Do full tilt boots run small

cody04I have some Heads RS 100 in 26.5 they fit right for sizing, I'm ordering Full tilt but saw people saying they run smaller so should I size up?

from what i hear it’s from kids who don’t know their boot size so they order the wrong size and say they run small

I hope so, cause the shop I'm ordering from only has 26.5 left.

bananaman123431from what i hear it’s from kids who don’t know their boot size so they order the wrong size and say they run small

Correct. The reason that they feel small is because the intuition liners that are used in the boots are designed to be heat molded. Before being molded, they are very puffy and thick. This means that when people try them on at their shop, they feel super short and cramped and low volume. The heat mold is what generates all the space. Combine that with the fact that the boot sole lengths are generally shorter than most others, people assume that they run a size short.

TLDR, they don’t. The internet fumbled that big time and they are true to size. Just need to mold them correctly.

My drop kicks are 27.5 are fit the same as the other 27.5 boots that I have owned. Different models have different widths though, so they might be too wide or narrow.

Thanks so much Il be ordering the same size as my Head boots!

My b/e pros fit the same as a 28.5 panterra, so yes they do to some extent

They are noticeable tighter for me. Lower volume and shorter length. 301mm shell vs 305mm for most 26.5s. I heat molded too. Nothing wrong with them, they just don’t fit my foot and they do err on the smaller size

just buy the 189's

yes, if you don’t believe just look at the bsl’s you’re interested in rather than trust us. when i looked it seemed like tilts are generally 3-4mm shorter than most other boots of the same mondo size

for me there kinda big im a size 9 men's and I'm riding a 25.5

Fast translate




Icon translate

The first chair series are very low volume. The drop kick is slightly wider, same width as Tom Wallisch. The ascendant/descendent are wider as well as the B&E

dant02The first chair series are very low volume. The drop kick is slightly wider, same width as Tom Wallisch. The ascendant/descendent are wider as well as the B&E

Lol no, the first chair is the soul shell which is higher volume than the original shell, which is the drop kick and drop kick pro. Tom wallisch is also soul shell so the only thing you got right was the descendant/Ascendant/b&e

KCoCMyes, if you don’t believe just look at the bsl’s you’re interested in rather than trust us. when i looked it seemed like tilts are generally 3-4mm shorter than most other boots of the same mondo size

BSL is not the indication of internal length. I wear a 26.5 Dynafit radical pro which is only 293mm and a 26.5 ft first chair which is 301mm and a 26.5 Lange RX which is 304mm. The Lange is the shortest internally, and the Dynafit is the longest. BSL does not dictate the size of the boot because there is not standardization on boot sizing.

animatorBSL is not the indication of internal length. I wear a 26.5 Dynafit radical pro which is only 293mm and a 26.5 ft first chair which is 301mm and a 26.5 Lange RX which is 304mm. The Lange is the shortest internally, and the Dynafit is the longest. BSL does not dictate the size of the boot because there is not standardization on boot sizing.

interesting, thanks for the info. Seems like it would do us all a favor to have the varying companies agree on some things lol

Go to a legit bootfitter and try on what they have there and see what they say after looking at your foot

don't set your heart on FTs

28.5 drop kicks fit the same as my 27.5 il moros

KCoCMinteresting, thanks for the info. Seems like it would do us all a favor to have the varying companies agree on some things lol

If a manufacturer designs for mondo, they are just above or below a US size, so they may choose US larger or smaller by a half size in their chart. If they design for US size, they have a choice of mondo longer or smaller. If they design for Euro or UK, same thing. Plus widths and shapes are all different.

So looking at BSL can give a hint, as can looking at size conversion charts and noting how the manufacturer made these decisions. If you know what their "native" design size is that really helps but it's rare to know that.

Trying on boots isn't going away. Support your local shop.

Yes it is. Why do we still do shell fits then?

Full Tilts fit slightly smaller. That’s not me making shit up. That’s the truth. My foot is at the limit of 26.5. I’ve tried many boots on. My feet don’t fit full tilts 26.5.

animatorBSL is not the indication of internal length. I wear a 26.5 Dynafit radical pro which is only 293mm and a 26.5 ft first chair which is 301mm and a 26.5 Lange RX which is 304mm. The Lange is the shortest internally, and the Dynafit is the longest. BSL does not dictate the size of the boot because there is not standardization on boot sizing.

**This post was edited on Jan 13th 2022 at 7:15:44pm

BradFiAusNzCoCaYes it is. Why do we still do shell fits then?

Full Tilts fit slightly smaller. That’s not me making shit up. That’s the truth. My foot is at the limit of 26.5. I’ve tried many boots on. My feet don’t fit full tilts 26.5.


**This post was edited on Jan 13th 2022 at 7:15:44pm

We do shell fits because internal length isn’t the same as boot sole length. Internally, a Radical Pro is longer than a Full Tilt, even though the BSL of the Radical is 293mm and the Full Tilt is 301mm. BSL gives little indication to internal length which is where your foot actually is. Take in to account the difference in foam that’s used for liners as well. Calm yourself I’m not accusing you of anything. If nobody believes me, listen to the podcast with @onenerdykid. I had a lengthy discussion about this with him last year when looking at the Hawx Ultra XTD. It is 302mm long at a 26.5 and I was concerned about it being short, but per Matt the internal length was longer than the BSL would indicate (hence why I’m saying, BSL does not equal size) and I’ve skied the boot quite a bit with no issues, it’s not short.

**This post was edited on Jan 13th 2022 at 7:47:57pm

Haha I am calm. I don’t think anyone is accusing me of anything. I’m just debating here.

I’m more jumping into Spec norms given the toe/heel and how there would have to be a relative consistent length for the given application and fitting. Full tilts do fit small though. I absolutely won’t change my position on that because I know it to be true through observation and fitting.

Seriously, think about the math and the length needed for a toe and heel to be iso/din certified. There would absolutely HAVE to be consistency that is reflective of internal shell length.

animatorWe do shell fits because internal length isn’t the same as boot sole length. Internally, a Radical Pro is longer than a Full Tilt, even though the BSL of the Radical is 293mm and the Full Tilt is 301mm. BSL gives little indication to internal length which is where your foot actually is. Take in to account the difference in foam that’s used for liners as well. Calm yourself I’m not accusing you of anything. If nobody believes me, listen to the podcast with @onenerdykid . I had a lengthy discussion about this with him last year when looking at the Hawx Ultra XTD. It is 302mm long at a 26.5 and I was concerned about it being short, but per Matt the internal length was longer than the BSL would indicate (hence why I’m saying, BSL does not equal size) and I’ve skied the boot quite a bit with no issues, it’s not short.

**This post was edited on Jan 13th 2022 at 7:47:57pm

BradFiAusNzCoCaHaha I am calm. I don’t think anyone is accusing me of anything. I’m just debating here.

I’m more jumping into Spec norms given the toe/heel and how there would have to be a relative consistent length for the given application and fitting. Full tilts do fit small though. I absolutely won’t change my position on that because I know it to be true through observation and fitting.

Seriously, think about the math and the length needed for a toe and heel to be iso/din certified. There would absolutely HAVE to be consistency that is reflective of internal shell length.

Except there’s not consistency. Look at any boots in the same states shell size and that will tell you. Like my previous example. Another one is a Nordica Speedmachine, K2 Recon, and a Roxa Element. 305mm, 304mm, 300mm. No consistency at all.

BradFiAusNzCoCaHaha I am calm. I don’t think anyone is accusing me of anything. I’m just debating here.

I’m more jumping into Spec norms given the toe/heel and how there would have to be a relative consistent length for the given application and fitting. Full tilts do fit small though. I absolutely won’t change my position on that because I know it to be true through observation and fitting.

Seriously, think about the math and the length needed for a toe and heel to be iso/din certified. There would absolutely HAVE to be consistency that is reflective of internal shell length.

Do this with any shoe/boot: line up 10 different size 27.5 mp sized shoes and you will have 10 different fits. Why?, because foot size is something different than shoe size. A mondopoint size 26 boot is for a 26cm foot, but they are not 1:1 the same thing. If a shell was the exact length of your foot, it would miserably tight. We need space for a liner and this is what a shell fit is taking into consideration. It has become standard practice to look for a certain distance behind the heel during a shell fit which is assuming a certain & constant liner thickness, but that is not always going to be the case. Try doing a 2cm shell fit in super light touring boot with a paper thin liner. It's probably going to be too sloppy of a fit simply because you are looking for a shell fit that is based around an alpine liner.

You can also have 2 boots with the same exact internal last length, same exact liner construction, but different instep heights (heel to instep perimeter, aka HIP). The boot with the lower HIP will feel longer, despite the actual length not being different. Why is this? Lower insteps hold the foot back in the heel of the shell, higher insteps allow the foot to move forward. It's just like wearing a boot that is not buckled vs being buckled properly. The unbuckled boot feels shorter than the buckled boot.

The ISO norm has nothing to do with the internal fit of the boot, only the external shapes/dimensions. And just because you see a shape/curve/distance on the outside of the boot does not mean that is actually happening on the inside (there are definitely fake big toe shapes & navicular bumps on the outside that aren't happening on the inside). For example, we make true-size mondopoint 21/21.5 Redster CS 110. The BSL is 261mm, rather than the expected 255mm. This is done to ensure enough binding forward pressure can be given on adult system carving skis where the smallest binding size is often 260mm. If we made the boot with a 255mm sole, it wouldn't fit into adult system carving skis. So, our size 21/21.5 has a 261mm BSL with an internal last length is 10mm shorter than the 22/22.5 size that has a BSL of 265mm.

Ultimately, some brands get it more correct than others, which is why some boots run long, some run short, and some get it more or less spot on. It's up to a manufacturer to interpret how a size 26 should fit.

Yes, I agree with everything you say and you play to my point with the mentioning of the 261mm bsl to accommodate length on adult bindings. I do understand the difference of bsl vs mondo. My point was that there must be some specs (knowing how din and iso are) that translate across boots to have a consistent depth/length in the toe and heel to allow a boot to be certified. To further my train of thinking, I was saying this must translate to boots as a whole. I’m not so much talking about the length of the foot as much as I am the heel and the toe in an alpine binding and how there must be a norm and how this norm will always factor into the bsl. Does that make sense?

onenerdykidDo this with any shoe/boot: line up 10 different size 27.5 mp sized shoes and you will have 10 different fits. Why?, because foot size is something different than shoe size. A mondopoint size 26 boot is for a 26cm foot, but they are not 1:1 the same thing. If a shell was the exact length of your foot, it would miserably tight. We need space for a liner and this is what a shell fit is taking into consideration. It has become standard practice to look for a certain distance behind the heel during a shell fit which is assuming a certain & constant liner thickness, but that is not always going to be the case. Try doing a 2cm shell fit in super light touring boot with a paper thin liner. It's probably going to be too sloppy of a fit simply because you are looking for a shell fit that is based around an alpine liner.

You can also have 2 boots with the same exact internal last length, same exact liner construction, but different instep heights (heel to instep perimeter, aka HIP). The boot with the lower HIP will feel longer, despite the actual length not being different. Why is this? Lower insteps hold the foot back in the heel of the shell, higher insteps allow the foot to move forward. It's just like wearing a boot that is not buckled vs being buckled properly. The unbuckled boot feels shorter than the buckled boot.

The ISO norm has nothing to do with the internal fit of the boot, only the external shapes/dimensions. And just because you see a shape/curve/distance on the outside of the boot does not mean that is actually happening on the inside (there are definitely fake big toe shapes & navicular bumps on the outside that aren't happening on the inside). For example, we make true-size mondopoint 21/21.5 Redster CS 110. The BSL is 261mm, rather than the expected 255mm. This is done to ensure enough binding forward pressure can be given on adult system carving skis where the smallest binding size is often 260mm. If we made the boot with a 255mm sole, it wouldn't fit into adult system carving skis. So, our size 21/21.5 has a 261mm BSL with an internal last length is 10mm shorter than the 22/22.5 size that has a BSL of 265mm.

Ultimately, some brands get it more correct than others, which is why some boots run long, some run short, and some get it more or less spot on. It's up to a manufacturer to interpret how a size 26 should fit.

BradFiAusNzCoCaYes, I agree with everything you say and you play to my point with the mentioning of the 261mm bsl to accommodate length on adult bindings. I do understand the difference of bsl vs mondo. My point was that there must be some specs (knowing how din and iso are) that translate across boots to have a consistent depth/length in the toe and heel to allow a boot to be certified. To further my train of thinking, I was saying this must translate to boots as a whole. I’m not so much talking about the length of the foot as much as I am the heel and the toe in an alpine binding and how there must be a norm and how this norm will always factor into the bsl. Does that make sense?

Yeah, the only part of the toe and heel that are normed are the external shapes of both that meet the bindings. And not just the lug but the actual shape of the toe box/heel area. For example, ISO 5355 won't allow for an overly large, external big toe shape. There's a maximum allowable external shape there, and in the heel to allow for a proper interface with the binding. And the maximum is the same for a super narrow world cup boot and a super wide tug boat, so any real fit differences happen on the inside last shape and you can't tell simply by looking at the outer shape of the boot.

Additionally, plastic thickness of the shell plays into this. If I want more big toe/toe box room in the next generation of the Redster boots and I want to keep the plastic thickness exactly the same in all areas, then the BSL needs to get longer because of the toe box shape limitations set in 5355. And if I want to make the plastic much thinner but keep the last exactly the same, the BSL will get shorter, as is the case with Hawx Ultra and why it has a BSL of 300mm rather than 305mm.