# 6'4" with 13" boot looking for board reccomendations



## Funkfish (Apr 3, 2015)

Currently riding a 162 TRS w/ a 256mm waist. The board is great but definitely getting some serious toe drag (it's also a little stiffer than I'd prefer). I'm looking for an all mountain freestyle board. What's the minimum width you guys think I could get away with? Most wide boards I've been looking at are 268mm in the middle. Is that wide enough or even too wide? 

The boards I've been looking at are
Lib Tech Skunk Ape 161W / 268mm waist
Lib Tech Travis Rice Pro 161.5W / 265 waist
Gnu Riders Choice 162W / 268 waist 

Also do you think I would notice the difference between a 265mm waist and a 268mm? Seems to be very little difference.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Funkfish said:


> Currently riding a 162 TRS w/ a 256mm waist. The board is great but definitely getting some serious toe drag (it's also a little stiffer than I'd prefer). I'm looking for an all mountain freestyle board. What's the minimum width you guys think I could get away with? Most wide boards I've been looking at are 268mm in the middle. Is that wide enough or even too wide?
> 
> The boards I've been looking at are
> Lib Tech Skunk Ape 161W / 268mm waist
> ...


Hi Funk,

Waist measurements should really not be used for determine the correct board width for your foot size as nothing happens at the waist. Measurement at the inserts is very valuable but does not vary evenly in relation to waist width.

Boot size also should not be used. We want your barefoot length.

Please measure your foot using this method:

Kick your heel (barefoot please, no socks) back against a wall. Mark the floor exactly at the tip of your toe (the one that sticks out furthest - which toe this is will vary by rider). Measure from the mark on the floor to the wall. That is your foot length and is the only measurement that you will want to use. Measure in centimeters if possible, but if not, take inches and multiply by 2.54 (example: an 11.25 inch foot x 2.54 = 28.57 centimeters).


----------



## Funkfish (Apr 3, 2015)

Thanks Wiredspot, my foot is 29cm. What can I do with this measurement now?

Edit: 

After doing some research into mondo sizing it appears that 29cm is comparable to a size 11US. However this seems wildly inaccurate as I've never been able to get my foot in anything close to an 11. My size 13 Burton boots are close to being too small....


----------



## Phedder (Sep 13, 2014)

Funkfish said:


> Thanks Wiredspot, my foot is 29cm. What can I do with this measurement now?


You can get some new boots :wink:

29cm corresponds to an 11US snowboard boot. It'd be best to measure the width of your foot as well, we've found a lot of people upsizing their boots to compensate for extra width in their foot. But with a 29cm foot, you definitely shouldn't be in a size 13 boot, 11 would be ideal or 11.5 if you really couldn't get an 11 to work. Good news is you probably don't need a wide board anymore, though high 250s is still probably best.


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

Phedder said:


> You can get some new boots :wink:
> 
> 29cm corresponds to an 11US snowboard boot. It'd be best to measure the width of your foot as well, we've found a lot of people upsizing their boots to compensate for extra width in their foot. But with a 29cm foot, you definitely shouldn't be in a size 13 boot, 11 would be ideal or 11.5 if you really couldn't get an 11 to work. Good news is you probably don't need a wide board anymore, though high 250s is still probably best.


You may want to double check this. All the conversion charts I can see show 29cm to be a 12.5-13 US shoe size.


----------



## destroy (Dec 16, 2012)

Sounds like OP obviously needs to go check out boots and find the best fitting pair he can, but regardless it also sounds like all of those boards will be fine for a foot that size. Totally normal, all good boards too.


----------



## Funkfish (Apr 3, 2015)

Well based on this chart from evo a 29cm is an 11. I don't even think I could get my foot into a size 11 flip flop. Again my 13 boots right now are almost too small. 

Ski Boots Size Chart & Mondopoint Conversion | evo

Edit: remeasured a little more precisely this time. I might be 29cm closer to 30cm. But that's still a 12. I've worn the occasional 12 sneaker but most I can't fit into. 

Either way the original topic of this post was board width. Do you think 268mm would be noticeably different than 256mm?


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Funkfish said:


> Thanks Wiredspot, my foot is 29cm. What can I do with this measurement now?
> 
> Edit:
> 
> After doing some research into mondo sizing it appears that 29cm is comparable to a size 11US. However this seems wildly inaccurate as I've never been able to get my foot in anything close to an 11. My size 13 Burton boots are close to being too small....


Hi FF,

Foot length is used in a few ways. The first is in relation to board width. Regardless of the boot size that you will choose, your barefoot length should be used to determine your board width. 290 mm (29 cm) does not require a wide board. 

Foot size (obviously) relates to boot size as well. I definitely don't want to push that on you if you are are not interested, but you can likely get a much better fit overall and improve performance from all of your gear. If you want more info on that please measure your width as well. Possibly have a look at one of the threads we have going in the boots forum as well. I know it will help you a lot.

stoked (trying it out without caps - still rad).


----------



## SkullAndXbones (Feb 24, 2014)

i too get baffled by the sizing of boots. my "suggested" boot size is like 8.5 or 9 but i wear 10.5 because they fit and there's no way i could get my foot into a 9. anyway, you'll be fine on a board with a 268 waist. i don't think you'll notice much difference between a 265 waist and a 268. as for boards, any one of the three you listed would be good choices.


----------



## highme (Dec 2, 2012)

Depending on the boots I wear either a 12 or 13. I recently got a 164.5 TRice in trade and was able to ride it for the first time last week. I've been mostly riding boards with a waist width of under 260mm for the last couple of years. The TRice has a 262 waist and I had forgotten that it really can be nicer to have that extra few millimeters under foot. 


The normal width TRice 161 is still decently wide. If it were me I would go for the TRice (I'm actually working on picking one up to go with my 164.5).


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

snowklinger said:


> You may want to double check this. All the conversion charts I can see show 29cm to be a 12.5-13 US shoe size.


Hi Snowklinger,

US shoe size is always larger than snowboard boot size for the same foot measurement. Put in the OP's 29.0 cm foot at the link below and click the top tabs. A Brannock shoe store device will tell him 12.5 US while the size printed on snowboard boots for a 29.0 cm measurement will be US 11. 

Snowboard Boot Size, Chart, Calculator, Sizing

STOKED!


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Snowklinger,
> 
> US shoe size is always larger than snowboard boot size for the same foot measurement. Put in the OP's 29.0 cm foot at the link below and click the top tabs. A Brannock shoe store device will tell him 12.5 US while the size printed on snowboard boots for a 29.0 cm measurement will be US 11.
> 
> ...


Right on, i just pulled up a few charts, none of them had that on it.


----------



## Funkfish (Apr 3, 2015)

Thanks guys, the boots I'm riding are 13 Burton Imperials. They're new but I also had them heat molded. My left foot is slightly larger than my right and is already pretty uncomfortable when I ride. (My Mondo is just barely under 30cm) Maybe I could have downsized on the right foot but I can't imagine rocking a size 12 on the left. 

I'm wondering if part of Burton's 'Footprint Reduction Technology' is just that they run small. My first pair of boots was a 13 Salomon and in retrospect I probably could have squeezed into a 12 Salomon but def not the Burton.


----------



## trapper (Jan 15, 2013)

I have two boards, a 165 Barracuda with a 257mm waist and a NS Heritage 166x with a 269 waist. Wiredsport is right in that the waist is not a great measurement for figuring overhang. When I compare my overhang at the bindings on these two boards, my front foot overhang difference is negligible between the two boards. The rear foot difference is more noticeable due to the shape and setback on the Barracuda, but it rides just fine. In fact I think this board is way more fun than my wider Heritage.

I wear a size 13 Burton Hail with footprint reduction by the way and am 6'5" 265 for full reference.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Hi Funkfish,

Let's get a look inside. Please pull the inserts our of the liner, stand on them barefoot with your heel in the heel recess and snap some photos. Also, Please take a barefoot width measurement.


----------



## Justin (Jun 2, 2010)

Funkfish said:


> Thanks guys, the boots I'm riding are 13 Burton Imperials. They're new but I also had them heat molded. My left foot is slightly larger than my right and is already pretty uncomfortable when I ride. (My Mondo is just barely under 30cm) Maybe I could have downsized on the right foot but I can't imagine rocking a size 12 on the left.
> 
> I'm wondering if part of Burton's 'Footprint Reduction Technology' is just that they run small. My first pair of boots was a 13 Salomon and in retrospect I probably could have squeezed into a 12 Salomon but def not the Burton.


Ya, you are right, i run a 14 burton, 13 Ride, and 12.5 salomon. Every company is different. Thats why most people say to try them on.


----------



## Funkfish (Apr 3, 2015)

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Funkfish,
> 
> Let's get a look inside. Please pull the inserts our of the liner, stand on them barefoot with your heel in the heel recess and snap some photos. Also, Please take a barefoot width measurement.


Well you asked for it....

Here's some pictures of my 29.9cm bare feet standing inside the insole of my 13 burton boot liners. Thoughts?


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

I believe the answer will be in width. When you have a chance:

Please take a barefoot width measurement.


----------



## SilverSurfer (Sep 27, 2010)

Funkfish said:


> Well you asked for it....
> 
> Here's some pictures of my 29.9cm bare feet standing inside the insole of my 13 burton boot liners. Thoughts?


Stop listening to this maniac wiredspot. You need a wide board. End of story. The riders choice is a great board.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

SilverSurfer said:


> Stop listening to this maniac wiredspot. You need a wide board. End of story. The riders choice is a great board.


Hi Silver,

Wide in itself has no one meaning. Example:

The Riders Choice 162 Wide is 1 cm wider at the inserts than the Burton Custom in 162 Wide. That is very important to know considering that the normal width Custom is only .3 cm narrower than the wide.

Some riders with foot measurements in the 29.8 range will look for wider models and others will choose to go with the narrowest board that they can get away with. It is a matter of choosing your compromises.

29.8 upsizes to 300 Mondo (size 12 in snowboard boots). It looks to me like the OP is a size 12 Wide (which is likely why he has been riding a 13 standard width boot) but I would still like to confirm that with a foot width measurement.

STOKED!


----------



## SilverSurfer (Sep 27, 2010)

Thats retarded. Who are wide boards aimed at? Maybe people with big feet. If he truly has a size 13, like myself, he needs a wide board. Boards dont have a spec for size at inserts. Waist width is a very good indicator of overall width if it is a wide board. So, stop wasting time. Buy a board designed for someone with big feet.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

SilverSurfer said:


> Thats retarded. Who are wide boards aimed at? Maybe people with big feet. If he truly has a size 13, like myself, he needs a wide board. Boards dont have a spec for size at inserts. Waist width is a very good indicator of overall width if it is a wide board. So, stop wasting time. Buy a board designed for someone with big feet.


Hi Silver,

I appreciate your opinion.

The OP already measured his foot. It is 29.8 cm. That is a low 12 in snowboard boots. Moreover, it is an actual measurement.

Waist width is not a good indicator because nothing happens at the waist. But if you prefer to look at waist width the result is the same (no consistency):

Gnu Riders Choice 162 Wide 26.8 cm
Burton Custom 162 Wide 26.0 cm
Travis Rice Pro FM 161 Standard width 26.0 cm
Rome Whiteroom 162 Standard Width 26.2 cm

Again, there is no industry standard for "wide". The best practice is to match barefoot length to board width at the inserts at the rider's actual stance angle.

Rider's with larger feet will then balance how they value responsiveness vs lack of toe drag.


----------



## SilverSurfer (Sep 27, 2010)

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Silver,
> 
> I appreciate your opinion.
> 
> ...


You are making it very difficult for the OP. He has toe drag on a regular board. Telling him not to buy a wide board is dumb. Why would you include regular width boards in the conversation. I said waist width is a great indicator of overall width of a board labeled "wide". 
I feel sorry for big guys that buy equipment from you.


----------



## Funkfish (Apr 3, 2015)

Thanks guys, so you're saying a useful measurement is to measure your barefeet against the inserts on a snowboard in the proper angle? 

Also as for measuring my feet, I'm pretty sure my feet are more narrow than anything. Where exactly do I measure the width of my foot? 

Thanks for the help on this!


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Hi Funk,

Yes. Barefoot measurement at your stance angles as compared to the board at the inserts that you will use (your stance width). Some overhang is the goal. Those of us with large feet have to determine how much overhang is acceptable. 

Some good width measurement info and examples here.

http://www.snowboardingforum.com/boots/157737-snowboard-boot-size-web-tool-mondo-33.html

SilverSurfer,

My feet are larger than the OP. We carry the Rider's Choice and I ride the normal width 161.5. I have spent many days on the Wide 162 as well and would not choose it as my personal board. I could certainly understand if another rider with a similar spec would value zero toe drag over more immediacy and improved board feel but that would not be my personal choice. 

We will have to disagree about waist width. When many "normal" width boards are wider than "wide" boards and vice versa...and again, nothing happens at the waist.


----------



## Funkfish (Apr 3, 2015)

Ok guys, to settle my foot size once and for all. I just went to a shoe store and measured my foot on a brannock device. My foot length is 13 on the dot and my foot width is 2A which I think is pretty narrow actually. 

This lines up exactly with my 13 Burton Boot. However it's interesting that my mondo size is only a 29.9

Curious what peoples take is on this.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Funkfish said:


> Ok guys, to settle my foot size once and for all. I just went to a shoe store and measured my foot on a brannock device. My foot length is 13 on the dot and my foot width is 2A which I think is pretty narrow actually.
> 
> This lines up exactly with my 13 Burton Boot. However it's interesting that my mondo size is only a 29.9
> 
> Curious what peoples take is on this.


Hi Funk,

That is exactly what we would expect.

29.9 cm is a 13.5 shoe size on a Brannock Device. 
29.9 cm is a 12 Snowboard Boot size. 

Snowboard boot size is always smaller than Brannock Shoe size. Brannock devices should not be used for determining snowboard boot size.

Please enter your cm Measurement and click the tabs:

Snowboard Boot Size, Chart, Calculator, Sizing


----------



## ZeMax (Feb 21, 2014)

Funkfish said:


> Ok guys, to settle my foot size once and for all. I just went to a shoe store and measured my foot on a brannock device. My foot length is 13 on the dot and my foot width is 2A which I think is pretty narrow actually.
> 
> This lines up exactly with my 13 Burton Boot. However it's interesting that my mondo size is only a 29.9
> 
> Curious what peoples take is on this.


If you size your snowboard boot using the shoe store device you'll end up with the wrong boots. I wear size 12 shoes, bought size 11.5 snowboard boots thinking i'd go with a performance fit and got heel lift. Took the mondo size of my hardboot 28.5 which convert to 10.5 and ended up buying size 10.5 softboot. Now I have a great fit, no more heel lift.


----------



## Funkfish (Apr 3, 2015)

Wiredsport said:


> Snowboard boot size is always smaller than Brannock Shoe size. Brannock devices should not be used for determining snowboard boot size.


Yeah I understand there is a difference in mondo and store foot measuring devices. The brannock device was mainly used to determine my foot width (which was 2A) because you had originally suspected I had wide feet which is definitely not the case. 

Anyways I snapped the inside labels of my old solomons and my new burtons as well as pictures of them side by side. 

As you can see the Burton is significantly smaller than the solomon. I put on my solomon this morning to check the size (which is 13) and it is indeed too big. However on the Burton boot (also size 13) I couldn't squeeze another micrometer of toe in there without having a surgical procedure. So it seems the Burton's run significantly smaller than the Solomons, or you could say Burton probably runs true to street size. 

If you look at the labels on both boots. They both say 13 (Burton seems to be lacking mondo size unless that's what CN is) However Burton is a EU 46 Solomon EU 48 2/3

So correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like this is indeed the best sized boot for me. 

The next question is how much width do you think I can get away with on my board (at the inserts)? All I know is my board (which is stored at the mountain right now) is a 162 TRS with 256mm at the waist with a 8.4 sidecut (don't know the width at the inserts sadly) 

Pics below.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Hi Funk,

This is a perfect example of why we stress using Mondo (metric) sizing. 

The mondo size is the foot measurement in mm that the boot was designed for. It is an actual foot measurement (the barefoot length of your foot). All Asian sizes are metric, so a Chinese size is the same as a Mondo size.

Both of the boots you have there are designed for foot length of 310 mm (31.0 cm). All size 13 boots will have 31 cm printed in them. Your foot is 29.8. All size 12 boots will have 300 mm (30.0 cm) printed in them. 

Regardless of the boot size that you will ride (this may change over time) we have your foot measurement of 29.8 and that is what we use for determining board width.

I have a 30.2 foot so we are in the same boat. 

You have a choice to make. You are experiencing toe drag (bite, grab) and are not digging that. Understood. Been there. The obvious reaction is more width. Go wide enough and you will solve that problem. But...is the whole of that experience better for you? Some will say yes. I am in the other camp. Toe drag is just one issue. It isn't pleasant but its also something that can be dealt with. Especially when you know where you are going to hit the limits. In the 90's ultra wide boards become very popular...and then disappeared. The reason was that the loss of performance was worse than toe drag. It is a balancing decision and a preference. No one need agree.

Almost all current bindings have 1 cm plus of built in lift and toe ramps. This helps a lot. Current boot profiling and footprint reduction also helps.

For measurements you will want to use your barefoot measurement in comparison to the width of the board at the inserts which you will use and at your stance angles. 

To give an example. The Rider's Choice 162 Wide is 27.9 at the reference inserts. Your foot is 29.8 so you have a difference of 1.9 cm. ou will lose ~ 1 cm to normal stance angles so that will go down to .9 cm. That will be your total barefoot overhang. Divide by two and you have your heel and toe overhang. .45 cm.

Your current board will be ~1 cm narrower at the inserts. So you can add ~ .5 cm to both your toe and your heel overhang.

That will be the sum of what you are changing in terms of toe drag by going from your current board to the widest of the boards that you are considering. One half cm toe and heel.

I hope that is helpful.


----------



## Funkfish (Apr 3, 2015)

Thanks Wired, really appreciate the help on this. What I was getting at is while both boots say 31CM the insides are significantly different. In the Solomon my toes are roomy and too long, the Burton my toes are semi uncomfortably pressed up against the front of the boot. 

I tried to go town to the 12 Burton (aka 30cm, which technically should be my exact size) but I couldn't even fully extend my toes inside of it, they were curled. 

I totally get the relevance and importance of mondo sizing however it seems that Burton isn't faithfully adhering to this standard. That's all I've been trying to say. 

Foot sizing theory aside, are you saying if you were in my...shoes you would just ride the current TRS I have and deal with it as I have more board control? Do you ride a 162W Riders Choice?


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Funkfish said:


> are you saying if you were in my...shoes you would just ride the current TRS I have and deal with it as I have more board control? Do you ride a 162W Riders Choice?


Hi Funk,

I wrote this a few posts back:

We carry the Rider's Choice and I ride the normal width 161.5. I have spent many days on the Wide 162 as well and would not choose it as my personal board. I could certainly understand if another rider with a similar spec would value zero toe drag over more immediacy and improved board feel but that would not be my personal choice.


----------



## scotty100 (Apr 3, 2012)

Funkfish said:


> I totally get the relevance and importance of mondo sizing however it seems that Burton isn't faithfully adhering to this standard. That's all I've been trying to say.


Exactly. Unfortunately, boot manufacturers do not all adhere to the same manufacturing standards when making their boots regardless of whatever sizing standards they say they follow on the box. Hence, one brand's mondo "9" may well be another brand's mondo "11" (or whatever that is in cms).

Sure, understand the reasoning behind Wired's push for a mondo world but at the end of the day best advice remains to go to a store, get good advice, try on a ton of boots and pick the one that feels the best fit, then see if you can get away with something even smaller that will allow for the inevitable packing out once you've worn them for a season or so. Base your bindings and board sizing off whatever size boots work for you. My guess is you'll be on a wide...


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

scotty100 said:


> Sure, understand the reasoning behind Wired's push for a mondo world but at the end of the day best advice remains to go to a store, get good advice, try on a ton of boots and pick the one that feels the best fit, then see if you can get away with something even smaller that will allow for the inevitable packing out once you've worn them for a season or so.


Hi Scotty,

Stoked for your input. Please read the past few hundred posts we have had on boot sizing. Almost all of these users went to snowboard shops and were sent home with boots that were 2, 3, 4 and even 5 sizes (!?!) larger than their mondo size.


----------



## Funkfish (Apr 3, 2015)

Thanks Wired, obviously you have more experience in this area than we do. However I think what scotty (and now myself) are trying to say is that mondo size doesn't seem to be this infallible gospel of shoe sizing like many members on this board hold it up to be. We measured my 29.8 mondo size on my foot yet I wear a mondo 31 Burton (which again is painfully tight) and a mondo 30 in Salomons. At the end of the day these aren't ski boots I guess...


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Hi Funk,

Mondo determines only the foot measurement that the manufacturer is designing the boot for. That does not mean that there will not be variations in how they will want each boot model to fit. Even within a brand such as Burton they will offer models that have a comfort fit (more spacious) or a performance fit (it's gonna be snug) all designed for the same mondo size. That, however, gets at fine tuning (within 1 cm). Almost all of the issues we see are huge differences as I mentioned above (2-5 cm). 

STOKED!


----------



## scotty100 (Apr 3, 2012)

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Scotty,
> 
> Stoked for your input. Please read the past few hundred posts we have had on boot sizing. Almost all of these users went to snowboard shops and were sent home with boots that were 2, 3, 4 and even 5 sizes (!?!) larger than their mondo size.


So what?! The "Mondo" size is not something that ensures a standard fit across all brands. Why? Because as the OP here states, one brand's mondo size is different from another's. You understand what we are saying here, right? You can't go telling people they are a "mondo xxcms" and that is what they should be in no matter what because this disregards the fact that the likes of Burton, Salomon, K2, Thirty Two or whoever all manufacture to a different template despite all supposedly adhering to an agreed upon "standard" in sizing.



Funkfish said:


> Thanks Wired, obviously you have more experience in this area than we do. However I think what scotty (and now myself) are trying to say is that mondo size doesn't seem to be this infallible gospel of shoe sizing like many members on this board hold it up to be. We measured my 29.8 mondo size on my foot yet I wear a mondo 31 Burton (which again is painfully tight) and a mondo 30 in Salomons. At the end of the day these aren't ski boots I guess...


Exactly. QFT.



Wiredsport said:


> Hi Funk,
> 
> Mondo determines only the foot measurement that the manufacturer is designing the boot for. That does not mean that there will not be variations in how they will want each boot model to fit. Even within a brand such as Burton they will offer models that have a comfort fit (more spacious) or a performance fit (it's gonna be snug) all designed for the same mondo size. That, however, gets at fine tuning (within 1 cm). Almost all of the issues we see are huge differences as I mentioned above (2-5 cm).
> 
> STOKED!


So now you're saying that the variance between models in each brand in terms of sizing is deliberate and that to account for this variance each brand actually has a "comfort" fit and a "performance" fit according to how it actually feels on a person's foot?! Sorry but that's BS! No brand that I'm aware of manufactures a specific "comfort" fit or a "performance" fit. They make their boots according to their particular manufacturer's template and the variance in sizing is due to that template differing across the various manufacturers. Hence, telling people that they should specifically be in a particular "mondo" size is totally worthless. 

Yeah by all means make sure people understand that boots pack out and that when looking for a good fit they should be looking for a somewhat tighter fit at the toe area with good heel lock. Beyond that, telling people they are a specific "mondo" size is pointless and misleading. And by now also quite amusing. Seems like you've got 90% of people (who interestingly are new / have come out of the woodwork in the last couple of months) in the boot section buying up size 9s in Burton ruler wides!! Apparently that's the only boot that fits! That's hilarious!! Sorry dude but you're coming across as super obsessed with mondo for some reason...!:laugh2:


----------



## SnowDogWax (Nov 8, 2013)

Funkfish said:


> Thanks Wired, obviously you have more experience in this area than we do. However I think what scotty (and now myself) are trying to say is that mondo size doesn't seem to be this infallible gospel of shoe sizing like many members on this board hold it up to be. We measured my 29.8 mondo size on my foot yet I wear a mondo 31 Burton (which again is painfully tight) and a mondo 30 in Salomons. At the end of the day these aren't ski boots I guess...


Nailed it these aren't ski boots.... Burton Ion 11.5 Leather Burton 12 Ion regular fit my foot the same:crazy2:



:whiteflag:


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

scotty100 said:


> So now you're saying that the variance between models in each brand in terms of sizing is deliberate and that to account for this variance each brand actually has a "comfort" fit and a "performance" fit according to how it actually feels on a person's foot?! Sorry but that's BS! No brand that I'm aware of manufactures a specific "comfort" fit or a "performance" fit. They make their boots according to their particular manufacturer's template


Hi Scotty,

I will bow out here, but the point above is incorrect. The template you referred to above is called a last. A unique last is used for each boot size within a model. This is called a last set. While some models within a manufacturer's line will share a last set, most will not. The idea that a manufacturer has a specific "fit type" across their entire line has not been true since the 90's.

STOKED!


----------



## scotty100 (Apr 3, 2012)

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Scotty,
> 
> I will bow out here, but the point above is incorrect. The template you referred to above is called a last. A unique last is used for each boot size within a model. This is called a last set. While some models within a manufacturer's line will share a last set, most will not. The idea that a manufacturer has a specific "fit type" across their entire line has not been true since the 90's.
> 
> STOKED!


I too will bow out on the mondo madness. Yes, I know what a "last" is and yes, I know that manufacturers have different lasts for different models. That's the point!! The lasts don't all share the same mondo sizing standards within the same brand and across different brands, hence, telling people they are a specific "mondo size" and to look for that in a boot is totally pointless.


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

scotty100 said:


> I too will bow out on the mondo madness. Yes, I know what a "last" is and yes, I know that manufacturers have different lasts for different models. That's the point!! The lasts don't all share the same mondo sizing standards within the same brand and across different brands, hence, telling people they are a specific "mondo size" and to look for that in a boot is totally pointless.


Nonsense. Nobody here claims that getting the correct mondo size will guarantee a good boot fit - of course boot specific factors matter for that. What Wired is actually saying is that if the sizing (which should be done on Mondo basis) is incorrect you are unlikely to ever get a good fit. So size is the starting point, not the end of the process.


----------



## scotty100 (Apr 3, 2012)

SGboarder said:


> Nonsense. Nobody here claims that getting the correct mondo size will guarantee a good boot fit .


Lol. Read the thread and the "hundreds" of other posts in the boots section where everyone is now apparently in boot heaven wearing size 9 burton rulers (wide).


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

scotty100 said:


> Lol. Read the thread and the "hundreds" of other posts in the boots section where everyone is now apparently in boot heaven wearing size 9 burton rulers (wide).


What's your point? There were a number of people that had issues because of incorrectly sized boots. After following Wired's methodology they are now in the correct size and happy.
Looks like quite an endorsement for Wired's approach.


----------

