# Burton Shrinkage tech = Complete bullshit



## SilverSurfer (Sep 27, 2010)

I have a pair of 2008 Burton Sabbaths size 13 that I bought 2 years ago on sale, this year I picked up a pair of 2014 Burton Rovers with “shrinkage tech”. The two boots are exactly the same length.


----------



## Zone (Nov 30, 2013)

The shrinkage tech doesn't effect the actual foot size, but the footprint. This way you catch less edge while carving.


----------



## SilverSurfer (Sep 27, 2010)

Zone said:


> The shrinkage tech doesn't effect the actual foot size, but the footprint. This way you catch less edge while carving.


If I put the boots sole to sole they are exactly the same. They both start turning up at the toe in the exact same place. The "footprint" is the same.


----------



## Zone (Nov 30, 2013)

I have two different burton's, one with shrinkage tech and one without. I do notice there is about 10/12ths of an inch difference of the same size


----------



## SilverSurfer (Sep 27, 2010)

Zone said:


> I have two different burton's, one with shrinkage tech and one without. I do notice there is about 10/12ths of an inch difference of the same size


First off, I have never heard of any one breaking down an inch into 12th's. It should be 16th's. And you would never use 10/16th's it would be 5/8th's. So, from your horrible example I would not trust you to use any kind of measuring equipment.


----------



## mojo maestro (Jan 6, 2009)

Nobody likes shrinkage.............bigger is better.


----------



## trapper (Jan 15, 2013)

SilverSurfer said:


> I have a pair of 2008 Burton Sabbaths size 13 that I bought 2 years ago on sale, this year I picked up a pair of 2014 Burton Rovers with “shrinkage tech”. The two boots are exactly the same length.


I understand that they are both labeled at size 13 US boots, but I'm curious, are the mondo/Japan sizes listed on the boots the same?


----------



## Flylo (Jun 26, 2013)

SilverSurfer said:


> First off, I have never heard of any one breaking down an inch into 12th's. It should be 16th's. And you would never use 10/16th's it would be 5/8th's. So, from your horrible example I would not trust you to use any kind of measuring equipment.


LOL. Well you still understand what Zone is saying don't you? Yes... it's a little smaller :eusa_clap: 

Who gives a shit if he's using correct fractions or not.


----------



## Karpediem (Aug 29, 2007)

SilverSurfer said:


> I have a pair of 2008 Burton Sabbaths size 13 that I bought 2 years ago on sale, this year I picked up a pair of 2014 Burton Rovers with “shrinkage tech”. The two boots are exactly the same length.


I noticed this too when comparing my old boots with new ones that had this great tech. I guess even if it's 1mm smaller they can say it's a smaller footprint. Still I would hope your 2014 boots are at least lighter than your 2008 boots.


----------



## trapper (Jan 15, 2013)

The vast difference in model years is what prompted me to wonder about the mondo sizing. I just wonder if their sizing chart changed since then. I am highly suspect of their charts considering a recent conversation I had on here with Wiredsport. My 09 Burton Boots are listed as a size 15 US, but 31.5 mondo. If you look on a Brannock device, 31.5 is actually more like a size 13 US, which tends to be more along my actual shoe/foot size (I wear 13 wides or 14 regular if I can't find a wide sizing). 

Basically, I just wonder if he's comparing apples to apples considering that Burton's boot sizing seems odd to me in general.


----------



## SilverSurfer (Sep 27, 2010)

trapper said:


> The vast difference in model years is what prompted me to wonder about the mondo sizing. I just wonder if their sizing chart changed since then. I am highly suspect of their charts considering a recent conversation I had on here with Wiredsport. My 09 Burton Boots are listed as a size 15 US, but 31.5 mondo. If you look on a Brannock device, 31.5 is actually more like a size 13 US, which tends to be more along my actual shoe/foot size (I wear 13 wides or 14 regular if I can't find a wide sizing).
> 
> Basically, I just wonder if he's comparing apples to apples considering that Burton's boot sizing seems odd to me in general.


They are both US size 13. And they fit and feel exactly the same with the exception of the Rover being a softer flex.


----------



## trapper (Jan 15, 2013)

Yep I get that they are both 13s, I just wonder if they are listing the mondo sizes the same on each boot as well. As you probably are aware, one company's size 13 doesn't always fit the same as another company's. And because there is a big difference in the years here, I was just trying to rule out that Burton 2008 sizing is different somehow than 2014 sizing. Mondo sizing tends to run more straightforward because it's simply cms.

I am interested in this because I too was considering Burton shrinkage for my next boot. But not if there isn't any difference, that's for sure.


----------



## SilverSurfer (Sep 27, 2010)

trapper said:


> Yep I get that they are both 13s, I just wonder if they are listing the mondo sizes the same on each boot as well. As you probably are aware, one company's size 13 doesn't always fit the same as another company's. And because there is a big difference in the years here, I was just trying to rule out that Burton 2008 sizing is different somehow than 2014 sizing. Mondo sizing tends to run more straightforward because it's simply cms.
> 
> I am interested in this because I too was considering Burton shrinkage for my next boot. But not if there isn't any difference, that's for sure.


Yeah, when I got the boots I was planning on adjusting my bindings to account for the different center position. That's when I realized they are the same length.
I will check on the Mondo size tonight and get back to you.


----------



## SilverSurfer (Sep 27, 2010)

Both boots have the same size printed JPN 30.5 and EUR 46.5.


----------



## trapper (Jan 15, 2013)

Yea so I guess we can rule out any changes to the sizing chart. 

It is strange. What's the point of the shrinkage tech then, unless you happened to get a bum pair? If it were me I'd call Burton.


----------



## Flylo (Jun 26, 2013)

trapper said:


> Yea so I guess we can rule out any changes to the sizing chart.
> 
> It is strange. What's the point of the shrinkage tech then, unless you happened to get a bum pair? If it were me I'd call Burton.


+1

It'll be interesting to hear their response.


----------



## Zone (Nov 30, 2013)

SilverSurfer said:


> First off, I have never heard of any one breaking down an inch into 12th's. It should be 16th's. And you would never use 10/16th's it would be 5/8th's. So, from your horrible example I would not trust you to use any kind of measuring equipment.


Im sorry im not in math class.


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

what an expose on burton.....

/facepalm


----------



## speedjason (May 2, 2013)

maybe its not cold enough. oh wait......:laugh:


----------



## bseracka (Nov 14, 2011)

Shrinktech isn't new, I don't know the specs of your original boots, but I'd certainly imagine it's possible they are also shrinktech. I know in the salomon line the shrinktech makes a huge difference.


----------



## SilverSurfer (Sep 27, 2010)

bseracka said:


> Shrinktech isn't new, I don't know the specs of your original boots, but I'd certainly imagine it's possible they are also shrinktech. I know in the salomon line the shrinktech makes a huge difference.


If you search 2008 Burton Sabbath you will not find anything about shrinkage tech. 
Maybe someone knows the year they introduced this "tech".


----------



## speedjason (May 2, 2013)

what exactly is OP's problem again? boots too big for non-wide board?


----------



## bseracka (Nov 14, 2011)

thinks shirktech is a scam because it doesn't shrink enough, between his boots from 2008 and 2013


----------



## speedjason (May 2, 2013)

bseracka said:


> thinks shirktech is a scam because it doesn't shrink enough, between his boots from 2008 and 2013


well what about added comfort, insulation stuff like that?


----------



## bseracka (Nov 14, 2011)

there's that for sure, the op isn't making a fair comparison between his boots and is pissed he doesn't see the expected results. the boots he's comparing aren't similar internally


----------



## tonicusa (Feb 27, 2008)

you have to get the boots wet first for the shrinkage tech to work...


----------



## bseracka (Nov 14, 2011)

I thought they just needed to be cold


----------



## a4h Saint (Jan 24, 2013)

tonicusa said:


> you have to get the boots wet first for the shrinkage tech to work...





bseracka said:


> I thought they just needed to be cold


Oohh the poor bambi's that innocently wander into our beloved forum and actually try some of this crap! :hope:


----------



## SilverSurfer (Sep 27, 2010)

speedjason said:


> what exactly is OP's problem again? boots too big for non-wide board?


Ok, this is for the dummies. 
I'm not talking about comfort, weight, or anything else besides the length of the sole.
The 2008 boot before shrinkage tech has the exact same footprint as the 2014 with shrinkage tech.


----------



## speedjason (May 2, 2013)

SilverSurfer said:


> Ok, this is for the dummies.
> I'm not talking about comfort, weight, or anything else besides the length of the sole.
> The 2008 boot before shrinkage tech has the exact same footprint as the 2014 with shrinkage tech.


well as I was saying your new boots have more stuff in it so maybe without reduced footprint would've been much bigger?
you are comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## trapper (Jan 15, 2013)

OP bought new boots claiming shrinkage tech and didn't seem to get what he paid for. I think it's a legitimate complaint.


----------



## SilverSurfer (Sep 27, 2010)

speedjason said:


> well as I was saying your new boots have more stuff in it so maybe without reduced footprint would've been much bigger?
> you are comparing apples and oranges.


Throw your helmet in the trash. It’s not protecting anything worth saving.


----------



## speedjason (May 2, 2013)

SilverSurfer said:


> Throw your helmet in the trash. It’s not protecting anything worth saving.


wow


----------



## SnowDragon (Apr 23, 2012)

speedjason said:


> well as I was saying your new boots have more stuff in it so maybe without reduced footprint would've been much bigger?
> you are comparing apples and oranges.


No, he's comparing Burton boots to Burton boots - a direct comparison of the footprint over several years.
If they are indeed the same size and have the same footprint then the claim of shrinkage is erroneous.

Since none of us seem to know, I recommend contacting Burton directly.


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

SilverSurfer said:


> Throw your helmet in the trash. It’s not protecting anything worth saving.


:eusa_clap::eusa_clap::eusa_clap:


----------



## ViciousVend3tta (Jan 13, 2014)

I would understand if he was comparing his 08 Hail to 13 Hail, but he's not even comparing same models. I'm pretty sure same size ION, Hail, Moto probably don't share same footprint.


----------



## slyder (Jan 18, 2010)

SilverSurfer said:


> First off, I have never heard of any one breaking down an inch into 12th's. It should be 16th's. And you would never use 10/16th's it would be 5/8th's. So, from your horrible example I would not trust you to use any kind of measuring equipment.


:bowdown:










couldn't resist, and the coffee hasn't kicked in yet....


----------

