New Balance Minimus Trail Zero, a 12athon DNS, and Gear

Zero Zeros for Me (So Far)

Whoa people! Can you believe I haven't posted an exceedingly lengthy review of the New Balance Minimus Zero Trail and Road shoes yet?

I mean, I've been anxious to see the Zeros in living color ever since New Balance published those detail photos and, later, a profile of the designers several months ago.

And, then there was that first week in December when everyone seemed to have a review pair, except for me. And, I wondered how many fn' page views a blogger needs to receive each month in order for New Balance to take notice (or acknowledge a friendly email).

Anyway, by now there's a plethora of reviews about the New Balance Minimus Zero on the web. And, strangely, I'm not feeling as anxious to buy a pair as I thought I'd be.

See, the thing is that there are so many more minimalish shoes out there now than there were when the New Balance MT10 Minimus Trail broke on the scene last year. And, it was a game changer. Now, in 2012, the minimalist shoe market is quite a bit more competitive. And, I'm not going just plunk down $100 on a pair of shoes just because they're so pretty. (And, they are pretty)

But, if someone were to give me a pair of the Minimus Zeros, like, as a prize, or something, I'd certainly say thank you.

A 12athon DNS

So, it seems that my enthusiasm for completing the Umstead Marathon dulled my sensitivity to complaints lodged by a certain tendon in a certain ankle. And, it wasn't until my first run three days after the marathon that I finally took notice of, and processed, said complaints.

Four days of apologetic non-running were, apparently, unacceptable recompense for my insensitivity during marathon training from the tendon's point of view. So, I had to concede that this month's 12athon would be my first running event DNS (did not show, for those of you wondering what that acronym represents). Naturally, I am dismayed.

I completed 3.14 miles this morning. But, the tendon is still cranky, which makes me fn' cranky.

Speaking of the 12athon

There's official Virtual 12athon gear, which may be purchased here! How cool is that? (Answer: Very cool indeed.)

There's a shirt, a hat, and a water bottle. I plan on buying all three before the end of the year, because the logo is so cool.

That's It

Sorry for the sundry-style post. I just wanted to get that bit about the Minimus Zero on the blog. And, I'd been meaning to write something else about the marathon, just to remind you all that I ran it and loved it (in spite of the injury I seem to be suffering as a result).

And, I wanted to mention the 12athon gear here, too.

So, really, all three components of this post are equally important, not just the first one.

Oh, and I just wanted to say "hi" and wish you all a happy Spring day.

That's all, really.

NB Minimus Zero Trail and Road: Shoes for the Outspoken Minimal Runner

The latest New Balance Minimus Zero Trail and Road shoes news comes to us from an article on the NB website. (Thanks to Donald of Running and Rambling for bringing this one to our attention) Senior Designers Drew Nyssen and Chris Wawrousek describe the inspiration and motivation for the design of these forthcoming NB Minimus Zero offerings.

"These are shoes designed for the most vocal, outspoken group of minimal runners," Chris says, "They’re not afraid to let people notice their shoes."

It's redundant for me to continue repeating here what you could easily read via the links in the first paragraph. But, I'll mention a couple of points. What's the Internet without a little redundancy, anyway?

The uppers of these new versions of the Minimus appear to be much more flexible and less confining than the 2011 renditions.This is good, because you might have read here that my primary complaint about the toe box on the NB MT10 is that; although wide and spacious, the curvature of the toe area is somewhat rigid. And, since it doesn't exactly fit the shape of my foot, my little toe still feels squished. Thus, I prefer the enormously flexible upper of a somewhat less spacious Inov-8 f-lite 230 over the MT10.

Also, these NB Minimus Zeros seem more race-appropriate, at least to me. They definitely have a sleeker appearance in comparison to the MT10 or MT20. And, I like that the designers sought to enhance the slipper-like fit while looking to traditional racing flat architecture for a lightweight shoe. I've mentioned before that I don't feel as fast in my MT10s as I do in other shoes. So, I've never felt compelled to race in the Minimus Trails.

But, perhaps those drawbacks of the 2011 Minimus will change with the February/March 2012 release of the NB Minimus Zero Trail and Road line. I'll be anxious to find out for myself.

New Balance MT10 and MT20 :: A Subjectively Superficial Comparison

New Balance surprised many wearers of the original Minimus Trail in late May or early June when a few photos of the MT20 appeared on ShoeMart's website. Without much of an explanation to accompany this alternative to the MT10, speculations and theories about the Minimus Trail 20 went wild:

• Was it a replacement for the MT10 in response to perceived complaints about the original model?
• Was it an update in the product line for the sake of an update? If so, why so soon?
• Was it the promised zero-drop version that so many of us had been wanting in the initial Minimus?

DISCLAIMER: This post is silly. I have no excuse for spending so much time comparing the aesthetics of two perfectly good shoes. If you are not interested in nerdy shoe stuff, you'll probably want to read someone else's blog before this post takes up anymore of your time.

Answers to these questions have not been readily apparent. But, RunningPundit's stellar investigative skills produced an insightful timeline of inquiry that probed the rationale behind NB's release of the MT20. So, go there to read what one or more NB reps have said about the differences between the MT10 and the MT20.

Stay here to compare the MT10 and MT20 from an artsy-fartsy perspective. As an aesthetically inclined fellow, I appreciate things that look nice, products that exhibit good design. And, I'm more than happy to subject two seemingly similar products to my unfounded opinions. So, let's begin:

MT10 vs. MT20: Profile

From the first time I saw photos of the MT10 last Fall, I was enamored with it's unique design and ambitiously minimal construction (for a mainstream shoe company). Once released to the general public this past March, the MT10 met my expectations in spades. It looked great right out of the box. And, one of it's most conspicuous physical attributes is the toe spring.

That toe spring really adds some charm and down-to-earth ruggedness to the MT10. You can imagine your feet nimbly traversing rocks and roots on the trail when you look at that toe spring.

The MT20, on the other hand, seems to exhibit a much more minimal (pardon the pun) toe spring. In fact, from the profile, the MT20 resembles a sleek sports car or shark with the way the shoe's nose seems to form a blunt point.

Sports cars are cool. And, I like sharks even more. But, as far as trail running goes, I prefer the rugged, more loosely fashioned toe box profile of the MT10. I mean, yeah, of course, a shoe as light as the MT10 or MT20 should evoke a sense of speed. But, there's just something about the MT10's profile that makes me want to run on the trails more than the MT20's does.

Moreover, comparing the profiles of these companion shoes, I prefer the linear balance (omg another pun!) imposed by the strong lines on the side of the MT10. There's that black line extending from the midsole at the front of the heel up through the back of the "N" to the laces. This line is not present on the MT20, which really emphasizes that curved band running from the back, top of the heel to the midsole at the forefoot. With that black line missing as a counterbalance on the profile of the MT20, there's an impression of front-facing heaviness while the lighter orange color seems to beg for something to weigh it down, something like your heel.

So, if you look at the black lines on the MT10, you see that they appear to emphasize a foot strike towards the midfoot. And, the upward momentum of the toe spring gives a sense of active flow to the design.

But, the MT20's black lines put a lot of emphasis closer to the base of the forefoot, leaving the heel area open and a little incomplete. Plus, the flatter toe box seems to put a stop to the forward momentum that those black lines imply.

MT10 vs. MT20: From the Top

Once again, the MT10 and MT20 direct our attention to their toe boxes. Each shoe clearly has a wide toe box with ample room for most runners' wiggly piggies (especially true since the Minimus is available in widths). And, while these two photos were obviously taken from entirely different perspectives, it's safe to assume that the lasts of these shoes are the same, thereby promising the toe box widths to be equally spacious.

But, look how the MT20 has that piece of black overlay where the MT10 does not. It covers an otherwise well-ventilated area with some sort of snake-skin-like material. Why would New Balance want to do that? I mean, sure, there are some grey dots on the black toe cover to add some sort of design interest. But, toes need to breathe!

Perhaps this extra bit of covering makes the MT20 look more like a traditional shoe, which would assure New Balance a more promising market share. Maybe not.

Clearly, I prefer the more breathable toe area of the MT10.

I'll also add that the wider black band punctuated by white stitching on the MT10 looks nicer than what we have on the MT20. It just does. I suspect that NB diminished the presence of this band across the top of the metatarsal area on the MT20 due to some complaints by the public about the MT10. There was some pinching, see, pinching that never bothered me.

If I were to complain of pinching, I'd attribute it to the little Vibram wave thingies on the medial and lateral sides of the midsole. These are the elements that exert pressure on my feet. But, it's not a bad pressure. I don't feel pinched. It may be that I bought the correct size for my feet.

MT10 vs. MT20: The Heel

Ah, now, here we see a design altercation that can truly be labeled as a correction. The tab at the top of the heel seam on the MT10 appears to be sewn over on the MT20, rendering it nonexistent. (Do we really need pull tabs on our shoes? I never use them)

The tab itself is not necessarily a bad thing. But, the inner seam of the MT10's heel cup is problematic, at least for me and a few other runners. It irritates bare heels to the point of blistering. And, this is not a good feature on a shoe that's designed to be worn without socks. So, the MT20 clearly has a bit of seam padding sewn onto it. And, I'd be curious to know if that solves the irritation issue.

This view of the heels also gives us a close look at the MT20's black overlay material. It looks cheaper than the MT10's black overlays. Yet, these shoes are priced the same. So, surely it's not cheaper.

MT10 vs. MT20: Which to Buy?

If I hadn't already purchased two pairs of the MT10, I'd still choose the 10 over the 20 simply because the former looks better. One is clearly the less attractive sibling. Sure, they're both good looking, especially compared to some of their friends. But, the first is better than the second. That's just my opinion. But, I defy you to disagree!

Oh, and I'll leave you with this amusing, if not laughable (in the at-them ["them" being the perpetrators of this ad] rather than with-them sense of the word), new addition to the "Like Barefoot, Only Better" campaign:

NB Minimus Trail Shoe Design Updated with Humor

I'm not a huge fan of the new New Balance Minimus Trail shoe design. I mean, the original's appearance just seems more original, at least to me, anyway.

But, I'm a fan of this commercial. There's another one, too.

I like to imagine that the dude is running around looking for his other shoe.

NB Minimus Trail MT10 Versus Inov-8 F-Lite 230: Shoe Comparison

I use the NB Minimus Trail (MT 10) and the Inov-8 f-lite 230 for pretty much the same purposes in my running routine. Ultimately, they are both lightweight trail shoes that perform sufficiently to perfectly enough to be worn regularly on pavement. This sort of multipurpose use makes them quite indispensable to the trail-inclined runner who must also cover miles on pavement on a regular basis.

But, unlike me, few people want to invest in two different pairs of shoes that fulfill the same purpose. Shoes are tools, after all. And, by that notion, it's a little frivolous in this economy to have several tools that do the same job. So, let's take a look at the similarities and differences that might enable the would-be f-lite 230 or Minimus fan to make an informed decision on a dual-purpose trail-road shoe.

Appearance

Sure, aesthetics are purely subjective. But, come on: These are both good looking shoes. I've pitted the black versions of each one together for this comparison so as to remain as neutral as possible, lookswise.

Each shoe boasts nice lines, symmetrical designs, and a palpable lightness that evokes smooth and fast running.

There are some negative comments about the visual appeal of the orange version of the NB MT10. Some people don't like orange. I get that.

But, I've also seen enthusiastic remarks about the orange and black colorway. Moreover, I like the orange version. If you don't like it. There's the black version. If you don't like that, there are a couple of lighter colored gray versions available for women.

And, while we're considering color, there are many colorway options available for the f-lite 230 at the moment. I don't think I need to address that again.

So, basically, as far as looks are concerned, you can't go wrong with either shoe unless you prefer a standard off-white or gray running shoe.

The Toe Box

One of the most lauded features of the NB Minimus Trail is it's wider-than-most-shoes toe box. People with human-shaped feet tend to love that feature. I agree with this fondness for a roomy toe box.

So, with that wide toe box on the Minimus Trail clearly visible in all it's generous roundness, you look over to the f-lite 230 and scoff at it's comparatively pointy toe area. But, don't cross the f-lite off your list yet, folks.

It might interest you to know that we're comparing a US men's size 12 NB MT10 to a US men's size 11.5 f-lite 230. Each shoe is pretty much the same length from toe tip to heel. Ths makes the Inov-8 f-lite 230 a little large for it's size, lengthwise, and the Minimus Trail is slightly small for it's size.

Now, while my toes definitely enjoy the extra room in the toe box while wearing the NB MT10, the majority of that extra room is in the area directly facing my middle three toes and big toe. This extra space is somewhat negated by the fact that the MT10's toe spring forces those middle three toes to rub against the insole during a run. I have calluses on my middle and index (?) toes to prove this.

On the other hand, the narrower toe box of the f-lite 230 affords plenty of room for my big toe with just a bit of a squeeze on the other toes. But, that squeeze helps to hold those toes in place while the flexibility of the f-lite 230's upper material nullifies any sense of pinching.

It's worth mentioning, too, that my pinky toes in either shoe still feel the force of being inside a shoe.

Going back to the size difference in these shoes: If we were to compare a size 12 f-lite 230 to this size 12 Minimus, we'd notice that the f-lite is about a thumb's width longer than the MT10. But, the space for all the toes would be equal in both shoes with even more space for the big toe in the size 12 f-lite 230.

So, while there is undoubtedly more wiggle room for the toes in the New Balance MT10, your toes might appreciate the lower toe spring and slightly more confined space of the f-lite 230.

The Heel and Stuff

I'd like to pretend that minimalist criteria do not matter to this review. But, we're dealing with a shoe called the "Minimus" after all. So, things like the heel-to-toe differential must be addressed.

Neither the the Minimus Trail nor the f-lite 230 would qualify as a true minimalist shoe in the strictest sense of the term. But, they're marketed to minimilast-inclined runners. So, let's compare the stack heights (a phrase that seems to have popped up overnight in the shoe industry).

Since RunningWarehouse.com appears to be the only running shoe resource on the 'net that offers relevant measurements of the shoes the company sells, we'll refer to their database for comparison here:

The f-lite 230 features a heel height of 15mm and a forefoot height of 11mm, creating a differential of just 4mm. It's worth noting that Inov-8 states that their shoes, like the f-lite 230, with a two-arrow shock zone have a 6mm differential.

On the other hand (foot), the NB Minimus Trail apparently has a heel height of 14mm and forefoot height of 10mm, which amounts to another 4mm differential.

I'm not sure how RunningWarehouse measures the shoes they sell. But, I'm fairly certain that I notice the heel height just a smidge more when wearing the f-lite 230 than I do when running in the NB MT10. That's not a very scientific observation on my part, I know. But, that's what I've got for ya.

What does this heel-to-toe differential mean to the runner considering either of these shoes for their road/trail runnning? Not much, in my opinion. If you want to nit-pick over 4 or 6 millimeter differentials in these two shoes, you should just get a zero-drop shoe.

Sure, I notice the heel just a bit more in the f-lite 230 while running on pavement. But, a possible 2mm difference in the heel height will mean absolutely nothing to you on the trails. And, the inclines of these shoes are low enough to allow for easy mid-foot striking, if that's what you're after.

Outsole and Midsole

The MT10 and the f-lite 230 are best suited for lightly technical to tame trail terrain. Their lugs are small with a relatively consistent pattern that allows for smooth running on flat surfaces. This is why they're so easily adapted to running on pavement.

If I had to pick the best pavement shoe of these two, I'd go for the f-lite 230. It's a bit softer when worn with the sock liner. And, the midsole and outsole lugs are somewhate more cushiony than the NB Minimus Trail's outsole, which has a hardness to it that offers other benefits.

The MT10's Vibram outsole has a more rigid feel to it, which can create a bit of a "clack, clack, clack" sound as you run. It's not an offensive sound. But, it's there sometimes. This rigidity coupled with the technology in the Vibram outsole somehow makes the ground feel harder when running in the Minimus Trail, especially on pavement. It's not a drastically debilitating hardness, though. It's just a characteristic that exists and helps you maintain good running form.

The runner wearing the f-lite 230 enjoys a conspicuously softer run on pavement than his NB-Minimus-Trail-wearing counterpart. I mean, it's not like wearing a pair of cloud-enveloped traditional trainers. You still feel the ground and suffer if you have weak feet. But, there's a softness there that you may not mind experiencing when you choose to wear shoes on pavement. In fact, I think that the softer midsole and outsole of the f-lite 230 allows for greater proprioception when compared to the NB Minimus Trail.

Both shoes have a sticky sort of rubber on the outsole that provides good traction on wet surfaces. Their short, unassuming lugs do just enough gripping over uneven trails to warrant wearing them during a trail race in lieu of your usual road shoes. They're both great tread patterns, actually.

Sure, in the photo the f-lite's lugs appear to be more aggressive. But, the MT10's lugs are smaller and more numerous. And, their unique pattern really functions well over slightly rough trails.

These are not true technical trail beasts, to be sure. So, if you want a shoe that has very grippy lugs for rough terrain, you'd best look elsewhere (cough—Roclite 285—cough). It's especially worth noting that the Minimus Trail offers little defense against sharp, pointy rocks. I'd much rather step on something pointy while wearing my f-lites instead of wearing my Minmus Trails.

Feel

I'm adding this section because I've already used the word "feel" a lot in this comparison. And, I want another opportunity to expand on such a subjective concept.

Both shoes feel great on my feet. They're very flexible, the f-lite 230 a little more flexible in the upper, and wrap around my feet comfortably. I'd describe both as having a slipper-like fit. 'Course, who the hell wears slippers anymore?

That band across the forefoot on the Minimus Trail feels odd when you just wear the shoes while walking around. But, you aren't likely to notice the band when you're running.

I once tied my f-lite 230s too tightly and felt a painful sensation across the top of my foot. That was my mistake, though. I've never felt anything weird from the f-lites aside from that.

I feel faster in the f-lites. Is it because of the slightly narrower toe box? Is it the design? I'm not sure. But, for now, I can't imagine running a race in the Minimus Trails while I have my f-lite 230s.

Misc.

I'm rambling a lot in this post. And, I apologize. I try to be thorough. But, I also want to get to the point. So, let's see if I can make these next points brief.

A shoe lace is not something that usually makes a difference to me when making a shoe purchase. I mean, it doesn't seem like shoe lace technology would be all that critical to a shoe's performance in this day and age.

But, as I mentioned in my review of the MT10, its shoe laces are superfluously long, in my opinion. I don't have narrow feet. And, even I have to tuck the tied loops of the laces under the front-most laces to avoid having them flail about, creating a tripping hazard.

The f-lite 230's laces, on the other hand, are perfectly proportioned, whether you use the ankle locking lacing pattern or not.

I also find that the f-lite 230 is easier on the upper heel and achilles area than the NB MT10. The f-lite 230 has some soft, smooth padding at the top of the heel cup. And, the MT10 has some sort of abrasive seam that kind of hurts when I'm not wearing socks.

I prefer to wear socks. But, I can be crazy at times, too. So, I'll admit to forgoing the socks out of curiosity or necessity on more than one occasion.

When I ran without socks in the f-lite 230, I found it strange but not uncomfortable. It was a warm, sunny day. And, I experienced no blistering.

But, when I forgot to bring socks on a run in my MT10s, I sustained a rather evil blister above my heels on both feet. Of course, the fact that I was running in the rain might have encouraged the formation of these blisters.

The reported weight of each shoe is of interest to some of you, I'm sure. So, thanks to the careful data presentation by RunningWarehouse.com, we know that the size 9 NB Minimus Trail weighs 7.1 oz and the size 9 f-lite 230 weighs 8.1 oz.

Conclusion

If you've read this far, you're probably suffering from information overload relative to the f-lite 230 and the Minimus Trail. And, as a result, you're so sick at the mere thought of these two shoes that you could care less what I have to say on the subject.

But, you need some sort of closure after enduring this incredibly lengthy comparison review. And the only way your battered mind can accept closure is by processing the worth of these two shoes with some sort of score.

So, for the sake of your shoe-researching self, I'll score these shoes:

The NB Minimus Trail gets a 10.2 and the Inov-8 f-lite scores slightly higher with a 10.599. You can fill in the scoring parameters. ;-P

I love them both. But, I'd save the f-lites from a fire before the Minimus.

Shoe Photo: NB Minimus Trail and the Inov-8 f-lite 230

I'm in the midst of composing a comparison between the NB Minimus Trail and my trusty Inov-8 f-lite 230. (Clearly, my shoe geekery is without limit)

But, who knows when I'll find time to finish that comparison post? So, here's a teaser image. Naturally, so as to keep the perceptual effects of color as neutral as possible, I think it's only fitting to compare the black versions of both shoes.

New Balance MT10 Minimus Trail Shoe Review (With Bullet Points)

What can I write about the New Balance Minimus Trail (MT10) that you haven't already read here, here, here, or here?

I mean, those are all very thorough, well-written reviews that feature many colorful photos. Surely you and the rest of the internet could do without my own rambling perspective on a shoe that's been hyped and reviewed since last Summer.

But, then, I've already started writing. So, I may as well impart something about the NB Minimus Trail that you may not have read yet. At the very least, I'll stray from my usual review format and just provide a bullet-point summary of the other reviews. Thus, you don't have to read so much elsewhere. (Less reading means more time for running, right?)

Points for Consideration from Other NB Minimus Trail Reviews

• The NB Minimus Trail is pretty much awesome, especially the fit. If you like awesome shoes, then you can stop reading here. Just go to the nearest awesome shoe store and try on a pair so that you can make your final decision.
• Most reviewers like the way the MT10 fits and feels on their feet. Some reviewers had concerns about the band that stretches across the base of the forefoot. But, most, including this reviewer, found that the band across the forefoot became unnoticeable when running or after a short break-in period. One or two reviewers experienced defects in this banded area that caused some issues. But, overall, the slipper-like fit of the NB Minimus is regarded highly.
• The toe box is wider than that of most shoes.
• The NB Minimus Trail is very flexible. You can fold it in half.
• The heel and forefoot specs are reported at 15 mm and 11 mm respectively, creating a heel-to-toe differential of 4 mm. This may or may not qualify as minimal to you.
• Vibram designed and/or produced the outsole, which features a web of circular lugs that grip various surfaces readily.
• While the outsole and midsole are stellar in construction and design, the lack of a rock plate means you're still going to feel the effects of sharp, pointy things when you step on them. So, running carelessly over rocky terrain could become unpleasant.
• Given the subtlety of the lugs and significant proprioceptive qualities in the midsole, the Minimus Trail allows for successful training on roads. I actually went into the shoe store to test out the Minimus Road shoe and came out with the Trail version instead.
• The shoe features a comfy interior fabric so that it may be worn without socks. (I prefer socks anyway)
• Prospective NB Minimus wearers should exercise caution if a transition to the lower heel is in order.

Points I'll Add For Further Consideration

• The laces seem to be extra long, which is annoying. I usually deal with this flaw by tucking the tied shoe laces under the lacing in the forefoot area.
• Don't assume that the Minimus Road is just a slightly more cushioned version of the excellent Minimus Trail. It's not. They're totally different shoes.
  I wanted to like the Minimus Road when I tried it on in the store, because I "needed" a new shoe for road running, something with a lower heel. But, as soon as I put my feet in a pair of the Roads, I immediately felt a conspicuous bump under my arch. Other reviews indicate that this is probably meant to serve as some sort of supportive feature. Whatever it is, I hate it! That's why I ended up with the Minimus Trail. And, I'm glad I did.
• 
  If you're trying to decide whether you want the NB Minimus Trail or the Merrel Trail Glove, read this comparison. But, keep in mind that there are rumors of a zero-drop Minimus Trail slated for release in the near future.

Summary

Okay, that was nowhere near as brief as I'd intended. Sorry about that.

Despite the gripe I have about the long laces, the Minimus Trail is definitely one of my favorite shoes. It is so comfortable and conducive to running that I wish I could wear a pair of 'em all day.

Sure, it's not an all-terrain trail shoe, not in my opinion. But, with the exception of rock-laden trails (the Roclite 285s are a better tool for that), you could run almost anywhere with this shoe.

As I write this post, I currently have approximately 50 miles on the pair of MT10s you see pictured. And, the majority of those miles were covered on pavement. (My maximum distance on pavement with them was around 7 miles, I think) So, the Minimus Trail really is worth consideration from anyone seeking a lightweight, minimalish training shoe.

Happy running!

Shoe Photo: New Balance MT10 Minimus Trail

Today seems like a good day for another shoe photo post. And, I'm continuing with the what's-recently-rested-on-my-car's-floorboard theme.

So, here we have my new pair of New Balance MT10s (aka the Minimus Trail). They are awesome. And, I'm in the process of writing a review for you.
Stay tuned.