Lake cycling shoes

Just wondering if any gals here wear WOMEN'S Lake cycling shoes? I am currently wearing a pair of MEN'S Lake CX236 (size 42) shoes...been wearing them for about 2 years now. They function fine, but I'm looking to possibly move up to the Lake CX401 Custom shoe. Only problem is...I can only find my size in the Women's version. I'm not at all opposed to buying the Women's version, but I have no clue how the women's Lake shoes fit as opposed to the men's. I do require a roomy toe box (I have weird toes), but NOT an overall wide shoe due to heel slippage. I went to Lake's website and they have a foot measurement guide that I did. I traced both feet on paper and then measured the widest point in millimeters, which came out to 262mm on my longer foot. This falls solidly into the 41.5 size category (in BOTH men's & women's) according to their size chart. Yet my current Lake shoes that I wear are a size 42 and fit comfortably. So I'm thinking of just sticking to the size 42 and hope that the women's version won't be too narrow in the toe box.

If anyone here has any personal experience with Women's Lake shoes, I'd surely appreciate your feedback on them before I place my order. Thanks a bunch!

Linda

Interesting that you're questioning their sizing chart. I'm looking at a pair of CX237 and don't know what to order. Their trace-around-the-foot puts me in a 39, but every shoe I currently own (running and cycling) is a 40. I am a women's 8 wide, in most shoes. My running shoes are 8.5, in large part to get the width I need (sometimes even the men's equivalent is nearly too narrow). Plus their sizing puts a women's 9 = to men's 6, but that's not how shoe sizing generally works. Usually a women's 7.5 = men's 6.

My current road shoes are men's Louis Garneau 40. I also have the mtn equivalent of the same shoe in the same size, but they're really too small (hence my looking at the Lake shoes). I also have a winter-ish LG boot in a 41 that fits about the same as the road 40s.

So I'm totally confused. I think the women's Sidi Dominators I had were 40s, but they were WAY too narrow. Otherwise the length was good.

Well I'm in men's wide Lake from before the distributor change, but they're 43, same as most of my other shoes, including the "converted" size in the shoes I've bought in US sizes (mostly men's 9.5EEEE).

I too have to go one or two sizes too long to get the width I need. I'm a 42 in Lems street shoes, which are closer, but still longer than I'd need if they were wider.

I ended up pulling the trigger on the men's 40s...at least that will give me a baseline. I can't imagine that I'd have to go more than a half-size different in either direction. Our LBS also has some Fiziks I may try (would have to special order, since I'm such an odd size), but when I tried a pair of last year's model on in women's I found that I needed a men's for width, but the women's still slipped from my heel a bit. Heel slippage isn't a big deal for riding, but since I also do CX with my shoes I need to not be dealing with that too much on run-ups.

Just an update to this thread...I did order the Women's Lake CX401 in a 42, and without any hesitation I packed them back up and returned them the very same day. Just pulling them out of the box, I could immediately tell that they were way too small and too narrow. Of course I did try them on, which only confirmed my thoughts. My toe was jammed up as far as it could go...absolutely NO wiggle room whatsoever. So back they went in exchange for the Women's 43, which just shipped out today. I'm actually not very optimistic that the 43's will fit much better, but I'll give them a shot. Worst case scenario - I'll send them back, and will try the Men's CX331 in a 42...or just keep wearing my current pair of Lake CX236.

So moral of the story - Don't always believe the sizing guidelines! Because that foot-tracing measurement guide that is on the Lake website, was completely inaccurate in my case.

Do they still make some shoes in men's wide? I was surprised how well they fit me, since men's shoes are often way too wide in the heels even when they're still too narrow in the forefoot. I wound up having the velcro straps at the ankle shortened, but even as they came, I could close them tightly enough to eliminate almost all of the heel slop. I definitely wouldn't be able to pull a foot out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nscrbug

Just an update to this thread...I did order the Women's Lake CX401 in a 42, and without any hesitation I packed them back up and returned them the very same day. Just pulling them out of the box, I could immediately tell that they were way too small and too narrow. Of course I did try them on, which only confirmed my thoughts. My toe was jammed up as far as it could go...absolutely NO wiggle room whatsoever. So back they went in exchange for the Women's 43, which just shipped out today. I'm actually not very optimistic that the 43's will fit much better, but I'll give them a shot. Worst case scenario - I'll send them back, and will try the Men's CX331 in a 42...or just keep wearing my current pair of Lake CX236.

So moral of the story - Don't always believe the sizing guidelines! Because that foot-tracing measurement guide that is on the Lake website, was completely inaccurate in my case.

---

I have to send back my 40s, even though I wear a 40 in pretty much every other athletic/cycling shoe. They are too long. Ordered 39.5, but suspect I should have gone to 39, just as their sizing chart suggested. But I wonder if I'd have to go for a men's wide, then. The 40s weren't really too wide, just too long.

Oak, they do still make men's wides, at least in some models/colors. I run into the roomy heels/tight forefoot issue a LOT, too.

I have a pair of Lakes that I bought about 7 years ago, and I think they're a women's model. They have a narrow fit, but the sole is a bit soft.

So I exchanged my 40s for 39.5s, but suspected I should try 39s -- which is what Lake's trace-around-the-foot chart recommended. A full size smaller than pretty much EVERY shoe I own. But I was having a heck of a time finding the 39s, so I stuck with the 39.5. But am regretting that. After one wearing they stretched just enough that they felt like clown shoes through the forefoot. Bummer. I finally located 39s on eBay and they're coming from the UK. Guess I'll clean up the too-big shoes and sell them used on eBay with a very clear explanation that they run big. Perhaps that will help someone else out who wants to try them, but not risk spending a fortune to find they don't fit. I normally wear an 8-8.5 in women's shoes and a 5 in men's. The 39.5 Lakes are labeled as a men's US 5.5, which in theory shouldn't fit me at all. The 39s would be labeled a 5, which is truly nuts.

I will say that I like that they stretched a little. I frequently have issues with shoes that are too snug in width once I find the right length (this is including men's mediums, which = women's wides). I don't think that will be an issue with these Lakes. My heels didn't slip either, which is an issue with me in a lot of shoes.