Fitting the Foot

[luckyduck]

Hey Guys,

Thanks for posting all the thoughts. It makes me feel better about being foggy on the "ideal" fit. I was concerned that it was something so obvious none of the books thought it difficult enough to need explanation and I was totally overthinking it.

Thanks again for the discusion and letting the rest of us see how others think on the topic.

Paul

[donrwalker]

I recently took a class from Janne Melkersson. In discussing fit I told him that I don't make a leather fitter, I make a glass slipper. He asked what I meant, so I did a demo for him. He said I should share it with the rest of the forum. As far as I know Randy Merrell developed this method and I have his permission to make this video. Here is the link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZQj0CSrFs
I hope you find it interesting.

Don

[mac]

Hi Don.
I enjoyed your video! I have seen trial pairs made with a thin plastic vacuum formed over the last. I think your method is a lot easier.
I particularly like they way you used the glass slipper as a fitter with the orthotic. I find girths difficult to figure out when a client has a pre-existing orthotic.
I assume your tape gun is mounted in your bench vise?
Sean

[janne_melkersson]

Hi Don,
I am glad you showed this to the forum. I am sure it will be useful to many. Next time I need to make a trail pair you bet I will try your method.
Plain is beautiful!
Janne

[donrwalker]

Sean

Yes, The tape gun is clamped in my vise.

Janne

Thanks\
Don

[fred_coencped]

Hello Don,Sean,And Jan

Thanks for sharing.I also utilize the "glass slipper method" and I have vacuum formed thin plastic trial last fits.

Just a couple of factors to consider from my perspective.

Standing and walking on the correct heel heights on a given last and fitting an orthotic with appropriate socks are variables worthy of our consideration.

For myself in an effort to obtain an appropriate fitting last I will incorporate a Texon insole mounted to the last,initially.If the orthotic is 1/4" at the heel apex and the same at the ball of the foot as well I will add a 1/4" spacer also between the last and insole to obtain the extra depth for the foot orthotic.

Additionally added is a cork heel/sole wedge.Now the client wears socks and can walk on the trial fitted "glass slipper" and in this weight bearing dynamic condition you will have a more precise idea of your expectations in your final execution.

For me I simply hold the roll of tape in my hand and wrap the last following all of the last contours in a natural flow without having to fold the tape at all.Also to remove the last with the nails attached I will cut the back of the slipper vertically and remove the last without needing to break the hinge.Then remove the spacer,insert the insole with the orthotic and the trial fitting is ready.

I do this process on all new last,orthopedic or modified factory lasts.

Sean,foot girth measurements remain the same with or without orthotics,more or less.Looking and instinctively evaluating the slipper fitting is not perfect as perfection is what we all strive for,I think.

OK,Peace,Love and Light,
Fred

[johnl]

I was just wondering, could this fitter shoe also be done by using an STS casting sock on the last?
John Lewis

[romango]

STS socks are quite expensive. ~ $25.00/pair.

[fred_coencped]

John,
Rick is right,STS socks are costly and they would not work for me .The importance of the "glass slipper"is for you to see the foot inside the positive shell of the last.Packing tape is inexpensive and very quick to wrap the last.

OK,Fred

[johnl]

Rick and Fred
Thanks for the input. I am asking a lot of stupid questions as I go. I hope to learn a little one of these days.
Thanks again
John

[romango]

John,

It's not a stupid question at all. I've actually done what you suggest.

But the fact is, I can whip together a fitter for about $2.00 in materials that's pretty good too.

Actually, the more elaborate the fitter, the better read I get. If your fitter is too flimsy, it might not reflect the real shoe very well. For example, the toe cap is usually more rigid in the finished shoe.

[dw]

I wasn't going to get into this simply because I feel...and have always felt...that if it works for you, do it.

But this is becoming a real discussion and so I thought a different perspective might add something.

I never did care for the glass slipper none. I have problems with both the theory and the application.

I can see that having a transparent fitter would help you read the foot inside the form. But it strikes me as closing the barn door after the horse has skedaddled. When you come right down to it, what we really want to read is the position of the bones and no amount of plastic tape will aid us in doing that. So we have to try to rely on our eyes, and feel, and reason, and experience, and the input of the customer. Not a bad approach in my opinion.

I also feel that any fitter model needs to be as close to functioning footwear as we can make it to really tell us anything. If the foot is not at heel height and is not able to move as in normal gait, what information we might glean is both incomplete and maybe even misleading.

That's not all my objections but it will do for now.

I might add that, at least for shoes, the simplest and most effective fitter's model is to cut leather versions of the medial and lateral formes and seam right down the center of the forepart and right down the center of the heel. Of course you have to add seam and lasting allowances but you can actually make a pair of trial shoes in probably less than an hour and have the customer walk in them.

And it's cheaper even than a roll of packing tape.

just my 2¢...

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[artzend]

DW

For what it is worth, I always made my uppers and lasted them to the insole before fitting, most of the time I found that there were only minor differences and modifications, but if there were none, I could just carry on and finish them.

If they needed to be dismantled either for minor things or even a reconstruction, it didn't take that much trouble.

I found that fitters did not reflect the true characteristics of the shoe, and if you are going to add stiffeners and toe puffs then you may as well use your uppers.

Tim

[dw]

Tim,


I agree...I suspect that nothing short of the actual shoe will ever reflect the "true characteristics of the shoe." Not forme based, scrap leather, fitter's models, nor glass slippers. Of course getting a "shell" that accommodates the foot and the customer's head is half the battle.

In that context, I think that developing a method of collecting data and measuring the foot that is reliable, repeatable, and that stands on its own (doesn't need to have arbitrary amounts subtracted from selected girths) is paramount.

Because in the end, the real reason for a fitter's model is...or ought to be...to assure the customer and allow him/her to adjust fit to their personal preference.

That said, I have found that I am not always on the money all the time. I've always thought that, like so many other things in this business, anyone who said that they got a perfect fit 100% percent of the time needed to revise their standard of fit...or get a second customer

Seriously, though...I find dedicated fitter's models extremely useful especially for making pull on boots. The shell has to fit just so--there is no adjustment after the fact. No laces. There are some instances, where if you cut and assemble a pair of boots to a pattern and use it as a trial, and it doesn't fit to suit the customer, you will, nine times out of ten, have lost the boot. There is very little you can do to reconstruct it to the same standards--aesthetic standards--as originally intended.. And if it is alligator or ostrich, it's devastating to replace that material.

All the more reason to be precise and deliberate in measuring--that's my philosophy.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[artzend]

DW

Yes you are right about the boots, getting the pass line right it tricky isn't it. I do agree about the exotics too. I can see the point of fitters but never did them, mind you, I had to remake shoes from scratch a few times when I was wrong.

Tim

[jkrichard]

I have been giving a lot of thought---with a few sleepless nights, to how I was taught to measure the foot. Of all the joints encountered during the measurement, it is the ball measurement which I have the most problems accepting my current measurement taking with.

To explain: the way we are taught to take measurements is to take the measurements with the foot relaxed, i.e. no pressure on the foot or joints. However, we take the tracing of the foot in a neutral pressure---or with weight evenly distributed.

While I haven't had any problem or complaint from others regarding this method---or any complaints from myself for the boots/shoes made using this method--- the issue I am having is wrapping my head around the 'why' behind it.

As an experiment I took measurements of my ball joint relaxed, and then with weight distributed equally across both feet. There was almost an inch difference. (I note that I have grown up in loose fitting shoes and military footwear.)

My understanding of the walk cycle tells me that during a faster walk, a jog, or even a run, that the spread of the metatarsals would be even further...

My understanding of what footwear needs to accomplish for the foot, in regards to the ball area and metatarsals, is to allow enough room to allow for spread and distribution of weight and pressure, but to allow for a contraction and release of that pressure---and even to assist in that contraction---towards the end of the walk cycle.

So I ask then, how do you (all) approach the ball joint for measurements and fitting, and why?

-Jeff

**As an edit, my reason for asking is that I believe there is a better approach. While other measurements would vary during the walk cycle, they do not vary as much as the ball circumference.

(Message edited by JKRichard on December 08, 2009)

[relferink]

Jeff,

The silence in this topic after your question speaks volumes.....
Before I say anything else let me point out that I don't have the answer to your question and admit to having had the same inclination to believe there is a better approach, or if not better at least one that would actually make sense and not leave holes big enough to fly through on an airplane as you indicated. How can a shoe made for walking, fit if the foot is measured non weight-bearing but still fit while the foot changes so much in gait?

During my training years I spend much time trying to figure out why the system used works and why, when inquiring the answer uniformly was: "it is what it is". My quest drove me to study foot function in depth, first as a shoemaker and later with the help of medical professionals from podiatrist to orthopedic surgeons, from radiologists to biomechanical engineers.
In stead of finding an answer to the question I gained a solid understanding of the foot as an extraordinary adaptable yet specialized structure. I believe that the mystery lays as much in the last as it lays in the foot.

We all know that the last is an abstract representation of the foot that gives the shoe produced on it properties of fit, function and comfort (or blisters, misery and pain depending on the last) However, the last is NOT a copy of the foot even though certain elements are taken from the foot. One such element is the ball circumference measurement in a static, non weight bearing state.

So without bringing you closer to the why I can tell you that you have to look at the difference between the foot and the last to come to some sort of hard to describe understanding in your quest and the first step is to know why a last shaped like a foot does not function in shoemaking. I am sure there are many readers who have tried using a foot form as a last. Logic 101 says: foot comfortable in shoe = shoe made around foot.
The element that makes this logic not work is the combination of 28 bones and 33 joints in each foot. The foot is flexible but also provides rigidity and support for the entire body structure and weight during specific phases of the gait process. The position of the foot bones changes so much and with it the shape and measurements.
The first thing you find when making the shoe around a foot form is that you will walk out of the shoe, it will simply not stay on your foot. The shoe needs to "grab" your foot in order to function properly, this means that the shoe needs to have features that make is "digg into the foot" without causing discomfort. When looking at a last the cone is significantly narrower than the foot is in that same area so there the shoe "diggs in". Now take that concept that tells us the last needs to be different from the foot and apply that to the entire foot / last, not just the cone. Somewhere in there you'll gain an almost instinctive understanding of feet vs lasts and learn to appreciating the differences in stead of looking at the similarities.

It is probably not much of an answer but if it stops your mind going round and round in the same circles you may just be one step closer. (pun intended)

Rob

[frank_jones]

Jeff

I am writing this posting with great hesitation. It is hard to follow somebody who has the depth of knowledge in this area as Rob. Perhaps I can add some simple comments coming at the matter from a different angle.

I run courses for people in the footwear industry and regularly get asked about fit. Nearly always the question is too general to have any kind of answer that might prove useful. Sometimes the question is more specific, such “what is the difference between the last and the foot? ”.

Having over the years worked with a broad selection of specialists in this area, mainly last model makers, I can at least in overall terms shed a little light on such a question.

The first point to make has been covered before but is worth repeating.

1. The last is not a foot. It is a mould over which shoemakers shape the upper and to a much lesser extent the sole.

2. Never forget the anatomy. The back section of the foot consists of “blocky” bones which are fitted very closely together and do not move very much during walking. The forepart of the foot is made of “long” bones which act as a set of levers that move about when walking.

3. It follows from item 2 that the back section of the last is a very snug fit to the foot but the forepart has added “wiggle” room so that the toes can move about in wear.

4. But the shoe or boot also has to support the foot and feel comfortable in wear. For example, it must not allow the foot to slide forward or the toes could be squashed against the front of the shoe, and especially on a shoe, it must not go baggy around the topline or the shoes will feel too loose.

5. When you ask last model makers how they arrive at the width measurement of the top of the back section of the last (often called the comb) they usually say they have a standard set of measurements. These are always much narrower than the foot, so that the topline remains snug in wear.

In short, some parts of the last are bigger than the foot and others are smaller. The clever bit is knowing where and by how much. Compared with the skills of making footwear by hand, fit is many times more difficult to master.

Much of the above will be obvious to many people on the Colloquy but perhaps it might provide some background scenery to what people like Rob can offer.

Frank Jones - HCC Member
frank.jones@noblefootwear.com

[dw]

Jeff,

Well, I guess I'll add my here...for what it's worth.

First...while I echo Rob's assessment that you cannot make a good fitting shoe (or boot) over a plaster cast of the foot...I will note that we had this discussion some years ago with many folks adamantly asserting that using a plaster cast worked fine. I, personally, was never convinced. Parenthetically, the assumption in that discussion was that the plaster cast would not be modified much beyond adding toe character.

This brings me to another set of observations...I have heard over the course of nearly four decades makers claim that they have never had a misfit. My response is that they are either lying or that they need to revise their standards of fit. That said, I am not really questioning anyone's truthfulness so much as the standard of fit, which, as we all know is pretty much a subjective thing.

As to why the ball girth gets so large when weight bearing...it is more than just the spread of the metatarsals, I think. I think it is a shifting of substance to the forefoot when weight is brought to bear. The evidence is before our eyes...or at least that's the way I see it. If we take a non-weight bearing measurement at the ball and apply it to a last that conforms, in terms of width--medial featherline to lateral featherline--to the weight bearing footprint/pedograph, we get a fit that is notably superior to taking a weight bearing girth and applying it to the same last.

Is it important? Well if you have ever made a shoe or boot using an unaltered weight bearing ball girth, I suspect that you will acknowledge that the fit is almost inevitably too loose. So, yes, practically speaking, it is important...it's important to either measure with the weight off or subtract some arbitrary measurement from the ball girth before modding the last.

As for the "why"...just as any substance that does shift to the forepart can do so without discomfort (usually) so too can it be confined--prevented from shifting. As mentioned in either Frank or Rob's response, the shoe always needs to be more than a "contact container." It must hold the foot and constrain the foot and to do that it must even apply a little pressure to certain areas of the foot.

I once took an order from a podiatrist/foot doctor (I think he was actually an MD). While measuring him I took the opportunity (jumped at it actually) to ask almost the same question..."how can we compensate for gait when measuring the foot?"

His answer: "We can't."

I too have obsessed about these kinds of issues. And eventually come to the conclusion that I was over-thinking the problem. Everyone measures the foot a little differently...just by virtue of those subtle nuances of muscle contraction that affects how tightly or loosely we pull the tape measure--nuances that cannot be taught or conveyed or codified, much less duplicated.

We all use those self-same measurements to mod out the last a little differently--according to our individual and unique perceptions of balance and relationship.

And all that ultimately affects how we design and cut our patterns.

All those relationships can be changed--thrown entirely out of balance--in the hands of another maker or careless data collection or usage...or simply the kind of day you're having.

Arthur C. Clark (?) once said "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." The fact that there are so many variables that can affect the final result make measuring and modding the last--fitting, in other words--almost magic. Which, in turn, makes accurate and deliberate measuring, etc.. (technology) all that much more important.

In some respects "it is what it is" is the right answer. If it works, enough of the parts are in harmony to achieve the results we want.


Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

(Message edited by admin on January 31, 2010)

[relferink]

Frank, Thank you for your insight and please do never hesitate to add, edit or even disagree with anything I put up. It's only my perspective I speak from and other input and viewpoints are not only welcome, they are also crucial in the process of continuously growing my own knowledge and understanding in matters as elusive as fit.
The points you make are all very valid and worth pointing out. I should not have taken them for granted as being obvious. Nothing is obvious when it comes to fit.

DW, I much agree with your evaluation of those claiming not to misfit. That said I would like to hear their vision on differences and similarities between foot and last.

I do not fully understand what you mean by the shifting of substance to the forefoot when weight is brought to bear.
In weight bearing as well as gait the change in angulation between the metatarsals and the toes and the changes in the longitudinal and transverse arches will account for different measurements but the mass does not change.

During my training years I figured that I had to understand the movement of every bone in the foot in every step of the gait cycle to make a markable improvement to my fittings. Even though additional knowledge of foot function in gait does not hurt and is at times very handy to trouble shoot extraordinary difficult cases, it does not make the art and mysterie of a good fit any less elusive.

Technology has slowly become available to measure feet in motion. It is no longer impossible to record 3 dimensional footage of the foot in motion and extract measurements of any part of the foot at any stage of the gait cycle. The reason it's not used for measuring to produce footwear (besides the price) is that the measurements are not meaningful. Let me rephrase that; no one has figured out a way to make those measurements more useful than the static measurements we take now.

Above all the ONE thing that really stuck in my head when it comes to fit are these wise words posted some time ago by our friend, highly skilled colleague and HCC president Dan Freeman:

Every year, a few more of them fit first time than did the year before

What I take away from that is that no matter ones experience, fit is not simple and when you think you have it figured out that one customer who does not conform to any of your "fit rules" shows up (again)

Just my

Rob

[dw]

Rob,

I am uneasy with the word "mass" it doesn't resonate with what I was referring to. Perhaps "volume" is a better word and I do think that there is a volume increase in the ball area under weight bearing conditions.

If we start with the premise that volume/substance is static under all conditions, and we could measure that volume at any point/cross-section of the foot, then the mechanics of the observed increase in weight bearing girth measurements in the joint as opposed to non-weight bearing measurements literally defies logic.

Sometimes that increase...and I would venture out on a limb and say that such discrepancy is widely if not universally accepted...can be quite startling. I don't know that I have ever observed an inch difference but it is far more than the simple spread of the metatarsals can account for.

The laws of physics nearly dictates that in a static volume if the internal structure shifts the physical dimensions will also shift...but volume will not. In other words, as the metatarsals spread the forefoot should get thinner...and the girth should remain static or nearly so.

But that is clearly not what is being observed. Nor what is happening...if results--fitting results...have any credibility

Only a shift in volume into the forepart as weight is brought to bear can account for the increase in girth. Or the significantly different way in which a woman's high heeled pump fits the forepart of the foot when the foot is suspended in air as opposed to when the weight of the body added.

I like to use the, admittedly crude, analogy of a water balloon. Suspended in weightless environment, it has a constant volume at any cross section. Lay it down on the table and it flattens...spreads...but the volume remains static at any cross-section. Lift one end of the balloon from the shelf and the volume in that portion of the balloon remaining on the shelf will increase...and so too will the girths in corresponding cross-sections.

I think those of us who deal with women's shoes or higher heeled footwear such as boots see this from a somewhat unique perspective.

Anyway that's my story...

But bottom line I would never trust the girth measurements from a weight bearing foot to yield a satisfactory fit without a certain amount of, what some would call "arbitrary," arithmetic adjustment.

All that said, I've always said "bootmaking (shoemaking) is dead easy--it's just muscle memory and patience. It's fitting that's hard--and it's a lifetime study."

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[fred_coencped]

Richard,I missed your posting back in Dec.,Thanks to Rob`s prudent response,I will try to answer.


My response.
We are all questing for the golden fleece.the holy grail,IMO entering the abyss.

There is no contest and all will probably agree as I have said before the last is the most difficult aspect in making.

Foot function and foot types along with personal preferences and footwear styles add up to some fitting issues.

Addressing your question of the forefoot and girth measurement for me is client seated with a harris mat print. The standing outlined foot print is made prior to the seated measurements.Girth measurements are therefore semi weight bearing.Client wears appropriate socks.

I have for years thought about using a casting platform with appropriate heel heights and taking all measurements with the elevated heel and would like to ask members on the forum if that has been tried or even contemplated.

Adjustments I have made to girth measurements generally Ball plus 1/4",Waist and instep minus1/8" .

Some general foot types being rigid high arched feet,flexible flat feet,hypermobile The age old empiracal method of trial and error always works,eventually.Yeah yeah and with great pride I confess to many trials and errors,no big deal,its just a learning process,anyway.

I like DW`s ideas of a leather trial fit and especially the water balloon analogy,dealing with shapes in the feet and body`s soft tissue.

Also DW,imagine a plaster mold of the foot where the cone is narrowed,elongated and shaped into a side cone last,just as a generic last in all of its profiles.The toe character is added.Then the last bottom, insole[innersole or foot orthoses] are fashioned to precisely the generic last bottom.Could that in your minds eye be fabricated into a comfortable pair of shoes?
Richard,
What I am suggesting here is that functional footwear for any foot type is normal movement and function in the entire gait cycle and into the entire lower extremity even into the torso.The premise is that balancing the forefoot function and fit of the MPJ`s[ball joint] leads to the foots re-supinating when the forefoot is fully enagaged,in a moment just prior to heel lift.We know very well the properties of leather shaping itself about the dynamic foot.Subjectivity,preferences and client sensitivities are always relevant in fitting.



Richard,what a loaded question that can really go much deeper then we know..........Thank you,

truly,Fred

Confucious says-Smile on face,begin in feet

[dw]

I agree this is a subject that is difficult and unlike to produce much agreement.

Maybe because my experience has been mostly boots for nearly four decades now, I do not think that a really good fit could be obtained with a plaster cast using only the modifications you suggest, Fred. I think they would be too large...roomy...in the joint area.

When I measure a foot with weight on I get a ball girth that is at least a half inch bigger than when I measure the foot with the weight off. If I make a boot with the weight off measurement, I generally get a snug, not tight, fit. If I make a boot with the ball girth having been taken weight on, the forefoot ends up rattling around inside the boot like a little rubber sphere in a handball court.

I know that there are makers who do take the girth measurements weight on but they invariably subtract a fraction of an inch from their measurements. What fraction is the question: one-quarter inch? Three eighths? Most subtract one fraction at the ball, another at the waist, another at the instep and so forth. But no rationale is, or has ever been, given as to why that particular amount is subtracted from that particular girth.

And Fred...if I understand you...you're actually adding an equally arbitrary(?) amount to the ball girth.

Now, I am making shoes. Some quite successful. And I am using all the same measurements I take from the foot for the purpose of making a boot.

And despite some initial qualms (reinforced by observations made by far more experienced shoemakers than myself), I have found no real drawback to being careful about deferring to the actual heel seat width of the foot; or using both a high and low instep; or factoring in the long heel. I do believe, and will admit, that I need to make some adjustments...especially over the instep to address the issue of leaving some gap in the facings but I have not yet settled on exactly what I should do as a general rule there.

But I do know that I don't need the excess in the forepart that...at least in my hands...a weight-on ball girth would create.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[fred_coencped]

DW,
From your perspective,is a "weight on" measurement full weight bearing[e.g. standing] and/or "weight off" seated with receipients upper leg horizontal and lower leg vertical?I consider the later semi-weight bearing.In which case the weight on the heel is only the weight of the leg and the weight distribution and subsequent weight on the forefoot is pretty negligble. What I consider semi-wt.bearing you are considering non-wt. bearing.Maybe we are doing the same.Please advise.

I thought mostly everyone measures with the customer seated,I just happen to have called it semi-wt.bearing.

Also "deferring to the actual heel seat",is that measuring with a "c" shaped calipher at about 3/4" superior to the medial/lateral base of the heel?And with or without a sock.That is the only measurement I make standing,for a plaster cast or wood/plastic last.

A snug forefoot ball fit, not tight, is good,I do agree.To be more clear for a plaster cast adding a 1/4" to the ball measurement allows for the top cover on the orthoses.The fit of the forefoot is still snug without gaps.The orthotic innersole only creates full contact from heel to ball.The distal end of the orthotic "innersole"is only a forefoot platform or extension to the insole of the shoe.

thanks,
Fred

[dw]

Fred,

Weight-bearing means just that to me. The customer stands upright and distributes his weight evenly between his feet. He needs to lift the foot momentarily so that a tape measure can be placed under it.

Weight-off means exactly that...the customer is seated and the foot is suspended in mid air generally by placing one knee over the other. I jokingly tell selected customers to "sit like a lady."

To me, heel seat width is the width of the pedographic imprint at the heel. Full weight on.

The tread width is collected from the same pedographic imprint in the same direct fashion.

I take all measurement with the customer wearing a sock...but not just any sock. It needs to be representative of the sock the customer will normally wear with his shoes or boots.

Socks are more important than we know. They add substance to the girth measurements all out of proportion to the attention we give them. Socks incorporate substance in the knitting both by virtue of the style of knitting and the "loft" inherent in the yarn.

This added substance can be illustrated by taking a half inch wide strip of tissue paper and wrapping it around any object as if the strip itself were a measuring tape. Tear the strip to length...so that it replicates the circumference of the foot or object. Now beginning at one end, roll the strip tightly, ever so tightly down it's length. The resulting "log" of tissue paper represents the substance added to the circumference by a sock as thin as tissue paper. Now imagine what is being added by a sport sock made of soft cotton.

Ah! You add the quarter inch to compensate for an orthotic. That was the missing part of the picture. I understand now.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member