Wide Last Xplorer Boot?

[lilcliffy]

A number of Alfa's models are both on the wider of lasts- as well as very large volume.

Many of the Euro boot companies have simply bizarre US-EU size conversions...

The Alpina chart posted above↑ is particularly bizarre-
A 42EU Alaska XP is NOT a size 10 Men's!
A 42EU Alaska XP is a 8.5-9 Men's in terms of the length of the last- but, due to it being both narrow and very small volume- many (including myself) need to size up for them to fit. For example- I can get a comfortable performance fit in a 42EU Alaska BC- but need a 43EU Alaska XP, becasue they are so narrow and low-volume. (For reference my foot is medium width and small volume). A 44EU Alaska XP would be waay too long for me.

The Alfa chart above↑ is much improved re US size conversions over previous charts. A 42EU Alfa Vista is a 8.5-9 US Men's (just like the Alaska). Assuming that the Vista shares the same last as the Guard (please correct me if I am incorrect here- they appear to be identical)- the Vista/Guard fit true to length, but the last is wide and very large volume.

The Alfa Free has a different last- it is the same length, but is narrower and less volume than the Vista/Guard.

My limited experience (aside from manufacturing errors)- European boot sizes are consistent in terms of length- where they vary "widely" is width and volume.

On the subject of Lundhags Nordic ski touring boots (I have both BC and XP models)-
Lundhags makes two different designs/lasts mated to both the BC and XP outsole-
the medium width and and moderate volume Guide BC/Abisku XP with the thinner wool removable liner;
the wide width and large volume Guide Expedition BC/Abisku Expedition XP with the thicker removable liner.

As such I have confirmed that the internal geometry of the BC/XP models are identical, and the liners and insoles are interchangeable (As are the liners for the Skare Expedition boot).
https://www.lundhags.com/en/footwear/me ... ate-boots/

What is interesting is that I still get an excellent fit in the wider and larger-volume Expedition last...I have worn the Skare Expedition boot for winter fieldwork for two season now and they have cupped and held my heel and ankles from the very start; and the leather has molded beautifully to the shape of my foot, ankle and calf. So despite how much room my forefoot and toes have- the Expedition still works for me! Highly recommended!

And the length of the Lundhags last is consistent with Alfa/Alpina/Crispi/Scarpa- a 42EU length is near identical in all of them. Where they differ is the other interior dimensions.

The upper of the lower-cut Lundhags design (e.g. Guide BC/Abisku XP) is quite large volume- such that the uppermost lace hooks on the shorter boot almost touch each other when fully laced up (my ankle is narrow). As such a 43EU in the lower-cut boot would not work for me due the upper lacing...So, the higher cut Expedition model actually gives me a better lacing fit due to my more meaty calf!
(I am trying to convince my local shop to stock Lundhags so that people can actually try these superb boots on in the shop.)

[lilcliffy]

Huh- weird- I got the Alpina/Alfa charts basackwards when I was writing my post above...
I look at it now and the Alfa chart is clearly stating that the 42EU Vista is a 10US Men's- if the Vista XP is the same design and geometry as the Guard BC- then there is no way that a 42EU is a size 10US-M in terms of length...

The Alpina Alaska XP chart is more accurate- a 42EU is an 8.5-9US Men's in terms of length- but expect to size up unless your feet are narrow and very small volume.

[Capercaillie]

EEEE foot person here.

100% recommend the Alfa Skaget. I also have the Alfa Guard (NNNBC version of the Vista). Skaget has more vertical toe room, and a much better heel retention heel cup/foam padding. The Guard/Vista has two big design flaws that might affect your feet and cannot be corrected by fitting:

1. The giant external plastic heel cup prevents ball-and-ring stretching if you have a spot rubbing on the heel/calcaneus. The heel cup probably also increases the chance that you will have a spot rubbing, because this is the only footwear I have ever had that rubs that specific spot and that spot only.

2. The first pair of lace hooks are very low and at the softest part of the upper, so the boot only wants to flex there. If your toes flex at a different point this is noticeable and annoying.

The only downside to the Skaget is that it has no waterproof membrane. If you are not planning to do multi-day trips, that is not a big deal. With a waterproof membrane, the Skaget would be a much better touring boot than the Vista, since the Skaget has a much higher shaft.

Order by your EU size. US shoe sizes might as well be random numbers.

[voilenerd]

Well I bit the bullet and ordered some Alfa Vista from REI. They were half off, can’t beat that. Excited to try them on, hopefully they fit my wide feet!

Now I just need to decide on what Fischer ski I want. Leaning towards getting the 78 and 98.

[Manney]

Depending on your terrain, either could work. Keeping in mind 6 ft 3 and 200 lbs… and judging by your screen name (suggests familiarity with skis of some width)… you might want to consider the advantages of that extra few mm underfoot and a wider shovel. You’ll have enough boot and binding to make a pretty good go of it.

[CIMA]

Well I bit the bullet and ordered some Alfa Vista from REI. They were half off, can’t beat that. Excited to try them on, hopefully they fit my wide feet!

Now I just need to decide on what Fischer ski I want. Leaning towards getting the 78 and 98.

It looks like you've joined the Xplore waves at last. Fischer and Rossignol's backcountry skis usually have a more rigid camber compared to Madshus. I've used the Fischer S-bound 88 before and found it great for powder skiing. Since I tend to lean more towards downhill skiing, I picked a length that's close to my height.

[tkarhu]

Here are the sizing charts as posted on REI's website. I've skied both boots and I think REI's recommendation is spot on. REI's current pricing on Alfa boots (30% off) is amazing so if you are thinking about this boot, now is the time.

Alpina Alaska Xplore.jpg
Alfa Vista Men's Boot alfa sizing.jpg

I haven’t skied the Explore boots, but Alfa Guard and some Alpina BC and XC boots. Normally I wear 43 or 44 (270 x 110 mm foot), but my Alpina boots have been 45 or an earlier pair maybe even 46. In Guard, I had 44 but switched to 43 due to heel blisters. Often size 43 shoes have a snug fit for me, but the 43 Guards have so high volume that they resemble a 43.5 or 44. Further, the Guards are so warm that extra socks are mostly unnecessary.

I wish that the Vistas you ordered are a good fit.

[Capercaillie]

Normally I wear 43 or 44 (270 x 110 mm foot), but my Alpina boots have been 45 or an earlier pair maybe even 46. In Guard, I had 44 but switched to 43 due to heel blisters. Often size 43 shoes have a snug fit for me, but the 43 Guards have so high volume that they resemble a 43.5 or 44.

European sizes are for shoe length, they do not take width or volume into account. Your shoe size is actually 42, you are just used to buying very oversize narrow shoes to compensate. We have almost the same foot measurements (my bigger foot is between 270 and 275mm), and for example my current running shoes are a 42.5 "Extra Wide." The only reason those work is because the upper is made of stretchy mesh, and my little toes rubbed holes through. Obviously would not work with thick leather. "Extra Wide" but still not wide enough!

I have 43 Guards and IMO they are true to length. The reason they feel bigger to you is that this might be the first wide shoe you have owned. If your feet really are not more than 270mm long, maybe size 42 Guards would be an even better fit; it will probably come down to how well the toe box fits your toes.

For contrast, when I tried on a size 43 Alpina Montana, I could not even put them on - my foot would not go all the way into the shoe. Alpinas are really narrow! Buying oversize narrow shoes is a really bad idea as you have observed - you will have heel lift/blister issues and most likely toe issues as well. I experience both with size 44 Salomon NNN shoes, and TBH those sometimes feel like clown shoes to me. I cannot imagine how you skied in size 46.

Finally, in English shoe jargon, the word "volume" refers to instep height for some reason. IMO the Guards are not particularly high volume; I have my instep laces fairly loose. That portion of the upper has a lot of room to go either way. Most of the time "high volume" shoes can be made to work for a low instep by using a thicker insole (this makes the shoe a lot warmer too).

[lilcliffy]

@Capercaillie

[tkarhu]

Your shoe size is actually 42, you are just used to buying very oversize narrow shoes to compensate.
[…]
Buying oversize narrow shoes is a really bad idea as you have observed - you will have heel lift/blister issues and most likely toe issues as well.

Sttange news, that I am a 42! Having bought mainly European shoes for the last 25 years (with 270 x 110 mm feet).

In practice, the only size 42 shoes that have fit have been a Birki (Birkenstock working shoe) wide model. Further, I do have a pair of Meindl "comfort fit" last sneakers in 42.5, and they are a good fit. However, all my other shoes are size 43-44, and those include a few pairs of Camper minimalist shoes and Merrell barefoot shoes. Often wideish 44 regular width shoes fit alright.

In my experience, oversizing *XC ski* shoes has been most problematic. Oversize ski boots have worked alright, when skate skiing and nordic skating, probably because movements are lateral, with less heel lift. Also the 44 Guards worked alright, when nordic skating. I skiied with the 44 Guards succesfully, too, but got bored of buying Compeed artificial skin pads then.

If your feet really are not more than 270mm long, maybe size 42 Guards would be an even better fit; it will probably come down to how well the toe box fits your toes.

Coming a little closer to the OP’s subject, Alfa recommends size 42 for 26.0 cm foot length. Further, Alfa recommends 43 for 26.6 cm and 44 for 27.3 cm foot lengths. At least they first instruct how to measure your feet, and then give the numbers above,

On the other hand, my issue with the 44 Guards were heel blisters, and I do not understand how toe box shape would be related. Yup, I do agree that for wide feet, toe box is important. However, a wide toe box has helped me mainly to avoid several toe area issues.

in English shoe jargon, the word "volume" refers to instep height for some reason

Thanks for the correction! I see. I was refering to the "spaciousness" of Guards at ball of foot, when I wrote "volume". In European standards, the concept of foot "width" refers to ball of foot circumference actually. Whereas the American EE, EEE etc, refer to actual width in mm. So, the European "width" could maybe be translated "spaciousness".

FYI The European standard has F, G, H, K and M high volume circumference measures. You do not see those letters anywhere online, though. The F and G are not continuation to EE and EEE.

Funny anecdote, telemark skiers seem to have wider feet than average… If I remember correctly, many other active writers have wide feet here, too, besides us.