Forums Boots Fitwell Backcountry Viewing 20 posts - 221 through 240 (of 240 total) ← 1 … 11 12 Author Posts November 11, 2014 at 2:26 am #652498 philip.ak 679 Posts @cameron wrote: Fitwell’s Mondo sizing is very different from any other Mondo sizing that I know of. I would go off of their chart as their Mondo sizing runs really small. Just for reference… I’m usually a size 12US and my Fitwell BC size 305 mondo fit perfectly. Cam This really annoyed me. Mondo should be Mondo. Fitwell has no more prerogative to define the relationship between US shoe size and Mondo than a thermometer manufacturer gets to decide how Fahrenheit relates to centigrade. Anyway, I’m US 11.5 and should wear a Mondo 295, but following Fitwell’s conversion I got a 300, and that worked well. November 11, 2014 at 2:44 am #652499 Skijor AK 33 Posts Ordered a 295! Heres to some awesome, and hopefully more efficient, expeditions this winter! :guinness: November 19, 2014 at 8:56 am #652500 rughty 620 Posts So has anybody modded a pair of fitwells to work with a dynafit or similar toe piece? November 19, 2014 at 10:47 am #652501 tomster 4 Posts I heard that Fitwell has started some testing, but nothing more… January 10, 2015 at 5:39 am #777761 LPowhuntr 102 Posts Sizing help greatly appreciated, I wear size US10 DC T Rice model fairly lose fit well at least now they definitely stretched through the years. Most recently I purchased VANS boots softer ones for park riding and bought them fairly snug size US9 and I like them possibly the best fit yet. But trying to figure out Fitwell size is causing me a headache I went as fair as measuring insole lengths to help the choosing process but that’s not going all too well. My foot length is 268mm. Insoles on the VANS are 165 and they sit snug and the length on the DCs is 175 which explains the lose feel. I even had a retailer measure the insoles on the Fitwells and that lead me to think at I might need to order sizw 270 but that concerts to UK size 7 and US size 8 which can’t be right unless Fitwell really run big for their size. January 11, 2015 at 12:04 am #777862 HansGLudwig 601 Posts ^ Fitwell makes up their own size numbers, regardless if they match the outside world or not. Read earlier posts and see the size comparison chart from their site. Be sure to bookmark Splitboard.com's Recent Activity page... http://splitboard.com/activity-2/ January 12, 2015 at 10:16 am #778035 LPowhuntr 102 Posts I read this entire post and I don’t see anything that specifically explains how fitwells compare to US boots I’m somewhere between 270-285 that’s 4 possibilities I wish they translated boot size by actual foot size or insole length that would clear up a lot of guessing. If anyone has a pair of 270,275,280,280 and are willing to provide insole length or foot length to compare that would be greatly appreciated. January 13, 2015 at 5:40 am #778157 BGnight 1382 Posts I have 290’s and they fit a 10.5 US foot perfectly. January 13, 2015 at 11:34 am #778174 Kahti Ryan 48 Posts I have a massive differential in size between my feet – my left is a little under a UK 9.5, my right is bang on a UK 8. US sizes are usually one up from UK – so 10.5/9! My friends 280 fitwells fit my right foot perfectly, and my left foot the toe just hits the end of the box, so I would be buying 285s. So going by that the size conversion published here would seem to be pretty accurate. Just remember that’s UK not US sizes. And for reference I fit 275 TLTs, and my summer walking boots are UK 9.5 Meindls that fit like a glove. January 15, 2015 at 10:36 am #778323 caphizi 2 Posts Lpowhuntr: Their mondo size is quite accurate, I also have some pure mountaineering boots from them, same story there. My foot measured about 287 and I took the 290 (season 13/14). Definitely a “performance” fit (1 to 1 1/2 half fingers between heel and shell without liner), but that is how they should be worn (they said…). For reference, the Driver X from this season 14/15 is a perfectly snug textbook fit for me in 290. The fitwell is barely tighter and slightly shorter. So if your foot is indeed 268, you could try on the current 270 Driver X at some store to compare. If it’s comfy, take the 270 Fitwell, if the 270 Driver X is borderline tight, rather take the 275 Fitwell. I also have a 11/12 Malamute in 295 (more comfy) and I use it’s liner in the Fitwell. Hope that helps, good luck, and in any case, they take rather long to break in, I had to be patient. Generally, I would recommend them despite the price and sizing hassles. Traversing is phenomenal, even in spring. Really optimized for skinning. As for riding, they are not as stiff medially. Seems so due to the short shaft, but there is actually less leverage for bending a proper longboard to your will. Cheers, Carl January 26, 2015 at 9:24 am #779453 LPowhuntr 102 Posts caphizi, Really appreciate the info, that really helped narrow down the size on the Fitwells. January 30, 2015 at 6:20 am #779863 1v4n0 16 Posts Just a quick follow-up to my initial review after almost one year and about 40 hikes. They’re still stiff. During the summer my feet got bigger and after that the first couple of hikes they hurt a bit. It seems like they’re very low around the toes. They push. I broke the hook for the outer laces, three times now 🙁 The first two times I had them repaired for free by fitwell (only had to pay to ship the boots to the company). I don’t know what to do now. I changed the laces for some thinner ones, but they were not resistant enough. The problem is the outer laces are a bit too thick for the hooks, and when they freeze they just don’t fit – if I pull too much, the hook breaks. I should build some solution myself, but I’m very bad at these things. Anyway, still loving them, and still thinking that if, and only if, you’re into vaguely difficult and techical alpine snowboarding, they’re a great choice. flickr.com/korbendallas - bit.ly/1wQRjLL February 9, 2015 at 2:21 am #780238 1v4n0 16 Posts tomster wrote: WHEEERRE di you get these pics. I want this so much. I was just given an old pair of those skis (what are they called in english btw?), complete with bindings, but they are really heavy (1.7 Kg each, like a normal alpine touring ski :O ). I’m thinking maybe I could save some weight by fiddling with the bindings, but I have no idea how. flickr.com/korbendallas - bit.ly/1wQRjLL September 4, 2015 at 10:43 am #783471 pablo 10 Posts New boots from Fitwell – The Freeride model – softer flex and BOA lacing: http://www.fitwellsrl.it/en/collezioni/Winter_Collection~3/FREERIDE~91 September 8, 2015 at 7:39 am #783520 HansGLudwig 601 Posts BOA? Feels like a step backward to me. I don’t understand high-quality, Italian hand-stitching (bomber) and mountaineering sole (bomber) with plastic knob (breakable) and non-field-repairable wire lacing. Be sure to bookmark Splitboard.com's Recent Activity page... http://splitboard.com/activity-2/ September 8, 2015 at 8:55 am #783528 FloImSchnee 291 Posts And I would love to have Dual Boa on my Fitwells, and the thermo liner of the new boot. September 14, 2015 at 2:23 am #783654 pablo 10 Posts I also have mixed feelings about the BOA system, and the sole of the Freeride doesn’t look as good for climbing as the one on the Backcountry. However I’ve seen a lot of different models from Fitwell in the last 2 years (non-snowboarding boots) and so far all of them look bomber, top quality, so I’m curious to get my hands on one of these. March 5, 2016 at 2:08 am #790162 1v4n0 16 Posts The fitwell backcountry boots are perfectly compatible with diamir alubar alpine touring bindings. I had an old pair of skis cut to 105cm, had the bindings moved forward (though probably not enough), and, magic, it works. The heel matches perfectly. I was worried about the front but that holds too, without any problem. Used it with different types of snow and it never came out. The best thing would be to use racing skis, because this still weighs about 1.4kg per ski (with binding and skin). Still, I really like this. flickr.com/korbendallas - bit.ly/1wQRjLL March 10, 2016 at 9:04 am #790325 cometogether 385 Posts I would just like to say to barrows that your high if you think TLTs climb rock better than snowboard boots…. I USE tlt boots and the phantoms so I actually have some true input… I used to tour on burton ION and even thought they sucked with crampons on they absolutely crushed climbing rock ridges VS the tlt boots. TLTS have zero flex and are very clunky when on sharp rock. this is just my opinion and I have spent a few years on each setup. Lets just say the fitwells are more and more appealing the more they work on the design. the rearward articulation is something they need to figure out as that is the main reason I converted to hard boots. that and the fact that they transition quick, sidehill well, front point like i had crampons on and ski well when you just cant keep a snowboard moving. I have a friend who is on them currently and he loves them, he also has no problem climbing or booting in them, they do look pretty bomber but the price of all these back country products is just getting to be downright insane. but thats a whole other thread. I dont give a shit what you ride as long as it doesn’t slow me down. LET GET SOME LAPS!!! whatever works for you. shred on my friends! June 14, 2019 at 8:15 am #835182 1v4n0 16 Posts Quick follow-up on my experience with the Backcountry boots: they broke after about 200 hikes. The hard plate below the foot broke (on just one boot). It is still usable, but it bends much more than is comfortable. So yes, that’s how much they lasted. Fitwell’s customer service was always very friendly and helpful, and this time, after I had sent’em the boots, they told me there was nothing they could do. I had hoped they would last a bit more, but I guess that’s enough anyway. Lots of hikes with crampons, too. flickr.com/korbendallas - bit.ly/1wQRjLL Viewing 20 posts - 221 through 240 (of 240 total) ← 1 … 11 12 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.