Shoe vs foot width

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

Hi All,

There have been a bunch of threads about big shoes lately, and I'm
well aware of who makes big shoes. But now I pondering how widths vary
by size and how big shoes may or may not be proportionally wider.

Shoes of varying widths are often made using the same sole, but with
more upper material to create a greater volume. In discussions with
vendors, I have been told that shoes in my size will fit and be
comfortable despite the sole being significatly narrower than my foot.
I do not have a particularly wide foot, but I think this is common
with the larger sizes, and I don't buy it.

I wear US 15, Euro 50 and my foot is 12cm wide. This is a D or regular
width. I have yet to find any cycling shoes with a sole wider than
10cm. This means 2cm of my foot hangs over the outside edge and is
unsupported and has the edge of the sole digging in when I push down.

Somebody who uses size 10 US (43 Euro) in a D width would have a foot
about 10cm wide. Do size 43 cycling shoes have a sole that is 8cm
wide? Is that wide enough? Do folks with more normal sized feet have
solid sole under their whole foot?

Joseph

[Art Harris]

joseph.santanie wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> There have been a bunch of threads about big shoes lately, and I'm
> well aware of who makes big shoes. But now I pondering how widths vary
> by size and how big shoes may or may not be proportionally wider.
>
> Shoes of varying widths are often made using the same sole, but with
> more upper material to create a greater volume. In discussions with
> vendors, I have been told that shoes in my size will fit and be
> comfortable despite the sole being significatly narrower than my foot.
> I do not have a particularly wide foot, but I think this is common
> with the larger sizes, and I don't buy it.
>
> I wear US 15, Euro 50 and my foot is 12cm wide. This is a D or regular
> width. I have yet to find any cycling shoes with a sole wider than
> 10cm. This means 2cm of my foot hangs over the outside edge and is
> unsupported and has the edge of the sole digging in when I push down.
>
> Somebody who uses size 10 US (43 Euro) in a D width would have a foot
> about 10cm wide. Do size 43 cycling shoes have a sole that is 8cm
> wide? Is that wide enough? Do folks with more normal sized feet have
> solid sole under their whole foot?
>

In my experience, shoes are impossible to predict without trying them
on. I've gone through this with cycling shoes and hiking boots. I
recently read several online reviews of a particular hiking boot. Some
folks said that boot ran true to size, while others said it felt too
big, and others said it was too small. The same thing was true
regarding width.

My size 47 Sidi Mega Genius shoes feel very roomy to me, while a Size
47 Shimano T092 was too tight. A Size 48 T092 is comfortable, and the
width of the sole is close to the Sidi Mega.


Your question about width is interesting. Yes, you would think a
longer foot would also be proportionately wider. But I think a D width
is the same regardless of shoe size. Within reason, I think adding
more upper material to fit a wider foot (while keeping the same sole)
is ok . But going from a D width to EEEE with the same sole probably
isn't a good idea. One option is a custom shoe.

Here's an interesting shoe size calculator that suggests "D" width
varies with shoe size.
http://www.geocities.com/handy_feet/shoesize.html

Art Harris

[Johan Bornman]

joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi All,
Cut cut cut cut
>
> Shoes of varying widths are often made using the same sole, but with
> more upper material to create a greater volume. In discussions with
> vendors, I have been told that shoes in my size will fit and be
> comfortable despite the sole being significatly narrower than my foot.
> I do not have a particularly wide foot, but I think this is common
> with the larger sizes, and I don't buy it.
>
>Cut cut cut cut >
> Somebody who uses size 10 US (43 Euro) in a D width would have a foot
> about 10cm wide. Do size 43 cycling shoes have a sole that is 8cm
> wide? Is that wide enough? Do folks with more normal sized feet have
> solid sole under their whole foot?
>
> Joseph

Joseph, I also came up against this problem. Shoe salesmen used to
tell me that this or that shoe is a wide fit. I couldn't reconcile
with that upon trying on the shoes. In the end I went shopping armed
with a vernier callipers and I discovered that a wide fit and narrow
fit from the same shoe company, has exactly the same width sole. This
was true for New Balance (the only running shoe company I know whow
claims to have different widths and Sidi. The Genius and Genius Mega
had exactly the same sole. As you said, the difference is in the
material on top (if indeed that is true).

My feet thus also hang over the edges of the soles. This is
uncomfortable and even painful. Further, the soft overhang often falls
victim to things that cut and scuff it.

My Shimano size 43 shoe is 100mm wide at the widest point. The widest
point on the sole is 90mm wide (10mm narrower if I measure at the
other end of the taper). IN other words, on the ground it is 80mm
wide.

Perhaps that gives you some data for a conclusion.

[* * Chas]

<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fbbefbf0-1bf4-4d75-840c-b82c79d93eb6@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Hi All,
>
> There have been a bunch of threads about big shoes lately, and I'm
> well aware of who makes big shoes. But now I pondering how widths vary
> by size and how big shoes may or may not be proportionally wider.
>
> Shoes of varying widths are often made using the same sole, but with
> more upper material to create a greater volume. In discussions with
> vendors, I have been told that shoes in my size will fit and be
> comfortable despite the sole being significatly narrower than my foot.
> I do not have a particularly wide foot, but I think this is common
> with the larger sizes, and I don't buy it.
>
> I wear US 15, Euro 50 and my foot is 12cm wide. This is a D or regular
> width. I have yet to find any cycling shoes with a sole wider than
> 10cm. This means 2cm of my foot hangs over the outside edge and is
> unsupported and has the edge of the sole digging in when I push down.
>
> Somebody who uses size 10 US (43 Euro) in a D width would have a foot
> about 10cm wide. Do size 43 cycling shoes have a sole that is 8cm
> wide? Is that wide enough? Do folks with more normal sized feet have
> solid sole under their whole foot?
>
> Joseph

Thanks for bringing up this issue in detail.

I wear US size 10 1/2 3E or 4E shoes - Euro 45 x 11.75 - 12.25 wide. I
also have a high instep or arch.

I have an old pair of Adidas Eddy Merckx cycling shoe from 1974 that have
been reglued several times and a pair of Specialized Touring shoes without
cleats from about 1976. Both are going to need replacement one of these
days and I've been shopping for shoes for over a year now.

I've tried on dozens of pairs of shoes for clipless pedals and the only
thing that came close were some size 47 Shimano MTB shoes. My foot could
move back and forth even when tightly laced which would result in
blisters.

I have a pair of size 11 4E New Balance athletic shoes that fit
comfortably. The soles are 116mm wide and there is very little rollover.
They are style CM471GB marked Made in the USA (of imported materials?). I
haven't tried them for cycling because the toe box section is too high to
fit into even my modified toe clips.

Chas.

[Andrew Lee]

joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wear US 15, Euro 50 and my foot is 12cm wide. This is a D or regular
> width. I have yet to find any cycling shoes with a sole wider than
> 10cm. This means 2cm of my foot hangs over the outside edge and is
> unsupported and has the edge of the sole digging in when I push down.

You make a good point - the supported width is important.

How are you measuring the width of your foot? I just did some measurements
of my right foot by standing on a sheet of paper and marking the extents of
my foot. It's 27.5 cm long and 11.5 cm wide at the widest point (US 10.5/EE
to 3E, though I general wear "standard" rather than wide shoes). I marked
these extents by sighting down vertically and marking the widest points.

I also marked the weight bearing width of my right foot by sticking a pen
into the crevices between the bottom of my foot and the sheet of paper and
tracing an outline while putting full body weight onto that foot. I didn't
jam the pen in hard, just enough to say that if I can mark it with my pen,
there's very little, if any, weight on that portion of the foot. The weight
bearing width of my right foot measured that way is 10.1 cm. So,
theoretically, a 10 cm wide sole should provide as much width as I need to
provide full support.

> Somebody who uses size 10 US (43 Euro) in a D width would have a foot
> about 10cm wide. Do size 43 cycling shoes have a sole that is 8cm
> wide? Is that wide enough? Do folks with more normal sized feet have
> solid sole under their whole foot?

Here are sole width measurements of a few of my shoes, along with comments
how the soles feel underfoot:

Sidi Dominators (44.5) are 8.9 cm wide. The half size Sidis are
supposedly wider than the full size Sidis, but I think it's all in the
upper. There is noticeable foot overhang in these shoes, especially on the
inside. I have to wear thin socks with these. On occasion, my feet can go
numb. They are useable. I tried the Mega version prior to getting these
and thought that they were sloppily wide through the heel and mid-foot, but
I might try them again someday. I don't remember if the Mega versions had
wider soles... that would be something that I would check if I ever look
into them again.

Salomon Carbon Pro Classics (labeled 44/US 10/28 cm) are 9.5 cm wide. These
feel not quite wide enough underfoot (and on top too), and my feet overhang
on the inside. They are useable though.

Fischer S9000 Skates (44) are 10.8 cm wide. These are awesome underfoot
with no foot overhang. They are most comfortable plastic soled shoes I have
ever used. Maybe I should get another pair and bolt some SPDs underneath...
(I'm almost serious, they would probably be great for winter cycling).

Nike Free 3.0 (US 11) are about 10.5 cm wide where they contact the feet and
flare out to 11.2 cm at ground level. These are very lightweight running
shoes, and the uppers don't provide much support, so it seems like more
width is necessary, but the shoes are still very comfortable. The 4.0 and
5.0 versions of this shoe were a bit wider and more comfortable.

[Michael Press]

In article
<fbbefbf0-1bf4-4d75-840c-b82c79d93eb6@b40g2000prf.googl
egroups.com>,
"joseph.santaniello@gmail.com"
<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> There have been a bunch of threads about big shoes lately, and I'm
> well aware of who makes big shoes. But now I pondering how widths vary
> by size and how big shoes may or may not be proportionally wider.
>
> Shoes of varying widths are often made using the same sole, but with
> more upper material to create a greater volume. In discussions with
> vendors, I have been told that shoes in my size will fit and be
> comfortable despite the sole being significatly narrower than my foot.
> I do not have a particularly wide foot, but I think this is common
> with the larger sizes, and I don't buy it.
>
> I wear US 15, Euro 50 and my foot is 12cm wide. This is a D or regular
> width. I have yet to find any cycling shoes with a sole wider than
> 10cm. This means 2cm of my foot hangs over the outside edge and is
> unsupported and has the edge of the sole digging in when I push down.
>
> Somebody who uses size 10 US (43 Euro) in a D width would have a foot
> about 10cm wide. Do size 43 cycling shoes have a sole that is 8cm
> wide? Is that wide enough? Do folks with more normal sized feet have
> solid sole under their whole foot?

Shimano SPD mountain bicycle shoe,
size 45
100 mm sole width measured on the outside
105 mm foot width.

I am comfortable in these shoes.
Typically I wear US size 9 1/2.

--
Michael Press

[* * Chas]

"Art Harris" <n2ah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10598d5a-4b0e-4e22-9ab4-9e90e91e71a2@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> joseph.santanie wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > There have been a bunch of threads about big shoes lately, and I'm
> > well aware of who makes big shoes. But now I pondering how widths vary
> > by size and how big shoes may or may not be proportionally wider.
> >
> > Shoes of varying widths are often made using the same sole, but with
> > more upper material to create a greater volume. In discussions with
> > vendors, I have been told that shoes in my size will fit and be
> > comfortable despite the sole being significatly narrower than my foot.
> > I do not have a particularly wide foot, but I think this is common
> > with the larger sizes, and I don't buy it.
> >
> > I wear US 15, Euro 50 and my foot is 12cm wide. This is a D or regular
> > width. I have yet to find any cycling shoes with a sole wider than
> > 10cm. This means 2cm of my foot hangs over the outside edge and is
> > unsupported and has the edge of the sole digging in when I push down.
> >
> > Somebody who uses size 10 US (43 Euro) in a D width would have a foot
> > about 10cm wide. Do size 43 cycling shoes have a sole that is 8cm
> > wide? Is that wide enough? Do folks with more normal sized feet have
> > solid sole under their whole foot?
> >
>
> In my experience, shoes are impossible to predict without trying them
> on. I've gone through this with cycling shoes and hiking boots. I
> recently read several online reviews of a particular hiking boot. Some
> folks said that boot ran true to size, while others said it felt too
> big, and others said it was too small. The same thing was true
> regarding width.
>
> My size 47 Sidi Mega Genius shoes feel very roomy to me, while a Size
> 47 Shimano T092 was too tight. A Size 48 T092 is comfortable, and the
> width of the sole is close to the Sidi Mega.
>
>
> Your question about width is interesting. Yes, you would think a
> longer foot would also be proportionately wider. But I think a D width
> is the same regardless of shoe size. Within reason, I think adding
> more upper material to fit a wider foot (while keeping the same sole)
> is ok . But going from a D width to EEEE with the same sole probably
> isn't a good idea. One option is a custom shoe.
>
> Here's an interesting shoe size calculator that suggests "D" width
> varies with shoe size.
> http://www.geocities.com/handy_feet/shoesize.html
>
> Art Harris

That's a great chart, thanks.

Chas.

[Andrew Lee]

Art Harris wrote:
> Your question about width is interesting. Yes, you would think a
> longer foot would also be proportionately wider. But I think a D width
> is the same regardless of shoe size.
>
>
> Here's an interesting shoe size calculator that suggests "D" width
> varies with shoe size.
> http://www.geocities.com/handy_feet/shoesize.html

The letter widths do vary with shoe size as that calculator suggests. Take
a look a third picture from the bottom on this page from the Brannock Device
website:

http://brannock.com/cgi-bin/start.cgi/brannock/instructions.html

This is the device that you can find in any shoe store. The difference in
width between shoe size at any given width letter is easily seen. An
example that you can see from that photo is that size 6.5 D is about the
same width as size 12.5 AA.

[datakoll]

adding a cut to fit, stiff plastic or resin board into a light weight
running shoe then gluing the clip into the sole? there's an RBT
discussion of this during the last 6 months.
last I looked, no racy cyclists had feet larger than 48cm unles they
were well heeled.

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Dec 14, 2:59 pm, Johan Bornman <coldb...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hi All,
> Cut cut cut cut
>
> > Shoes of varying widths are often made using the same sole, but with
> > more upper material to create a greater volume. In discussions with
> > vendors, I have been told that shoes in my size will fit and be
> > comfortable despite the sole being significatly narrower than my foot.
> > I do not have a particularly wide foot, but I think this is common
> > with the larger sizes, and I don't buy it.
>
> >Cut cut cut cut >
> > Somebody who uses size 10 US (43 Euro) in a D width would have a foot
> > about 10cm wide. Do size 43 cycling shoes have a sole that is 8cm
> > wide? Is that wide enough? Do folks with more normal sized feet have
> > solid sole under their whole foot?
>
> > Joseph
>
> Joseph, I also came up against this problem. Shoe salesmen used to
> tell me that this or that shoe is a wide fit. I couldn't reconcile
> with that upon trying on the shoes. In the end I went shopping armed
> with a vernier callipers and I discovered that a wide fit and narrow
> fit from the same shoe company, has exactly the same width sole. This
> was true for New Balance (the only running shoe company I know whow
> claims to have different widths and Sidi. The Genius and Genius Mega
> had exactly the same sole. As you said, the difference is in the
> material on top (if indeed that is true).
>
> My feet thus also hang over the edges of the soles. This is
> uncomfortable and even painful. Further, the soft overhang often falls
> victim to things that cut and scuff it.
>
> My Shimano size 43 shoe is 100mm wide at the widest point. The widest
> point on the sole is 90mm wide (10mm narrower if I measure at the
> other end of the taper). IN other words, on the ground it is 80mm
> wide.
>
> Perhaps that gives you some data for a conclusion.

So you have 9cm of hard surface under your foot. Do you consider
yourself to have wide feet? Are your bare feet 10cm wide?

Joseph

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Dec 14, 4:02 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> adding a cut to fit, stiff plastic or resin board into a light weight
> running shoe then gluing the clip into the sole? there's an RBT
> discussion of this during the last 6 months.
> last I looked, no racy cyclists had feet larger than 48cm unles they
> were well heeled.

A 48cm foot would be a size US 45 or a Euro 76. And 76 EURO is $111. So I
guess you're right!

Joseph

[* * Chas]

"datakoll" <datakoll@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3247bec6-35bb-4390-b1b3-068275208407@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> adding a cut to fit, stiff plastic or resin board into a light weight
> running shoe then gluing the clip into the sole? there's an RBT
> discussion of this during the last 6 months.
> last I looked, no racy cyclists had feet larger than 48cm unles they
> were well heeled.
>

48cm is 18.9" - I didn't know that there were any sasquatch in Florida.

Chas.

[datakoll]

a euro size 48 is 13.5? a euro 50 is a US 13.75?

the running shoe idea is best for the odd sized recreational cyclist.
Zappos has Goretex running shoes in stock, or durable AT running
shoes.
finding the stiff sole material? try the plastics store. The materail
used in most cycling shoes was commercially unavailble last I looked.
plywood?
pry out the new insole, fit new plastic/resin sole, mount cleat to
sole, install new soft sole as necessary.
running shoes may lift the upper heel from the heel sole. The 2 part
epoxy found at walmart marked for RUBBER is applied after sanding
rubber/upper and picking the threads clean. use a ply form top and
bottom cut ti fit as shoemaker then deep reach CLAMP form shoe form
together. lasts longer than the upper. use the 5 minute epoxy.

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Dec 14, 6:20 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> a euro size 48 is 13.5? a euro 50 is a US 13.75?
>
> the running shoe idea is best for the odd sized recreational cyclist.
> Zappos has Goretex running shoes in stock, or durable AT running
> shoes.
> finding the stiff sole material? try the plastics store. The materail
> used in most cycling shoes was commercially unavailble last I looked.
> plywood?
> pry out the new insole, fit new plastic/resin sole, mount cleat to
> sole, install new soft sole as necessary.
> running shoes may lift the upper heel from the heel sole. The 2 part
> epoxy found at walmart marked for RUBBER is applied after sanding
> rubber/upper and picking the threads clean. use a ply form top and
> bottom cut ti fit as shoemaker then deep reach CLAMP form shoe form
> together. lasts longer than the upper. use the 5 minute epoxy.

I was just kidding because you had a type and wrote 48cm.

I have actually thought about making some wooden soled shoes. I used
to have some Vittoria or Duegi in the old days and they were great.

Actually home-made carbon-fiber wouldn't be that difficult nor
expensive. And you could mold it to your foot. If I did that I'd make
some carbon-soled sandals.

Joseph

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

datakoll wrote:
> a euro size 48 is 13.5? a euro 50 is a US 13.75?

Euro sizes seem to vary more than US sizes. It's been a long time
since anything other than a US 15 fit me, and almost all my shoes are
Euro 50. But I have 2 pairs that are 48.

Joseph


>
> the running shoe idea is best for the odd sized recreational cyclist.
> Zappos has Goretex running shoes in stock, or durable AT running
> shoes.
> finding the stiff sole material? try the plastics store. The materail
> used in most cycling shoes was commercially unavailble last I looked.
> plywood?
> pry out the new insole, fit new plastic/resin sole, mount cleat to
> sole, install new soft sole as necessary.
> running shoes may lift the upper heel from the heel sole. The 2 part
> epoxy found at walmart marked for RUBBER is applied after sanding
> rubber/upper and picking the threads clean. use a ply form top and
> bottom cut ti fit as shoemaker then deep reach CLAMP form shoe form
> together. lasts longer than the upper. use the 5 minute epoxy.

[Ben C]

On 2007-12-14, joseph.santaniello@gmail.com <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> I was just kidding because you had a type and wrote 48cm.
>
> I have actually thought about making some wooden soled shoes. I used
> to have some Vittoria or Duegi in the old days and they were great.
>
> Actually home-made carbon-fiber wouldn't be that difficult nor
> expensive. And you could mold it to your foot. If I did that I'd make
> some carbon-soled sandals.

I tried repairing the sole of a shoe with fibreglass once but was amazed
by how quickly it wore through.

Rubber or leather or whatever plastic they normally use is incredible
stuff. But if this is for a cycling shoe, which you aren't going to walk
on, then wood or carbon fibre might be OK.

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Dec 15, 12:38 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2007-12-14, joseph.santanie...@gmail.com <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > I was just kidding because you had a type and wrote 48cm.
>
> > I have actually thought about making some wooden soled shoes. I used
> > to have some Vittoria or Duegi in the old days and they were great.
>
> > Actually home-made carbon-fiber wouldn't be that difficult nor
> > expensive. And you could mold it to your foot. If I did that I'd make
> > some carbon-soled sandals.
>
> I tried repairing the sole of a shoe with fibreglass once but was amazed
> by how quickly it wore through.
>
> Rubber or leather or whatever plastic they normally use is incredible
> stuff. But if this is for a cycling shoe, which you aren't going to walk
> on, then wood or carbon fibre might be OK.

I do essentially no walking in my bike shoes. One could use a carbon/
kevlar mix to make it more wear-resistant, and rubber heel pads would
take most of the wear.

I think about $100 would cover material costs no problem for a couple
pairs. But I'm sure it would be quite a trial and error process.

Joseph

[Ben C]

On 2007-12-15, joseph.santaniello@gmail.com <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 12:38 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
[...]
>> > Actually home-made carbon-fiber wouldn't be that difficult nor
>> > expensive. And you could mold it to your foot. If I did that I'd make
>> > some carbon-soled sandals.
>>
>> I tried repairing the sole of a shoe with fibreglass once but was amazed
>> by how quickly it wore through.
>>
>> Rubber or leather or whatever plastic they normally use is incredible
>> stuff. But if this is for a cycling shoe, which you aren't going to walk
>> on, then wood or carbon fibre might be OK.
>
> I do essentially no walking in my bike shoes. One could use a carbon/
> kevlar mix to make it more wear-resistant, and rubber heel pads would
> take most of the wear.
>
> I think about $100 would cover material costs no problem for a couple
> pairs. But I'm sure it would be quite a trial and error process.

It's a good idea, and I'm sure cycling shoes would be much easier to
make than walking ones. You don't need the flexibility or wear
resistance that make normal shoes actually quite clever pieces of
engineering when you think about it.

Start with something cheap like fibreglass and then once you've
perfected the design use CF.

[datakoll]

the obvious answer: move to Mendocino
or build the shoes. go forth and build shoes. you can do it. if you
can eat blubber you can build shoes, no problem.
ask a custom builder to measure and build shoes on your next trip to
Goatberg, Berlin, Rome...
A shoe designer builds the upper to hold or not hold the foot above
the sole arch then arc down widening or not to the sole's longest
width that occurs where?
That width is at different places on the sole for size 50 euro and a
size 13.5 US for the same exact purpose(whatever just hypothetical).
Length: there's agreement from a trade organization that a Euro 50 is
so long defines as...? but where the wide section goes along the sole?
The overriding concern here is off course marketability. Evidently,
the number of riders in the buying market for size 50 and up is to low
to support commercial manufacture of these larger sizes.
The local over the road race supports that conclusion, no?

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Dec 15, 8:09 am, "Andrew Lee" <whatsupandrewathotmaildotcom> wrote:
> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I wear US 15, Euro 50 and my foot is 12cm wide. This is a D or regular
> > width. I have yet to find any cycling shoes with a sole wider than
> > 10cm. This means 2cm of my foot hangs over the outside edge and is
> > unsupported and has the edge of the sole digging in when I push down.
>
> You make a good point - the supported width is important.
>
> How are you measuring the width of your foot? I just did some measurements
> of my right foot by standing on a sheet of paper and marking the extents of
> my foot. It's 27.5 cm long and 11.5 cm wide at the widest point (US 10.5/EE
> to 3E, though I general wear "standard" rather than wide shoes). I marked
> these extents by sighting down vertically and marking the widest points.
>
> I also marked the weight bearing width of my right foot by sticking a pen
> into the crevices between the bottom of my foot and the sheet of paper and
> tracing an outline while putting full body weight onto that foot. I didn't
> jam the pen in hard, just enough to say that if I can mark it with my pen,
> there's very little, if any, weight on that portion of the foot. The weight
> bearing width of my right foot measured that way is 10.1 cm. So,
> theoretically, a 10 cm wide sole should provide as much width as I need to
> provide full support.
>
> > Somebody who uses size 10 US (43 Euro) in a D width would have a foot
> > about 10cm wide. Do size 43 cycling shoes have a sole that is 8cm
> > wide? Is that wide enough? Do folks with more normal sized feet have
> > solid sole under their whole foot?
>
> Here are sole width measurements of a few of my shoes, along with comments
> how the soles feel underfoot:
>
> Sidi Dominators (44.5) are 8.9 cm wide. The half size Sidis are
> supposedly wider than the full size Sidis, but I think it's all in the
> upper. There is noticeable foot overhang in these shoes, especially on the
> inside. I have to wear thin socks with these. On occasion, my feet can go
> numb. They are useable. I tried the Mega version prior to getting these
> and thought that they were sloppily wide through the heel and mid-foot, but
> I might try them again someday. I don't remember if the Mega versions had
> wider soles... that would be something that I would check if I ever look
> into them again.

All my shoes that re too narrow end up putting the outside edge of my
foot over the edge. The inside edge would be even more uncomfortable.

Doing your pen-trick, I only shaved a few millimeters. 11.7cm.

> Salomon Carbon Pro Classics (labeled 44/US 10/28 cm) are 9.5 cm wide. These
> feel not quite wide enough underfoot (and on top too), and my feet overhang
> on the inside. They are useable though.

I have some Alpina race skate boots and some SP15 classic boots. The
more sport oriented classic boot is much wider and rather comfortable.


> Fischer S9000 Skates (44) are 10.8 cm wide. These are awesome underfoot
> with no foot overhang. They are most comfortable plastic soled shoes I have
> ever used. Maybe I should get another pair and bolt some SPDs underneath...
> (I'm almost serious, they would probably be great for winter cycling).

Fischer only makes up to size 49 which is just a tad too short for me.
This was quite frustrating because as you have found, they were quite
wide and otherwise comfortable.

> Nike Free 3.0 (US 11) are about 10.5 cm wide where they contact the feet and
> flare out to 11.2 cm at ground level. These are very lightweight running
> shoes, and the uppers don't provide much support, so it seems like more
> width is necessary, but the shoes are still very comfortable. The 4.0 and
> 5.0 versions of this shoe were a bit wider and more comfortable.

I have some Nike Trail something or others that are 11.5 wide (15)
that are comfortable and have no roll-over. My wife has some Nike Free
4.0 and if I built some cycling shoes, I'd like the uppers to be like
that, but with some strapping.

Joseph

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Dec 15, 4:40 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> the obvious answer: move to Mendocino
> or build the shoes. go forth and build shoes. you can do it. if you
> can eat blubber you can build shoes, no problem.
> ask a custom builder to measure and build shoes on your next trip to
> Goatberg, Berlin, Rome...
> A shoe designer builds the upper to hold or not hold the foot above
> the sole arch then arc down widening or not to the sole's longest
> width that occurs where?
> That width is at different places on the sole for size 50 euro and a
> size 13.5 US for the same exact purpose(whatever just hypothetical).
> Length: there's agreement from a trade organization that a Euro 50 is
> so long defines as...? but where the wide section goes along the sole?
> The overriding concern here is off course marketability. Evidently,
> the number of riders in the buying market for size 50 and up is to low
> to support commercial manufacture of these larger sizes.
> The local over the road race supports that conclusion, no?

Bingo.

Joseph

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Dec 15, 5:56 pm, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2007-12-15, joseph.santanie...@gmail.com <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 12:38 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> [...]
> >> > Actually home-made carbon-fiber wouldn't be that difficult nor
> >> > expensive. And you could mold it to your foot. If I did that I'd make
> >> > some carbon-soled sandals.
>
> >> I tried repairing the sole of a shoe with fibreglass once but was amazed
> >> by how quickly it wore through.
>
> >> Rubber or leather or whatever plastic they normally use is incredible
> >> stuff. But if this is for a cycling shoe, which you aren't going to walk
> >> on, then wood or carbon fibre might be OK.
>
> > I do essentially no walking in my bike shoes. One could use a carbon/
> > kevlar mix to make it more wear-resistant, and rubber heel pads would
> > take most of the wear.
>
> > I think about $100 would cover material costs no problem for a couple
> > pairs. But I'm sure it would be quite a trial and error process.
>
> It's a good idea, and I'm sure cycling shoes would be much easier to
> make than walking ones. You don't need the flexibility or wear
> resistance that make normal shoes actually quite clever pieces of
> engineering when you think about it.
>
> Start with something cheap like fibreglass and then once you've
> perfected the design use CF.

I was thinking plexiglass, or similar plastic. At first it seemed like
having a sole that was molded to the foot exactly would be the way to
go and thus lay-up technique. But actually a flat (viewed head-on)
surface that was as wide as the foot would probably be all that was
needed. Warmed plexi can be formed and less mess that some epoxy
composite. And it can be reworked.

Yes cycling shoes are probably quite easy as shoes go. The upper
getting ripped away from the sole is a problem, but not somehitng some
webbing couldn't deal with.

Joseph

[Andrew Lee]

joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> All my shoes that re too narrow end up putting the outside edge of my
> foot over the edge. The inside edge would be even more uncomfortable.
>
> Doing your pen-trick, I only shaved a few millimeters. 11.7cm.

Maybe I was probing a bit more than you, or maybe it's my foot structure.
My feet overhang on both sides, but in regards to comfort and support, it's
more noticeable on the inside because the big toe joints at the balls of my
feet are enlarged and bulge out about 4 or 5 mm to the inside. I guess they
might be called bunions, except they don't hurt and mobility is fine.
Callouses are built up under the "bunions" because of pressure, so that's
where I would like more room. I tend to bust through the uppers in my
running shoes there (and also on the outside).

My feet do overhang on the outside of shoes too, just not as noticeably
because I concentrate more force through the inside or inside/center of my
feet on push off, especially when running and xc skiing. I do notice when
the upper is too tight or shaped wrong because they can sometimes pinch my
little toes there.

>> Salomon Carbon Pro Classics (labeled 44/US 10/28 cm) are 9.5 cm wide.
>> These
>> feel not quite wide enough underfoot (and on top too), and my feet
>> overhang
>> on the inside. They are useable though.
>
> I have some Alpina race skate boots and some SP15 classic boots. The
> more sport oriented classic boot is much wider and rather comfortable.

The only reason I have those Carbon Pros is because I got lucky in a prize
drawing. I classic ski in old Adidas Naganos that are very comfortable. I
just checked, and the soles on these are also 9.5 cm. Maybe most of the
Profil soles are the same shape.

> I have some Nike Trail something or others that are 11.5 wide (15)
> that are comfortable and have no roll-over. My wife has some Nike Free
> 4.0 and if I built some cycling shoes, I'd like the uppers to be like
> that, but with some strapping.

I loved the Free 4.0, but I don't think it's available anymore. With plenty
of width and only stretchy material over my "bunions", they were the most
comfortable running shoes ever for me. Plus, I liked that they were
slip-ons.

[datakoll]

Mr. Salmon from Nigeria sent an email offering to cut me in after the
first post.

I wanted Salmons but too narrow then North Face showed up and I
thought well, Zappos will let me send them back if too narrow so I
bought and narrow but yes OK to go after a breakin period. 3/16th's
extra both sides on an E foot in 14's

http://www.zappos.com/n/p/dp/11748582/c/108020.html

mmmm mmmm mmmmm

A top run review stated: this shoe runs to size and not one mm more. ?

Zappos, and this is xmass its that time of year
with Zappos yule want to stand clear
caws they's gotta shoe catapult for delivery

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Dec 19, 8:54 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <fbbefbf0-1bf4-4d75-840c-b82c79d93...@b40g2000prf.googl
> egroups.com>,
> "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
>
>
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi All,
>
> > There have been a bunch of threads about big shoes lately, and I'm
> > well aware of who makes big shoes. But now I pondering how widths vary
> > by size and how big shoes may or may not be proportionally wider.
>
> > Shoes of varying widths are often made using the same sole, but with
> > more upper material to create a greater volume. In discussions with
> > vendors, I have been told that shoes in my size will fit and be
> > comfortable despite the sole being significatly narrower than my foot.
> > I do not have a particularly wide foot, but I think this is common
> > with the larger sizes, and I don't buy it.
>
> > I wear US 15, Euro 50 and my foot is 12cm wide. This is a D or regular
> > width. I have yet to find any cycling shoes with a sole wider than
> > 10cm. This means 2cm of my foot hangs over the outside edge and is
> > unsupported and has the edge of the sole digging in when I push down.
>
> > Somebody who uses size 10 US (43 Euro) in a D width would have a foot
> > about 10cm wide. Do size 43 cycling shoes have a sole that is 8cm
> > wide? Is that wide enough? Do folks with more normal sized feet have
> > solid sole under their whole foot?
>
> Shimano SPD mountain bicycle shoe,
> size 45
> 100 mm sole width measured on the outside
> 105 mm foot width.
>
> I am comfortable in these shoes.
> Typically I wear US size 9 1/2.
>
> --
> Michael Press

105/100 sure sounds more comfy than 120/100. Are they long for you?

Joseph

[Jim Behning]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:17:00 -0800 (PST),
"joseph.santaniello@gmail.com" <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 19, 8:54 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <fbbefbf0-1bf4-4d75-840c-b82c79d93...@b40g2000prf.googl
>> egroups.com>,
>> "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>>
>>
>>
>> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>>
>> > There have been a bunch of threads about big shoes lately, and I'm
>> > well aware of who makes big shoes. But now I pondering how widths vary
>> > by size and how big shoes may or may not be proportionally wider.
>>
>> > Shoes of varying widths are often made using the same sole, but with
>> > more upper material to create a greater volume. In discussions with
>> > vendors, I have been told that shoes in my size will fit and be
>> > comfortable despite the sole being significatly narrower than my foot.
>> > I do not have a particularly wide foot, but I think this is common
>> > with the larger sizes, and I don't buy it.
>>
>> > I wear US 15, Euro 50 and my foot is 12cm wide. This is a D or regular
>> > width. I have yet to find any cycling shoes with a sole wider than
>> > 10cm. This means 2cm of my foot hangs over the outside edge and is
>> > unsupported and has the edge of the sole digging in when I push down.
>>
>> > Somebody who uses size 10 US (43 Euro) in a D width would have a foot
>> > about 10cm wide. Do size 43 cycling shoes have a sole that is 8cm
>> > wide? Is that wide enough? Do folks with more normal sized feet have
>> > solid sole under their whole foot?
>>
>> Shimano SPD mountain bicycle shoe,
>> size 45
>> 100 mm sole width measured on the outside
>> 105 mm foot width.
>>
>> I am comfortable in these shoes.
>> Typically I wear US size 9 1/2.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Press
>
>105/100 sure sounds more comfy than 120/100. Are they long for you?
>
>Joseph

My bare foot is 105-107 mm wide. My Sidi Mega 44.5 mountain bike shoes
measure 91 mm on the sole and 107 on the exterior of the "leather." I
wore relatively thick wool socks last week and was comfortable. I have
worn thin socks, wool socks and Goretex socks on my Sidi Mega road
shoes. The 44.5 road shoes measure about 110 mm on the outside. When I
got the Mega shoes their length was about 13 mm shorter than the
standard width shoes I used to have. I had to get a few sizes larger
to get the width I needed with stand sized shoes.

I have never complained about foot comfort with my Sidis. My foot
hangs over both sides of the sole on both road and mountain shoes.

[Michael Press]

In article
<623b487d-565e-4d58-8251-3bff1b3d30ff@r60g2000hsc.googl
egroups.com>,
"joseph.santaniello@gmail.com"
<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 19, 8:54 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <fbbefbf0-1bf4-4d75-840c-b82c79d93...@b40g2000prf.googl
> > egroups.com>,
> > "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
> >
> >
> >
> > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> >
> > > There have been a bunch of threads about big shoes lately, and I'm
> > > well aware of who makes big shoes. But now I pondering how widths vary
> > > by size and how big shoes may or may not be proportionally wider.
> >
> > > Shoes of varying widths are often made using the same sole, but with
> > > more upper material to create a greater volume. In discussions with
> > > vendors, I have been told that shoes in my size will fit and be
> > > comfortable despite the sole being significatly narrower than my foot.
> > > I do not have a particularly wide foot, but I think this is common
> > > with the larger sizes, and I don't buy it.
> >
> > > I wear US 15, Euro 50 and my foot is 12cm wide. This is a D or regular
> > > width. I have yet to find any cycling shoes with a sole wider than
> > > 10cm. This means 2cm of my foot hangs over the outside edge and is
> > > unsupported and has the edge of the sole digging in when I push down.
> >
> > > Somebody who uses size 10 US (43 Euro) in a D width would have a foot
> > > about 10cm wide. Do size 43 cycling shoes have a sole that is 8cm
> > > wide? Is that wide enough? Do folks with more normal sized feet have
> > > solid sole under their whole foot?
> >
> > Shimano SPD mountain bicycle shoe,
> > size 45
> > 100 mm sole width measured on the outside
> > 105 mm foot width.
> >
> > I am comfortable in these shoes.
> > Typically I wear US size 9 1/2.
>
> 105/100 sure sounds more comfy than 120/100. Are they long for you?

No, they are not. They offer plenty of room in the toe box,
but I do not slop around in them. My feet do not fit the
standard last used for shoes, as the heel to big arch
distance is relatively long compared to the big arch
to toe end distance. I buy longer shoes than my foot
length suggests. and I fill the toe box because
the front portion of my foot is thick and wide.

Sorry about the 120/100 problem.

--
Michael Press