Sunday, January 2, 2011

Forefoot Width in Running Shoes: Toebox Measurements from My Shoe Collection


CIMG1362I get a reasonable number of questions about width when it comes to running shoes, particularly the width of the toebox. Personally, I like a toebox to be roomy, and despite my fairly average width foot, there are shoes that I’ve purchased that I have had to return since I could barely squeeze into them (e.g., the Nike Waffle Racer XC shoe).

The moment I put a shoe on, I can almost instantly tell whether or not it’s going to be a good fit, so I thought I’d try a little experiment. I brought home a pair of calipers from my research lab and measured the maximum width of the toebox in most of my running shoes (as well as a few other shoe types). Measurements were made just above where the sole meets the upper material, so these numbers include the width of the upper fabric on each side (thus, they are slight overestimates of internal width). I also measured the width of my forefoot between the 1st and 5th metatarsophalangeal joints (bases of big and pinky toes) when bearing weight barefoot (result = ~105.5 mm on each side). Here are my results:

Brand Model Version Size Width (mm)
Bikenstock Sandals   42 104.5
Brooks Mach 12 10 92
Brooks Mach 11 10 94.5
Brooks Launch 1 10 96.5
Brooks Green Silence   10 98
GoLite Amp   10 101.5
Mizuno Wave Universe 3 10 97
Mizuno Wave Ronin 2 10 100
New Balance Minimus Trail   10 101
New Balance Minimus Road   10 100.5
New Balance MT101 10 100.5
Newton Sir Isaac   10 98
Newton Distance Racer   10 97
Nike Lunaracer 1 10.5 97
Nike Free 3.0 2 10 97
Nike Free Run   10 98
Saucony Kilkenny 3 10.5 92
Saucony Kinvara   10 96
Saucony Grid Type A4   10 95.5
Somnio Runaissance 2 10 99
Target Crocs     105.5
Vibram Fivefingers KSO   42 102
Vibram Fivefingers Bikila   41 98
Vibram Trek Sport   41 101.5

After looking at the numbers, it’s gratifying to see that they match up very well with my subjective perceptions. Generally, anything over 100 mm feels roomy to me, from around 96 mm-100 mm is snug but comfortable, and anything under 96 mm is tending toward the narrow end. The results confirmed why I find both Bikenstocks and Crocs to be so comfortable!

There were a few surprises amongst these measurements. First, I expected the Nike Lunracer would be narrower since it tends to give me blisters on the inside of my forefoot. There are other factors that may play into how the forefoot feels, and it might be that a low forefoot height scrunches my foot down or the geometry of the Lunaracer last just doesn’t mesh well with my foot shape. The other surprise was the Brooks Mach 11. I knew the shoe was narrow (as are most XC flats), but I still find it comfortable enough to wear around as a casual shoe. May be that the upper material is stretchy and a bit more spacious than the Saucony Kilkenny, which is also 92 mm wide, but feels tighter.

Anyway, I thought these numbers might be interesting to you, so figured I‘d share.

Happy New Year to all!

Shares are like energy gels for bloggers - they power our writing!
We greatly appreciate your support!


About Runblogger
Runblogger is edited and authored by Peter Larson. Pete is an anatomy professor, writer, and a fanatical runner with a bit of a shoe obsession. He is co-author of the book Tread Lightly. Follow Pete on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, and via email.


You might also like these posts:
Posted by Peter Larson at 9:01 PM
blog comments powered by Disqus