Bushwalk Australia

Round. Square. Something else?
Round ends are far more common and I would assume because it is easier to make and sew.
My personal preference is for a tall rectangle but I do have biggish feet and I don't move inside my bag, I drag my bag around with me as I change from side to side. No zipper in my bag.
Do people have a preference or is the shape and size of a footbox the last thing you look at when buying a new bag or quilt?

I’ve never had an issue with round footboxes on my bags. My feet are size US 11/12 depending on the shoe. I don’t see how a rectangle footbox would offer an advantage over a round one, in fact it might be less efficient if your feet end up on the short side of the rectangle during the night and compress the down.

I know Nunatak offer different size footboxes if you have exceptionally large feet.

Well if the rectangle is much taller than it is wide your feet don't touch the top of the footbox.

[quote="Zapruda"
]t might be less efficient if your feet end up on the short side of the rectangle during the night and compress the down.
[/quote]
That is why I said I don't move inside my bag, my bag moves with me.
My feet are only a tad bigger at a size 11/12 or Mondo 30 but I might wear bivvie boots in really cold weather and they'd add a good 50 to 70 mm extra length

I'm not fussed, as long as I have sufficient room. The premise of a rectangle being more efficient implies a snugger fit to realise that efficiency, and that could be counterproductive.

I have early One Planets which are squarish (I think) and WMs, which are roundish. I don't notice any difference but I do have dainty size 42 feet.

If I had to choose, I would prefer the footbox to be a little loose, for the reasons mentioned by Zapruda.

Early OP bags were a parallelogram, wider at the top than the bottom,I only know this because I've owned a few over the years.

I believe you are correct MD Mine fit that description IIRC.