Discussion: Snowshoeing question: is all snow created equal?

For those blessed with more experience or wisdom, I have a question about snowshoeing. I own a pair of Crescent Moon snowshoes, intended for running in the snow. I went out after Winter Storm Nemo in Hudson, MA, where there was about 24" of snow. I found it very tough going, post-holing at each step to a depth of 6-10" each time. The snow felt very fluffy to my feet, like there was not a great deal of strength in the accumulated bank of snow.

Yesterday, while shoveling, I thought the weight on my shovel was lighter than I expected. It was not, as I call it, "heart attack snow".

Does the moisture content of the snow affect its ability to buoy up the load of the snowshoe? (Or is there some other aspect to the snowfall that influences this?) I know XC skiers have different waxes, but I thought that was mainly for temperature differences.

Well in the novel (and film) 'Miss Smilla's Feeling for Snow' by Peter Hoeg, we are told that the Eskimos have over 50 different words for describing different types and qualities of snow.

I have three pairs of snowshoes in different sizes, and I choose based on the depth and fluffiness of the snow. Racing snowshoes are for surfaces where you don't even need snowshoes, and they're just a handicap applied to everyone equally. When you really need flotation, you pull out the big shoes. Here's what I used today for the Nemo snow.

As a youth I spent many many hours on snow shoes. Almost all of it on the trail model like JJ shows above. The effectivness of snow shoes entirely depends on the snow. No matter what you wear you will sink in with fresh cold fluffy snow like we just got. But, give this some time to settle, thaw, freeze, etc. and than, with snow shoes, you will be able to walk on top of it just like you were on ground. Without the snow shoes, you could be breaking through with almost every step (again, depending on the snow)

I am amused up here when I see people wearing snow shoes when there is only a couple inches of snow. They would be better off with out them. However, there does become a point where snow shoes are a real benefit. As I remember, when the cold, fresh fluffy snow was 12-14" deep was about the break even point of when snow shoes would be beneficial. However, if you were going over the same path repeatly (ie. running a trap line), than it made sense to wear them to keep the trail packed down.

I saw snow once.

Simmo - you cannot refer to them as "Eskimos" anymore. They are called Snow People and they ride Banthas.

Like JJ says, for fluffy stuff like the recent storm, bigger is better - but don't expect to be running in those things. Racing snowshoes are still going to sink a long way in fluffy snow and are a LOT of hard work.

However, even in more packed snow where running shoes alone might be fine, I find that racing snowshoes do give more lateral stability when running, but that does vary with consistency of the snow. They're not simply for 'leveling the playing field' in most cases.

Also in cases where you would only posthole in a couple of inches in regular shoes and it wouldn't be a problem for you at the time, if you're using a regular trail system, those minimal postholes can firm up and create really crappy conditions for trail users on future outings, so running in snowshoes, while not actually essential, can certainly help to create and preserve decent conditions for other trail users. Its more of a courtesy thing - like not barebooting in XC ski tracks.

Traveling in frozen post-holes really sucks...

I appreciate your last paragraph. Even snowshoe trails deserve respect. Attempting to travel across frozen craters a week after the snow fell is not fun.

My impression is that there is a wide range of snow conditions between packed track and deep fluff where racing snowshoes are actually a lot better than running with no snowshoes, while still being better than even moderately large snowshoes. When you get into the deep fluff category, there is also the interesting question of how large a group you need to have before cross-country skis become an attractive alternative to large snowshoes (by the time eight or ten people have passed even on skis, the snow is usually getting a whole lot more supportive). Up on the Tug Hill I have certainly been happy to have a companion along to help extract myself on skis from under the snow when having had some of the lower part of five or six feet of underlying snow drift collapse under one ski, tipping me suddenly off balance, but the same sort of thing can even happen with big snowshoes if you place one foot on top of a drift that happens to be more small spruce tree than snow, and this makes self extraction a lot harder because of getting tangled up in the branches underneath. Of course, the spruce tree sort of thing is less likely to be a problem if you are sticking to trails!

I had that tree thing happen to me two years ago, using my medium snowshoes, when I opted to take a direct route back to the car while my companion retraced our tracks. I was curious as to which would be faster. A number of places on my route looked like plain ol' snow, but actually were hiding mountain laurel thickets containing large amounts of air. Quicksnow. You step on a spot like that, and you're suddenly waist-deep (or more), off-balance, and maybe with a snowshoe tangled in the vegetation. My route was much shorter, but we arrived virtually at the same time. Those polar tiger traps may have been too much for even my big shoes.

100 words for soil and water
...
63. Ditch - soil formed into a narrow depression with some water in it
...

I am glad that snowshoes are becoming more popular. The track they leave is much better for skiing on than the potholes left by walkers.
This snow storm was deep enough to discourage the walkers, and most of the trails I have skied on were made by snowshoers, but keeping them out of the ski tracks is still a problem.
One of my favorite running surfaces in the rocky Blue Hills trails is snow which has transformed over a couple of freeze ,thaw cycles. With the temp above freezing, it has the consistency of styrofoam, a fast running surface especially on rocky downhills.

My morning dog walk was a good counterexample to J-J's claim. Walking along a path that had been partially packed down by snowshoers and skiers, I mostly stayed on the surface, but every ten steps or so I pushed through 6-9 inches. Would have been miserable for running. But snowhoes, because they distribute my weight more evenly over the snow, would never have punched through.

It's true that for most the snowshoe races I do, I could run at about the same pace in trail shoes (or faster when the snow is firm). But most of the running on single track would be much less pleasant without snowshoes because there is substantially more sinkage and more slippage in running shoes.

I think the fact that you were doing it without snowshoes supports my point that it was conditions where you didn't need snowshoes. In thigh-deep powder, you clearly need them, and there's a whole spectrum in between. The bit about the handicap refers to the fact that racing snowshoes have a minimum size. Some snowshoe races are held in conditions where you'd be better off without them, if you were allowed to choose.

Don't know if I needed them, but it sure would have been nicer if I had worn my (racing) snowshoes instead of my running shoes :-)

There's a snowshoe race out your way this Sat. in Moore State Park. It would be a hoot to see you do it in your big shoes! (Discourages following.)

3.5 miles. I could manage it. I'd have to make sure to start at the back. With the snow the way it is now, my smallest shoes would be the right choice, but maybe just to amuse you, if it turns out to not be a good day for hang gliding...

Snowshoes is about the most redundant invention ever. In civilized parts of the world snowshoes evolved into skis already a few thousand years ago. Using snowshoes to travel faster on snow is equal to using square wheels on your car. Maybe it's not a coincidence neither skis nor wheels where ever independently invented in the western hemisphere?

As a Canadian, I must disagree - politely, of course. There are definitely times when cleated snowshoes are the better choice - in icy conditions, when carrying a heavy pack off-trail, in thick forest, in steep terrain with dense vegetation, etc.

The Snowgaine is a rogaine-style event held in New York in winter over two 8-hr days. Competitors can choose their mode of non-motorized transportation, and there is usually a mix of skiing and snowshoeing for the top teams.

In my case, I do snowshoe racing mainly because I suck at Nordic skiing. But running downhill on single track trails in fresh snow is a blast, redundant or not.

J-J: I suppose you should use your smallest shoes, but in any case if you come, bring your big ones so I can try them. Won't be a good day for hang gliding with snow showers predicted.

While I have a strong preference for skis when conditions permit, I would agree with Bash that there are plenty of occasions in back-country terrain where skis are near impossible and snowshoes are quite functional. The Tug Hill plateau in upstate NY is certainly one area where it is very common to have individual snowfalls of more than a meter in depth, but where the cold, low-density lake-effect snow simply doesn't provide support with the area available form normal skis. And if going through denser vegetation, or an area where there is extensive blowdown of trees from a windstorm, the two meter length of skis can make them pretty unmanageable. Modern snowshoes with metal frames and plastic sheeting for the support are a lot nicer than the traditional wood frames and woven rawhide decks when going through vegetated areas! But perhaps civilization connotes a vision of life where everyone stays on cleared tracks, and feels an unwillingness to stray away into wilder bits of landscape?