MSR model of the year - No more Evo or Pros

Well for those who really didn't like Lightning Ascents and stuck to the Denali Evo or Pros, the Evos and Pros are no more except for leftover stock. The new model, The REVO Ascent http://www.cascadedesigns.com/msr/snowshoes/ascent-snowshoes/revo-ascent-snowshoes/product appears to be a combination of the Lightning's and the Denali's.

By looking over the limited product info, the solid deck may help the problem that lightning's have where the plastic decking pulls sidewards on the frames and flexing the frames.

Of course MSRs due tend to be on the "bleeding edge" with White Mountain and ADK hikers doing the final inadvertent field testing, so I expect this thread may get resurrected later in the winter.

So for those want the tried and true, it may be time to buy some old stock while it lasts.

While on the topic of things MSR has done to cause my waining loyalty, has anyone done the pepsi-challenge on the MSR Denali family (classic, evo) snowshoe line versus the Tubbs Flex family (Alp, Vrt, Rdg)? I'm not so much concerned with one snowshoe in the absolute sense, I know they're both great products. Instead I am wondering where they differ as far as: quality, durability, traction (uphill and downhill), ease of bindings, comfort of bindings, etc... Personally I am considering changing to the Tubbs in hopes of a different binding style providing better foot comfort throughout the day.

I have been using Tubbs snowshoes since I started winter hiking three years ago and have no experience with MSR but I must say the binding system on the Tubbs models I have used is super convenient to operate, even with thick gloves. I love the two Tubbs models I have. Can't really comment on durability after just a few years but I've beaten mine up pretty good and they seem to be holding up fine.

I started out in winter 2008 with a pair of gray Denali Ascents, with the optional 4" tails. I liked these shoes - they took a huge beating and kept on ticking. After several seasons with my size 13 boots, the binding material was getting worn, so I called Cascade Designs and they sent me new ones, no problem. A few more years go by and after 4 seasons, the plastic decking has cracked near the shovel - where it is narrowest. Another call and they replace them, no problem, with Evos (no more Denalis in stock). Unfortunately, the Evos are too small for my size 13 boots, so I kept those and bought the 24" Tubbs Flex Alps.

Denali - I locked the heel strap with a pan-head bolt and nut - this gave me consistent foot placement. However, getting the tension correct with four straps was not always easy and the shoes tended to twist a bit under foot, especially while side-hilling, and on the way down, my foot would slide forward and the toe of the boot would get caught on the front of the boot opening, causing them not to pivot, and when I landed, I would get a "crunch" sound as the plastic shoe was dragged across the toe of the boot. The crampons on these shoes took a severe beating and were in fine shape even at the end. I always carried a replacement pin and split ring, but never used them. The 4" (and one time I borrowed 8") extensions were not great as they threw off the balance of the snowshoes.

During the SSW48 2012, the Denalis died, were warrantied with the Evos, and ultimately replaced by 24" Tubbs Flex Alps. The Flex Alps bindings are easier and more secure, don't twist or slide forward, however, the friction system that holds them tight is not perfect and they did require occasionally tightening after a few seasons. I had a deck rivet pop (holding on the edge rails/teeth) which I'm told was common. I replaced it with another bolt/washer/nut. When a plastic strap guide broke, (25 months, 1 month out of warranty) I called Tubbs and after a pleasant conversation they agreed to send me new parts. When replacing the guides, I noticed the crampons were stress-fractured/metal-fatigued. Another call resulted in the complete binding piece being replaced. These shoes are not quite as sturdy as the Denalis, IMO. Tubbs is rumored to be of less help on warranty claims (only 2 years versus lifetime with MSR), although they helped me being just out of warranty.

I give the Flex Alps a slight edge on traction - which is great most of the time, but also means skiing down in powder in them is not as easy. The flex nature of the shoe ensures that more of the traction (teeth) are in contact with the snow/ice. I do like the televator on them much better than the MSR - easy to put up and down with the tip of my poles, no tab to float around (unless you duct tape it in place). I bought a pair of 28" Tubbs Flex Alps at the end-of-year 2014 closeout sales so I would have the bigger shoe when there was deep unbroken snow to deal with.

HTH,
Tim

peakbagger said:

Well for those who really didn't like Lightning Ascents and stuck to the Denali Evo or Pros, the Evos and Pros are no more except for leftover stock. The new model, The REVO Ascent http://www.cascadedesigns.com/msr/snowshoes/ascent-snowshoes/revo-ascent-snowshoes/product appears to be a combination of the Lightning's and the Denali's.

By looking over the limited product info, the solid deck may help the problem that lightning's have where the plastic decking pulls sidewards on the frames and flexing the frames.

Of course MSRs due tend to be on the "bleeding edge" with White Mountain and ADK hikers doing the final inadvertent field testing, so I expect this thread may get resurrected later in the winter.

So for those want the tried and true, it may be time to buy some old stock while it lasts.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, only one stop for the televator, a 'step backwards' from 3 on the Classic/EVO.

Only 2 large teeth underneath? Really?!

Bindings with that pop-thing (aka PosiLock™ AT) ? Uggh!

Might be time to start shopping for spare parts for the old ones!

Thanks Tim. I was unaware that Tubbs weren't lifetime warranty (I broke a pair loaned to me by a friend, and I was able to return them for repair years after his purchase). Being a size 13 myself, I too have run into similar issues to what you are mentioning and beyond tightening the bindings down to the point of bruising the tops of my feet, I haven't been able to prevent the forward slide. The bindings sound like a real improvement, though I will miss having some "skiability" on the downhills as that is one of my favorite parts of winter hiking, so much so that I rarely (intentionally) butt slide anymore. I also agree that the tails are borderline useless (I was tempted to pick up the flex alp XL, and I'm very jealous you found a '14 closeout pair).

I'm still using the same pair of Denali Classics I bought in the winter of 2000/01.

A binding at the metal pivot point sheared off once on Lafayette, and I've broken one or two straps but otherwise, these have taken a beating and done well for me.

Similar to Tim's comments on the newer versions of the Denali, I agree about foot slide occurring when sidehilling. I've had to readjust on occasion, but not very often. Also agree the toes can catch the boot hole in the decking with larger boots. I love these snowshoes, but to clarify, they are made for a load of 180 pounds or less without tails. I weigh about 175 without pack, maybe 200 with, and they have been fine. I find the tails useless though.

As a matter of fact, I like them so much, I just bought a pair online for $99 and no shipping. After 15 years with the first pair, I can splurge for a backup pair before they go away for good. Thanks for the head's up PB! And to clarify, these are the basic models with no televators.

And yes, wow...only two teeth on the newest MSRs?

Let me PS my comments above by saying that the MSR binds are superior when carrying the shoes on your pack as they lie flat. The Tubbs I put teeth-to-teeth but invert one shoe. Put the shovel up on the outside and the shovel down on the inside and then you can easily access the top compartment of your pack without them interfering.

Tim

A comment not related to the topic at hand...sorry...I get excited when I start seeing topics on this forum about SNOWSHOES! Bring it ON!

Raven said:

As a matter of fact, I like them so much, I just bought a pair online for $99 and no shipping. After 15 years with the first pair, I can splurge for a backup pair before they go away for good. Thanks for the head's up PB! And to clarify, these are the basic models with no televators.

Click to expand...

It is unfortunate indeed that we're losing the EVO's -- I agree that the REVO's look about as sturdy as the Lightnings -- i.e., somewhat sturdy, but nowhere near at the level of the EVO's. There's nothing else out there with that level of hardiness in a tough winter bushwhack -- not even the ALPS as was pointed out above. I too was fortunate to find a backup pair for a great price at the end of last season.

I won't be long-winded here in extolling the virtues of the EVO's -- Gotta vote and hit Owl's Head...

Alex

alexmtn said:

I won't be long-winded here in extolling the virtues of the EVO's

Click to expand...

You probably don't have "big feet"

I wouldn't hesitate to recommend either pair. The most important recommendation is to make sure the shoe you purchase is the same width (8") as the majority (Tubbs + MSRs) or else you won't fit in the snowshoe track.

Tubbs Flex Alp: http://tubbssnowshoes.com/snowshoes/flex-alp-m

I believe Atlas to be the third place shoe and it has some pretty devout supporters. I have no experience with them myself and they are 9.25x30 (Atlas 1230) or 8.25x25 (Atlas 1225). The latter is probably narrow enough to not cause grief in an 8x24x2 track but the former probably won't fit comfortably. Atlas doesn't appear to pivot as freely (like my flat country Tubbs 30) which tend to throw snow up the back of my legs.

Here's a video review from ORS from 2012. Note that Flex Alp now comes in regular - 8x24" and XL - 8x28"



Tim

One of the reasons I finally retired my Tubbs Katahdins were track width. They were just a bit wider than the MSRS which were the standard a few years back.

I also have wide feet (13 EEEE) and the MSR binding fit. The good old Tubbs TD 90 bindings were borderline for my normal boots and broke when I used my plastic boots. I ended up building custom bindings for the platcis boots that worked well until I decided to give up using plastic boots.

bikehikeskifish said:

You probably don't have "big feet"
. . .

Here's a video review from ORS from 2012. Note that Flex Alp now comes in regular - 8x24" and XL - 8x28"

Click to expand...

I usually end up in 11-ish boots, so no, not huge -- but big enough that I need to be careful to position my feet in the MSR bindings just right to avoid deck snags on the front or inside edge of my boot toes.

Thanks for the link to the ORS video. The first thing I would observe is that half the models in that video -- the old-line Tubbs and Atlas models -- simply are not mountaineering snowshoes -- anyone acquiring them is going to be grossly disappointed as they keep trying to fight off side slips while watching their friends effortlessly prance through steep (or even just steep-ish) lateral traverses. There is no comparison between these and the full side rail models. ORS categorized the whold group as "expedition" snowshoes, but neglected to subdivide it between mostly-flat+fluffy applications vs. mountainous/rough applications -- and note that the Lightning and the Atlas Lightning knock-off attempt to straddle both categories.

And second, I'd not heard of the new Atlas model. It looks a tad hardier than the Lightning (hence more able to travel in the environs that the Evo does best) -- likely at a weight penalty vs. the Lightning. I'll be looking for them on the trails to see what people think.

Alex

The weak point of the new models is the same with the lightning. The crampons attach to what looks like the weakest point on the shoes, a thin metal flange. It's the failure I'm most concerned about when wearing mine.

Peakbagr said:

The weak point of the new models is the same with the lightning. The crampons attach to what looks like the weakest point on the shoes, a thin metal flange. It's the failure I'm most concerned about when wearing mine.

Click to expand...

I have talked to several people who have had this same issue with the frame breaking on the Lightning series. For my feet (a lot smaller than Tim's ) I love the EVOs and Denalis. It's a shame they discontinued the EVOs after such a short run.

Z

alexmtn said:

I usually end up in 11-ish boots, so no, not huge -- but big enough that I need to be careful to position my feet in the MSR bindings just right to avoid deck snags on the front or inside edge of my boot toes.

Click to expand...

Wow, even with a size 11? That's disappointing. Size 13 it was impossible to fit - even if I put the pivot point well forward of optimal.

Tim

bignslow said:

...beyond tightening the bindings down to the point of bruising the tops of my feet, I haven't been able to prevent the forward slide.

Click to expand...

Here's the trick. First, position your foot so that when you look down on it from above, you see a 1.5-ish inch gap between the front tip of your boot and start of the snowshoe's front decking. Then, make sure you cinch the cr*p out of the front strap. This strap is forward enough that it'll be impinging on a very stiff part of your boot toe rather than the tops of your feet. The result will be a narrowing of the binding's front opening that your boot's toe (wider) won't be able to push any farther forward through.

Also, be sure to tighten the heel strap an extra notch or two, to ensure that after a few uphill steps that 1.5-inch gap hasn't quietly become a 2.5-inch gap.

Lastly, beyond avoiding bruises on the tops of you feet, it's also important not to tighten the two middle straps too much. Well before the bruising point, you will have impaired the blood flow to your toes (by choking off the veinous return path on the top of your foot) -- a big deal in sub-20 degree temps. Once either of these straps feels at all snug, back off a notch.

Alex

bikehikeskifish said:

Wow, even with a size 11? That's disappointing. Size 13 it was impossible to fit - even if I put the pivot point well forward of optimal.

Tim

Click to expand...

On my hikes, there haven't been that many situations where I've found a farther-front-than-the-ball-of-my-foot pivot point (typically it happens to me when I neglect to get the heel strap tight enough when shoeing up and there's been some slide-back since) to be bothersome. I think that's because it's rare on my steep ascents that my weight is on the deck. Most often, it's my foot crampons that are engaging the hard undersurface, and hence the pivots really aren't bearing my weight even though the televators and rear deck have some of it.

On flat and moderate grades just before transferring weight from a foot during the last fraction of a stride in powder, I find that the pivots are most in play -- but again, it's such a small fraction of the stride that I don't usually find it noticeable unless my foot has really ridden back on an insufficiently tightened heel strap.

And of course, there is one situation when it's an advantage for my foot to be positioned back a little in the binding, and that's when I'm deploying the tails in power and want to better center my feet on the extended shoes.

In any case, best wishes for continued good results with your ALPS's!

Alex

bikehikeskifish said:

Wow, even with a size 11? That's disappointing. Size 13 it was impossible to fit - even if I put the pivot point well forward of optimal.

Tim

Click to expand...

With my classics, I've been fine with most of my size 10.5/11 boots (Merrills, Columbias). On rare occasion, I have used them with Koflach plastic boots, also 11, and hit my toe more often, but that's a lot of boot.

I was thinking of replacing my fourteen year-old Denali Ascents. This thread confirmed my worst suspicions from the cursory shopping I'd done.

Just scored a pair of very slightly used replacements, with 4" tails (I already have the 8") and free shipping, for $119.99 on a certain auction site. They're coming from a state with far drier snow and far less exposed granite, so the undersides look to be in very good condition.

Next time I'm in Seattle I'm gonna go over and whup those MSR/Cascade Designs folks upside the head ...