PDA

View Full Version : Snowshoe size



gforce
01-30-2007, 09:34 AM
I am looking into snowshoes and I was all set on 30" shoes based on the various brands sizing charts (I am 200 lbs without gear). After reading some recent threads I was thinking of going with 25". To be more specific I was thinking of Atlas 1230 vs 1225. These would be used for day hikes and overnights so gear could be from ~25-50 lbs. These would be used primarily for 4K's in the Whites. Any opinions?


Thanks
Gforce

Maddy
01-30-2007, 10:10 AM
Have you checked the Denali's?
Here is a link:
http://www.rei.com/online/store/Search?cat=4500305&query=*&noalias=1&cm_re=toc*1*snowshoes&link=1&text=1&storeId=8000&title=Snowshoes&nosale=1&vcat=REI_SSHP_SNOWSHOE_TOC

blacknblue
01-30-2007, 10:28 AM
I'm a Tubbs man, myself, owning two pair -- one for dayhikes and one for overnights.

Mostly, you just want to make sure that the snowshoes are designed to bear the correct amount of weight that you plan to put on them, length notwithstanding.

MichaelJ
01-30-2007, 10:39 AM
It really depends exactly what you're going to do with them. If you're going to spend most of the time on tracked trail, even unbroken in a recent snowfall, the 22" MSR Denali, Evo, or Lightning really are the ideal shoe. The extensive traction of the two long rows of teeth on the main part of the shoe makes it easy to walk up and down slope, while you can still kick in with the toe of the binding when needed. The shape really works well to not knock your feet together, and there's enough flotation to knock down fresh snow to its packed base.

However, you may find there's not enough if you're going to be spending all your time off-trail in deep, never-tracked snow. In that case, then the Atlases may be a better choice, but if you think the 25" is enough, I'd consider the MSR's.

I'm a recent convert from 1033's to Evo Ascent's and am very happy about it.

roadtripper
01-30-2007, 10:51 AM
I would urge you to stay away from anything > 25 inches for the Whites. You simply do not need that sort of flotation up there on the vast majority of the trails.

I'm 220lbs w/o gear and i use 25inch MSR lightnings ascents and they have worked perfectly every time.

bubba
01-30-2007, 11:25 AM
I would urge you to stay away from anything > 25 inches for the Whites. You simply do not need that sort of flotation up there on the vast majority of the trails.

I'm 220lbs w/o gear and i use 25inch MSR lightnings ascents and they have worked perfectly every time.
Ditto. I wish I had this knowledge before my purchase.

DougPaul
01-30-2007, 12:13 PM
I would urge you to stay away from anything > 25 inches for the Whites. You simply do not need that sort of flotation up there on the vast majority of the trails.
Back in the "good old days" (mid-70s for me), we often had to break trail in the Whites. Sizable groups were required and somewhat bigger snowshoes were common. The flat bearpaw was a common snowshoe design because it was efficient at kicking steps uphill.

Nowdays, breaking out a trail is an unusual experience for many and the modern snowshoes leave a narrow trench that can be awkward to travel in the older, wider snowshoes.

Even if a trail is unbroken on the surface, there is often a hard layer not far below, so [re]breaking a trail is often much easier than bushwacking on completely untrodden snow. If you like to go off trail, then you may want bigger snowshoes than if you stay on trails.

Doug

Quietman
01-30-2007, 12:17 PM
Myself and a few others around here have a pair of these.

Yukon Charlie's Snowshoes (http://www.yukoncharlies.com/index.cfm?page=1)

I have the 25" length and they've served me very well.

Here are some previous threads with more info.
previous threads (http://www.vftt.org/forums/showpost.php?p=123985&postcount=5)

If you've got the money and plan on extended steep hikes, then you're probably better off with a more expensive shoe. But if you're looking for an good price on a solid shoe, this might be an option.
They are also available for less than the list price in my area.

spider solo
01-30-2007, 12:36 PM
I, on the other hand, do not use any snowshoes less than 30".
I am always looking to get off trail..staying on trail with snowshoes tends to seem a bit of a paradox. Though I am often on trails I don't want to limit myself to trails only...hence I favor a larger shoe.
...or like some other folks have found, there's nothing like several pairs ....

chipc
01-30-2007, 12:55 PM
I am about 195 w/o pack and I have had no problem with the Atlas 1025s. The caveat is that most of my use has been on NH 4k trails that had a history of being broken out at some point previously. I started out with 930s which I now use only for playing around in drifts in woods near my house. So if I was buying a new pair for myself I would stay with 25" and not go back up to 30". (I am not planning to get off trails much in the winter.)

Jasper
01-30-2007, 01:44 PM
Agree, you should not need anything larger then 25" in the Whites. Out west or way up north 30" would be recommended. I have Altas 30" and they are too much for around here.

sardog1
01-30-2007, 01:50 PM
MSR's Snowshoe Sizing Chart (http://www.msrcorp.com/snow/sizing.htm) will settle the hash on that brand. As an example, I weigh 210 without pack, I abhor packed trails because of the crowds, and I use the 8" tails on my Denali Ascents all the time.

Tubbs uses an interactive Shoefinder (http://www.tubbssnowshoes.com/products/shoefinder/) .

Atlas, in an effort to distinguish itself from its corporate sister, calls their interactive device Snowshoe Shoefinder (http://www.atlassnowshoe.com/products/shoefinder.asp). :) (Or maybe Atlas started using the name first?)

Buy your 'shoes for your weight with your pack on, if you're usually laden, and for the usual snow conditions and trail (or lack thereof.) As you will see, the manufacturers claim a wide range of suitability for each size. Buy too small, you'll sink deeper in powder. Buy too long, you'll curse the greater weight and lesser maneuverability. There is no "just right" unless you never vary the cirucmstances in which you use them.

NewHampshire
01-30-2007, 05:42 PM
MSR's Snowshoe Sizing Chart (http://www.msrcorp.com/snow/sizing.htm) will settle the hash on that brand. As an example, I weigh 210 without pack, I abhor packed trails because of the crowds, and I use the 8" tails on my Denali Ascents all the time.



Yo Sardog1!

I too have the MSRs and the 8" tails, but have not yet had the need for them (man these two winters that I have been hiking I only needed to use the snowshoes ONCE!) So since you state you use the tails often I am curious how they handle/feel. I have heard many folks talk about how when the tail length increases the front length is supposed to also, so the MSRs theoretically should nose dive a lot. But I am not sure how many of those people are actualy MSR or MSR+Tail users. What has been your experience with the tails on?

Brian

DougPaul
01-30-2007, 06:04 PM
Yo Sardog1!
I have heard many folks talk about how when the tail length increases the front length is supposed to also, so the MSRs theoretically should nose dive a lot. But I am not sure how many of those people are actualy MSR or MSR+Tail users. What has been your experience with the tails on?

I'm not a sar, a dog, or a sardog, but I have MSRs with tails and have used them... :)

I experienced some nosedive, but the snow was fairly firm (I think I was sinking in 2 or 3 inches) so it wasn't too much of a problem. I was going downhill with a multi-day pack and taking long strides, which may have made the problem worse. My guess is that it would be a bigger annoyance in softer snow.

I also found them to be somewhat inconvienent for for stepping over blowdowns. The extra-long tail was a bit harder to maneuver over the logs than the standard length tail. I also have 13x28 inch flat bearpaws--I don't recall the same difficulty in crossing logs, but it has been a long time since I have used them.

My general conclusion is that I have them, but am not likely to use them unless I anticipate deep soft snow.

Doug

Lawn Sale
01-30-2007, 09:54 PM
I am with chipc on this one, and my favorite set are my Atlas 1025's, only they're women's, which fit down the trails better. Stavin' grips on the bottom, no lack of traction.

I have 7 or 8 sets of snowshoes (I honestly lost count), ranging from 37" to 16", and have found the 25" are perfect for the Whites.

I am 190 pounds without a pack, or about 225 geared up.

sardog1
01-30-2007, 11:26 PM
Yo Sardog1!

I too have the MSRs and the 8" tails, but have not yet had the need for them (man these two winters that I have been hiking I only needed to use the snowshoes ONCE!) So since you state you use the tails often I am curious how they handle/feel. I have heard many folks talk about how when the tail length increases the front length is supposed to also, so the MSRs theoretically should nose dive a lot. But I am not sure how many of those people are actualy MSR or MSR+Tail users. What has been your experience with the tails on?

Brian

One of the reasons I leave the tails on is for the handling. The shoes track better with tails on, because they are steered by the slight friction with the snow at the end of the tail. (I grew up using snowshoes that were 44" +, so I'm accustomed to longer 'shoes.) I don't notice much nose diving with my MSRs. The infernal clatter on hardpack and ice is their only sin, IMO.