Sep 10, 2013 at 10:20 am #1307516
@maiaLocale: Rocky Mountains
Companion forum thread to:Sep 10, 2013 at 12:19 pm #2023731
Spotlight Review. No real usage data. Very short test.
The soles shown on Amazon shows a slight difference on the soles. Looks like those holes are filled in with the same compound found on the outer edge. Edit: Which is just an observation. As I have compared shoes Roger has reviewed before and at times there are differences for different markets.
As for the quality of the article, It's light. Considering people pay for content here. Even you must admit it's been a bit of a dry spell lately.
BPL says. Reviews. In-depth performance reviews of selected lightweight backpacking gear. Word Count: 2,000.
Anyway I have a pair of these on order as they do come in a 15. Now about the color choices…Sep 10, 2013 at 9:09 pm #2023854
> No real usage data. Very short test.
I don't do 'very short tests'. Anything I review has been tested properly.
Yes, ours have had plenty of use, but there's very little visible wear. Even more use since I submitted the Review, and still little visible wear. I suspect the shoes might be out of production before there's a lot of vsible wear – and what good would that be for anyone?
Anyhow, I get bored with the same old format sometimes.
I can't comment too much on any perceived differences in the sole vs the Amazon photos. I will say that the Amazon photos are pretty poor compared to mine; they are bad enough that they look a bit misleading in fact.
CheersSep 10, 2013 at 9:25 pm #2023859
@b-g-2-2Locale: Silicon Valley
"I will say that the Amazon photos are pretty poor compared to mine; they are bad enough that they look a bit misleading in fact."
Perhaps that was the intention.
–B.G.–Sep 10, 2013 at 10:36 pm #2023863
@justin_bakerLocale: Santa Rosa, CA
Roger, how well do mesh shoes hold up to the off trail travel you do? I've been avoiding mesh shoes because it seems like sharp branches would rip them to shreds.Sep 10, 2013 at 11:50 pm #2023876
> how well do mesh shoes hold up to the off trail travel you do?
Ah well, that depends entirely on the mesh. Some early runners, like the MT100 if I remember correctly, did shred badly. But they were RUNNERS, not trail shoes.
My favorite UL joggers are Australian KT-26s. They have exposed mesh and some suede. I have worn the soles off many pairs – many. I slashed one shoe open on the Larapinta Trail in Central Australia, but that was done with glass-hard (and glass-sharp) rock. It may have been volcanic glass for all I know. Otherwise the mesh has never failed me.
On New Balance shoes, the mesh has also been pretty good. Some earlier models suffered just above the rand on the sole where the shoe flexed: you can see that in some of my reviews. But it should be remembered that ttypically those models had spent a solid 2 months continuous walking in very harsh limestone country, and only showed much damage right at the end. 'Harsh limestone' is a bit like walking through a thicket of bastard-cut horse files. It's bad.
As for damage from sticks or sharp branches – nope, never had any trouble at all. Some of the Australian scrub is harsh beyond belief – especially the fire-burnt stuff. Legendary stuff in fact. But it has never given us any trouble. The sticks break before the nylon is damaged.
The suede covers you get on some shoes may be more abrasion-resistent than the nylon mesh, but the suede can dry out, shrink and crack, with pretty horrible results on the feet inside. (We have been there, and it was ugly.) I prefer straight nylon mesh over suede for this reason.
Summary: damage from sharp sticks is so far down my (our) list of worries that it gets completely ignored.
CheersSep 11, 2013 at 12:22 am #2023884
@justin_bakerLocale: Santa Rosa, CA
That makes sense.
I do the minimalist shoe thing and have a limited selection of shoes (6mm sole is pretty much the max for me).
I've been using leather shoes for off trail stuff (I even have a pair of leather vibram 5 fingers) but your post has given me the courage to try some mesh shoes if I can find some that look durable enough.
Considering almost every minimalist shoe has very fragile minimal uppers, I must be the only guy out there bushwacking in minimalist shoes. David Chenault mentioned his frustration with fragile uppers, he stated that he was currently using leather shoes.
I haven't had an issue with the leather shrinking but I oil them up before they ever dry out.
Kinda off topic, but in your posts I've noticed that some of the hiking you do is remarkably similar to the hiking I do in Big Sur. Walking through creeks at the bottom of canyons and walking through razor sharp, burned out manzanita on the ridges. Except we have redwoods lining our creeks instead of huge eucalyptus.Sep 11, 2013 at 1:57 am #2023886
The latest two, 889 and 1210, might be worth trying. Get them WIDE ENOUGH (and big enough).
CheersSep 11, 2013 at 7:15 am #2023912
another review of the 1210, from a runners perspective.Sep 11, 2013 at 11:12 am #2023986
I bought a pair of these and started testing them this week, paired with Injinji Trail 2.0 micro-length socks. As someone who has struggled with blisters and hotspots with various shoes (including Inov-8 RocLites, Treksta, and Brooks Cascadia 6), I was skeptical at first. I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. I took them out with a typical weekend weight (~18 pounds) at Staunton State Park (Colorado) and did 13 miles at a brisk pace. I found them very comfortable and supportive. No hot spots or blisters. I took them and the socks off mid-way through the hike to check my feet and not a hint of loose skin (I've been known to develop blisters without even noticing). The socks and shoes had only a minor bit of moisture indicating that they were breathing well. The gusseted tongue in my opinion did a great job keeping out debris, and the mesh was small enough to keep out most dust. A number of people in other forums have expressed concern about the length of the tongue and the placement of the "NB" logo, but I found the length to be just right and the logo placement not problematic (I laced them at position 2 from Roger's review). Finally, I found them true to size at 10.5M.
All in all, I found the shoes to be very capable. I'm going to keep putting them through their paces, but I'm optimistic.Sep 11, 2013 at 1:23 pm #2024014
I've been looking at these for over a month, finally tried a pair on in the big city, they are really comfortable and seem to have just enough support for our rocky trails, so I've ordered a pair. I will report back on how they do in our terrain when I get some miles on them, we have no mud like AU but lots of rocks and gravel!Sep 12, 2013 at 8:37 pm #2024455
Got them today, ordered a women's 10 wide, my normal size is a 9.5, they are small and NOT wide enough so back they go! I may have to go to 11 wide on these.
Now what I do like about these upon further examination.
The vibram soles are really nice and look like they will last longer, the shoe is flexible in the forefront but stiffer and a bit thicker in the midsole than the Brooks Cascadia I have been using, which is what I need for rocks, we have no soft going here unless one runs exclusively on sand (not a lot around here) or only on the mountaintops in pine tree territory and there is only ten miles of that on the very tops of the Huachucas. So we are mostly on rock and gravel and hard pan dirt that is similar to concrete.
The mesh looks very adequate, I love being able to walk through streams and dry off quickly and of course the heat here can be pretty hard on feet entrapped in solid uppers here so mesh is important.
The padding around the ankles is very plush and soft, I am using Dirty Girl gaiters so that should keep things grit and gravel free.
The laces are flat and seem to grip well and the added holes for more lacing do lock the heel into the heel cup just fine. I would have liked a bit more length and padding to the tongue. In all I think these will fit the bill, but I may have to size up, I'll wear them around the house for a day and see. Even though I have small feet for my size (5 foot eleven) I have a bit of a problem finding wide enough shoes in women's sizes and for years have been using men's but now find the heel cup on larger women's to be better for me. I will also add that I have suffered from plantar faciatis for three years now and have tried a LOT of shoes both with and without support. And I have dropped 35 pounds since April this year which helps. I was a barefoot fan for decades but injured myself fighting a fire for five days and although we saved the ranch, I paid dearly…the doctor told me I lost most of the fat pads on the bottom of my feet! They do come back but not like before. A message to the young..take good care of your feet!Sep 12, 2013 at 10:23 pm #2024469
@pitsyLocale: Central Texas
I like the features and based on your review, they are going on a short list of shoes to try when my Merrell Moabs wear out. Been looking for a lighter shoe that breathes well, but still has a tough sole. Might have a winner here! But why do all running shoes have to look like someone barfed up a bag of Skittles on them?Sep 13, 2013 at 1:36 am #2024480
> ordered a women's 10 wide, my normal size is a 9.5, they are small and NOT wide
> enough so back they go! I may have to go to 11 wide on these.
Can I make a suggestion?
In our experience ALL the Womens models are too small and too narrow. In fact, a Womans 10 might be more like a Mens 9 or smaller. The solution for my wife is quite simple: she hasn't worn a Womans fitting for maybe 15 – 20 years. She wears a Mens fitting – and is very happy.
So, visit your local shoe shop and measure your feet with a Brannock Device, with thick socks on. Make sure you read off the Mens side, not the Womens side. Then try again, 1/2 size up and full width.
CheersSep 13, 2013 at 9:35 pm #2024690
Thanks! I will do that!Sep 18, 2013 at 10:20 am #2025807
@fluffinreach-comLocale: no. california
nice review. i have been looking at lighter foot things for some time now.
plantar tears will most often heal. Eventually. it can take several quite a few years, but they often mend 100% good.
and thanks for the brannock thick socks tip.
boot fitting :
i recently took advice from this list and willy nilly added 1/2 a size (old age) to my boots.
Thank You ! to whoever mentioned that tip.
an exrta 1/2 is like being able to shove two findgers space behind my heel. when just out of the box, the new boots fit Way Too Loose. 70 miles of wet yellowstone trails later, they are my new best Boots of All Time.
i suspect i have been micro fitting my boots now for a few years.
now, all my other boots feel somehow stragely too snug.
why i hate Roger C. :
because i busted my catacus to drop my boot weight from 33oz ea to 25oz each (is night and day difference), and i did this using a 16oz per shoe reference as a given base point (old running shoes i had). but now… now Roger drops the base wt even more.
update on new boots :
Meindle Light Hikers = awesome.
lots of toes room. way great grip. no problems. lighter weight than before (in my world).
the next drop in mass is Keens, but they are so stupidly lack of grip and fail structurally so quickly, that that i won't wear them anywear important.
thanks Roger !
thusly .. Hate.Sep 18, 2013 at 1:04 pm #2025881
the heel drop is 0.3 in (8 mm)
Excuse my ignorance, but what is meant by "heel drop"?Sep 18, 2013 at 1:08 pm #2025884
"A drop of zero would mean that when seated in the shoe, the heel and ball of the forefoot would be at exactly the same height off of the ground. A drop of 12mm would mean that the heel sits 12mm higher off the ground than the forefoot."Sep 18, 2013 at 1:33 pm #2025895
Thanks for the clarification.
Low "heel drop" has been standard on fell shoes (eg Adidas Swoop) for decades.Sep 18, 2013 at 1:59 pm #2025908
> an exrta 1/2 is like being able to shove two findgers space behind my heel.
Yep, that's a standard recommendation for size.
> now, all my other boots feel somehow stragely too snug.
Yeah, funny about that. Welcome to the comfort zone.
> i busted my catacus
I am sorry to hear that. Was it painful?
And WTH is a catacus anyhow?
CheersSep 18, 2013 at 3:32 pm #2025940
The MT1210 uses a UL-1 last. I've stuck with the NL-1 last through a progression of various models. The newest MT iteration is the 1010v2:
I'm a big fan of New Balance. Here's a free piece of advice: go to a NB retail store and try on their different lasts. This is the key to finding a good fit for your particular foot size/type. Once you lock into that, then it's a trivial exercise to simply find the shoe in that last for your specific needs.
It's gotten to the point that I don't even try on NBs any longer. Once a pair become worn, I simply look on-line for either a new(er) model and/or update for my particular NL-1 last.Sep 18, 2013 at 10:19 pm #2026038
Darn, I was just at a NB store…did not know they had lasts to try, oh well, next time.
I got fitted on the Brannock and tried a few men's 1210's and settled on a men's 9 US 2E, wore my darn tough hiking socks which are my favorites while fitting…the lady fitting my feet thought is was a bit crazy but I insisted that the sizing be wide enough, and I am glad I did. Took them out for a five mile spin up the mountain today with my pack at just base weight (10 lbs) and the shoes were great. I was frankly amazed how painless my walk was, usually at a certain point I have pain then I am forced to switch shoes, but this time I did not need to. The sole is adequate on rocks, still got to watch the marble sized ones under the forefoot but the sole is better for me than the Cascadia. The mesh is not as airy as the Cascadia but still very comfortable..it was 90 degrees today. I went through the same lacing senario as Roger, had to keep from chinching down too tight on that number 2 and 1 lacing hole…got it too tight and It defintely affects the arch so I loosened it up and all was well. I still wish the tongue was longer but it is very soft so I dont think that will be a problem. Can't wait to get out again this weekend…..hoping to do more miles and see how I feel afterwards.
As many of you know, having plantar faciatis is a major bummer for an active person who is trying to stay fit or get fitter. I'm hoping these are going to allow me to heal and stay active. They felt wonderful and I'm starting to have hope that I can do a long hike next year. I've tried a LOT of shoes and boots, and when you find one that works its like striking gold.Sep 19, 2013 at 5:09 am #2026059
> the lady fitting my feet thought is was a bit crazy
She did not know any better. Happens.
> I was frankly amazed how painless my walk was,
Another happy customer …
> I've tried a LOT of shoes and boots, and when you find one that works its like striking gold.
Can I suggest that it's not the shoe per se, but getting the right size for your feet! But don't compromise in the future!
CheersSep 20, 2013 at 5:39 pm #2026580
just Justin WhitsonMember
"The latest two, 889 and 1210, might be worth trying. Get them WIDE ENOUGH (and big enough)."
Which one do you think is more durable long term on average?Sep 20, 2013 at 9:52 pm #2026625
> "The latest two, 889 and 1210, might be worth trying. Get them WIDE ENOUGH (and big enough)."
> Which one do you think is more durable long term on average?
I don't think the 1210s would last as long as the 889s. They are quite a bit lighter than the 889s of course. I expect the 889s to last very well. It's all a trade-off.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.