Field and test information
In this rather unusual Catskill winter, one of the warmest on record, the season effectively ended by the middle of March, at least so far as snowshoeing was concerned. Isolated patches of snow remained at higher elevations, but snowshoes were not required to negotiate them. As a result, this report does not add to the data of the field report. Therefore, the testing parameters from the Field Report apply here.
Product Use and Performance
The Lightning Snowshoe
The usual biting cold of a Catskill winter has been largely lacking this year. While good for my heating oil bill, it has stunk so far as winter sports are concerned, and no testing of the snowshoes was possible after the last report was filed in March. While snow persisted slightly longer in the Adirondacks, it seemed to rain every time I planned to get up there. As a consequence, this report is based solely on use up to the time of the Field Report, March 16.
Having said this, the snowshoes saw a solid workout while there was snow, and were tested in varied and sometimes very difficult conditions, including one trail notorious for its steep pitch, as well as numerous backcountry excursions. They proved, with a few reservations, a superb snowshoe for difficult and challenging terrain. For my weight and height, the 30 in, 76 cm shoe is perfect, though possibly overkill for wind-packed or very heavily crusted snow conditions.
I was slightly disappointed with the wear to the teeth on the periphery of the frame evidenced in one brief season. This was largely caused by contact with rock, and (to a lesser extent) hard ice. While, because of the relatively mild winter, there was perhaps more rock and ice exposed than usual, in mountain snowshoeing these are inevitable conditions between snowfields. There will often be bare rock and hard ice on windswept summits, on ledges and elsewhere; in all but the snowiest of regions, this is inescapable, and to switch out of snowshoes every time these conditions are encountered would be absurd. Fortunately, the tooth wear does not have any noticeable impact on performance. As a clarification, I don't advocate these (or any) snowshoes for use on areas of steep ice. I carry ten or twelve point crampons at all times during the winter for precisely this purpose, and snowshoes are no substitute.
I do also have some reservations on the flotation. I had hoped that the length would give me somewhat better flotation than I actually achieved. Under many circumstances, it was indeed more than adequate, and in fine powder snow, almost nothing has adequate flotation, but on crusted snow I found myself breaking through to an unanticipated extent. This is, I believe, partly the result of the design, which also has great strengths. Like all things, this is a trade-off.
Summary
In the Initial Report, I detailed my testing strategy. My use has been more than sufficient to address the issues listed there. The questions from my initial report are presented below in italics, with my commentary unitalicized below.
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 strong and will the decking tear at all where it is riveted? Is the decking substantial 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?
All major components of the snowshoe seem sturdy, to date. There was some cosmetic damage to the paint over the test period, but functionally these snowshoes have remained perfect, even after having to cross substantial sections of mixed rock and snow. There was significant wear to the teeth on the aluminum frame, but this seems inevitable and does not appear to affect performance. The decking held up well against sharp concealed branches, projecting rock and all manner of pointy objects in the snow! Other than the frame teeth and paint, I detected no significant wear.
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?
The bindings are, in my experience, extremely easy to use and simple to adjust, even when wearing quite heavy gloves. I have a fair amount of experience with MSR bindings, which may perhaps give me some small advantage, but putting on snowshoes is hardly rocket science. The bottom line is that the binding system on the Lightning is very well thought-out, and is suitable for both a beginner or an advanced user. The only time I had a snowshoe unexpectedly detach was when I failed to properly engage the projecting tooth of the buckle with the hole in the strap.
Of the many snowshoe binding systems I have used, I consider this to be one of the best. It does not work loose over time or ice up, and my feet are held in the appropriate position for good tracking. I didn't have much problem with the shoes crossing (an initial concern of mine, given the shape). The fit was good and tight whether I was using my Asolo Ottomila boots (huge but cozy plastic clunkers that I use for winter backpacking) or the leather mountaineering boots that I use for winter day hiking. The binding was able to accommodate every boot I used with it, and I have large feet. I had no problems with ice accumulating on the crampons, despite the sometimes less-than-ideal snow conditions this winter past, and removing the snowshoes was at all times a cinch. Just one strap need be opened, and I can step right out. This is appreciated at the end of an arduous day.
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?
The length of the snowshoes was only a detriment when I carried them on my pack (they tended to tangle with branches in dense brush). On my feet, they were sufficiently nimble to negotiate dense spruce-fir stands. A couple of times I did have to back up directly, and I found that, with care, I could do so. More commonly, where space permitted, I made a kick turn, which was also straightforward in these shoes.
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? Will it function for short stretches on sections on which crampons would otherwise be requisite? How well do they perform on approaches? In breaking trail?
Kicking steps into sidehills proved no great problem, though it was not as easy as with the 25 in, 64 cm version of the shoe, which I have also used. The frame of the 30 in, 76 cm snowshoe is wider, and this perhaps results in greater resistance when kicking sideways. Front-kicking into loose snow is possible, although a series of small traverses generally proved less arduous and more effective.
I had occasion to use the snowshoes for one extremely steep descent on compacted and somewhat icy trail conditions, and I was somewhat less than pleased with performance, as the Lightnings had a tendency to skid and skate. In retrospect, crampons might have been a better choice, as the problem was likely to have been a fair amount of concealed ice (but then, there were areas of drifted snow for which I very much needed the snowshoes). These snowshoes do have excellent traction, but it has its limits, and those limits (particularly on downhills) are somewhat less extreme than the design might indicate.
I strongly suspect that having the rear crampon/cross-member made of aluminum (rather than steel as with the other crampons and crossbars) slightly compromises performance under icy conditions, particularly on descents. The rear of the shoe is naturally somewhat more heavily weighted than usual coming down steep slopes and trails, as the body's center of gravity is situated further back than on flats or ascents. Aluminum simply does not bite as well as steel, and in addition, the rear cross-member is quite blunt in comparison with the steel crampons. I'd like to see the rear cross-bar replaced with steel.
I did use these snowshoes on some pretty tricky terrain, but if there was any significant exposure (i.e. where a fall would have potentially dangerous or unpleasant consequences), I generally switched to crampons. These snowshoes are fine for steep approaches, but they don't provide me a sufficiently predictable grip under very steep and slightly icy conditions, and (as noted) my experience seems to demonstrate that this may be especially an issue on extremely steep trail descents.
They are quite resistant to balling up under wet snow conditions. They are fine for breaking trail, although the flotation was sometimes a bit disappointing, given the length. My observation is that these don't float as well on many types of snow surface as other snowshoes of the same length that I own. Part of the trouble is that, because of the "cookie cutter" design (the perimeter is essentially a blade, in which respect they are unique) they tend to punch through snow-crust, rather than riding on top of it. This can be mildly irksome when there's deep powder under the crust. Support on powder snow was adequate, much as expected. Still, taken all in all, this is a lightweight, grippy, eminently useful backcountry snowshoe, well suited to mountainous terrain.
I thank Cascade Designs and BackpackGearTest for the opportunity to participate in this very interesting test.
