Scientific formula for acceptable heel height

Driver8 · 21st March 2004, 03:43

In the battle to tell you the sort of information you didn't know you need to know, scientists have explained the formula that wearers of high-heeled shoes can use to work out how high they can go - just as the most famous Blahnik-wearers, the stars of Sex and the City, totter from our screens.

Physicists at the Institute of Physics have devised a formula that, based on your shoe size, tells you the maximum height of heel you can wear without toppling over or suffering agonies. And it is:

h = Q.(12+3s/8)

Read more...

JeffM · 21st March 2004, 04:57

Some years back on Jenny’s site I put forward an idea on the ability of some one to be able to wear high heels. We all know some have a greater ability for wearing heels than others.

Sit on a table top or kitchen bench top and let your foot dangle (no shoes). Your foot will hang down at some angle to the horizontal. Some will hang at only maybe 10 degrees and other may go as much as 45 degrees. Mine for example is in excess of 30 degrees but isn’t 45.
My idea then is that the greater the angle, the greater the ability to wear high heels.
I should say this has nothing to do with wanting to wear heels only the ability to wear heels.

At first you might think this doesn’t take into account the alcohol effect. In fact it does. When some one is inebriated the foot is more likely to hang at a greater angle meaning the person has a greater ability to wear heels. Now how many times have we heard of girls wearing heels much too high for them and seeming to manage yet when sober they “couldn’t wear any thing like that.”

This formula is far simpler than the other from the Institute of Physics and makes more sense

See what you make of it.

Jeff

NikkiHH · 21st March 2004, 08:46

Well according to your theory Jeff, I should be able to wear five inch heels. But to test out your theory I'll have to go buy some five inch heels!

The hardships of testing the scientific method!!!

**Bubba136** · 21st March 2004, 13:50

I would guess, based on JeffM's dissertation, that the less of an angle that your feet hang down means the more practice you'll needs to get used to wearing heels that are 5" or higher. (I know I had a hard time getting used to wearing 7" heels -- infact, I still have problems walking very far while wearing them).

Terry · 21st March 2004, 17:16

I guess I just made it, according to the formula, to the five inch category, being a US women's size 9. But that won't stop me from wearing my six inchers, a pair of boots and a pair of d'orsay pumps. :)

Dr. Shoe · 21st March 2004, 18:32

In actual fact the formula is meaningless because Q is taken to be a quotent based on the wearer's lifestyle and experience of wearing heels coupled with the amount of alcohol consumed!

Though you could quantify drink consumption, you cannot quantify lifestyle.

The foot dangle idea does not take into account the fact that the achilles tendon tightens when you flex your toes thus reducing the amount "dangle".

NikkiHH · 21st March 2004, 18:36

You have to wonder how many drinks the physicists had whilst coming up with that theory?

Did anyone hear about the formula that mathematicians came up with to express eating with chopsticks using algebra?

Why didn't I get to do this sort of interesting stuff at school?

Driver8 · 21st March 2004, 20:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by NikkiHH

Did anyone hear about the formula that mathematicians came up with to express eating with chopsticks using algebra?

No, but I heard the one about the constipated mathematician who worked it out with a pencil.

**Bubba136** · 22nd March 2004, 15:44

Was that the same professor that suffered from a severe case of optical rectal-losis ? You know, the one whose eye muscles got tangled with his rectal muscels and the condition accounted for his shitty outlook on life?

onyourtoes · 25th April 2004, 22:09

Actually there's at least one error in the formula as reported. In the divisor of Q there's y+10 where y is the number of years you've been wearing heels. So more experience lowers your heels. Did I miss something?

21st March 2004, 03:43	#1 (permalink)
Driver8 I'm a Silver Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: us Age: 39 Posts: 110 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post I am Male Rep Power: 10	Scientific formula for acceptable heel height In the battle to tell you the sort of information you didn't know you need to know, scientists have explained the formula that wearers of high-heeled shoes can use to work out how high they can go - just as the most famous Blahnik-wearers, the stars of Sex and the City, totter from our screens. Physicists at the Institute of Physics have devised a formula that, based on your shoe size, tells you the maximum height of heel you can wear without toppling over or suffering agonies. And it is: h = Q.(12+3s/8) Read more...

21st March 2004, 04:57	#2 (permalink)
JeffM I'm a Silver Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Perth Western Australia Posts: 819 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts I am Male Rep Power: 17	Some years back on Jenny’s site I put forward an idea on the ability of some one to be able to wear high heels. We all know some have a greater ability for wearing heels than others. Sit on a table top or kitchen bench top and let your foot dangle (no shoes). Your foot will hang down at some angle to the horizontal. Some will hang at only maybe 10 degrees and other may go as much as 45 degrees. Mine for example is in excess of 30 degrees but isn’t 45. My idea then is that the greater the angle, the greater the ability to wear high heels. I should say this has nothing to do with wanting to wear heels only the ability to wear heels. At first you might think this doesn’t take into account the alcohol effect. In fact it does. When some one is inebriated the foot is more likely to hang at a greater angle meaning the person has a greater ability to wear heels. Now how many times have we heard of girls wearing heels much too high for them and seeming to manage yet when sober they “couldn’t wear any thing like that.” This formula is far simpler than the other from the Institute of Physics and makes more sense See what you make of it. Jeff

21st March 2004, 08:46	#3 (permalink)
NikkiHH I'm a Bronze Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Surrey, UK Age: 30 Posts: 75 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts I am Male Rep Power: 7	Well according to your theory Jeff, I should be able to wear five inch heels. But to test out your theory I'll have to go buy some five inch heels! The hardships of testing the scientific method!!!

21st March 2004, 13:50	#4 (permalink)
Bubba136 VIP Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: USA Posts: 9,481 Thanks: 562 Thanked 463 Times in 319 Posts I am Male Rep Power: 105	I would guess, based on JeffM's dissertation, that the less of an angle that your feet hang down means the more practice you'll needs to get used to wearing heels that are 5" or higher. (I know I had a hard time getting used to wearing 7" heels -- infact, I still have problems walking very far while wearing them).

21st March 2004, 17:16	#5 (permalink)
Terry I'm a Bronze Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 68 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Rep Power: 7	I guess I just made it, according to the formula, to the five inch category, being a US women's size 9. But that won't stop me from wearing my six inchers, a pair of boots and a pair of d'orsay pumps. :)

21st March 2004, 18:32	#6 (permalink)
Dr. Shoe Website Team Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: London Posts: 7,665 Thanks: 14 Thanked 225 Times in 166 Posts I am Male Rep Power: 88	In actual fact the formula is meaningless because Q is taken to be a quotent based on the wearer's lifestyle and experience of wearing heels coupled with the amount of alcohol consumed! Though you could quantify drink consumption, you cannot quantify lifestyle. The foot dangle idea does not take into account the fact that the achilles tendon tightens when you flex your toes thus reducing the amount "dangle".

21st March 2004, 18:36	#7 (permalink)
NikkiHH I'm a Bronze Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Surrey, UK Age: 30 Posts: 75 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts I am Male Rep Power: 7	You have to wonder how many drinks the physicists had whilst coming up with that theory? Did anyone hear about the formula that mathematicians came up with to express eating with chopsticks using algebra? Why didn't I get to do this sort of interesting stuff at school?

22nd March 2004, 15:44	#9 (permalink)
Bubba136 VIP Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: USA Posts: 9,481 Thanks: 562 Thanked 463 Times in 319 Posts I am Male Rep Power: 105	Was that the same professor that suffered from a severe case of optical rectal-losis ? You know, the one whose eye muscles got tangled with his rectal muscels and the condition accounted for his shitty outlook on life?

25th April 2004, 22:09	#10 (permalink)
onyourtoes I'm a Silver Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New England, USA Age: 63 Posts: 380 Thanks: 4 Thanked 27 Times in 17 Posts I am Male Rep Power: 12	Actually there's at least one error in the formula as reported. In the divisor of Q there's y+10 where y is the number of years you've been wearing heels. So more experience lowers your heels. Did I miss something?