MTB shoes for wide foot

[Johan Bornman]

surely using a tape measure around the whole girth of the shoe would be a better method. maybe the cut of the shoe makes a difference to the feel.

 

No' date=' that's a very poor indicator. It is difficult to compensate for sole thickness and knobblies. Also, wider feet are not tubular shaped and when taking weight expand sideways. Width is the only true indicator of wider shoes and the only factor that provides or denies comfort.

[/quote']

 

going back to the original post, we're talking about shoes for wider feet, not shoe width. someone with a wider foot is going to feel more comfortable if there is more material and the shoe is not tight on their feet.

 

I don't understand what you mean. After all, a wider foot will feel more comfortable in a wider shoe.

 

Two extremes:

 

1) A wide foot in a narrow-soled show with lots of upper leather is a foot that hangs excessively over the sole - like a fat person on a SAA seat.

 

2) A wide foot on a wide sole with very little material on top, i.e. a flat shoe.

 

The former is very common, have a look at most cycling road shoes, the sole is narrower than the leather. The latter doesn't exist.

 

Wider is better for paddle-footers.

 

 

 

[Tumbleweed]

johan, most customers i've dealt with who have wider feet complain about how tight shoes feel. i've yet to hear one complain about the size of the sole.

[Wyatt Earp]

No we are not quite on the same page.

 

The widest part would run the width of the sesamoid bone and across the metatarsals.

 

The toe box is the area that carries the forefoot, IE. from the sesamoid towards the front of the shoes, the amount the shoe narrows.

 

Another example.

 

I am a neutral runner.

 

My ADIDAS shoes have a wide toe box and for many other reasons not important now, they are great for road training.

 

My Puma Trailfox shoes have a narrow toe box, they are great for trail running as there is no forefoot movement within the shoe, the toe box area rolls with my foot all the time.

[Marius]

The Sidi's are defnitly narrower and the Specialized shoes are wider / way more comfy. The Sidi's are narrow at the toe part and the Specialized are wider.

[TYGA]

Let's put it this way...I can walk on soft beach sand without leaving prints, so I know your pain.

 

Specialised MTB have been the only ones I have found comfortable from day 1, rather than having to wait until the shoe stretches enough to become comfy.

[Wyatt Earp]

The Sidi's are defnitly narrower and the Specialized shoes are wider / way more comfy. The Sidi's are narrow at the toe part and the Specialized are wider.

 

My point exactly, I could post pictures of my graders (feet) but that would get ya'll laughing at me.

[scotty]

I find Olympics sizes fit much better with larger instep space than other brands i've tried the same size.

[I FLY]

Go check what Boswell Wilkie Circus use on their elephants.

 

Thanks for the advice. While I am there I will check if they have a cricket box in my size.

[I FLY]

Thanks for the comments.

 

My previous shoes were Specialised with mesh inserts on the outside of the shoe whereas my current LGs don't have these inserts. Both pairs are the same size.

 

My feet were okay in the Specialised although the mesh inserts did tear after a couple of years. The LGs make my feet burn.

 

And to complicate matters my right foot is a size smaller than the left foot.

 

 

[Sean Badenhorst]

 

Go check what Boswell Wilkie Circus use on their elephants.

 

Thanks for the advice. While I am there I will check if they have a cricket box in my size.

 

Classic comeback! Assuming you're a male of course...

 

 

 

 

 

[levett]

I have very wide feet, with a very high arch and have only found Specialised to be very comfortable. Nike Kato are tolerable, Olympic just about tolerable, and Shimano to be crippling!

 

My recommendation is Specialised (I'm a 43 in a cycling shoe) if that helps