Burton Shrinkage tech = Complete bullshit - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
SnowboardingForum.com is the premier Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-08-2014, 09:26 AM   #1 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 93
Default Burton Shrinkage tech = Complete bullshit

I have a pair of 2008 Burton Sabbaths size 13 that I bought 2 years ago on sale, this year I picked up a pair of 2014 Burton Rovers with “shrinkage tech”. The two boots are exactly the same length.
SilverSurfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-08-2014, 09:30 AM   #2 (permalink)
Member
 
Zone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 35
Thumbs up

The shrinkage tech doesn't effect the actual foot size, but the footprint. This way you catch less edge while carving.
Zone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 10:10 AM   #3 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 93
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zone View Post
The shrinkage tech doesn't effect the actual foot size, but the footprint. This way you catch less edge while carving.
If I put the boots sole to sole they are exactly the same. They both start turning up at the toe in the exact same place. The "footprint" is the same.
SilverSurfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 10:16 AM   #4 (permalink)
Member
 
Zone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 35
Default

I have two different burton's, one with shrinkage tech and one without. I do notice there is about 10/12ths of an inch difference of the same size
Zone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 10:24 AM   #5 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 93
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zone View Post
I have two different burton's, one with shrinkage tech and one without. I do notice there is about 10/12ths of an inch difference of the same size
First off, I have never heard of any one breaking down an inch into 12th's. It should be 16th's. And you would never use 10/16th's it would be 5/8th's. So, from your horrible example I would not trust you to use any kind of measuring equipment.
SilverSurfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 10:33 AM   #6 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 983
Default

Nobody likes shrinkage.............bigger is better.
mojo maestro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 10:36 AM   #7 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
trapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West of Lansing
Posts: 1,437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverSurfer View Post
I have a pair of 2008 Burton Sabbaths size 13 that I bought 2 years ago on sale, this year I picked up a pair of 2014 Burton Rovers with “shrinkage tech”. The two boots are exactly the same length.
I understand that they are both labeled at size 13 US boots, but I'm curious, are the mondo/Japan sizes listed on the boots the same?
__________________
Drinking the Kool-Aid:
2013 NS Heritage 166X
2014 Union Factory
trapper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 10:38 AM   #8 (permalink)
Member
 
Flylo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 56
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverSurfer View Post
First off, I have never heard of any one breaking down an inch into 12th's. It should be 16th's. And you would never use 10/16th's it would be 5/8th's. So, from your horrible example I would not trust you to use any kind of measuring equipment.
LOL. Well you still understand what Zone is saying don't you? Yes... it's a little smaller

Who gives a shit if he's using correct fractions or not.
Flylo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 10:42 AM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 433
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverSurfer View Post
I have a pair of 2008 Burton Sabbaths size 13 that I bought 2 years ago on sale, this year I picked up a pair of 2014 Burton Rovers with “shrinkage tech”. The two boots are exactly the same length.
I noticed this too when comparing my old boots with new ones that had this great tech. I guess even if it's 1mm smaller they can say it's a smaller footprint. Still I would hope your 2014 boots are at least lighter than your 2008 boots.
Karpediem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 10:47 AM   #10 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
trapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West of Lansing
Posts: 1,437
Default

The vast difference in model years is what prompted me to wonder about the mondo sizing. I just wonder if their sizing chart changed since then. I am highly suspect of their charts considering a recent conversation I had on here with Wiredsport. My 09 Burton Boots are listed as a size 15 US, but 31.5 mondo. If you look on a Brannock device, 31.5 is actually more like a size 13 US, which tends to be more along my actual shoe/foot size (I wear 13 wides or 14 regular if I can't find a wide sizing).

Basically, I just wonder if he's comparing apples to apples considering that Burton's boot sizing seems odd to me in general.
__________________
Drinking the Kool-Aid:
2013 NS Heritage 166X
2014 Union Factory
trapper is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:49 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums