Talk:Snowshoe/Archives/2014

The examples of modern snowshoes are awfully narrow
ok

bbbbbbbbbbbrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennnnntttttttttt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.72.133 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

First, nice article!

All of the shown examples for modern snowshoes are the small ones, a size which is useful for mountaineering, and popular in shallower snow. But they really don't work in deeper looser snow (like 2', 3', 4' deep). We should try to find a picture of larger modern ones, or at least add this perspective to the article. North8000 (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's also missing the perspective of snowshoe use which is simply travel in places where the snow is too deep to walk. North8000 (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The pictures of the cleats on the underside are my own, which are actually rather large Atlases. If you can find some source material on that latter one, share it and we can use it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool. I have a bunch of larger high tech sets.   Maybe I'll take or get a picture. Again, nice article!  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * One statement that reflects this is the one that says that skis have more flotation than snow shoes. Not true  for larger snowshoes.  My main experience is north woods winter traveling camping (eg pulling a sled or backpacking) trips in typically 3' of snow.   There neither small snowshoes nor skis provide enough  "flotation" but larger snowshoes do.  I think that this is a frequent situation for those who use them for "work".  Just background thoughts for longer term evolution of the article. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I added that. It's certainly not true on virgin snow ... I wouldn't break trail in skis. And at my size I find only large snowshoes give me the flotation I need, no matter how many times I hear people arguing that's not true. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can tell you from experience that you are right. I think that most people's experience is limited to shallower snow (like 1 foot deep) where even if the snowshoes don't really work they can still walk.  Not so at 3' or 4' deep.  Carrying a pack or pulling a sled exacerbates it further.  North8000 (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the new addition of a sermon from one POV now made it also self conflicting. Skis have more flotation, but need existing tracks to avoid having their enjoyment ruined.  Huh?    And the snowshoers should walk in the powder instead of on the ski tracks, even though they have "less flotation"  Huh? North8000 (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note on their talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm bold enough to make any changes that you would prefer or ready to support any that you want to make. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it the depth of the snow or its powderiness that makes extra flotation necessary? I've walked without snowshoes on 10' of packed snow yet sunk to my knees in five feet of powdery snow.   Will Beback    talk    23:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends on the density of the snow, in other words, yes, its powderiness. I have downhill-skied off-trail (or, rather, between trails) on high-elevation Colorado powder where I sunk to knee level with the skis, but might as well have been in water when I tried to right myself after a wipeout. This storm left two feet of very similar snow ... it was easy to shovel, but I was stuck in my mother's house without boots and so didn't want to go too deep in it because I knew I'd sink all the way in. Right now, in my corner of the Northeast, the snow is finally settling to almost walkability without snowshoes. Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that it's a combination of depth and powderiness, but primarily depth when the snow is less than 2' deep. Then each step eventually compresses then snow against the ground.   I think once you go over about 30" deep additional; depth becomes irrelevant (until you fall down)  Of course weight of the person and their gear and the square inches of the snowshoes are also big in the equation.  My experience is in wilderness winter trips in northwoods (especially Ontario).  Also running BSA programs.
 * But greater depth makes it tougher to get up if you fall (or, in our case, a friend pushes you over just for fun) In 4' of powder you can actually be hanging underneath your snowshoes and the it's near-impossible to get up without help.      Incidentially, on a previous topic, last weekend I put about 4 pairs of my snowshoes on helpers and we broke about 4 miles of trails in 22" of powder in a camp so that cc skiers could get through.  Not the perfect untouched "railroad tracks" that some skiers feel entitled to, but at least they could get through where they otherwise couldn't North8000 (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the discussion that started this, the cranky skier's edit, I think I will solicit some opinion from the Catskill Mountain 3500 Club mailing list, since around this time of year we have a lot of winter-related discussions of this nature. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Traditional snowshoes?
There are two sentences that seem to unnecessarily narrow the scope of this article:


 * 1) However, the "traditional" webbed snowshoe as we know it today had direct origins to North American indigenous people, e.g., the Huron, Cree, and so forth.
 * 2) Regardless of configuration, all wooden shoes are referred to as "traditional" and all shoes made of other materials are called "modern."

The Japanese article on Japanese snowshoes (%E3%81%8B%E3%82%93%E3%81%98%E3%81%8D) says that かんじき (kanjiki) were used in the Jomon Period, and the bottom picture on that page shows webbed Ainu snowshoes, so the word "traditional" is not being used consistently. In particular, I'm not sure what the intention behind the first sentence is. Can it be clarified? --BB12 (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I wrote a lot of this article, a long time ago, but I did not write that. If no credible source can be found, we should remove it, and in any event we might want to add that bit from the Japanese if it's sourced there and the source meets our reliability standards. Daniel Case (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The part about kanjiki being used in the Jomon period does not have a citation. Doing a quick search on Google Books, I found a citation that, despite being a little garbled (OCR problem?), seems to clearly state that kanjiki were used in the Jomon period . --BB12 (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)