# Bindings size



## Speedy84 (Dec 20, 2015)

Hey!

I purchased new Burton Ambush -boots last spring and now it´s time to upgrade my old crappy bindings. Guess I´m going to end up to Burton Cartel Est -bindings... Which size should I get, M or L? My boots are 10,5. I think both sizes fit, but which one would be better...?


----------



## PlanB (Nov 21, 2014)

Medium binding that fits snug will be slightly lighter and more responsive than a large that is a bit loose imo.


----------



## jelly (Oct 22, 2015)

The Imperial US 11 fits Cartel medium ? Anyone know ?


----------



## F242 (Dec 7, 2015)

You should look on Burton's binding/boot chart:

Binding Size S
- Fits Boot Sizes 6-8
Binding Size M
- Fits Boot Sizes 8-11
Binding Size L
- Fits Boot Sizes 10+


----------



## F242 (Dec 7, 2015)

I had Cartels and wore an 11 boot - the size Large fit best. Maxed out bindings aren't fun to ride with (if you went with the Medium).


----------



## tomaswrx (Feb 3, 2015)

I gave burton imperials 10.5 size and burton malavita bindings M size. It fits, but bindings almost maxed out. In the other hand, L size will be too big. imo


----------



## jelly (Oct 22, 2015)

I already bought the medium Cartels. I will see how they fit when I get them. 

Anyway the 2016 Imperials which I have they say it has a reduced footprint 

"Footprint: Love the footprint reduction. It really takes you down a full size on the outside and that’s super helpful" based on thegoodride review.

Also the shop guys from where I bought them said they will fit better on Medium size.


----------



## noone1 (Nov 16, 2015)

I just set up my board thinking I could get by with a medium Genesis EST and 11.5 Imperial boots being that I heard they have a way smaller footprint -- no way. I had the straps on longest settings and I could barely even strap the toe in, and even then it didn't look like it fit at all.

Needless to say, they are going back and I'll be ordering large and maybe even a 12 boot.


----------



## basser (Sep 18, 2015)

Do any of you know if k2 sizes their bindings different? because I have size large and it is for boot size 8-11


----------



## F242 (Dec 7, 2015)

Curious why people want smaller bindings. If you're in the 10.5+ boot size range, you *want* a larger binding that goes as close as possible edge to edge on your board (including footbed). When you try to fit a larger boot into a smaller binding, you get - A) less adjustability because you've maxed out the straps and anything else that can be 'sized up' and B) less boot to binding contact which means slower response time. The manufacturer guides are pretty accurate. If your'e on the edge between sizes, I'd email/call the manufacturer asking for advice.


----------



## noone1 (Nov 16, 2015)

F242 said:


> Curious why people want smaller bindings. If you're in the 10.5+ boot size range, you *want* a larger binding that goes as close as possible edge to edge on your board (including footbed). When you try to fit a larger boot into a smaller binding, you get - A) less adjustability because you've maxed out the straps and anything else that can be 'sized up' and B) less boot to binding contact which means slower response time. The manufacturer guides are pretty accurate. If your'e on the edge between sizes, I'd email/call the manufacturer asking for advice.


I don't feel Burton's guidelines are that accurate and the overlap is misleading. They say M is 8-11, and L is 10+, but the 11 only just barely fits the M imo, and I've heard 10 is very small for the L. If that's the case, they should really change their guidelines to remove this technically-it-fits overlap. They should give their sizes according to what fits well, not merely as to what is technically possible at the most extreme.

If you have to max out the straps and give up all adjustability to fit, then it doesn't fit and shouldn't be advertised as such IMO.


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

jelly said:


> I already bought the medium Cartels. I will see how they fit when I get them.
> 
> Anyway the 2016 Imperials which I have they say it has a reduced footprint
> 
> ...


You should be perfect. 10.5 is right within the range for Burton medium bindings, even more so for Burton boots with shrinkage tech (and especially the Ambush which is possibly the most 'compact' Burton boot).
For EST a large binding _might_ with 10.5-11 boots, a Reflex one is too large and will make pretty much impossible to center the boot.


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

noone1 said:


> I don't feel Burton's guidelines are that accurate and the overlap is misleading. They say M is 8-11, and L is 10+, but the 11 only just barely fits the M imo, and I've heard 10 is very small for the L. If that's the case, they should really change their guidelines to remove this technically-it-fits overlap. They should give their sizes according to what fits well, not merely as to what is technically possible at the most extreme.
> 
> If you have to max out the straps and give up all adjustability to fit, then it doesn't fit and shouldn't be advertised as such IMO.


This has been discussed to death already. Basically it is impossible to give an accurate range given how the bulkiness of boots varies by brand (and even by model for the same brand). If you are borderline between binding sizes and/or your boot is particularly bulky (or compact) then you need to test to be sure.


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

F242 said:


> Curious why people want smaller bindings. If you're in the 10.5+ boot size range, you *want* a larger binding that goes as close as possible edge to edge on your board (including footbed). When you try to fit a larger boot into a smaller binding, you get - A) less adjustability because you've maxed out the straps and anything else that can be 'sized up' and B) less boot to binding contact which means slower response time. The manufacturer guides are pretty accurate. If your'e on the edge between sizes, I'd email/call the manufacturer asking for advice.


No, a smaller binding should generally be more responsive because there is less slop between the boot and the frame of the baseplate (and foot bed length does not make much of a difference other than fitting the outer sole of the boot).
And manufacturer guides are just that - guidelines. If between sizes it makes sense to test/try the fit.


----------



## F242 (Dec 7, 2015)

SGboarder said:


> No, a smaller binding should generally be more responsive because there is less slop between the boot and the frame of the baseplate (and foot bed length does not make much of a difference other than fitting the outer sole of the boot).
> And manufacturer guides are just that - guidelines. If between sizes it makes sense to test/try the fit.


Pretty sure if I put a small binding on my board instead of a large (I wear a 10.5 boot), the small binding would be less responsive if I could somehow manage to get my boot to fit. My toe and heel side wouldn't have anything to press into/on, which would put me at a mechanical disadvantage.


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

F242 said:


> Pretty sure if I put a small binding on my board instead of a large (I wear a 10.5 boot), the small binding would be less responsive if I could somehow manage to get my boot to fit. My toe and heel side wouldn't have anything to press into/on, which would put me at a mechanical disadvantage.


I understood what you meant (leverage) from your first post. But it doesn't work that way/doesn't make enough of a difference to sacrifice a proper fit of the boot in the binding.


----------



## jelly (Oct 22, 2015)

SGboarder said:


> You should be perfect. 10.5 is right within the range for Burton medium bindings, even more so for Burton boots with shrinkage tech (and especially the Ambush which is possibly the most 'compact' Burton boot).
> For EST a large binding _might_ with 10.5-11 boots, a Reflex one is too large and will make pretty much impossible to center the boot.


Thanks for the info. Gonna see how they fit and maybe post a picture or two here so you guys can comment on how they center with my US 11 Imperials (btw, they seem pretty small). I also tested them on my brother's old "The classic" bindings which are in size Large and they look too small for that binding, tons of space left in all parts of the bindings. 

The shop guy ( one of the biggest shop's in Europe ) based on their previous tests advised me to go for the medium one, I guess they know better.


----------



## jelly (Oct 22, 2015)

jelly said:


> I already bought the medium Cartels. I will see how they fit when I get them.
> 
> Anyway the 2016 Imperials which I have they say it has a reduced footprint
> 
> ...


Ok, so I've got the bindings and they fit if the straps are maxed out but there is a problem with the back of the bindings (heel area), they are too narrow for my US 11 Imperials and you have to force them back and push down in order to center them. That leaves a clear deforming sign on my boots and I think if you ride like that you'll ruin your boots. Not good at all. 

I will send them back for Large bindings.


----------



## F242 (Dec 7, 2015)

jelly said:


> Ok, so I've got the bindings and they fit if the straps are maxed out but there is a problem with the back of the bindings (heel area), they are too narrow for my US 11 Imperials and you have to force them back and push down in order to center them. That leaves a clear deforming sign on my boots and I think if you ride like that you'll ruin your boots. Not good at all.
> 
> I will send them back for Large bindings.


Pretty sure I mentioned the maxed out strap problem, but SGboarder seemed to insist on you getting a medium, now leaving you with bindings that don't fit...


----------



## jelly (Oct 22, 2015)

F242 said:


> Pretty sure I mentioned the maxed out strap problem, but SGboarder seemed to insist on you getting a medium, now leaving you with bindings that don't fit...


No, I've got the bindings at the advice of the shop, they were already bought and on the way to me when I posted here.

Anyways, I will exchange them for Large ones, no problem.


----------

