Why are climbing shoes shaped for bunion feet?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

So many shoes are really well made, great rubber, really meet my needs, and when I try them on the shoe is designed so the big toe is pushed outwards/towards the little toe. Combined with any downturn, this is agonising and will presumably lead to actual bunions in the future. It's so frustrating. The inside edge of my foot is a straight line, I can't think of any performance reason as power is supposed to lead to the big toe. I mean, if deforming my feet is the price I have to pay to climb at a high level then screw that. 

Visual explanation: https://rockandice.com/climbing-injury-prevention/bunions/

1
 pec 29 Jun 2019
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

I can't wear modern banana shoes, they cripple me even when they're not too small.

I've been wearing a pair of "old skool" straight lasted Scarpa Vantage shoes for the last 10 years and just keep getting them resoled. I managed to get a pair of Boreal Ballets a couple of years ago which I've been 'breaking in' at the wall ready to replace the Scarpas when the time comes (they are very stiff when new).

Like a lot of gear, it's dictated by fashion. There must be a large market for straight lasted shoes from people with straight feet who don't want to cripple themselves but nobody is catering for it. Much like nobody is catering for the demand for harnesses with proper thread back buckles or cameras with viewfinders etc etc.

Post edited at 16:49
7
 john arran 29 Jun 2019
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

The simple reason is that they help you to put more weight on small holds without needing to be unhelpfully stiff. Try climbing barefoot and you soon realise how weak the big toe is by itself, and how much more effective it is to 'combine forces' with the other toes in close formation - the closer the better. Yes, it comes at a comfort cost, which will be more worth it for some than for others. And there's a huge range of shoes around if you find cramping toes to be unjustifiably uncomfortable or painful. You'll probably find that such shoes aren't as sensitive as the more aggressive downturned models, but lack of sensitivity is usually the price of comfort when it comes to climbing shoes.

1
In reply to john arran:

Of course the toes have to work together, but I see no logical reason why the big toe needs to be pushed inwards. That is not the only way to achieve a tight and precise fit. Generally the big toe is the loadbearer, and contorting that joint is the biggest offense. 

My issue is also that its not just high performance shoes with the big toe bent inwards, its almost all shoes to a varying degree. I tried on some Evolv Supras the other day and my big toes were sore for about a day afterwards. 

It's really fun how these feet are the shape of climbing shoes! https://www.google.com/search?q=bunion&safe=off&client=ms-android-h...

Post edited at 18:18
1
 john arran 29 Jun 2019
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

> Of course the toes have to work together, but I see no logical reason why the big toe needs to be pushed inwards. That is not the only way to achieve a tight and precise fit.

The way I see it either your big toe and your other toes need to start cosying up together one way or another, or you need a wider platform for the base of the front of your shoe which, to achieve the same load-bearing performance, needs to be made from a stiffer construction. I can't see how you can have your comfort cake and eat it. If you have any good ideas how else it could work well then I'd love to hear them, as I expect would all of the climbing shoe manufacturers.

2
 echo34 29 Jun 2019
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

Poor design due to outdated and lacking understanding of the foot. Same with big boots and running shoes, and most other footwear. 

There is a US company that custom makes shoes to your foot shape

 twoshoes 30 Jun 2019
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

I've got narrow feet with pretty decent bunions. Relatively wide shoes with no pressure points over the bunions seem to help me. 

I find scarpa instincts pretty good, although that may be because I have generally narrow feet so, while they're really too wide for me overall and I'd never be using them without bunions, they have space to accommodate and not put pressure on the bunions themselves.

I think in my case it also helps that they have a straighter inside edge than some, so my big toes aren't forced aggressively across. There's a bit of space on the inside of my big toe despite downsizing 2 euro sizes. I used to wear anasazis, but they really force my toe across in comparison and leave me with pain for days afterwards.

The only problem I have now is that hard heel hooking doesn't really happen due to the shoe being a bit wide for me. 

Oh, and take you shoes off in between problems/pitches!

 ianstevens 30 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

> I can't wear modern banana shoes, they cripple me even when they're not too small.

> I've been wearing a pair of "old skool" straight lasted Scarpa Vantage shoes for the last 10 years and just keep getting them resoled. I managed to get a pair of Boreal Ballets a couple of years ago which I've been 'breaking in' at the wall ready to replace the Scarpas when the time comes (they are very stiff when new).

> Like a lot of gear, it's dictated by fashion. There must be a large market for straight lasted shoes from people with straight feet who don't want to cripple themselves but nobody is catering for it. Much like nobody is catering for the demand for harnesses with proper thread back buckles or cameras with viewfinders etc etc.

There are plenty of flat shoes around. I picked up a pair just a few weeks back, the new black diamond momentum. I didn’t look far or hard, but there are similar offerings by Scarpa and Ocun, and I’m sure others exist if you looked harder. 

Why would you want thread back buckles? They’re more faff, easier to do wrong and have greater potential to be dangerous. Harness makers stop selling them because there is zero benefit to having them anymore.

Virtually every DSLR has a viewfinder. I’ll give you that budget cameras don’t, but that’s to make them well, budget.

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

I’ve just had two months out of climbing to have a bone mass removed from the outside of my right toe. My consultant says it was probably initiated by a blunt force at some time. He wasn’t up to speed on climbing shoes so I took a pair of my Testarossas with me.  He took one look, asked me what size they were and what my street shoe size was, and said ‘there’s the developmental cause’.

I’m now wearing Boldrinis which aren’t aggressive, at street size. I spent the time off working core, and the change in shoes doesn’t seem to affect grade, and I can wear them for longer sessions. Go figure.

 pec 30 Jun 2019
In reply to ianstevens:

> There are plenty of flat shoes around. I picked up a pair just a few weeks back, the new black diamond momentum. I didn’t look far or hard, but there are similar offerings by Scarpa and Ocun, and I’m sure others exist if you looked harder. 

They are still asymetric, even if only slightly and they depend to some extent upon crimping your toes to function properly. If you've got very straight feet or arthritic foot joints this is excrutiating. I once bought a pair of Red Chilli somethings which were allegedly the most comfortable slightly asymetric shoe available and they hurt like hell to the extent that they are the only shoes I've ever given up wearing before they needed a resole.

> Why would you want thread back buckles? They’re more faff, easier to do wrong and have greater potential to be dangerous. Harness makers stop selling them because there is zero benefit to having them anymore.

I want them because pull tight buckles are a massive faff if you have to undo them completely to put on when wearing crampons for example and I can assure you that trying to tighten my pull tight buckle harness is a hell of a lot harder than just fastening a thread back one because it doesn't slide very easily.

Pull tight buckles are of two types, ones which don't slip but are a bugger to tighten properly and ones which are easy to tighten but do slip and need regular tightening.

You think pull tight harnesses are always safer? Not if you get something caught under the buckle like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4kG5ba5sTI&feature=youtu.be

Lots of people prefer thread backs, do a forum search and you'll see, a minority perhaps, but with 50+ harnesses on the market and only 2 or 3 thread backs its a market that isn't being catered for very well.

> Virtually every DSLR has a viewfinder. I’ll give you that budget cameras don’t, but that’s to make them well, budget.

Why should I have to spend £500+ on something the size and weight of half a brick to be able to see what I'm trying to take a photo of? Who said that compacts have to be budget cameras?

When I was trying to find a compact with a viewfinder for every such camera I found (there were 2 of them at under £300) there were several hundred with no viewfinder and thousands of forum posts from people saying why can't I find a compact with a viewfinder? There really is a demand for them from people who want to actually see what they are photographing in daylight, people who are longsighted and can't simultaneously focus on the screen and the subject (you can alter the focus on a viewfinder to suit your eyes) and people who just like to hold a camera steady to their face. And they're not wrong or stupid to want this but they aren't being catered for for.

The thing with threads like this is there's always someone responds like you've just told them they've got a tiny penis. If you prefer banana shoes, pull tight harnesses and point and guess cameras then that's great. You're a lucky man because you're really well catered for but don't patronise me by telling why I'm wrong to want something else. Especially when there clearly is a demand for these things which in some respects outperform the many other products which are all essentially chasing the same bit of the market which is already over catered for.

5
 Jon Greengrass 01 Jul 2019
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

because everyday footwear is the same pointed shape so many people already have deformed feet.

because climbing shoe manufacturers are modifying the lasts used by everyday footwear manufacturers rather than working up from the anatomy of the foot.

because climbing shoe manufacturers are operating on a price=performance model of developing their ranges, where the whole range is designed for one shape of foot, rather than making a range of shoes that fit different shaped feet that would perform better.

I rebuilt a shoe on a last that was actually shaped like my foot the increase in performance was immense.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BqAmz1HBygb/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_she...

If I can't stand on my big toe I don't blame it on my shoes and cripple my feet with badly designed shoes. I put the effort in to train my feet to make them stronger. The same way I wouldn't complain if my fingers were too weak for small holds and use sky hooks instead.

 slab_happy 01 Jul 2019
In reply to pec:

> They are still asymetric, even if only slightly

"Asymmetric" shoes are less bunion-shaped than symmetrical ones, though, because the point of the shoe is closer to being over the natural point of the big toe.

Symmetrical shoes with the point in the middle are going to squash the big toe inwards to a greater degree (unless you have Morton's foot and your big toe isn't your longest toe anyway).

I don't know why greater asymmetry is lumped in with being downturned as a feature of higher-end shoes; maybe if you're sizing shoes to comfortably wear for long periods, it doesn't matter too much if the point's in the middle, because it's not going to be compressing your toes much.

But it's not going to be asymmetry that's causing pain or inducing bunions.

 jamie_bkc 01 Jul 2019
In reply to Jon Greengrass:

I'd love to read more about the process you took re-shaping those shoes.

 ianstevens 01 Jul 2019
In reply to pec:

> They are still asymetric, even if only slightly and they depend to some extent upon crimping your toes to function properly. If you've got very straight feet or arthritic foot joints this is excrutiating. I once bought a pair of Red Chilli somethings which were allegedly the most comfortable slightly asymetric shoe available and they hurt like hell to the extent that they are the only shoes I've ever given up wearing before they needed a resole.

I'll give you the asymetry, although you didn't refer to this originally. In the BDs I metion my feet are pancake flat and require zero toe crimping. I do get that finding comfortable shoes if you've got battered feet is tricky however, but that wasn't what you specified - the claim was that "nobody makes flat shoes".

> I want them because pull tight buckles are a massive faff if you have to undo them completely to put on when wearing crampons for example and I can assure you that trying to tighten my pull tight buckle harness is a hell of a lot harder than just fastening a thread back one because it doesn't slide very easily.

Put your crampons on first, jeez.

> Pull tight buckles are of two types, ones which don't slip but are a bugger to tighten properly and ones which are easy to tighten but do slip and need regular tightening.

Maybe I've been fortunate and only come across one type that is easy to tighten and doesn't slip. Who knows. 

> You think pull tight harnesses are always safer? Not if you get something caught under the buckle like this.

What is caught under the buckle in that video? Forgive me as I may be being thick, but it's not very clear. Again, see above, but I fail to envisage a situation when climbing where you can get something caught under the buckle, given that your harness is tight and therefore unless you really try you can't get something between the buckle and yourself. Far less likely than forgetting to say, double back your harness, or having something get under the double-backed strand and have it slip out. Pull tight harnesses are not infallible, but more accident proof than double-backs.

> Lots of people prefer thread backs, do a forum search and you'll see, a minority perhaps, but with 50+ harnesses on the market and only 2 or 3 thread backs its a market that isn't being catered for very well.

You could say thats a minority of harnesses. Seems appropriate. 

> Why should I have to spend £500+ on something the size and weight of half a brick to be able to see what I'm trying to take a photo of? Who said that compacts have to be budget cameras?

1) You can see with a screen. It's not impossible to use, but viewfinders are nicer. My dSLR is far lighter than halfa brick, even with a battery grip and big lens. 2) They don't need to be, but generally are.

> When I was trying to find a compact with a viewfinder for every such camera I found (there were 2 of them at under £300) there were several hundred with no viewfinder and thousands of forum posts from people saying why can't I find a compact with a viewfinder? There really is a demand for them from people who want to actually see what they are photographing in daylight, people who are longsighted and can't simultaneously focus on the screen and the subject (you can alter the focus on a viewfinder to suit your eyes) and people who just like to hold a camera steady to their face. And they're not wrong or stupid to want this but they aren't being catered for for.

I'm no expert, but I would suspect camera manufacturers assume someone who is bothered enough to use a viewfinder over a screen wants to buy good equipment. Good equipment is not cheap. Good equipment in a compact (see what I did there) package is not cheap, especially when it requires things such as prism mirrors with a degree of physical size limitiations. 

> The thing with threads like this is there's always someone responds like you've just told them they've got a tiny penis. If you prefer banana shoes, pull tight harnesses and point and guess cameras then that's great. You're a lucky man because you're really well catered for but don't patronise me by telling why I'm wrong to want something else. Especially when there clearly is a demand for these things which in some respects outperform the many other products which are all essentially chasing the same bit of the market which is already over catered for.

My penis is perfectly average thanks. You complained there were no flat shoes, I presented you with some flat shoes and you added other criteria. I pointed out that single-pull harnesses are prevelant for a reason, which you happen to disagree with. I didn't say you were wrong for wanting a double-back harness, just explained why they are pretty rare and hopefully soon to be outdated. Viewfinders are great, but only really exist on the more expensive cameras now. You're point was that cameras don't come with viewfinders, I pointed out that they do, but only on certain ones. We don't need to argue the merits of viewfinders, they're great.

Whilst it would be nice if manufacturers could make things exactly to our personal specification, the reason they exist is to make money and as such comprimises are made to bring products to the mass market and sellable to enough people to turn a profit.

In reply to Jon Greengrass:

Loving your work and your outlook. It's so bizarre how rather than supporting the natural strengths of the body, we deform them to meet our needs. You make me tempted to order some sticky rubber and create most likely a monstrosity.

 pec 01 Jul 2019
In reply to slab_happy:

> "Asymmetric" shoes are less bunion-shaped than symmetrical ones, though, because the point of the shoe is closer to being over the natural point of the big toe.

> etc

The choice isn't between asymmetrical lasted and symmetrical lasted shoes, its between asymmetrical lasted and straight lasted. In straight lasted shoes the big toe of the shoe is over the big toe of the foot, they aren't actually symmetrical in the mathematical sense.

 pec 01 Jul 2019
In reply to ianstevens:

> I'll give you the asymetry, although you didn't refer to this originally. In the BDs I metion my feet are pancake flat and require zero toe crimping. I do get that finding comfortable shoes if you've got battered feet is tricky however, but that wasn't what you specified - the claim was that "nobody makes flat shoes".

Go back and read my post, I never mentioned "flat shoes" I referred to straight lasted shoes. Straight lasted and flat are not the same thing.

> Put your crampons on first, jeez.

I don't know how much winter or Alpine climbing you've done but it really doesn't always work out that way. Sometimes you end up with your crampons on first, that's just how it is.

> What is caught under the buckle in that video? Forgive me as I may be being thick, but it's not very clear. Again, see above, but I fail to envisage a situation when climbing where you can get something caught under the buckle, given that your harness is tight and therefore unless you really try you can't get something between the buckle and yourself. Far less likely than forgetting to say, double back your harness, or having something get under the double-backed strand and have it slip out. Pull tight harnesses are not infallible, but more accident proof than double-backs.

The video was an attempt to recreate a real world harness failure with that model of harness when someone fell into a crevasse and found their waist belt suddenly got a lot bigger leaving them hanging upside down. It was their rope which had got caught under the buckle and released it.

No harness is failsafe but informed consenting adults should be able to choose which type of harness they prefer because both have pros and cons. I'm not asking you or anyone else to use thread backs or that they should make up 50% of the market but when I was looking if you discount a few ultralight ski touring harnesses and a specialist big wall harness there was only one regular all round harness with thread back buckles. Again I stress there are many climbers out there who prefer thread backs and they aren't being very well catered for.

> 1) You can see with a screen. It's not impossible to use, but viewfinders are nicer. My dSLR is far lighter than halfa brick, even with a battery grip and big lens. 2) They don't need to be, but generally are.

> I'm no expert, but I would suspect camera manufacturers assume someone who is bothered enough to use a viewfinder over a screen wants to buy good equipment. Good equipment is not cheap. Good equipment in a compact (see what I did there) package is not cheap, especially when it requires things such as prism mirrors with a degree of physical size limitiations. 

Its not really for you to tell other people that they are wrong to want something on the basis of what you suspect. I'm telling you (because I spent hours researching it) that there is a substantial cutomer demand for viewfinders at all price levels. Which magazine said the biggest customer response thay had ever had to anything was on cameras with (or rather without) viewfinders.

> Whilst it would be nice if manufacturers could make things exactly to our personal specification, the reason they exist is to make money and as such comprimises are made to bring products to the mass market and sellable to enough people to turn a profit.

Sorry but manufacturers are often driven by fashion and an urge to jump on a bandwagon and as a consequence often get things wrong. There really is demand for the products I mentioned and its not catered for.

2
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

On the topic of contorting feet, I just wanted to add this picture  

https://i2.wp.com/www.climbingsardinia.com/wp-content/uploads/tumblr_mkgf6v...

 Alkis 05 Jul 2019
In reply to pec:

The lack of an optical through-the-lens viewfinder is not a matter of fashion. It is to make the camera cheaper, smaller and lighter. Unless you have an electronic viewfinder (and good ones of those are pretty expensive, requiring very compact very high resolution screens behind some optics), you need Single Lens Reflex. SLR is bulky, heavy and expensive. There’s no real way around that. On film cameras it would have been one of the main costs of the camera body, hence how cheaper cameras could have it. Digital cameras have a lot of expensive parts to balance to get to a price point.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...