La Sportiva Spantik sizing

[Jonzo]

I've seen a few posts out there in the past regarding the sizing of the Spantiks...I have two pairs in my possession right now, a 43 and a 43.5, and am debating the fit so much I think I'm losing my mind. I need some help. A word about my feet - reasonably narrow, nothing strange, take a 42.5 in the Trango Extreme (yellow/black model with Schoeller gaiter and power strap from about 5 years ago), took a size 9 in the Scarpa Vega/Inverno, measure L foot about a mm more than a 9 on a Brannock, R foot a 9 (or 42 on a euro Brannock). Typically take running shoes and street shoes in a 9 or 42, but have taken in an 8.5 as well, depending on the shoe. Sock combo - super thin liner sock, and mid to heavier weight Smartwool (nothing ultra-super thick tho). Intended use - return to St. Elias Range/Alaska range, mid-technical ground.

Here is the dilemma - both boots fit, but the 43.5 feels a tad longer. However, in the 43, my feet feel a bit tentative, like they almost want to touch the end. Kick test is good it would seem. I'm just worried about the lack of length translating into toes hitting the end with the swollen feet at the end of the day, peripheral edema, etc. Never had this much problem fine-tuning...just looking for others' experiences in fitting them, ASAP...how much did they settle in, what size did you take in relation to other boots, etc. etc. HELP!!

Cheers!

[Dane]

I wear a 45 Nepal Evo, a 45 Batura ( these fit bigger than the Evos) both with a liner and a med smart wool. Had the same Extreme you have now in a 46 and it was too big. Spantiks generally fit 1/2 or a full size bigger than a Trango in any version. I ended up in a 46 Spantik. 45.5 was obviously too small, 46.5 too big. I ended up ditching the Sportiva liner and had a local guy fit me with a pair of Intuition foam liners. They are lighter, WAY warmer (which is saying a lot with a Spantik) and fit much, much better, with no heel lift.

 

Street shoe and running shoes are 11.5. Typical mtn boot is a 12.

 

This might not help but I ended up using two pairs of really light liners in my Spantiks and would buy the smallest size boot I could wear without bumping a toe on swollen feet. Sounds like you are spot on with the 43 but only way to really tell is try on a 42.5. My guess is you'll bump your toe and need the 43.

With narrow feet check for heel lift in the bigger size.

 

Good luck!

[ASmith]

I am having the same issue and would like to see the what size others are using compared to their running show size in US sizing.

 

I measure a 9 1/2 on the scale and with a dress shoe & thin sock. I wear a size 10 running shoe in just about everything using a standard running sock.

 

I started with a size 43 Spantik, went to a 43.5 and now have a 44 Spantik. I would even like to try a 44.5. With each size up things feel better. I have not gotten to the point that it is too big. When using a SW liner and SW Mountaineering sock especially with a Sole Veisters footbed it seems snug with still no heal lift. With the 44 lenght seem ok too, I question the snuggness around the forefoot for circulation.

 

Play with putting in and taking out your footbed as the footbed accounts for about one size La Sportiva told me.

 

I have a friend that wears a 9 who used a 43 on Denali and based upon what you said I would think a 43 or 43.5 depending on sock and footbed combo would be about right.

 

Keep in mind that swelling does not make a foot longer but wider in diameter and you want a boot with room.

Edited July 14, 2008 by ASmith

[Jonzo]

I ended up going with the 43's...it's interesting in that many of the reviews on the web say "fits true to size" and then you get someone like Andy Kirkpatrick who says he is a 42 size and wears a 44, which would be huge to me. The issue in the 43.5 (and I really, really labored over this) was that they fit a bit sloppy, and I didn't want to shore things up with thicker socks, lots of inserts, etc. in order to compensate. I've also talked to people at AMH who said that while they went up a full size, after some use, they feel they could actually go down a half size. And of course Dane on this website has been extremely helpful to me. The biggest issue with this boot compared to many others is that both inner and outer are lasted, in half sizes. Mountain tools in Carmel sells a lot of them; you may with to consult with them. Their website says 1/2 size over regular boot size. For me, I take a 42.5 in the Trango, so 43 was it. Time will tell....I don't get a lot of swelling in my feet at altitude or with use, so hopefully that'll be okay. And I did the kick test with the 43s and toes didn't hit the end...but they're close, which means I don't get any heel lift and have single-boot style precision (something I was told was a benefit of this boot). I was told by Sportiva that one of the biggest issues with the Spantik (and the Lhotse, which has a similar last) is that people buy them too big. Neptune Mountaineering in Colorado was also helpful; I spoke to a master boot fitter there who also suggested the 43s. From your foot size (ie wearing a 10 running shoe), it's no surprise that the 43 and even the 43.5 was too small...I definitely wouldn't go to a 42.5 for my running shoe size 9 foot (I'm a 9 on the Brannock, and usually wear 9 runners, sometimes 8.5 if the shoe fits big).

 

They're nice boots though...can't wait to use them!

Jon

 

 

[ASmith]

I have normal width feet with my second toe being longer than my first (I forget what you call that). I can wear a 9 1/2 running shoe but usually end up with 10's as the larger size justs feels better, not like a form fitted glove.

 

Based on my experience with Spantics, I would expect that a 43 or 43.5 would work for your 9 foot again, depending on your footbed sock combo. I use a SW liner and a second SW Mountianeering sock with the thicker SOLE Veisters custom moulded footbeds in place of ortotics(sp) which is probably good for a 1/2 size as I have pronated low arch feet.

 

For my 10 foot the 44 seems to be the ticket, and should I have an opportunity to try a 44.5 (no stores in Florida), I anticipate that the 44.5 would fit long but with more toe box room and hence I would be where you are trying to decide up or down.

 

When I tried on the 43 it seemed small but usable with the standard liner and one sock. The 43.5 did give me more toe box width which felt better as did the 44. My believe is the 43.5 or the 44 lenght are both OK for me, however, I liked the feel of the larger 44 toe box. This may impove more with liner compression or better yet, a custom liner made to fit.

 

I am afraid that going to a 44.5 would give me the toe box I like but have too much lenght.

[MtnManMatt]

I have a US9 street, wear a 43 (old school) Nepal Extreme for ice climbing and went with the 43 Spantik for Denali last season, worked great...

[ASmith]

Just as an update for folks looking for sizing help. I use 44.5 in all of LS running shoes and 10.5 (44.5) in Asics runners. In Asics the 11 (45) are too big. I use a 44 Nepal Evo.

 

Using a SW liner, SW mountaineering sock and orthothodic, I stared with a 43 Spantik and went to a 43.4, 44 and ended up going all the way up to a Spantik 45 and having them cooked and fitted by a boot fitter in Redmond's bike and ski shop (forget the name Dane knows them). I used them on 3 routes on Rainier in a weeks time. They started off great but by the end of the week they were loose and sloppy so I sold the 45 and went back down to the 44.5 in the Spantik and stayed in the 45 in the Oly Mons.

 

So for a 10.5 Ascis and 44.5 LS runner wearer a 44 or 44.5 will be perfect depending on sock and footbed.

 

I have a pair of brand new never worn LS Nuptse's in 44.5 if anyone wants them. allen(at)Livinginswflorida(dot)com

 

Edited December 8, 2013 by ASmith

[Ed Steve s]

Do you think the Nuptse fit similarly to the Spantik? I am a size 10 Asics Gel Kayano runner and the Spantik 44.5 is my perfect fit. What is your asking price for the Nuptse, which I understand is the somewhat heavier predecessor to the Spantik.

Thanks, Ed