Boot sizing - don't forget the instep!

[ddg]

Continued from here...

In my attempt to purchase a plastic touring boot that fits my foot I've discovered there's more to sizing than length and width. Because of where I live I can't try them on. No one carries this niche stuff around here. So online it is. Looking at the Scarpa T4s, I measured my foot at 275-280 mm long and 100-105 mm wide. Not wanting to have too much room I went with the Mondo 28. It turns out they are just a bit too short and narrow. I might have put up with this while the liners stretched into my foot over time. However, they were simply too uncomfortable.

It turns out that the biggest culprit is neither the length nor width. Rather it's the instep which is measured by wrapping the tape from the back of the heel on one side over the top and down to the back of the heel on the other side, like this. Apparently, for a "normal" instep this should measure about the same as length. Turns out my insteps measures 305, about 25 mm more than my length. No wonder the blasted boots were uncomfortable!

I found some slightly used T4s in Mondo 29. I think I give those a shot.

Moral of the story - don't forget to measure the instep.

[MikeK]

Large instep is a high volume foot. I think you are wasting time with the Scarpa. Some boots just don't work for high volume feet.

I think now you are going to have a boot that is too wide and too long, sacrificing any performance you might gain.

Most likely you'll need a custom liner to try to fix it...

I have a high volume and wide foot. Almost no plastic boots fit me right unless I size up and then they feel too sloppy in both length and width. My only solution is to use a large size shell and a custom liner. A slightly higher volume boot like the Excursion will probably fit you correctly in the proper Mondo size for your length and width. I can't make you any guarantees, but I'm trying to save you from a slippery path you are sliding down...

ORS Crew (Ryan) answers - There is definitely a difference in sizing between the Garmont Excursion boot and the Scarpa T4 boot. One thing about their sizing, Garmont uses the same shell size for the whole and half sizes – i.e. the 28.0 and 28.5 share the same shell size. The only difference is the footbed liner which is a bit narrower on the 28.5, giving it a bit more room for a wider foot. Scarpa however uses the same shell size for the half size and the next whole size – i.e. the 28.5 and the 29 share the same shell. Like the Excursion, the main difference is that the larger size, in this case the 29, is a bit roomier. Mondopoint sizing is meant to be pretty standard, but it isn’t a perfect system. There are just too many variables with boots. The number 25, for example, refers to the measurement of the foot in centimeters. So if your foot measures 25cm, then you should be a Mondo 25, right? If only! The biggest difference in fit between the two boots is volume. The Garmont Excursion ski boots have a higher volume than the Scarpa T4 ski boots, so if you have a wider foot, you’ll probably fit a Garmont better. If you have a narrower foot, the Scarpa is perhaps the better choice. I am a US 10.5 and I fit a Mondo 28.5 in the Garmont Excursion, however I found the Scarpa T4 in 28.5 to be too narrow and even a bit short. I had to go with the 29.5, which is the next shell size up. The interesting thing is that the footbed liner for the Excursion 28.5 and the T4 28.5 is exactly the same length. I would say as a general rule of thumb is that you should go to the next shell size in a Scarpa. So, if you are a 25.5 in a Garmont, I would say the 26.5 or 27.0 in the T4 would fit you best. And of course you can always return the boots (in new, unused condition) and exchange sizes and/or brands if you find the fit to be less than optimal.

[LooseHeel]

For that instep measurement... did you measure all the way around the heel? in the pic, it appears measured to the sides of the heel at the edge of the brannock device?
If I measure to the sides of the heel, it's 280mm, all the way around the heel is 305mm.
Width is 105mm. We may have the similar size feet.

[ddg]

Appreciate that MikeK. Indeed they may fit better. Interesting that I've never really had a problem fitting anything before, even a plastic alpine boot. My problem isn't really wide feet but tall (not sure of the right term - high instep?). I suspect that the 29 T4 may be a better overall fit for me, and work fine for now. Although maybe not as good as the 28 Excursion. Still thinking about it...

[ddg]

did you measure all the way around the heel?

Nope. Just to the sides. I was very surprised at my "high" foot.

[MikeK]

Width and high instep can cause similar issues. The combination of both being large is the worst, I know, I have that situation. Very rarely does a boot fit me both in length, width and in the arch. Leather, and laces are very forgiving in width and arch. You can get away with a lot you cannot with a plastic shell.

I'm guessing those shells are technically the correct size for the length and width of your foot, but the reason the liner feels tight when you remove it and wear it on it's own is you are taking up volume with your instep causing it to stretch and feel tight in length and width. Going to a bigger size doesn't always fix this because you may just wind up with a long, wide boot that now fits your instep, but nothing else. For me when I do this it's typically just a bit too long and a shade too wide. I've always compensated with using real socks in my Alpine boots. You really lack performance that way. If you can get a boot that fits your foot with minimal sockage, it will always be better for ski control. If you aren't doing long treks then warmth will most likely not be an issue. Plastic boots, as long as they aren't pinching and cutting off circulation, tend to be very warm. If you get cold spots in your feet later on when you actually ski, it's probably a fit issue more than anything.

The sad thing is you won't really know how a boot is going to treat your feet until you get out and wear it on skis for a few hours. I can tolerate almost anything for a few minutes in the house... but that does me no good. I'm usually out in my boots for 3-6 hours at a time - probably more actual ski time than 8hrs in Alpine boots. The boots I don't wear I can't make it more than an hour, and they feel fine wearing them around the house.

I'm not trying to scare you, just warn you. Boots are sketchy. If you aren't skiing big mountains don't kid yourself trying to go stiff and heavy - it's overkill. You might get lucky and get a comfy boot, or you might struggle a whole season. From everything I can gather it doesn't seem like you need that extra performance that a good fitting Scarpa might give you, be it a T4 or a T2 - and to get that you might need to do some boot fitting. I'm telling you my wife is not a good dh skier and has no Alpine experience and she can control her skis fine with an Excursion in every situation I've seen her in.

I can't imagine you are going to be hitting anything more extreme than low angle glades without a ton more than 500' or so of vert, at least for your first few seasons. Keep in mind your also skiing on lightweight, powder orientated xcd ski, not a wide, heavy telemark ski.

The T4 is really more of a light tele boot for spring corn and such. Unless you have a free pivot you are probably going to hate it for climbing. It's not only stiffer in the shell, but also the bellows. I would never choose a T4 or T2 as a 'bushwacking' boot, unless maybe you were willing to tour with a free pivot. If you were an experienced turn hunter and knew how to make tele turns, then maybe you might choose that just to get the best performance, but I think that you are being led astray by experienced skiers who maybe don't or won't ski the same as you do.

So I'm still not only trying to convince you based on fit and comfort, but based on application. I'm almost 90% sure you are going to spend more time climbing and traversing out in the bush than you will descending - I gather you're not climbing mountains just to descend or skiing at a resort. You'll do all that a lot better with a more comfortable, flexible touring boot. And the power you have even with a 'soft' two buckle plastic on a ski like that is quite a bit. It will be nothing like your leather boots.

[MikeK]

PS I didn't mean to overload you with info but you were throwing out all the same signs my wife had with the T4. She actually was able to to try different sizes and demo them. She did fine with them for about the first hour, then she said they started to cramp her heel of all places. She did some yoyo dh runs with them and did great, then I saw her try to K&G with them and she was barely shuffling along - this is when she said she started to cramp.

Now take from this what you will, but being a woman using XCD gear, she doesn't have a lot of options for women specific boots and such. All her current stuff is mens stuff. She has a fairly high instep but not an overly wide foot. She gets cramps in the Excursion is she wears a regular hiking sock, with a thin liner type sock, no cramps - this is literally how sensitive this is. I have the same issues with my Crispi Svartisen - sock + liner = cramps, sock only = perfect, liner only = too loose.

IIRC she says her boots pinch her every so slightly at her arch indicating her instep is a bit tight. From every bit of data I have read, seen, heard, etc the T4 has less instep volume. I can't recall her mentioning any huge difference in the width between the two but it sounds like there is some, maybe more prominent in the larger sizes.

[ddg]

Not overloaded at all MikeK. Appreciate the info.

[MikeK]

OK - whew. I was afraid I might be going overboard and giving you the feeling I'm trying to push an agenda or gear choice. No - I could care less what you ski. Just trying to convey from experience what I've learned about these two boots in the past two years and what I know about the horrors of boot fitting.

In a perfect world you'd ski both boots after proper sizing and decide which will fit your purposes better. Very rarely is that the case. I know of one place that did demo the T4 and that's why I had my wife try it. I figured if it didn't work out we'd try the Excursion. I took a gamble and wound up ordering two different sizes for her to try.

I can't remember exactly with the Scarpa but I remember for sure with the Excursion that she felt the smaller was too tight, and then was way too big on the next size, she kept the smaller one. I believe this was the same with the T4 when she tried them and she tried the tighter of the two out on the demo. Going to a bigger shell is fine if you are willing to spend the loot and get a thermo-moldable liner to fill in the void, or if you are lucky, just shim the foot bed.

I also recall she was very resistant to using the Excursions because she felt so locked down with the T4. Once she actually skied them her thoughts changed and now I can't wrestle them away from her. They really do tend to more of the XCD/middle ground/K&G+turns type range of boot. There are strict rules around here about calling that a XCD boot, but it's really in more of a class of it's own.

[connyro]

DDG, There's been little discussion so far about footbeds/insoles and good boot fit. If you find the 29 T4s too big, you can take up volume in the boot with a good footbed. Here's a little info: http://www.evo.com/how-to-buy-ski-snowb ... soles.aspx.