How stiletto heel height varies with shoe size

[Arno]

When a stiletto heel is said to be “five inches” high it may not be literally true because the heel height must change as the shoe size changes or the profile of the shoe will become distorted. Some manufacturers follow this rule quite well (Sexy Shoes is an example) but others adjust it approximately or not at all. To figure out just how the heel height should be scaled with shoe size you have to know how the length of the foot changes with shoe size. I discovered that this information is available on Payless Web site in the form of “inch to size” tables that relate heel-to-toe distance in inches to women’s shoe size, from size three to size fourteen. Using this information I constructed the table below that shows how stiletto heels that are four, five, or six inches high on a size nine shoe should be scaled for other shoe sizes. I chose size nine because it is the nearest full size to eight and a half, which is the average women’s size in the U.S., and also because for that shoe size the heel-to-toe length is exactly 10 inches which simplifies scaling.

Size..Four inch..Five inch..Six inch

...3........3.2..........4.0.........4.8

...4........3.33........4.16........4.99

...5........3.48........4.34........5.21

...6........3.6..........4.5..........5.4

...7........3.73........4.66........5.59

...8........3.88........4.84........5.81

...9........4.0..........5.0..........6.0

..10.......4.13.........5.16........6.19

..11.......4.28.........5.34........6.41

..12.......4.4...........5.5..........6.6

..13.......4.53.........5.66........6.79

..14.......4.68.........5.84........7.01

If you want intermediate values you will just have to make a graph for yourself using numbers from the table. Dots are there because spaces I had disappeared.

Arno

[Heelfan]

A very good and useful chart Arno! Firstly, it shows how much higher a given heel seems to a tiny-footed girl than to a big-footed girl like Laurie (size 11US). She recently posted to me to this effect. Secondly, I wish all shoe manufacturers would follow such a chart in making all their different sizes. Some of the best ones do, but many don't. That's the practical (and best) response. The alternative response is: Look at it this way: Given that the moment of heel-lift to arch-arc production ratio is in direct logarithmic relationship with the extended apogee plotted at the heel-to-back-of foot point when the heel is raised a maximum given number of centimetres (measured vertically and not up the back of the heel of the shoe), it can be accepted as provable geometry that the sine/cosine extrapolation of that same production ratio is in inverse proportion to the heel-lifting moment when taking account of the increasing forward deflection to decreasing upward deflection measurables whilst also recognising the non-terminal infinity factor "No weight however great and no line however fine ......" fundamental which would add a minor but nonetheless important extra perameter to what is already a complex calculation given the logarithmic (non-linear) basis for accurate computation which would need to be applied to each foot and shoe in question, these equational (or more accurately, sub-equational) precepts being possibly able to be looked upon as the basis for drawing-up a graph-chart for universal offering-up to the heel-wearer's foot-profile, such a measuring aid being infinitely more user-friendly and easily understood than if each case were to be worked-out as a series of numbers and seemingly abstract equations (sorry, sub-equations). It has been pointed-outto me by another member that "logarithmic relationship" should read "sinudal relationship", which is, of course, correct - thank you! Cheerfully yours, Heelfan

[Slim]

Very good Arno. I had no idea that an 8 1/2 B was the average usw size. Thats the size I have on right now, and they have a 4" spike heel.

[Firefox]

Useful chart Arno. I think it confirms the fact that length varies by 0.33333 inch between sizes. If you take a 4/5/6 inch heel on a 10 inch base then if the size varies by 1 or 0.33333 inch, the proportional difference in heel height will be; 4/10 * 0.333333 = 0.13inch 5/10 * 0.333333 = 0.16inch 6/10 * 0.333333 = 0.20inch These figures concur with the table. Hence the figures in the table can be derived by a knowledge of proportionality, and the fact that the length difference between sizes is 1/3 of an inch. (By the way,I corrected the last figure in the chart for you. It is also possible for the user to edit his/her own posts on this forum via the edit button)

[Bubba136]

Hey Heelfan! No disrespect, but I like Arno's better! A link to this table should be placed on the masthead of this forum in plaine view, easily accessable to all members because questions regarding "how high heels really are" keep being asked with astounding regularity.

[Arno]

Very interesting alternative, Heelfan. Is that how NASA engineers working on those O-rings scaled the ambient temperature? And Firefox, thanks for correcting the error. Also, using your proportion is a neat alternative and goes to show that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Had I known about it I would have plugged it into Excel and created the table automatically instead of manually calculating every value in the table.

[Ionic]

Isn't this just the kind of thing to cast off and use as standing web content on the new incarnation of 'jennyspages'. /I

[Firefox]

Yes, I'm sure this would fit in with the original spirit of the site.

[Dr. Shoe]

Yes. Some manufacturers scale their heels, some don't. This is why a size 5 shoe looks exsquisite whereas it looks like total crap at size 10.

[genebujold]

Look at it this way: Given that the moment of heel-lift to arch-arc production ratio is in direct logarithmic relationship with the extended apogee plotted at the heel-to-back-of foot point when the heel is raised a maximum given number of centimetres (measured vertically and not up the back of the heel of the shoe), it can be accepted as...

As a former aerospace engineer, I followed you (and could trump you with respect to proportinality), but, well, other than its entertainment value, your point is...?

Furthermore, the proportionality arguement falls flat with respect to scale. Consider an elephant's foot to a horse's hoof to a dog's foot, to the relatively tiny peds of a mosquito. Why the variation from massive to dainty with respect to either the overall size or weight of the animal?

Hint - it's the same reason an ant can lift many times his own weight while an elephant can lift only a fraction of his own weight.