Reviews > Snow Gear > Snowshoes > MSR Lightning Ascent 2004 > Steve Nelson > Long Term Report

Long-Term Report: MSR Lightning Ascent Snowshoes
July 8, 2005

Reviewer's Information

Name: Steve Nelson
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Height: 5' 9" (1.75 m)
Weight: 150 lb (68 kg)
Boot Size: US 11-12
Email address: nazdarovye at y..oo dot com
City, State, Country: San Francisco, CA, U.S.A.

Backpacking Background:

As an interface design and usability consultant by trade, I'm always excited by analyzing and improving designs and processes; backpacking provides a fertile and fun arena for that. I have been backpacking since I was a kid growing up in upstate New York: we backpacked and canoe-camped in all seasons, throughout the Adirondacks and nearby areas, ranging as far as La Verendrye Wildlife Reserve, Quebec. As an adult, I've backpacked and hiked extensively in California, but also have taken trips throughout the West, from New Mexico to British Columbia, and return often to the Adirondacks.

In the past year I made the transition to lightweight and ultralight backpacking. I like moving fast, and lightening the load facilitates that. I also enjoy urban strolls, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, kayaking, and aviation in addition to hiking and backpacking, so my gear gets exposed to a wide variety of uses and conditions.

Product information

Overview

The author backpacking with the Lightning Ascent snowshoes off-trail near Loch Leven Lakes

MSR's Lightning Ascent Snowshoes are an intriguing new design combining a toothed aluminum frame and crossbars with toe crampons, flexible synthetic decking and a mitten-friendly binding system. MSR calls the Lightning Ascent a "superlight, maximum traction snowshoe" and claims that it's the "lightest snowshoe in its class."

I provided much additional detail, as well as pictures, in my initial report, and lots of observations on the usability and durability of the shoes during my first two months in my field report. I've now used them on a number of trips over the course of six months, and this report outlines my long-term observations.

Long-Term Locations

I've used the Lightning Ascent snowshoes now on seven trips: four overnights with full packs, three day snowshoe outings with day packs, plus additional daytime and nighttime wandering on the overnights with a hip pack or no pack. One of these trips was at Lassen Peak, one at Loch Leven Lakes near Truckee in the Sierra Nevada, three at Yosemite National Park, and two to the west of Lake Tahoe. Altitudes ranged from approximately 6,000 to over 9,000 ft (approx. 1,800 to over 2,700 m). Temperatures have ranged from 15° to 65° F (-9° to 18° C), winds have ranged from calm to gale force, and there generally has been little active precipitation (just a light dusting of snow on one occasion, light drizzle on another).

During my first trips I stuck mainly to established trails, with only a bit of bushwhacking near Dewey Point and Angora Lakes; however, on later trips I did extensive cross-country hiking, including on some rather steep slopes. On the early trips, trail conditions were mixed, with icy and consolidated snow interspersed with some slush; on two of the middle trips, there had been fresh snowfall within the prior 24 hours; and on the later trips, most of the walking was either on late-season consolidated snow, or on well-packed snowed-over trails and roads.

I wore the snowshoes with the same pair of boots on all of these trips: Columbia Ice Crushers in size 11.5 US. Pack weights have ranged from 10-20 lb (4.5-9 kg) for day hikes, and 25-40 lb (11-18 kg) for the overnights.

Long-Term Experiences

As noted previously, these snowshoes are a relatively novel design, and in my testing I found some significant differences from both my expectations for the new design, as well as from my experiences with other MSR snowshoes I've owned. I've broken these observations down into categories drawn from my initial test plan:

General Usability

From the standpoint of putting on and taking off the Lightning Ascents, the new bindings are great—the new design, with open clips and one fewer strap per side, is really easy to use, even when I'm wearing thick mittens. The televator bar is also quite a bit nicer than that on previous MSR snowshoes I've used—smoother to operate and requiring less strength, yet just as effective as before.

I generally feel comfortable in these snowshoes and can walk fast on appropriate terrain. However, I'm still occasionally challenged by the inadvertent locking together of the two shoes. As explained in my Field Report, it's possible for the frames, because of their unique design, to interlock if I accidentally overlap the shoes while walking. I've gotten much better at keeping my stride wider than usual to accommodate this, but still occasionally find that I lock the shoes up, which often causes me to trip. I've never had this happen with other shoe designs.

The snowshoes are relatively quiet in use—certainly much more so than the previous all-plastic MSR snowshoes I've used. The bindings also fold down fairly flat, making the snowshoes easy to transport.

Traction

In general I've found that the Lightning Ascents have good traction. They have gripped well on ice, snow crusts, packed trails and even in slush, though they're not quite as grippy as I'd hoped in looser snow. I've found myself slipping backward occasionally on steep ascents in loose or fluffy snow, and feel that other snowshoe designs I've used have been slightly better in those conditions. I believe that this is due in part to the narrow design of the toe crampons, which seem to offer less "grip" than I would prefer on steep ascents.

The shoes work fine for plunge-stepping, and reasonably well for glissading; I feel that I have somewhat less control with them in softer snow than I do with other snowshoes.

On balance, I find the traction of the Lightning Ascents to be appropriate for most of the conditions I experience, but best for icier and more packed conditions.

Floatation

I found the floatation of the Lightning Ascents to be decent given their overall length and shape, and that MSR's weight ratings seem reasonable. My total skin-out weight (everything on my body, in my hands and in/on my pack, except for the snowshoes) went as high as 207 lb (94 kg) on my trips, and the shoes provided adequate floatation in all snow types I experienced.

One interesting observation, however: on crusty snow, the Lightning Ascents seemed to break through more often than other shoes with tubular frames or plastic decking. I almost felt as if I were wearing cookie cutters, which somehow broke through the crust more easily than other designs I'd used. I might have shrugged this off as nonsense except that, in addition to it happening on several trips, a fellow tester reported the same observation!

Icing and Snow Buildup

I've never had snow or ice ball up on the crampons of these snowshoes at any time throughout this test. While it's possible that this was just the result of luck and conditions, others on my trips wearing different snowshoes have had ice buildups. It's also been a common issue with other snowshoes I've used—so I really appreciate this attribute of the Lightning Ascents.

Snow does build up in other areas, however—as illustrated in my field report, the bindings form "scoops" that collect snow. Also, snow gets into spaces between the binding footplate and the decking (the clear binding material makes that easier to spot), as well as nooks and crannies in the metal frame. I've found it hard to get this snow out in the field, and generally have to let it melt, then dry out, back home. This has had no functional effect that I can discern—just an issue to keep an eye on when putting the Lightning Ascents away after use.

Alignment and Stability

After more experience with these snowshoes, plus trying them on with some additional boots at home (two Salomon winter models, in addition to the Columbia Ice Crushers used on my trips), I can say that the pronation/supination I noted in my Field Report is a real issue. These shoes do indeed seem to "flop" about a bit more on their bindings than others I've used, especially my MSR Evo Denali Ascents. In practice, this hasn't caused me any serious problems, but I would prefer a slightly more stable platform.

Packability

The snowshoes are fairly easy to flatten out for attachment to a pack, and have a pretty low profile when stacked together. Here's a picture of the shoes stacked, then hung off of an ice axe for temporary stowage in preparation to walking a few hundred yards to the snow on the way to Loch Leven Lakes (they could have been flattened even further against the frame with straps):

Quirks

Regarding the "ribbons of snow" issue mentioned in my field report:

The first time I found myself striding in these snowshoes on a relatively flat, slushy trail where I got a good stride going, I noticed the oddest thing: snow kept pelting the back of my pack, butt and legs! I soon figured out that the design of the decking and frame cause snow to be collected, then shot forward, up and out of the rearmost hole in the decking (I kid you not!) as the snowshoe tail drags with each forward step.

With the help of a fellow hiker, I even captured pictures of this. The first picture was taken from behind as I walked—you can see snow being ejected from the left snowshoe and splattering up onto my legs:

This picture is a closeup of the snow "in flight" taken from above and to the side as I was walking:

I don't know what more to say about this except that a) I've never experienced such a thing with any other snowshoes and b) it's kind of annoying! It seems to happen only in certain conditions (slushy snow and moving fast), so I certainly can live with it—but perhaps that rear hole in the decking should be eliminated.

Durability

I have had a split experience with the durability of the Lightning Ascents. On the one hand, the bindings have performed exceptionally well—I've seen no cracking of straps or other components, and no loosening of the bindings from the footplate or other areas. The bindings also stay snug and tight in use—there's been little stretching of the strap material over time, and only just a bit of stretch on the decking.

On the other hand, as noted in previous reports and as borne out in my long-term usage, the durability of the finish and teeth on aluminum frame has been less than I'd expected. After six months of relatively moderate use (and never on rock or pavement), the orange paint has cracked and come off in substantial chips (in some cases over an inch/several centimeters long) at many points around the frame, and the teeth on the bottom of the frame have worn down quite a bit—as much as half of their original height.

That said, while I do believe that the smoothed out teeth must reduce traction to some extent, the shoes have never failed in any way that would make getting out of the backcountry difficult. The issues noted here are therefore more cosmetic than functional, in my opinion.

Summary

The MSR Lightning Ascents represent an intriguing new design for snowshoes, but one I hope continues to evolve. I love the low weight, low flex of the frame, and the ease of use of the bindings and televator bar; on the other hand, I do hope that the metal and finish can be made more durable, and that other elements of the design (possibility of the shoes "locking" together; stability of the binding and foot plate; ejection of snow from the rear hole in the decking) can be improved.

Things I like:

• Looks (excepting the effects of wear)
• Easy-to-use, durable bindings
• Moderate weight
• Good traction in most conditions
• Smooth-operating Televator bar

Things I don't like:

• Durability of finish and teeth on aluminum frame
• "Floppiness" of binding/decking
• Snow ejection from rear opening in deck

Thanks to BackpackGearTest and MSR for giving me the opportunity to participate in this test.

Reviews > Snow Gear > Snowshoes > MSR Lightning Ascent 2004 > Steve Nelson > Long Term Report