Field and test information
Winter has been exceptionally mild over the period of this Field Report. On occasion, daytime temperatures have been an atypically balmy 65 F (18 C), but on a few days we had temperatures of perhaps 15 F (-9 C), maybe in penance. The lowest nighttime temperature was around 5 F (-15 C). There was comparatively little snow in January and February, at least in the locations where the snowshoes were used, and instead there was a surprising amount of rain (sometimes even at elevation). We have also had frequent windstorms, as temperatures seesawed from low to high. Elevations at which the shoes were used vary from 500 ft (152 m) to 4,310 ft (1314 m), above tree-line on Mt. Pierce and Mt. Jackson in New Hampshire's White Mountains. However, most use has been concentrated in the Catskill Mountains, among which I live. The Lightnings have been used in snow ranging in depth from a maximum of a yard (a meter) of snow—in areas of drifting—on down to a few inches or centimeters.
Product use and performance
Though this has not been the best of winters for testing snowshoes in the Northeastern US (or the bit I live in, at least) I've had a good time on the Lightnings. They are the sole snowshoe I have used over the test period. I'll examine the results of my testing component by component.
Frames
The aircraft aluminum snowshoe frames already show significant wear to the teeth, a prominent feature of the design. While I have tried to avoid rock while wearing the snowshoes, the fact of the matter is that anywhere in this region deep snow may alternate with areas of exposed rock and ice, and it is simply not practicable to remove the snowshoes at every such section. The wear in question is not excessive, and in no way impacts the functioning on the shoe, but what were recently sharp points are now somewhat rounded off. The steel components (crampons, the steel cross-members) show little wear, beyond (on the latter) some loss of paint at the tips. The paint of the frame shows some scratching to the sides, but nothing major. In general, I'm not concerned about the cosmetic aspect of snowshoes, provided the wear doesn't have an impact on their function, and I don't think that's the case here.
Decks
The decking remains in good condition, and so far it shows no stretching, or indeed any wear other than a few scuffs to the underside. I have been a little disappointed in the flotation, though. Compared with the 25 in (64 cm) version of the shoe, a little elementary math indicates that the Lightnings in the 30 in (76 cm) length offer approximately 45 sq in (290 sq cm) additional flotation over the shorter model. That extra length is concentrated almost entirely at the rear of the shoe, as the geometry of the two versions is otherwise very similar. An educated guess, based on the approximate area of the 25 in (64 cm) shoe, indicates that the 30 in (76 cm) version has perhaps 20 percent more decking and therefore perhaps 20 percent more flotation. This is enough to be helpful, certainly, but deep, unconsolidated powder (the sort of conditions for which a longer shoe is intended) remain a bit problematic.
I have experienced one rather consistent irritation that I believe to be associated with the longer deck. In loose snow, the back of my legs have regularly had snow catapulted at them by the tails. Though presumably the result of the length, I own other snowshoes that are as long or longer, in which this doesn't happen. It can get a bit annoying, and has some minor safety implications as well. While I was snowshoeing wearing a pair of Mountain Hardwear Chugach Guide insulated pants (water-resistant not waterproof), the back of the legs became quite damp where the snow was striking, and there was clearly some melt. I often sleep in pants in the winter as an added insulation layer in my sleeping bag, (though fortunately not this time) and the soggy state of the leg would have given me pause had I chosen this pair (as this is an insulation layer. I well might). I naturally want to avoid introducing dampness into my sleeping bag whenever possible in winter. I was wearing knee-length gaiters for protection, but I was being hit in the rear of the leg above the knee.
Bindings
I've used the Lightnings mostly with my Scarpa Rios, a heavy semi-insulated leather boot that I use when the extra insulation of plastic boots isn't needed (which is most of the time). I've generally been pleased with the tracking of the Lightnings. This is pretty straight (in other words, the shoes are parallel with each other most of the time as I stride), but despite that, I've had remarkably little trouble with the frames crossing, and no stumbles to speak of. I had a strap come loose only once, but this was my fault, as I had not secured the loose section of the strap with the nylon retaining clip (and I may not have cinched the strap tight enough). The binding is extremely easy and speedy to attach and detach from my boot, and I've not had (nor do I expect) problems with frozen straps, thanks to the urethane they are made from. It's a straightforward matter to attach the Lightnings even when wearing heavy mountaineering mitts or gloves. When changing into snowshoes from crampons on a group hike, I have generally found I am the first to get my snowshoes on!
Crampons
I tested the snowshoes on the Webster-Jackson trail coming down from Mt. Jackson in New Hampshire, the upper sections of which are extremely steep. On that descent, I did find that the snowshoes had a tendency to slide a little more than I had bargained for. I could have changed to crampons, but decided that they would have been equally awkward on the surface. I needed the flotation. I have not been able to determine precisely why my footing was less sure, given the considerable traction the snowshoes provide, but I have a suspicion that the steep pitch of the trail was causing me to weight the tails more than usual. Examining the crampon system, I note that the rearmost cross-bar in the Lightning is not steel, as with the other two, but aluminum. Perhaps this was not gripping icy spots as well as the steel cross-members? The snow texture here varied from fairly loose snow to hidden icy patches, and I should stress that this is fairly well known as a rather tough bit of trail in winter, up or down (one reason I was doing it).
Overall experience
Perhaps because of the greater length, I've found that the 30 in (76 cm) version is tough to kick forward into loose snow when climbing, often the most straightforward means of ascent in reasonably consolidated snow. I found myself more often than not ascending steeper open sections on off-trail hikes by using a series of traverses. Again because of the length, this model is a little harder than a shorter one would be to side-kick into the snow slope when doing a series of sidehill traverses, but not to the point that this was a significant problem.
I found that, with care, I could backstep in the Lightnings, often obviating the need to do a kick-turn when working out of tight places while bushwhacking. It's also possible to plunge-step downhill through deep snow (not that I had much chance of this, given the conditions), but the firm grip created by the combination of the frame and crampons means that glissading is well nigh impossible, whether involuntary (which is all to the good) or voluntary (less good). Despite the extra length, these aren't at all bad for off-trail conditions, as they are quite a nimble snowshoe (part and parcel of the tracking mentioned earlier). I have been pleased with the way they handle in general, and I found that the added length generally isn't a significant impediment.
Summary
To date, the Lightning snowshoe in its 30 in (76 cm) incarnation has been a good performer. I especially like the ease with which the binding can be used and adjusted, and this is an extremely grippy snowshoe under most conditions. My only significant peeve to date is the tendency of the tails to pelt me with snow.
Future testing strategy
In the remaining two months of testing, I will continue to use the snowshoes, as conditions permit, although Spring is just around the corner. I'll continue to examine the various aspects I discussed in the Initial Report.
I thank BackpackGearTest and MSR for permitting me to participate in this very interesting test.
