Rated 4.3 out of 5 by 4
Rated 4 out of 5 by kissa FUN!
As one of the other reviewers said, if you want to ski, buy these, if you want to snow shoe, buy Hok's. I am still getting used to these, but they are definitely fun. They are hard to control on any kind of packed groomed trail but fun on trails that aren't hard packed. I had no trouble climbing hills with them and slid very fast downhill, (although I wiped out several times). I did try the Hok skis 1st and like these much better.
February 28, 2014
Rated 5 out of 5 by NatureLover64 Lots of Fun
These are incredibly fun and versatile. I'm not sure how accurate a description "sliding snow shoes" is. These are closer to cross country skis - easier to use and to maneuver, but not as fast. The photo shows them without bindings but they actually come with a universal type of binding already installed. You do not need special cross country ski boots with these, you can use snow boots or hiking shoes.
February 5, 2014
Rated 4 out of 5 by RiverwoodRider Boreals or Hoks?
Short version: Hoks are a step faster than snowshoes. Boreals are a step slower than skis. Your point of view will determine your choice.
A friend and I bought Hok and Boreal skis and we have conducted a couple of tests. One test was on a frozen river. The river had probably 2 inches of snow over the ice. I skied the Boreals south about a mile. Then we switched and I used the Hoks coming back. The Boreals have much more glide than the Hoks in these flat conditions. On the other hand, I was able to easily walk the Hoks to the front door up a hill on fairly hard packed snow and ice. I was able to come partway up the hill in the Boreals yesterday, with some slipping.
Our previous test on wind scoured prairie with little snow cover and lots of ice showed the Hoks to have vastly superior grip and control. In those conditions, the Boreals had no grip.
Now what we need to complete our testing is 1 to 2 feet of powder, a condition more conducive to snowshoeing. The review from Alaska addresses that.
My current feeling is, if the objective is simply to replace snowshoes, the Hoks are a better choice primarily because grip is so good. If the objective is more related to skiing than snowshoeing, the Boreals are the choice because kick and glide work nicely. Both are easier to turn than regular XC skis and the width provides more stability. That width also makes it harder to use the edges. Also, the width is not acceptable on many groomed trails.
Perhaps the Hoks, properly waxed or the longer 145 length, can match the glide of the Boreals. And perhaps the grip of the Boreals can be improved with waxing also. Those options have not been tested.
The universal bindings on the Hoks are easier to use, nicer looking, and much easier to adjust than the Boreals. Both allow you to use winter boots instead of ski shoes although you can replace bindings on either brand, if desired.
January 21, 2014
Rated 4 out of 5 by sukakpak boreal sliding snowshoes
sliding snowshoes is a dumb name.
They are skies, they look ,work & fit like skies. There is nothing snowshoe about them. As sliding skies they are great. On hard packed trail they work quite well, in snow 18'' deep with brush & trees , good flotation & moveability. In deep snow 2'-3' with thick brush & deadfall trees not so good - 4' snowshoes much better. On glare ice not so good as they slide all over. The bindings are a bit combersome to put on but hold good & don't come off. Also I can use my Baffin polar boots even at -30 my feet were warm & comfortable. I have over 100 miles on them , they work very good for my type of hiking. I like them a lot & have no complaints.
January 26, 2012