New boot shopping - Foot width (measured) vs boot last width

[bbbradley]

I am in the early stages of boot shopping, my current Nordicas are *embarrassingly* old, they work, though certainly time for an easier lift as a flower pot for them. I tried the Fischer foot scanning app a few times and could never get consistent results, other than it telling me my feet were significantly different sizes (It did not say what that meant numerically). From previous footwear experiences, they are similar enough that no shoes/boots have ever felt wildly different from foot to foot to make me believe that is right. Now that app just does nothing.

I found a new app, Verifyt, and tried it out. Similar concept to the Fischer app where they use a standard piece of paper to create a scale, then you scan your feet. The Fischer app seemed a bit easier to align, but that might be causing the inaccuracy. Anyway, I did a couple scans with the Verifit and for a DIY app they are all within the margin of error I'd expect.

The thing that has me is the numbers presented...112.3 and 113.4mm wide. The various boots I've been looking at are all race boots with sub 100mm lasts for the size 26, I'm currently in 28.5 vs a size 12-13 street shoe, so that scales up to close to 100mm. Is ~12+mm difference normal to the point a boot fitter can modify as needed or am i stuck with fewer options based on that?

Current short list:

• Head Raptor 140S RS
• Nordica Doberman GP 130
• Lange RS130 (these come in a wide model too)
• Rossignol Hero World Cup 140

And yes, the fact that I can't ski much given the complexity with traveling across state lines has me getting my ski fix any way I can...and that means talking equipment.

 

[Tom K.]

Some boots, at least, definitely scale up in width as size increases. Maybe all of them? My "98 mm" Hawx Ultra 130 in 29/29.5 is stamped 104 mm on the bottom.

Lange is certainly worth a look. They take a somewhat rare approach in that their LV and MV models claim to have the same, narrow-ish heel pocket, which worked out for my foot. I tried both on, and the heels of both felt good and tight. The LV would have needed a punch or two in the outer forefoot, but the MV was fine as-is up there.

As far as apps go, I'd personally go with the app called Good Boot Fitter, but I'm kind of old-school!

 

[chris_the_wrench]

As far as apps go, I'd personally go with the app called Good Boot Fitter, but I'm kind of old-school!

hahaha!
I had no idea boot fitting apps even existed! I shouldn't be surprised, they may have some value??. Look forward to hearing what people with experience can report back. I've lived places where they sold ski boots, but there wasn't any 'fitters' so Im all for empowering the consumer.

 

[tch]

I'm not surprised you are finding some odd contradictions with numbers. I'm don't really put much faith in those. FWIW, I have a very wide forefoot with bunions, and I measured myself several times last summer when I was buying bike shoes. Over a couple of days and a couple of measurements each time, I kept getting between 110 and 114 mm. Yet for my last alpine boot, I moved from a 104 last to a 100 last. Even before the necessary bunion punches, I fit OK. I don't know if there really is a direct and easy correlation b/w stated width and fit in boots. I knew I wasn't a candidate for a narrow, race-fit last, but at my bootfitter's recommendation, I just tried on boots that were sort of in the ballpark and ignored the advertised last width.

 

[onenerdykid]

Atomic experimented with scanning systems a couple of years ago and while they can be incredibly helpful with gathering accurate measurement data they are absolutely useless for telling you how the boot will fit you. Scanners can measure, but they cannot take into consideration various liner constructions and most importantly your tolerance for compression, which is different for everyone. A 102mm foot can be perfectly happy in a 96mm boot- it just depends on a number of variables that a scanner/algorithm can't figure out. We tried to incorporate these points into the algorithm but the technology wasn't there yet and by the time will be ready, Skynet will have already taken over.

Long story, short- use scanning systems to gather foot & leg data, but then work with your boot-fitter on finding the right shoe for you.

 

[bbbradley]

Atomic experimented with scanning systems a couple of years ago and while they can be incredibly helpful with gathering accurate measurement data they are absolutely useless for telling you how the boot will fit you. Scanners can measure, but they cannot take into consideration various liner constructions and most importantly your tolerance for compression, which is different for everyone. A 102mm foot can be perfectly happy in a 96mm boot- it just depends on a number of variables that a scanner/algorithm can't figure out. We tried to incorporate these points into the algorithm but the technology wasn't there yet and by the time will be ready, Skynet will have already taken over.

Long story, short- use scanning systems to gather foot & leg data, but then work with your boot-fitter on finding the right shoe for you.

Not surprised to hear that, there is an element of feel/tolerance to boot fitting, but I would think a 3D image of the foot would be a good start for a boot fit. I was more using the app as a way to cull down the field to give a bootfitter a good place to start. I speculate a good boot fitter can get anything to work, eventually, but I'd rather give him/her a head start with a boot that is generally compatible with my feet. Your point about a 102mm foot in a 96 mm boot sounds reasonable, I have a 112mm foot, however. Therein lies the problem.

Feel free to send any spare size 28.5 Redsters 130 or 150 lying around the Atomic factory my way for testing/disposal @onenerdykid

 

[François Pugh]

Me: ball 125 mm, heel 50 mm.
There is hope. I noticed after buying, when I looked up to see what this boot was that my boot fitter chose for me, that the marketing material for the Technica Mach 1 boasted about special sections designed to make for easier punching and modifications.

 

[bbbradley]

Me: ball 125 mm, heel 50 mm.
There is hope. I noticed after buying, when I looked up to see what this boot was that my boot fitter chose for me, that the marketing material for the Technica Mach 1 boasted about special sections designed to make for easier punching and modifications.

Which Mach1? There seems to be a host of models all called Mach 1 with lasts from 103mm to 98mm?

 

[François Pugh]

I got the 120 MV, but the boasting (CAS) applies to all models if I'm not mistaken. I had to get larger shell for more insulation, otherwise I would have gone for smaller volume with more fitting work. Diabetic feet.
https://www.blizzard-tecnica.com/global/en/men/all-mountain/ski-boots/mach1-mv-120-1
(edit: website says last for my boot is 100 (I assume mm) - much punching required)

 

[Corgski]

The thing that has me is the numbers presented...112.3 and 113.4mm wide. The various boots I've been looking at are all race boots with sub 100mm lasts for the size 26, I'm currently in 28.5 vs a size 12-13 street shoe, so that scales up to close to 100mm. Is ~12+mm difference normal to the point a boot fitter can modify as needed or am i stuck with fewer options based on that?

My measurements are similar, the Fischer app gives me 111 and 113 mm. Nevertheless I fit happily in my 28.5 Fischer Curv 130 (97 mm last) without modification. I am also happy with the default fit of a 28.5 Lange RS 130. Street shoes I normally wear a 12, standard width, occasionally a wide depending on brand and model. I have no explanation other than to suggest to ignore the app.

 

[François Pugh]

I think "Last" width is measured somewhere in the middle. Calling @Philpug

 

[Philpug]

I think "Last" width is measured somewhere in the middle. Calling @Philpug

Usually across the 1-5 metatarsals. 26.5, for most brnads in the reference shell size and say a 98mm width will go up and down depending on shell size. So a 26.5 98,, shell might be 96mm in a 25.5 and 101mm in a 27.5. Head is one of the few brands that start with a 27.5.

 

[Philpug]

Scanners can measure, but they cannot take into consideration various liner constructions and most importantly your tolerance for compression, which is different for everyone.

Quoted for importance. Not only for scanning but for every single boot fit situation. This is where you need to look past the published numbers and see what actually fits your foot.

 

[bbbradley]

My measurements are similar, the Fischer app gives me 111 and 113 mm. Nevertheless I fit happily in my 28.5 Fischer Curv 130 (97 mm last) without modification. I am also happy with the default fit of a 28.5 Lange RS 130. Street shoes I normally wear a 12, standard width, occasionally a wide depending on brand and model. I have no explanation other than to suggest to ignore the app.

That is good info, it gives me hope for a solid boot to fit my big feet.

Quoted for importance. Not only for scanning but for every single boot fit situation. This is where you need to look past the published numbers and see what actually fits your foot.

The problem there is I've not found too many shops that stock a host of high end boots like the ones I am looking at. It's almost to the point of buying 3-4 pairs online, trying them on at home, then paying the return shipping.

 

[DanoT]

The problem there is I've not found too many shops that stock a host of high end boots like the ones I am looking at.

In the past I have gone boot shopping at several ski shops in Aspen and also at Copper/Dillon and couldn't find a boot with a 130 flex to try on. Every place said that they could order one in. At Jackson Hole and Whistler absolutely no problem finding lots of 130 flex boots to try on.

 

[cantunamunch]

Quoted for importance. Not only for scanning but for every single boot fit situation. This is where you need to look past the published numbers and see what actually fits your foot.

That quote also speaks to the difference between ski boot fitting and bike shoe fitting. The apps are *heaps* more useful for bike shoes, especially ones with boa closures.

 

[Philpug]

That quote also speaks to the difference between ski boot fitting and bike shoe fitting. The apps are *heaps* more useful for bike shoes, especially ones with boa closures.

I am sure they are, bike shoes do not have layers of different density foams and materials.

 

[bbbradley]

I am sure they are, bike shoes do not have layers of different density foams and materials.

These are my bike shoes:

 

[raytseng]

i dont see why you guys are blaming the app and saying throw out the app.
When you are also saying the app measurements are correct and you can confirm with a tapemeasure.
So the blame should be on the boot last product spec if something like a 100last spec is appropriate fit for a 113 real foot. This isnt the apps fault, you still need to know the actual measurement as a starting point, and that's real quantitative data.

By that same token, clothing sizes and specifically pants are now aspirational too. I dont think you should be blaming the tape measure when your levis jeans are labelled "32"waist but actually measure 34 inches and when you go to europe or asia to buy clothes 32 inches doesn't fit

 

[pliny the elder]

It is probably worth mentioning that the goal here is not to match the width of the foot to the width of the shell.

There is an expectation of some compression if you base this purely on the math. With an athlete in a race boot this typically starts out well over 1cm.

For your average serious recreational skier, 3-5mm of compression is generally a more realistic target. Or at least a starting point.

Peoples tolerance of this compression is not surprisingly often related to their level of performance.

And their ability to stay ahead of their feet instead of behind them.

pliny the elder