once in a long while, especially when tired, I cross the shoes slightly near the toe, thereby causing a near stumble. However, such minor mishaps can happen with any snowshoe. Though I am not by nature or disposition a runner, I find I can do so while wearing these shoes, when on compacted snow.
Durability
My first hike with the shoes was a December ascent of Slide Mountain, a 4180 ft (1274 m) peak that is the highest in the Catskills. Snow cover at lower elevations was patchy, and I considered bare-booting part way, but I was ascending late in the day (if I twisted an ankle, there would likely not be anyone along until the following day). There was much hidden ice and loose rock, so neither boots alone nor crampons were ideal. The snowshoes proved a good match for the terrain, though they took some wear in places where there was loose rock under the snow. At higher elevations, there was much more snow cover and this wear-and-tear eased.
Upon my return, I inspected the shoes carefully, as this was probably as bruising a section of trail as they would encounter. As I rather expected, the orange enamel was chipped away from the lower sections of the crampon and frame teeth, and there was some scratching to the underside of the decking. This was all reasonable wear-and-tear (I do not expect any pair of snowshoes I own to remain inviolate for very long). The damage to the paint job was not, to me, a significant functional issue—snowshoes that are hard-used will always show some degree of wear, just as with any tool.
Now, after two months of really intensive, demanding use, there are several condition problems that have surfaced. Taken together, these give me some degree of concern regarding the long-term durability of the snowshoes.
First, the decking material has stretched. This tendency has increased noticeably over the Field Test period. It is not so far to an extent that is likely to prove detrimental to flotation or stability, but it does result in the ends of the slot in the deck (through which the rear crampon/heel plate fits) being pushed hard against the thin metal, with some wear already noticeable at the extremities. Pushing gently against the decking with two fingers (see below) results in a displacement of about 3/8 in (1 cm). There is no evidence of any damage at the points of decking attachment.
Note: lower image taken from a new snowshoe
In my experience, decking material usually remains taut for the life of a pair of snowshoes, so this distension is rather unusual. It may be a result of the particular urethane material used, which appears unlike that on any of the other snowshoes I own (most of which use Hypalon or similar materials). I do note that there is some fiber reinforcement showing here and there around the opening for the boot, but this is customary for fiber-reinforced decking and is not, I feel, a detriment.
At a couple of high-stress areas (below rivets) the enamel had not been scratched, but had flaked off, indicative of substantial stress and flexing. The photograph below shows one of the rivets that attach the front-point crampons to the frame, and the area marked with an arrow is the area where flaking occurred. Each of the four rivets was similarly affected. This is clearly a high-load area, and one that I will watch closely. If frame failure were to occur anywhere, these are among the points at which I would expect it to happen, as clearly there is substantial torsion in this area of the frame. Overall, though, these snowshoes seem structurally very strong despite their light weight.
Wear to the points of the steel crampons is nominal, considering the substantial use to which they have been put. There seems to be some loss to a coating on the front-points, which now show a light coating of rust if left damp, but this is hardly a serious durability issue. The same is true of the other steel components.
I have recently compared the tooth-like projections around the aluminum frame with those on a brand-new pair of Lightning Ascents. It was obvious that significant wear has occurred, to such an extent that the teeth are worn down to nubbins. None retain their original pointed form. It remains to be seen if this deterioration is markedly detrimental to the performance of the shoes. It is far a greater degree of wear than I would have expected to see after such a short period of use. In the images below, the unworn teeth on the new snowshoe are on the left (for comparison); the worn teeth (with perhaps 20 days of use) are shown on the right. I feel that this wear is unsurprising, given the fact that these points sustain concentrated force when, for example, rock or ice is encountered beneath the snow. The wear to the rear of the shoe is slightly worse than that to the middle and tip. This is presumably due to the fact that the tail of the shoe receives much more abrasion, as it is dragged with each step.
 |
|
 |
I spoke with Darren Pinne, Project Manager at MSR/Cascade Designs. He consulted with Bill Forrest, the designer of these snowshoes (a legendary mountaineer and big-wall climber), whose comments regarding the issues of wear and sagging are as follows, paraphrased by Mr. Pinne. I quote them here as they provide some useful degree of reassurance and explanation.
"1. While perhaps not ideal from a cosmetic viewpoint, wear and tear on the frame's perimeter teeth will not impair traction. The reason is in the design of the shoe: The perimeter of the shoe is a traction blade meant to provide purchase primarily in snow. Ice traction comes from the steel cross members and crampon teeth that extend below the perimeter teeth. Wear and tear on the perimeter teeth will only cause these steel cross-member and crampon teeth to come more into play on the surface under foot. While we don't recommend using these shoes extensively on rock we do know that in some areas it is hard to avoid."
"2. Deck expansion. This is due to the wet conditions described. MSR's proprietary decking was developed foremost for light weight and high strength in sub-freezing to Arctic temperatures (-40F). In wet "Spring" conditions (like those you described) the urethane material, however, can expand slightly although this should not impair performance in any way."
Ease of use
Many of the hikes on which I have used the MSR Lightning Ascents involved bushwhack approaches over ledgy terrain, often using narrow, steep chutes to move from ledge to ledge while following ridgelines (altogether pretty typical of off-trail hiking in the more mountainous regions of the Catskills). I found the Ascents provided truly remarkable stability in such places, as well as on steep (and sometimes heavily crusted) slopes.
The front points proved aggressive enough to supply full support when stepping up boulders or ledges. With the front points pushed into stable ice or dirt, or into a crack in the rock, I could confidently secure a position part way on a ledge too tall to manage with a single stride, and I rarely found myself at any risk of slipping. Please note: I am not advocating these shoes as a substitute for real crampons. I am addressing situations where a fall would likely result in (at worst) a mild bump and a dusting of snow.
This stability is a two-edged sword. While plunge-stepping (a technique in which the heels of the snowshoes are pushed down through the snow with some speed and force, enabling a rapid, stable descent) is straightforward on powdery snow, I could not execute a glissade in these shoes for the life of me. This technique, in which the snowshoe is in effect skated through the snow, simply doesn't work effectively with the Lightning Ascents. This makes for slower, less graceful, but much safer descents of steep sections of trail.
When walking with friends who were using tailed shoes with less aggressive crampons, they were able to glide down some sections down which I simply strode. On the other hand, in places where they had to sit on their butts, or else risk some very swift footwork indeed to avoid slipping out of control, I simply (although carefully) stepped. I felt a bit like a human fly!
On hard, icy snow, or on a steep descent that has been heavily pounded by the snowshoes of others, the compromise between control and grace was an easily accepted trade-off—my somewhat battered body likes control in such places. However, in deeper snow where bumps and bruises were less of an issue, this was a harder call, and I found myself wishing for the ability to glide.
I noted an interesting and rather useful result of the design of the snowshoe on heavily crusted snow. I was able to punch neatly through the crust, with the frame of the shoes acting a bit like a cookie-cutter. This made walking under these conditions a bit easier than with a tubular-framed snowshoe, under which such crust often buckles and breaks unpredictably. I also found that (if I was careful) I could neatly withdraw the shoe as I stepped forward, and the leading tip would shave the edge of the hole I had just punched. Neat!
Foot placement with the Lightning Ascents is extraordinarily precise and they are highly directionally maneuverable. My feet go where I want them to go, and generally stay there! I am able to jump off logs and low ledges (the tails do not drop to an extent that makes this awkward), traverse steep sidehills by kicking edged steps, and to move rapidly around brush and other obstacles. I can turn back in my path with a kick-turn (a method borrowed from cross-country skiing), or (if the snow is not too deep) simply backstep. This last method risks catching the tail of the shoe against the snow if not done with care.
On short, steep banks of loose snow, on which I preferred not to traverse, I found it possible to kick forward into the slope and push down, creating a stable platform for the next step. Despite the lack of a spring in the hinge, the shoes enter the slope sufficiently level for this function. Depending on the consistency of the snow, it is sometimes necessary to tamp it down a couple of times before trusting my full weight to it, but this is a function of the snow, not the shoes.
The Televator heel elevators saw some use during this period of the test, although they were generally not that appropriate to the awkward terrain on which I conduct most of my hiking. I did use them on some sections of steep trail and found them extremely comfortable (and stable), relieving a great deal of ankle stress. On trails that are only intermittently steep the aggravation of constantly raising and lowering the Televators outweighed the benefits, in my estimation. However, I can think of a number of long slide climbs in the Adirondacks on which the Televators would be ideal, and I hope to test them further shortly.
During the early February warm spell, I had a very good opportunity to observe how well the Lightning Ascents fared in conditions in which the snow tended to ball on crampons and frames. On one warm day, in a group of six hikers (whose snowshoes included Tubbs, Sherpas, etc.), I was the only one to experience no problems with balled snow. On the following day, milder still, I made a descent from a peak along an exceedingly steep East-facing ridgeline, in which balled snow beneath the shoes could have been a nightmare. Despite the deep wet snow (drifted in places to well over 24 in , 61 cm), the snowshoes remained entirely free from balled snow, and edged beautifully on the many awkward traverses.
The bindings are a pleasure. Not only do the snowshoes remain firmly attached to my feet, but also at the end of a hard day of climbing they detach with absolutely no fuss. The straps seem entirely resistant to icing, a perennial issue with nylon straps. Adjustments may be easily and quickly made on trail if necessary, and (rather to my surprise) I did not need to tighten the shoes at all after initially putting them on my foot. There was no "give" in the straps, nor any slack that needed to be taken in after a few minutes walking.
I initially had some concern about flotation, both because the shoes are fairly small in comparison to most I own, and because I am at the upper end of the weight range for which they are intended. I'm happy to report that in unconsolidated powder of moderate depth (12"/30 cm to 24"/61 cm) I had absolutely no problems with breaking trail. I did, on a couple of occasions, hit very deep drifted snow, over 36"/91 cm), and this was somewhat more problematic. However, it was still manageable and I rather question if any snowshoe of reasonable size would have kept me near the surface. It's been my observation that many snowshoe users go for a shoe that's really somewhat larger than their needs, and in doing so sacrifice ease of movement. The Lightning Ascent proved sufficient in terms of flotation in almost every circumstance.
Summary
In performance, the Lightning Ascent lives up to its name—this is an extremely well-performing ascent snowshoe, perhaps the best in terms of "grippiness" that I have had the pleasure of using. I am extremely impressed by the design, which is something of a breakthrough. During this field test period, I have worn them (in total) for close on 40,000 ft (12,200 m) of vertical gain, much of this over pretty rugged terrain. As I've detailed above, I have generally been delighted with their performance. This snowshoe seems equally at home in fairly deep powder, crusty/icy conditions, and wet snow, all of which I have experienced in abundance this winter.
So far, my only reservations lie in the area of overall durability. While the frames appear strongly riveted and the decking is firmly attached, wear to the circumferential points of the aluminum frame has been, in my estimation, surprisingly rapid. The stretching of the decking is also disconcerting, though this ranks slightly lower as a concern.
Likes
- Highly maneuverable.
- Very good climbing ability.
- Extremely stable on descents.
Dislikes
- Rapid wear to teeth on circumference of frame
- Stretching of decking
Future Testing Strategy
Winter winds down around here by early April. While snow may linger on the peaks, there is usually insufficient to justify snowshoes. In the Adirondacks, I may be able to catch snow up to a month later, but this is subject to the vagaries of weather. In any case, though the long-term test period is four months, I will not have more than (at most) two additional months with conditions appropriate for testing. In this time I will monitor the following.
1. Strength
I will continue to monitor the condition of the decking, and see if the sagging progresses to the point where it influences the performance of the shoes, or causes damage to the deck around the heel plate. I'll also report on the progress of wear to the points of the frame. Any other damage or deterioration will be noted. It should be noted that MSR do not recommend file-sharpening the frame teeth (communication with Customer Service).
2. Binding
Most of my questions regarding the binding as noted in my Initial Report have been addressed in this Field Report. As the weather warms, I will determine whether the crampons ball up under any circumstances. I'll also continue to monitor binding performance.
3. Hinge
Here too, most of my initial concerns regarding the hinge have been addressed by field testing. I will check that the hinge continues to operate smoothly and note any other "matters arising."
4. Heel elevator
I do not feel that I have given the Televator a sufficient workout. While it does seem perfectly stable, I have not yet had an opportunity to use it for a truly extended ascent at a steep angle. I have also had some problems deploying them with a pole, but I've not discussed that here, as I have not really experimented to find the best technique. I'll discuss these issues in my final report.
5. Performance.
I will review those aspects of the shoes which I discussed in the Initial Review. I have not yet used them on hard, steep trail ice, and I intend to take them on one particularly difficult hike, a long ascent that is almost always wickedly slippery because of springs along the trail and perpetual shade. This is not a technical climb, of course, but from past experience I know it tests snowshoes to the limit. I also hope to see how they handle the conditions that can make the end of the snowshoeing season so awkward: deep, wet, unsupportive snow, although my early February testing gave me a foretaste of what to expect, and I was pleased with the results.
I thank BackpackGearTest and Cascade Designs for permitting me to participate in this extremely interesting and enjoyable test.
