WhyFi

Leather cycling shoes aren't really the norm, anymore, either - Lake still has some as does Sidi, IIRC - so stretching may not be an option for many of the shoes with synthetic uppers out there. Then there's also the matter of High Volume (generous/stretched uppers) vs Wide (wider lasts/foot beds) - people with moderately wide feet seem to be able to get away with HV (which is the majority of the cycling shoes marketed as Wide) while those with true flappers need the wider foot bed.

redcon1

All of the shoes I stretched were some combination of nylon/synthetic uppers and the stretching process worked well enough to wear them. Agree about High volume vs. wider footbed distinction. Sidi Mega are a combination of both. I have Sidi Genius 5 in both regular and Mega, both size 43. The Mega definitely has a higher volume to allow a roomier instep, but also a wider footbed. The combination allows a decent fit for me.

GhostRider62

I buy Sidi Mega width shoes. The problem? Bike shops do not stock shoes and certainly not 48 wide. There are online shops that will pay return shipping if the shoe does not fit. You have to order online, it is that simple.

ZHVelo

I can highly recommend knitted material. I have the Bontrager Ballista Knit now, but I believe I saw other brands have similar materials. Only shoe I immediately felt comfortable in. And with the BOA system you can get them just tight enough without causing discomfort. Other shoes felt tight and hard immediately, never mind what they would have felt after hours riding.

RGMN

Have you looked at Bont Cycling shoes? I know they make double wide shoes in some of their models. I’m riding their Vaypor G shoe and it is the best fitting shoe I’ve ever used. I’m not nearly as wide as you are, but a buddy that has super wide feet also rides Vaypor G and said he thought they might be too wide when he first got them. After he heat molded them he said they are perfect.

WhyFi

It's a shame that there are so few manufacturers of (truly) wide cycling shoes and that the two most prominent (Lake and Bont) have the worst distribution in the biz.

Donw9876

Ok, folks, I'm checking back in on this thread. When I posted originally I was evaluating a pair of Shimano SH-XC3 and I decided, once again, not really wide, and painful. (Even very hard to put on, which has been the case of almost every pair I've tried.) So I got an RMA and returned them to bikeshoes dot com.

Per the majority advice here I engaged Bikeshoes in a lengthy email thread and asked for their help. Keri (who provided awesome support) made me aware of what some of you are saying that most "wide" shoes have larger circumference uppers. I was not aware of this. Just before I boxed up the Shimano's I pulled out and looked at the insert. It looked like the sole of a frikkin' ballerina shoe. And it was supposed to be "wide". The sole appeared to be a good inch less in width than my actual foot, seriously.

Keri recommended based on what I stated a pair of Lake MX177-X wide in a size 42. I got them over the weekend. INCOMPARABLE difference. The soles are actually about the width of my feet. Wearing thinner actual cycling socks these will work. The toe area is a little more snug than I prefer but it's usable and I'll get used to them.

She recommended as the next notch up in width the MX219-X which is $239. At this point it's not a cost thing (the manufacturers have literally worn me out with sh*tty choices) and I'd pay it, but the pair I got is already more expensive than the best dress shoes I've ever had.

I've ridden since the late 70s. My first pair of biking shoes were grey Avocets with a ridged gum type sole. I also remember a brand called Bata Biker which were heavily advertised. It seemed like finding these things at the local level was extremely easy. Bike shoes now seem to be incredibly elitist and nichey, and exclusionary, and push very particular body sizes, and the material choices suck outright - few fabric or mesh choices. I'm not skinny. I'm used to buying bike shirts in XXL or even XXXL just to get a fit like I do with XL in regular clothing. But shoes are even beyond bike clothes in accessibility.

I know, lose 100 lbs. Sure.

Anyway, very helpful thread and that's what I wound up settling on. Thanks, guys.

Donw9876

PS: Actually I could see dropping back to toe clips and not using cleats... just to have a wider range of shoes available.

WhyFi

The shoes that you got have the "Sport" last; the ones that she recommended you move up to are their widest - the "Competition" last (which happen to be the ones that work best for me, too). They'll get you about 4-5 mm extra width for the same size.

I was in a similar situation a few years ago and I, too, got to the point where enough was enough and I just wanted shoes that worked, even if they cost a little more than I might normally be comfortable with. A few years later, absolutely no regrets and the shoes don't look like they're going to crap out any time soon. Over the course of a decade or two, an extra hundred bucks, or whatever, is a pittance for feet that don't hurt.

Donw9876

Totally agreed with that assertion. I owned and used this pair I trashed since 2000 so they have given 22 years of service and cost about $80-100 at the time. That's less than $5 per year of amortized ownership cost.

It's kind of like even the LBSs want to just get you to buy the in-stock crap that hurts, because (I found) no shop seems to really understand fit of shoes so they act like it's a totally random selection on your part and not based on actual dimensions. It's worth paying a lot if that's what it takes. I hate being placed in that position but it is what it is.

These Lake shoes are beauties, though. I almost don't want to ride in them, HA HA.

noimagination

For your next trick: try finding hiking boots suitable for multi-day backpacking trips with a wide last. That's another level of difficulty. The hiking boot "industry" has gone through the same "consolidation" process that cycling equipment has - the old quality brands have been bought up by mega-corporations and no longer make good quality boots. Try going custom, you're looking at $500+ and a 6 month or more wait.

Thru-hiking the AT is on my bucket list, if I ever get the opportunity I'll need about a year just to make sure I have appropriate footwear, between the buying and breaking-in processes. Or, I can buy multiple pairs of "disposable" hiking boots for $350+ a pair and hope that, when they do fall apart, I'm not too far from re-supply.

aliasfox

It’s not just cycling shoes. Try going into your typical store and ordering wide dress shoes - never in stock. I have a few Allen Edmonds that I rotated through when I went into the office, mainly because they’re one of the few brands that is not only consistent in their lasts and sizing, but also carries stock of 9E in their stores. Sure, the leather quality is pretty good, and Goodyear Welting generally makes for a high quality shoe, but frankly $300 and up for a pair of shoes that don’t pinch my feet (most size 9 shoes) or don’t feel like clown shoes (most 9.5-10, which are wide enough for my feet but too long) seems a bit excessive. Sure, for the two pairs I rotate through regularly, the quality is there to last a while, but I don’t need to spend that much for shoes that only come out a few times a year. And it’s not like everyone can budget $300 and up for a pair of shoes that don’t pinch…