Monday, August 20, 2012

New Balance MT1010 Minimus Amp Review - UPDATED 10/06/12, 11/13/12

So, I decided to go with the MT1010's, untested, for pacing Chris for the last 40 miles of the Leadville Trail 100 (read my pacer report)- and it turned out to be the right choice.  Here's why...

You probably already know by now that this shoe is a 'minimalist' shoe with a 4mm heel to toe 'drop'. It is a very durable and rugged shoe, designed for trail running in the most technical of terrains, and over long, ultra, distances. With that being said, I'm going to keep this review simple, like myself, so that you don't need to be a shoe expert to understand it (I hope).

As soon as the 1010's arrived on my doorstep on Friday night (I pre-ordered them from runningwarehouse.com) I laced 'em up. I wanted to get maximum time in them before Saturday night to help me make the best choice for shoe selection for Leadville (vs. the MT110's). I wore them around the house all Friday night, out and about doing errands on Saturday, and during my 2.5 hour drive to the Twin Lakes Aid Station - but no runs.

The first things I noticed were the weight, the tread, the big toebox, and the durability/quality of the upper (vs. the MT110) - and I liked what I was seeing and feeling.

Considering the cushioning, and the overall quality of the shoe, they are very light.  They look like they should weigh much more. Official stats tell me that they weigh 7.5oz, even with the extra cushion, vs. the MT110's. So, they are lighter than the MT110's (7.75oz), yet provide greater comfort and protection.

The tread on these shoes are amazing. The toe half of the outsole have directional tread that just dig into the terrain, and grip like crazy, for climbing. The heel half, just the opposite - directional tread for digging into the downhills so you don't slip and fall on your butt. I found that they offered tremendous traction in all the different terrain that Leadville offered up.

MT1010 directional tread
The toebox is big. One thing I felt about the MT110's was that the toebox could have been a bit bigger. When my feet inevitably swelled on long runs, the toebox got tight and my toes would hit the ends (causing me to lose a toenail in one instance). After 40 uninterrupted miles, and 12 plus hours in the 1010's, they are as comfortable, and fit just as well, as when I first put them on. No risk of losing a toenail in these. That also indicates that my foot is pretty locked-in, without much foot movement in the shoe - even on the downhills where your toes tend to jam into the ends. Not in these.

More than a couple of times at Leadville I kicked or tripped on rocks, roots, and other random things. One 'something' I tripped on at about the 30 mile mark practically ripped the shoe right off my foot. Had I been wearing the 110's, and knowing the durability of the uppers on those, I have little doubt my shoe would have been destroyed. The 1010's - not a mark on them, other than where the dust was rubbed off. I love the tough synthetic uppers on these.

MT110's - not very durable uppers. Lots of patch-work stitching.
Something definitely not to be overlooked in this shoe, is the Rock Plate in the outsole - with the extra cushion and the very flexible rock plate in the sole, I don't remember stepping on anything, over the 40 miles of rough terrain that Leadville offered up, that made me say 'OOOWWW!'  Definitely superior sole protection.

Blisters, hot-spots, rubbed raw, foot troubles? Not a one. At no point in time, over 40 miles and 12 plus hours of Leadville, did I have even one small concern about my feet. Were my feet feeling it? Well, sure. That amount of time on your feet, over that kind of terrain, and you're gonna feel it - no matter what shoes you are wearing. Was I 100% sure that the shoes would come out unscathed during the whole experience? I did have my doubts about that. Were those doubts justified in the end? Nope.


Uppers - a little dusty after one 40 mile, 12+ hour, run in Leadville, CO. 
Outsoles - after one 40 mile, 12+ hour, run in Leadville, CO.
Another thing I like about these shoes is that the tongue is attached to the shoe last (body) all the way up along the lace holes, which prevented very much junk getting into the shoe. I had a little bit of sand in there by the end, but nothing more than that.

And one last thing to note - I read in some pre-release reviews that you would have to tighten and cinch the laces so much with these shoes that the toebox would deform and buckle - I did not have this problem on the D width shoe. If it was the 2E version, then I could totally see having that problem.

I really do a lot of comparison of the MT1010's to the MT110's - because they are my favorite shoe - or should I say 'were' my favorite. After Leadville, the MT1010 is my new shoe-of-choice.

UPDATE: 10/06/12

On 09/24/12 I noticed something with my MT1010's, post-run. After 140 miles in them, and being only a little over 5 weeks old, the uppers are showing signs of wear. It's not severe, but it is a concern.

MT1010's - 3 wear points - same on the other shoe.
The two upper highlighted spots seem to be 'pucker points' on the shoe. You know, a place where the fabric bends and flexes a lot. The seemingly stronger, honeycomb-like, material seems to be intact still though, and might be helping to reinforce and hold things together. Another thing I've noticed is that now that my feet and toes have made their impression in the liner/in-sole, the small ridge that has formed along my toes, has started to irritate the very ends of my toes. The ridge is in both shoes, but for me, irritates the right foot index and middle toes only. Any long runs and I'll have to be taping the ends of my toes or their could be problems. My upcoming race on 09/30 has 12 water crossings in total and so we'll see how things go with that. The water will definitely throw a new variable in there. I almost wish now that I had tested the MT1010's without socks for a period of time, but, based on my sock-less MT110 experience (not good), I decided against it. Testing them out wet would have been ideal too.

The latest - Post Bear Chase Race - 09/30/12 (report) and here is what these spots look like now (though I only managed 9 water crossings in them before my DNF - and wished even more that I had tested these both sock-less and wet);

MT1010's - approximately 190 miles & 6 weeks old.
I e-mailed New Balance and informed them of the issues I was having when I first noticed it on 09/24, and sent them the first highlighted picture too.  And they were totally awesome and said they would replace my shoes, free of charge!  Having never dealt with New Balance support before, I was almost expecting the terrible customer service I got from Merrell when the soles of my Trail Gloves wore right through after only 200 miles in them.  You can read about that experience here if you so choose.  New Balance, based on their stellar customer service alone, has a customer for life in me.  And I still love the shoes but do wonder how long it would be until the structural integrity is totally compromised - like in the MT110's.

I'll post another update after the return process is complete and I have my new shoes.

UPDATE 11/13/12:

Sorry, I've been tardy - away on vacation and that kind of thing. New Balance had a brand new pair of MT1010's in my hands less than two weeks after I sent mine in. I haven't run in them yet as I've been running in my Vibram Five Fingers, Merrell Trail Gloves, and MT110's. Overall, I'm very happy with the MT1010's, but it's disappointing that they didn't find a stronger, tougher, more robust, material to construct the uppers out of.  While not a 'Minimus' shoe, I think I may try out the NB MT1210 'Leadville', when they come out early in the new year. And so continues the search for the 'perfect' shoe - fit, performance, longevity, and overall value.  The MT1010 is darn close though.

23 comments:

  1. Great review!

    Just curious about sizing. Did you get the same size in the MT1010 as the MT110?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Glen. I got the same size MT1010 as the MT110.

      Delete
  2. Great review! One question: what was your experience with the size? I read somewhere that you should go one size up with these babies as they run small.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That has not been my experience with them. MT110 - size 11, MT1010 - size 11. And, the toebox is a bit bigger on the 1010's. Normal, everyday shoes, I'm typically a size 11 as well. You may want to consider going up a half size maybe, if you have severe feet swelling issues when running. The bigger toebox seems to help with that too though. Hope that helps!

      Delete
  3. Very helpful review! Quick question: have you/ do you run sockless in these? Looking to replace my original Minimus trails, but read that these don't form as well to sockless feet. Prefer to run my upcoming 50k sockless, as I've trained, but no sure if these are the right shoe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have not tried running sockless in the MT1010's. I used to be a big fan of going sockless, especially in the Merrell Trail Gloves where I never, ever, wore socks. I thought it would be a simple transition to the MT110's when I got those, going sockless, but that was not so. I lasted only a few runs in the 110's, with very irritated feet (hot spots, blisters), before going permanently to socks. The MT1010's, I haven't even tried going sockless, just based on the 110's experience. If I end up giving it a try, I will definitely give you an update here. But, I've got the www.bearchaserace.com 50 miler in just over 3 weeks so probably won't mess with it before that. Sorry that I couldn't be of more help. Good luck in your 50k!

      Delete
  4. Just a quick question:

    I do not run trails often, I am a half-marathoner looking to get away from heavy and bulky runners. What are your thoughts on road distance running in these shoes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since you're a half-marathoner, I'd recommend you take a look at the MT110's. The MT1010's would be over-kill for you I think...

      Delete
    2. I tend to bust through the tops of my shoes similar to your picture above, which is why I was looking at the MT1010, they seemed to be much more durable in person than many other similar shoes. I also liked the grip on the bottom, but my fear is that my feet or legs will start hurting after a half-marathon due to less support than traditional runners. What do you think?

      Delete
    3. You need to ease into minimalist shoes - which these are, with a 4mm drop. If you have no experience with barefoot/minimalist, start out very, very, slowly. Very short distances, very short times. Your body needs to adapt, and that will not happen overnight. I know of people, myself included, that went overboard right out of the gate and completely trashed themselves. Some people need to learn for themselves. Could you run a 1/2 marathon right out of the gate with them? Ya, you could, but, you're gonna be trashed. As far a busting through the tops of these (MT1010) shoes like in the MT110's... I can't see that happening.

      Delete
  5. Replies
    1. I have 'D' width shoes in both the MT1010 and MT110 models. In my opinion, the MT1010 feels to have a roomier toebox, but the mid-foot and heel feel more snug, more well fitted. Hope that helps!

      Delete
  6. Awesome review! I've been debating between purchasing the 1010 or 110. Thanks for the detailed report and comparison to the 110.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Brian! I hope you're happy with whatever shoe you decide on!

      Delete
  7. I have 148 miles on my 1010s and they are wearing in the same area. A bit disappointing but I still love them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christine, I feel the same way - A bit disappointing , but a great shoe none-the-less. I haven't updated my review, but New Balance did replace mine free-of-charge (other than postage to mail them to NB) and very promptly too. I had a new pair in my hands less than two weeks later. I'm not sure why they can't find a stronger, yet still light-weight, material to construct the upper out of.

      Delete
  8. What is the traction like on the mt110 and the mt1010 on wet rocks? We have tropical rainforest climate. The technical trails mostly have smooth rocks that get really slippery most of the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RJ, unfortunately I don't have any real experience in the MT1010's with the type of terrain that you have where you are. Where I live in Colorado (Denver area) it's a semi-arid climate - very low humidity and an average of less than 16" of precipitation a year. If I had to take a guess, I would suspect the 1010's would do OK as they are really quite grippy. The 110's I would think would not do quite as well. But again, that is a total guess. Maybe someone else out there can offer their thoughts?

      Delete
  9. Awesome review, I was just baout to ask you about the uppers when I read you posted pictures of exactly the same problem a couple of spanish reviewrs had with their MT1010s, actually both had the same colorway than you, and they had the exact tearing spots as you did, plus one of them had the sole disintegrating around the 200km mark.

    I am a running shoe junkie, although after a metatharsal injury I only run around 5ks, but I want this shoes, I am in love with my MT10 , sizewise, and fitwise and the toebox I truly loved them - just waiting for a sale to order 2 pairs of them "just in case" you know what I mean? ;-) - but need something with a bit more protection, in rocky rugged trails my feet really get battered on the MT10, and I want something with similar fit in the toebox... Mt1010 seems to fit exactly that bill, altough the apparently upper problems make me wary of orderind a 110sud shoe. I am also considering MErrel Mix Masters2 or Altra Superiors, since they seem to be the only 3 (NB, Merrel, altra) that make roomy toe boxes.

    I had orderder the Inov8 Trailroc 245s (which everyone said they are even roomier than the MT10) only to be dissapointed by a sort of tubular "burrito" shape with cramped toebox (my saucony kinvaras are roomier than the 245s) and probably half a size smaller than they actually are. I ordered the same 11us size of my mt10s and my big toe touches the uppers and front of the weird shaped toebox =/

    It would be awesome if you could post an update if you had any problems with the upper in the new pair NB sent you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments cesalec! I too am considering the Altra Superiors, and, though not minimalist, the New Balance MT1210 - Leadville. As much as I like them, when I have to shell out MT1010 kind of $$$ again, I'd rather try something different and continue the crusade to find the perfect shoe.

      I've only got a few miles on my 'new' MT1010's since I've been mostly running in my MT110's lately, but I will post an update if I run into any issues. It sounds like I'm not an isolated incident though.

      Delete
  10. Great review! Thanks!

    I have been using Minims Trail 10s as my main shoe for a few years now and love them. On any "real" trails though I need the MT110s for the rock plate. But being so used to the Minimus Trail 10s, I find the MT110s a little to heavy, too big and too high. I specifically never got any of the Minimus Road 10s as they were too high and unstable for me (love the road zeros though).

    I am doing my first 100 miler in the summer and need to replace my MT110s for that (and the two or more 50 milers leading up to it). Do you think I should get more MT110s or would I find the MT1010s more minimus-like?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the comments Mr. Pants! The MT1010 is a much more substantial shoe than the MT110. If you find the MT110's to be too big, too heavy and too high, then you will DEFINITELY find the MT1010's to be even more so in all but the weight category. Both are 4mm drop shoes, but the 110 is 18 -> 14mm stack height while the 1010 is 23 -> 19mm. The 1010 is actually lighter, at 7.5oz, compared to the 110, at 7.75oz. Strange, but true. And, the toebox is definitely bigger on the 1010. In my opinion, the 110 is a fantastic shoe for a 50 miler. But, the added stack height on the 1010, would make it my preferred shoe for 100 miles. Your feet definitely take less abuse in the 1010's. If I were you, I'd at least try on the 1010's at the shops, and see if the height and width are workable for you. If so, I think your feet would thank you for it over 100 miles.

      Good Luck! And, I'd love to hear back from you on how things work out!

      Delete