Mountaineering snowshoe advice needed.
|
I agree with much that Harry said. |
|
Harry Richardson wrote: Advantages over the MSR Lightning would be a lighter weight snowshoe as well as a lower purchase priceUnfortunately Harry - you are incorrect about the weights. The Lightening Ascent is the ligher of the two. Evo Ascent: 4lbs per pair Lightening Ascent: 3 lbs 13oz per pair |
|
I stand corrected on the weights...thank you |
|
You should really learn to ski, really. this is coming from a splitboarder - Snow shoes are for old people who cant cross-county ski anymore - not mountaineering |
|
Reid Kalmus wrote:You should really learn to ski, really. this is coming from a splitboarder - Snow shoes are for old people who cant cross-county ski anymore - not mountaineeringWe should tell these guys they're doing it wrong, then. thenorthfacejournal.com/nan… Gotta use the right tool for the job, not just the most fashionable. |
|
Dobson wrote: We should tell these guys they're doing it wrong, then. thenorthfacejournal.com/nan… Gotta use the right tool for the job, not just the most fashionable.Don't think it's about fashion. I bet those guys in the video actually skied in into the base. My backcountry approaches like you mentioned are either nice bootpacks or long cross-country traverses. I've been in a few wallowing approaches that I wished I had snowshoes, but I think I would much rather preferred having my cheap x-country skis on and carried my boots on the back. I can cover more distances in shorter time with minimal effort and just posthole the steep sections. If it's really deep and fluffy the snowshoes do very little in terms of flotation compared to the skis. Plus why would you want to be climbing anyway when it's really deep and fluffy? |
|
I like these: |
|
+1 for evo ascent |
|
Kai Larson wrote:I like these: yowies.com.au/ Not great for bottomless powder, but good for steep snow, and much better in any snow than just bare feet.That's a snowshoe? Looks like a mini one-foot snowboard kind of thing, with crampons beneath surface. Strange looking devices. |
|
Woodchuck ATC wrote: That's a snowshoe? Looks like a mini one-foot snowboard kind of thing, with crampons beneath surface. Strange looking devices.They are snowshoes, but the bindings don't hinge. |
|
kevinhansen wrote:I don't want ski advice.I've messed up my right knee (the dominant leg) and I've had 2 ACL reconstructive surgeries. After all that I still give my knee a B- or C+. Every time I strap on ski's I feel real insecure on the right. I have nightmares about the ski spinning 180 degrees and the ski going one way and my leg going the other. The issue is I don't have good control. The best thing to do is pay several $K and do several years of Physical Therapy. Or I could stick to snowshoes that feel easier to control. Sure they are slower. I just want to climb. Is that too much to ask? Here's the tally so far 6 of you really want to give me ski advice. 12 of you gave good snowshoe advice. 1 of you posted the craziest looking snowshoe thing I've ever seen. Have any of you tried this thing? marquette-backcountry.com/ or altaiskis.com/products/the-… |
|
Snow shoes hammer my knees. Far worse than skis. However, if you just have to have snow shoes, MSR Lightening Ascent are by far the best. Full perimeter crampon, heel lifters, etc. |
|
Much as I like skiing, I agree with Dobson that many approaches aren't any fun with skis (Hourglass Couloir in RMNP, anyone?). And with skis you have to choose between (a) bringing two pairs of boots (b) climbing in ski boots or (c) skiing in climbing boots, none of which is ideal, although for some routes (b) may not be bad. doligo wrote:Like others said, you want skis. More specifically, Madshus Annum (formerly known as Karhu XCD Guides)... They are way lighter than your AT skisThat might have been true some years ago, but these days you can get real AT skis (not cross-country skis) that are just as light or lighter. Sorry for the thread drift, but here's a short list. dynafit.com/product/ski-ski… 176cm 112-74-96 1.28kg skitrab.com/fr-ch/c-40-atti… 178cm 116/82/104 1.09kg movementskis.com/en/ski-col… 177cm 128-89-116 1.10kg (!) Admittedly they all cost 2 or 3 times as much as cross-country skis. |
|
kevinhansen wrote: Have any of you tried this thing? marquette-backcountry.com/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtjmFJDbScg "It wouldn't replace a snowshoe on steeper terrain" I think I need something for steeper terrain. I plan on getting through treed elevations then moving above tree line. |
|
Kevin - if ur issue with skiing is ACL related then the ski/snowshoe combos that people have been citing would probably be a bad idea. It also sounds, from your fears posted above, that you don't wear one of those big knee braces. If ur not using one of those... stop whatever else your bs'ing about and go get yourself a real fitted brace. Sure they're $3k but at your point (given 2 acls) u'd not be using ur head to not have one. And you'd probably be an idiot to try to do the stuff ur talking about without one. . . If you do have one of those beefy braces then why are you scared of skinning and skiing, would be an irrational fear, no? |
|
Morgan Patterson wrote:Kevin - if ur issue with skiing is ACL related then the ski/snowshoe combos that people have been citing would probably be a bad idea. It also sounds, from your fears posted above, that you don't wear one of those big knee braces. If ur not using one of those... stop whatever else your bs'ing about and go get yourself a real fitted brace. Sure they're $3k but at your point (given 2 acls) u'd not be using ur head to not have one. And you'd probably be an idiot to try to do the stuff ur talking about without one. . . If you do have one of those beefy braces then why are you scared of skinning and skiing, would be an irrational fear, no?Your words cut me to the quick. I needed to hear them. Only my right knee has had ACL and PCL issues. My left knee has never had injury. I haven't worn my knee brace in over a decade. Perhaps your right, I should try it on and go skiing. Kevin |
|
SKIING MAY IN FACT BE EASIER ON YOUR KNEES DUE TO THE FACT YOU CAN MOVE THAT MUCH FASTER / NOT CARRY AS MUCH WEIGHT BECAUSE YOUR NOT GONE AS LONG |
|
Reid Kalmus wrote:SKIING MAY IN FACT BE EASIER ON YOUR KNEES DUE TO THE FACT YOU CAN MOVE THAT MUCH FASTER / NOT CARRY AS MUCH WEIGHT BECAUSE YOUR NOT GONE AS LONGXC skiing? I see that as totally energy exhausting. especially with a pack IF you are breaking trail and not comfortably sliding on a pre existing trak. Downhill skiing? yeah then I agree it's easier on body and much less energy demanding. YOu need to develop a real skill, a talent for XC skiing to move smoothly...but just about anybody can snowshoe through deep stuff with ease after a bit of practice. |
|
Woodchuck ATC wrote: XC skiing? I see that as totally energy exhausting. especially with a pack IF you are breaking trail and not comfortably sliding on a pre existing trak. Downhill skiing? yeah then I agree it's easier on body and much less energy demanding. YOu need to develop a real skill, a talent for XC skiing to move smoothly...but just about anybody can snowshoe through deep stuff with ease after a bit of practice.Alpine Touring, not cross country. Technology has change a little since you bought your snow shoes 40 years ago. |
|
Make sure to get the one with the combo snowshoer sniper shooter and avy mini-howitzer canon option, with redundant beverage holders also. |