The Lightning is described by MSR on its website as the evolution of the Lightning Ascent design. Indeed, at first glance the snowshoes are almost identical. Before going into further description, I feel a careful comparison is in order. A number of subtle changes have been introduced. The method of riveting the metal plates that join deck and frame to the decking has altered slightly, The frame itself, at least in the length I was supplied, is substantially deeper (which, I believe, should provide better traction when walking sidehill in deep snow). The toe of the shoe is significantly narrower. A fourth alteration is the addition of a third cross-member to the frame, which (since these are cut as crampons) should add considerable traction on ascents. I've been unable to determine if this change is reflected in all sizes of the snowshoe, or just in my 30 in (76 cm) model, but I suspect the latter. Another welcome feature is the addition of slight curvature (up, away from the snow) in the tail, together with a minor redesign of the frame at the rear.
The size I am testing is new to the Lightning/Lightning Ascent product line-up. The longest size available in the Lightning Ascents is 25 in (64 cm). Though I found this adequate in many snow conditions, the flotation left much to be desired in deep snow, especially for a person of my weight. The Lightning in the longest size offers at least 5 in (13 cm) more length, and approximately 25 sq in (161 sq cm) more decking area. This is a substantial improvement in flotation. To MSR's credit, this flotation gain has added only 4 oz (113 gm) to the weight of the shoes. The other shoe lengths available (in both the Lightning and Lightning Ascent, in both the men's and women's ranges) are 22 in (56 cm) and 25 in (64 cm).
The construction of the MSR Lightning snowshoe is unlike any other in the history of metal-framed snowshoes, excepting of course its progenitor, the Lightning Ascent. The design is by Bill Forrest, one of the great "big wall" climbers, who is an inveterate tinkerer with gear (like many climbers) and who has been responsible for the design of several other lines of MSR snowshoes. The serrated aluminum frame design resembles nothing so much as a gigantic rigid crampon.
Snowshoes come in several flavors. There are the recreational snowshoes, intended for shorter jaunts of several miles on flat to moderate terrain. Then there is what might be termed "fitness" snowshoes, which are light, high-performance shoes for running or racing. Finally there are mountaineering snowshoes, which are favored by those in hilly or mountainous country, especially where snow conditions may be varied and difficult. This last is the category to which I'd assign the Lightning.
The Lightning, like most mountaineering snowshoes, has characteristics that other types lack. A free rotation hinge is preferred, in which there is no spring controlling the motion of the shoe. This is integral to the design of the Lightning. Traction—in the form of crampons—must almost by definition be extensive and multi-directional. Frames need to be strong, and (since speed is not a primary object) asymmetric frame designs, of the kind frequently found in racing and some recreational shoes, are not needed. Snowshoe bindings must be rigid and secure.
MSR describes the Lightning snowshoe as "ultralight" and "the lightest snowshoe in its category." This seems to be a fair claim. There are indeed few snowshoes on the market in this size that are this weight or lighter, and only a couple come to mind that are claimed to be suitable for mountaineering use, and one of these has no integral crampon. There is one other shoe I know of that is as light, but that lacks the necessary armament of crampons for truly difficult snow conditions. I have not fond it suitable as a full-scale mountaineering snowshoe. Despite the absence of a heel elevator, I will be testing the Lightning almost entirely in the mountains.
The instructions for the Lightning shoe are detailed, and I was pleased to see that, in addition to notes regarding the care and use of the Lightning, there were some basic technical tips pertaining to snowshoeing steep grades in general. Snowshoeing is not as technical a pursuit as cross-country skiing (another sport I love), for example, but neither is it simply walking with snowshoes on, especially where mountains are concerned. The pamphlet briefly covers using a herringbone stepping technique, climbing in a series of traverses, and side-stepping. It's indicated that the shoes may be worn interchangeably on either foot (this is not the problem that it would be with many snowshoes, as the frame is exactly symmetrical). MSR suggests that the preferred orientation is with the heel strap tension buckle to the inside of the foot, which facilitates tightening it.
The instructions for putting the snowshoes on indicate that all binding straps should be opened and the foot should then be centered in the binding, allowing sufficient clearance when large boots are used so that they do not contact the deck. The footbed of each binding has the position for the ball of the foot clearly marked—"Ball of Foot Here." The instep strap is to be tightened and latched over the speed-hook buckle first, then the front strap, and finally the heel strap.
The binding is straightforward and intuitive to use. It appears to be designed to accommodate a wide range of boots. and the straps may be lengthened or shortened at will by using a second buckle that's placed towards the inside of the snowshoe (if worn as MSR suggests). There is a small nylon clip, as is standard on shoes with springy urethane straps, that's intended to hold any excess length in position. In addition, two lateral supports cup the foot. MSR claims that the straps remain easy to use in all conditions. I found this to be the case with the Lightning Ascent, but I will reexamine this matter with the Lightning.
The footbed of the binding has an extensive steel understructure to which it is riveted—this, the flanges for the hinge and the twin toe crampon points (which are quite aggressive) are formed from one single piece of steel. This appears to give the binding a great deal of structural integrity. About twenty or so small points are extruded above the surface of the footbed. These little urethane pimples appear to be intended to prevent the boot slipping about within the binding. The heel of the boot is positioned on a serrated metal strip that catches the front portion of the boot heel, to prevent side-topside movement. The strip is positioned so it should work with a boot of just about any size. It appears my size 13.5 (US) boots catch this strip just fine, but so do considerably smaller boots I have placed in the binding.
The pivot bolts of the hinge appear strong, and I'd guess that they are field-repairable with similar hardware, and that a regular nut and bolt of the right diameter would work at a pinch in an emergency. In fact, I have one in my winter repair kit. As I noted earlier, there is no spring in the hinge; some mountaineering snowshoes do have a sprung hinge of adjustable tension, which does convey some advantage. When the snowshoe is unweighted and raised as for a step, the frame of the shoe drops to about a 65-degree angle to the binding. MSR feels that the combination of binding, hinge and crampon results in "more efficient gait mechanics and less expended energy."—(website). The limit to the angle between binding and the frame found in the MSR shoe should make it possible to backstep, although the extra length may make this a little harder than with smaller counterparts. This is naturally a point which I will be examining closely in the field.
The frame is painted dark gray, and is constructed from (not counting the cross-members) what appears to be 0.1 in (2.5 mm) aluminum. MSR does not currently say much about the construction of the Lightning frame, but it is presumably the same as that for the Lightning Ascent, described on the website as "one vertical blade of aerospace-grade aluminum." This is MSR's "Total Traction" feature, and thename chosen seems fair. The frame has a complex sawtooth edge, and both ends of the frame have "grippy" indentations.
The frame shape is that of a modified Green Mountain Bearpaw. Osgood & Hurley, in The Snowshoe Book, 1971 say of this design that it is "probably best for hilly or mountainous country where its narrow shape makes it less inclined to tilt downslope." The front of the shoe is canted at about 25 degrees. This tail is angled at perhaps ten degrees. With a shoe with such aggressive traction, it is unlikely to glissade well, but then, it is unlikely to slip unexpectedly, a trade-off. Testing will reveal more about these properties.
The frame (and the traction) are further strengthened by three horizontal steel cross-members, all of which are cut as crampons. They are positioned under the ball of the foot, under the heel, and to the rear of the snowshoe. The heel plates an extension of the middle cross-member, and it emerged through a slit in the decking. The frame is fastened together at the rear with two rivets.
The decking is retained by 26 small T-shaped steel plates. These are inserted through slits in the frame. A rivet that also passes through the decking pierces each of these. I will be careful to observe to see if the method of attachment MSR has chosen prevents the rivets tearing out, a problem in some snowshoes. I look forward to testing the flotation on the Lightnings in powdery snow. I'll also test them on crud, and everything in between. I am naturally curious as to the range of conditions over which these shoes will prove appropriate.
The deck of each snowshoe has the MSR logo at the front, riveted in place, and at the rear the name "Lightning " and the injunction "Respect Dangerous Terrain." On this subject, it is worth quoting the instructions again. "MSR snowshoes are not a substitute for conventional mountaineering crampons." However, it does seem that these shoes may be able to climb on many places where more conventional snowshoes would be a distinct liability.
Future Testing Strategy
Testing will take place between now and (most likely) the end of April, when the snows have retreated from the Catskills and are starting to depart the Adirondacks. Over that period I will be hiking at least once a week, backpacking periodically and I'll be cross-country skiing (as snow conditions permit) on a more or less daily basis (I have excellent terrain extending many miles from my back door). I intend to carry the MSR Lightnings on most of these trips. Below is a list of some of the aspects that I'll be examining in my testing, in addition to points noted in the body of the Initial Review.
1. Strength
A broken snowshoe can spell real trouble in the backcountry. How robust are the aluminum frames, bindings and hinges? Will the frames twist or distort (or worse still, break over time)? Are the plates attaching the decking to the frame sufficiently robust and will the decking tear at all where it is riveted? Is the decking strong enough that it does not tear or puncture when encountering sharp rock or brush projecting through the snow?
Will the crampons become dull with continuous contact with ice and the occasional rock?
2. Binding
How easy is the binding to attach or adjust when wearing heavy gloves? Does it tend to work loose as some bindings do, causing the snowshoe to suddenly detach from the foot? Does it hold the foot in the correct position for good tracking? Do the binding straps tend to ice up, making adjustment awkward? Does ice build up on the crampons, frame or binding base-plate? Is the binding capable of handling a variety of different boot sizes and constructions, e.g. mountaineering boots, insulated boots and standard hiking boots? Will it accommodate backcountry ski boots and plastic mountaineering boots? Can a fatigued user easily remove the snowshoes after use?
3. Hinge
How well does the hinge perform in difficult bushwhacking, when it is sometimes necessary to back up away from an obstacle? Does the unweighted shoe tend to catch the snow?
4. Performance.
How well do these snowshoes perform on sidehills where a side-kick is required for firm placement? Does the configuration of the frame and cross rail make this awkward or easy? Can the shoes be front-pointed into loose powder on ascents? On steep, icy ascents, do the snowshoes grip well? Does the comparatively narrow frame give enough support on powder snow? On wet snow, do the crampons ball up with ice? Is this indeed a climber's snowshoe, as the name would indicate? Will it function for short stretches on sections on which crampons would otherwise be requisite? How well does it perform on approaches? In breaking trail?
I thank Cascade Designs and BackpackGearTest for the opportunity to participate in this very interesting test.
