[at-l] Snowshoes?
L. Clayton Parker
l.clayton.parker at gmail.com
Wed Dec 22 21:27:24 CST 2010
Mara that was a great write-up. Need to update the last section on
choices a bit though, many of those are no longer around.
Lee I Joe
--
Once I knew where I was going, but now I have forgotten. Sometimes my
mind wanders. Sometimes it goes alone, other times it takes me
along ... this isn't one of those times ...
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 21:05 -0500, Mara Factor wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Check out my page on snowshoes at
> http://friends.backcountry.net/m_factor/snowshoes.html .
>
> It discusses everything from flotation to snow type to field
> repairability, and more.
>
> I wrote it a few years ago so there are probably changes to the
> specific models referenced but the rest all holds.
>
> Mara
> Stitches, AT99
>
> Visit my Travels and Trails web site at:
> http://friends.backcountry.net/m_factor
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Frank Looper
> <nightwalker.at at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190355274970
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Tom McGinnis
> <sloetoe at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, I post-holed the Nantahalas in "the usual" 48
> hours, crashing the downhills with 6' footsteps (that
> was *awesome*), and just taking my time on the uphills
> (a zen, slow-it-down-there-brother exercise, to be
> sure). If a shoe is really needed, it seems like
> LeeIJoe's thoughts are spot on..... (My vote, any
> whey.)
>
> sneauxtoe
>
> --- On Wed, 12/22/10, Frank Looper
> <nightwalker.at at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Frank Looper <nightwalker.at at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [at-l] Snowshoes?
> To: "Tom McGinnis" <sloetoe at yahoo.com>
> Cc: l.clayton.parker at gmail.com, "at-l"
> <AT-L at backcountry.net>
> Date: Wednesday, December 22, 2010, 8:08 PM
>
>
>
> Not moving. Backpacking AT in January.
> Terribly snowy Winter in the South this year.
> Like last year. Maybe more.
>
> Heck, we're even having a white Christmas!
>
> I expect deep snow in the Smokies.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Tom McGinnis
> <sloetoe at yahoo.com> wrote:
> That first question is a biggie,
> there, Frankenshoen. Shoes for down
> south?!? For *powder*?!? The last time
> I was able to do Fontana Dam to
> Springer, I started out wading drifts
> of oatmeal snow up to my hips, and
> finished in shirtsleeves on Springer.
> When I lived in New England, I made
> neoprene-decked jobs (they're right
> inside, and despite lots of Wisconsin
> use, look new at 30 years old) You
> planning on a move soon?
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 12/22/10, L. Clayton
> Parker <l.clayton.parker at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> It would help if you told us
> your intended usage. Packed
> vs. loose powder, trail vs,
> backcountry; walking, hiking,
> running, etc.
>
> That said modern snowshoes
> fall into four broad
> categories, Mountain Hiking,
> Backcountry, Trail Walking and
> Speed. Classic metal and older
> wood framed snowshoes fall in
> the first two categories while
> plastic and composite framed
> snowshoes can be found in all
> four categories. Almost all
> snowshoes (with one exception)
> include some sort of built-in
> cleat similar to a crampon.
> The sole exception is made to
> wear with regular crampons.
>
> Classic snowshoes are
> typically a bit heavier, more
> rugged, provide greater
> flotation and are usually more
> expensive.
>
> Plastic and composite
> snowshoes are smaller,
> lighter, less tiring to use
> and generally much less
> durable. Some trail runners
> cost more than classic
> snowshoes (isn't carbon fiber
> wonderful?), but in general
> they are usually cheaper.
>
> I own a pair of Atlas
> Backcountry 33s made to
> integrate with Black Diamond
> Sabretooth crampons. They no
> longer make them but you might
> find a pair on eBay. They are
> for serious winter
> mountaineers, not for casual
> backpacking and camping. Atlas
> snowshoes can be viewed at
> http://atlassnowshoe.com/snowshoes . At the other end of the spectrum are offerings from MSR http://cascadedesigns.com/msr/snowshoes/category . These are good choices for the average backpacker who is going to be mostly on trails.
>
> That said, even the classic
> snowshoes can be overwhelmed
> in deep enough loose powder.
> If you look through the sites,
> you will see that the largest
> shoes are in the 24 inch
> range, I have postholed with
> the Atlas 33" snowshoes on the
> Three Sisters in the Rockies,
> on Mount Washington in New
> Hampshire and on Mount
> Mitchell in North Carolina! In
> each case there was over 6
> feet of loose powder *on the
> trail*. If the Atlas snowshoes
> won't stay afloat, the plastic
> ones definitely won't.
>
> Lee I Joe
>
> On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 15:20
> -0500, Frank Looper wrote:
> > I need a recommendation for
> > snowshoes. Light and cheap
> > would be nice, but built-in
> > crampons or similar and the
> > ability to handle powder is
> > more so.
> >
> > Alps? Ajax? MSR? I have no
> > idea.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > InsaneLunaticWalker
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > at-l mailing list
> > at-l at backcountry.net
> > http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment
> Follows-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> at-l mailing list
> at-l at backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> at-l mailing list
> at-l at backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> at-l mailing list
> at-l at backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
More information about the at-l
mailing list