Chat Rooms (0 Chatting)  |  Search  |   Login/Join
* For the benefit of the community, commercial posting is not allowed.
Boundary Waters Quetico Forum
   Winter Camping and Activities
      Snowshoe floatation     
 Forum Sponsor

Author

Text

PINETREE
distinguished member(12834)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
11/09/2011 08:49PM
I now use a 1033 atlas snowshoe which is 30 inches ling and 8 or 10 inches wide. Use to use a wood leather Michigan style which was 48 x 14 inches. Now they say use the atlas 1033 for a person 225 pounds etc.. Just wondering a side by side comparison of various snowshoes and how much do you sink lets say in snow 3 feet deep? No matter which snowshoe you will sink so far,and it seems my old Michigan style I sunk lot less. You can not beat the maneuverability of the new shoes and the binding. Any floatation testers out there? I just wonder what would be the difference in sinking in a modern snowshoe that is 36 inches vs 30 inches long?

Note:Expecting snow up to your eyeballs this winter.
 
Reply    Reply with Quote    Print Top Bottom Previous Next
The Talking Guide
member (38)member
 
11/09/2011 09:06PM
Pinetree: I have taken great interest in this topic as I snowshoe a bunch while pursuing fish and fur. About 14 years ago I got a pair of what I think were Atlas 1033's, or whatever their longest shoe was at the time. I was testing the product out at a rep's request. The first thing I did was start at McFarland parking lot at midnight and hiked into Pine Lake and arrived at the base of Gadwall. That morning I broke deep trail up the steep hill to Gadwall. Sucked. Sank up to my thinghs in snow. Following day broke deep trail into West Pike for fishing. Sucked even worse. Went back to Gunflint Lake and did a side by side comparison with my Alaskan's. I was sinking up to my knees in the largest Atlas available, and barely left a print with the traditional Alaskans. So I had to think about why this was so.

What I have come up with is that the newer Tubbs and Atlas shoes are easier to walk in, run in, maneuver in, and the bindings are superior, and they are lighter weight. But they don't even hold a candle to traditional Alaskans and Hurons in floatation. The biggest difference is that they have almost zero floatation ahead of your toes. At first glance they look like they do, but it is not apples to apples. When you put your foot into the snow, the back of the shoe is sticking high into the air, so essentially, the surface area of the shoe is drastically reduced to being just slightly larger than your boot. You end up kind of punching into the snow with your tip toes. Just look back at your print and you'll see what I mean. Also, traditionals have a long tail on them which really helps keep you up even more. Traditionals tend to stay much flatter, or parallel to the snow surface, floating you much like cross country skis. If Atlas made a traditional style out of new components, I would pay an embarrassing amount of money to have them. Last year I did break down and buy another pair of Atlas 1235's for certain snow conditions, and they are decent. Better than nothing for sure. I am a modifier, but just haven't gotten around to making the changes I think will make my Atlas shoes float better.
HikingStick
distinguished member(701)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
11/09/2011 09:16PM
I don't have any fancy equations for you, but the basic idea is that the more area your snow shoe covers, the better it displaces your weight.

Just using the numbers you listed (and assuming the newer model is 10" wide), the surface area of the old wooden snow shoes was twice what the current ones cover. [That doesn't take into consideration the curved ends, just a basic L x W = Area figure.] That spreads your weight over twice the area, meaning less downward pressure per square inch.

Thus, the larger the area, the less you'll sink. Of course, larger means they are harder to maneuver, but you knew that already. ;-)

PINETREE
distinguished member(12834)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
11/09/2011 09:21PM
I also think length has also something to do with sinking. It seems like the old wooden tail helped floatation. Like I said up to a certain size you will sink so far because you have to have some initial compression of fluffy snow.
PINETREE
distinguished member(12834)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
11/10/2011 06:26AM
Very interesting Talking Guide. Hope to hear more comments.
ZaraSp00k
distinguished member(1299)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
11/13/2011 08:53AM
it is not just area, it is material, some of the new styles don't have webbing which make them float more, but the downside is that snow can fall on top and make them heavy. Also if you use poles, especially old style x-country, that will take some of the weight off the shoes.
PINETREE
distinguished member(12834)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
11/13/2011 06:09PM
I think design also. Many snowshoes around 30 inches your talking 250 sq. inches of surface,Some of the old style that are 48 inches long your talking close to 500 sq, inches. Take cross country skis. My 200cm or 80 inch ski have 200 sq.inches but over a long distance which usually give me as much floatation as good snowshoes. I use them a lot even thru the woods. Did go into a swamp once and got to much bend and the ski broke in half. They were about 20 years old and fatigued. I do not understand why you don't have a modern snowshoe with the floatation ability of the old boys.
PINETREE
distinguished member(12834)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
03/17/2013 03:58PM
A old thread,but a update. I bought a pair of 1235 Atlas(35 x 9 inches) and this last week in 22 inches of semi settled snow the Atlas snowshoes tip sunk about 6-8 inches a old pair of wooden snowshoes 48 x 13 sank hardly at all.
The atlas probably would of floated better but the snowshoe foot placement is to far forward. The back of the snowshoe was not sinking at all. Should of been more well distributed. Very disappointed in floatation. otherwise the Atlas is first class in material and turning etc.
OldFingers57
distinguished member(5409)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
03/17/2013 05:30PM
The old shoes are going to float more as your weight is being spread out more on more surface area of snowshoe. Thus you shouldn't sink as far down. With the newer shoes you have less surface area and more weight is being concentrated in a smaller area.
PINETREE
distinguished member(12834)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
03/17/2013 07:29PM
quote OldFingers57: "The old shoes are going to float more as your weight is being spread out more on more surface area of snowshoe. Thus you shouldn't sink as far down. With the newer shoes you have less surface area and more weight is being concentrated in a smaller area. "

Your absolutely correct. One point was foot placement should b a little further back on the atlas. I also wonder like you said about surface area,why don't they make a bigger snowshoe. Also a minimum length is important. I can put on skis 80 inches long and 2.5 inches wide and get complete floatation ,with less sq. inches than some snowshoes. There is a ultimate length weight ratio also. The science of all this in different kinds of snow is very interesting.I think it is so neat when you can walk thru the snow on top thru brush etc. at a elevated height.

One thing seems like the Native American and Canadian people and frontiersmen new how to get it right
 
Reply    Reply with Quote    Print Top Bottom Previous Next