New Balance 889 Multisport Review

[Stephanie Jordan]

Companion forum thread to:

New Balance 889 Multisport Review

[Ken Thompson]

How well do they dry after getting wet? Does it take forever?

[Mina Loomis]

So, looking at the NB web site, it looks like the brown ones are the men's model and the blue ones are the women's model. The blue ones in the NB pictures and in your article look like the ventilation holes in the front portion of the upper are larger. Are there other differences you noticed?

[Mark Gallagher]

these would be perfect were it not for the bruising potential on my favorite dried creek/sharp rock bed. Did I see somebody saying that they were going to experiment w/a milk carton plate for just such an occasion? How'd that work out, cause this would be a candidate shoe for it (at least in my mind.)

[Roger Caffin]

> How well do they dry after getting wet? Does it take forever?
Not the fastest for drying, but they do dry after a while.
And that never worried us anyhow.

I had better add that there is a long way between 'a bit damp' and 'dry'. They don't hold buckets of water. It'sd thge tail of the drying cycle that takes time.

Cheers

[Roger Caffin]

The NB web site shows both brown and blue as colours for the Mens model. Ours are both Mens models, and they are both blue.

Yes, it does look as though the Womens version has larger holes. Dunno why. Haven't actually seen them in the hand as both of us take a Mens fitting. My wife thinks the whole idea of a separate Womens fitting is plain stupid anyhow.

Edit:
Even the NB pics I used seem a bit varied as to the holes at the front! Fwiiw, ours have the smaller holes. I think I prefer the smaller holes as I think they keep the dirt out better, but it's marginal.

Why did I use pics supplied by NB for some of the illustrations? Because for a couple of months while we were field testing the shoes my camera was in for repairs. All I had was a mobile phone which took 320×240 images. Yuk! In the end, Canon replaced my G11 camera with a new G15. Very nice.

Cheers

[Roger Caffin]

> bruising potential on my favorite dried creek/sharp rock bed.
I would be pretty sure that the Vibram soles on these would NOT suffer that problem. The Vibram technology does not use the New Balance RockStop technology, but it does not need to imho.

Cheers

[Danny Buzzell]

I live in central assachusetts – very close to the original home Vibram factory located in North Brookfield, Ma. Very little Italian spoken in the area.

[Eric Blumensaadt]

I still dunno about these NB hiking shoes. They seem a bit lighter in the sole than I prefer for protection from rocks. But then, I haven't seen them yet so maybe I'm wrong.

My Merrill Moab Ventilators (also W/ Vibram soles) seem just about right for sole protection. The weight is also pretty low and the durability is good.

BUT, I do like the NB leather toe. My Moabs have fabric mesh in that vulnerable area and I've had to coat a 3/4" wide area with Shoe Goo to reinforce it. I'd bet the NB is a very durable shoe.

[Roger Caffin]

Hi Eric

> They seem a bit lighter in the sole than I prefer for protection from rocks.
They are actually a bit stiffer in the sole than some of the other NB shoes we have reviewed. I really don't think you would suffer from the rocks.

my wife wears these walking, but not running. She needs a lighter sole for running.

Cheers

[Tjaard Breeuwer]

From wikipedia:

Vibram S.p.A. is an Italian company based in Albizzate that both manufactures and licenses the production of Vibram-branded rubber outsoles for footwear. The company is named after its founder, Vitale Bramani.[1]

Bramani is credited with inventing the first rubber lug soles for shoes. These soles were first used on mountaineering boots, replacing leather soles fitted with hobnails or steel cleats, commonly used up until then.

[Paul Melzer]

I was excited when I spied the passage re the midsole and footbed being flat. (100% agree) However, when I looked into them further I find that they're pretty much the standard high heel shoes that have been the norm, with a huge 12mm drop from the heel to the forefoot. Not sure why this point's not as important as the flatness of the midsole. Think about it, when you're heading downhill, those shoes are foisting extra 12mm effort (angle) onto the heels (etc). And I've never thought that the cost was worth trading for a more elevated heel on the ascents (making the step more level).

New Balance are my current faves for mountain running shoes (MT110, 4mm drop)—wish they made the 889 with low or zero drop. What you write about the medical claims for built-up insoles, etc, applies equally to high highs, imo.

[Roger Caffin]

> those shoes are foisting extra 12mm effort (angle) onto the heels (etc).
We did not notice the 'drop'; I would not call them 'high heel shoes' at all.

Anyhow, the web site says they have a 10 mm drop, not a 12 mm one.

Me, I think that the flat heel business may have been slightly exaggerated recently: it certainly is no where near as bad as the gimmicks. Making the change from flipflops/thongs I wear most of the time (which are pretty flat) to these shoes does not cause any sensation of 'high heels', so we didn't worry about that.

YMMV

Cheers

[Mo Rodopsky]

Roger,

I ordered these in 4E width and returned them because I noticed they were not as wide as other "all mesh" NB trail runners. I haven't measured them but they just didn't feel wide enough.

[Roger Caffin]

> I ordered these in 4E width and returned them because I noticed they were not as wide
> as other "all mesh" NB trail runners. I haven't measured them but they just didn't
> feel wide enough.
Hum … odd. I did not notice anything like that myself.

It may be that you had been used to a different last with a bigger volume at the front. They exist, and this certainly can happen. Sigh – everyone's feet are different. Hey – my left foot is different from my right foot!

Cheers

[Lapsley Hope]

Some of us dinosaurs still prefer the well constructed "boot" for rough terrain, but so it goes, thank goodness for choices in the matter.

[Paul Melzer]

Thanks, Roger. You know, the human race has no doubt prospered over the course of shoes having heels, high, or otherwise (i.e., heels have not stood in the way of progress). But, fashion/beauty debate aside, I can't think of a single reason that elevated heels on shoes are of any use, athletic or otherwise. If the history were reversed, and elevated heels were the newly introduced craze, the same sense of curiosity would certainly arise.

I don't run barefoot, except from time to time in grass or on the beach, but I do run some in flat huaraches that I make (talk about cheap footwear!). I prefer shoes for my mountain running and would love to find some more serious trail shoes sans heel, since it's taken me a couple of years to strengthen my feet/ankles to not be so heavy on my heels (an obvious byproduct of elevated heels). BTW, I used the phrase "high heels" with some humor, since the phrase is so relegated to women's fashion footwear.

Anyway, thanks again for the review.

[Roger Caffin]

> I can't think of a single reason that elevated heels on shoes are of any use,
> athletic or otherwise.

Have you ever ridden a horse?
And bear in mind that the nobility always set the tone for the aspirants.
And remember that the extra inch or two in height can be very useful for dominance.

Cheers

[Jim Milstein]

The further one's heel is from the ground, the easier it is to turn the ankle, which hurts a lot. Hiking boots try to compensate with ankle support, but that introduces other problems, as we know.

Roger points out the usefulness of heel height for dominance. Cowboy boots are especially good in this regard with their high heels and their pointed toes, which are suited to kicking social inferiors. However, the backcountry is supposed to be egalitarian, and so the cowboy boots are best left behind.

[Erik Basil]

I can think of several examples, including my riding boots for horses and motorcycles and my hiking boots, where having a lifted heel is better than not. But the most important thing for me with these New Balance shoes is how shapely they make Roger's calves.

[John Coyle]

Thanks for an interesting review. I think it would be interesting for you to review this shoe:

http://adventure.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/gear/gear-of-the-year-spring-summer-2013/#/hoka-one-one-shoe_65642_600x450.jpg

I know, they look a little different from the flat shoes that are in style now, but National Geographic seems to like them!

[Roger Caffin]

Hoka, $170?
Come in sucker.
(They probably cost about $10 at the factory in Asia.)

> National Geographic seems to like them!
Errr … yes, well … um …

Sorry, but!

Cheers

[Jon McConachie]

Do these shoes have gusseted tongues to reduce dirt/sand entry?

[Roger Caffin]

> Do these shoes have gusseted tongues to reduce dirt/sand entry?
No, but the tongue is well-padded, and we have never had any problems with sand or dirt getting in. In fact, I think our feet have been cleaner at the end of the day with these shoes than with many others. That open mesh on some shoes does let the dust in!

Cheers

[Ken Thompson]

"Well, I was rather pleased to see at the end of the day that neither my feet nor Sue's feet were pruny. Despite the reinforcing all around the shoes, not to mention the very hot weather in the Australian summer, they must have breathed fairly well."

I just wore a pair of these yesterday. Got up to 80 degrees.

There is no mesh and these shoes do not breath. Not like a Innov-8 Terroc 330 for example. Even the nylon outer fabric is lined inside. Hot.

That Vibram sole has zero traction (when new at least) on tile floors, be careful.

These will take too long to dry out after getting wet for me to consider them for trail use. These will be for work, in town.

Got mine for less than $70 shipped. Not the worst money I've spent on shoes. That nod goes to Brooks.

Just ordered something else for trail use.

[Author]

Posts