NB MT100

.

I’ve logged about 600 miles in my first pair of NB MT100’s since October ’09, almost all trail running miles. I own 2 pairs and alternate through them randomly, depends on the mood I guess. I’m taking this pair, my first pair, on a 4 day backpacking trip through the Gila on Thursday in their current state. I considered taking my Crosslites however I wanna see how the MT100’s work since we’re going to be crossing the West and Middle Forks of the Gila river some 100+ times. This may be their maiden backpacking voyage and their last as they’re not exactly virgin. The only area of failure I’ve experienced with this shoe is along a section of the mesh upper where the mesh meets a rigid swath of fabric. I’ve posted some pics. The single row stitching and my desert stomping grounds are to blame for the failure. The MT100’s are more than adequate for trail runners/hikers with nimble feet and accurate foot placement. How they fare on multi-day backpacking trips? I don’t know. I plan on staying around 15lbs. w/food and water for the 4 day trip so I think the MT100’s will be more than sufficient for the terrain and the pack weight.

You can see in this photo where the mesh seam blew. It only happened on my left foot for some reason, might have caught a rock or something, can’t remember.

* Here is that suspect blown seam. The mesh doesn’t provide any structure so the tear doesn’t affect the performance of the shoe, at least for me it doesn’t. However I cannot wear this pair of MT100’s without socks anymore.

*This is what 600 miles of rocky southern New Mexico trail running will do to the rubber outsole. I’m pretty happy with the wear on these considering they’re essentially a beefed up trail racing flat. I still run in them and find the sticky rubber to be more than enough traction for stepping off and up rocks along dry trail.

* The right shoe didn’t suffer the same seam failure so I think I got lazy at some point or misplaced my left foot on a run and caught the mesh. Below is the right shoe.

* Here is a shot of the upper.

I'm approaching 250, maybe 300 miles(I've stopped counting exact shoe mileage) on my first pair, 90% miles from singletrack trail running. I run in them wet and cross a lot of streams. I also run exclusively sockless, which seems to wear out shoes faster due to FILTH. Gotta love it when you take your shoes off and swear you stepped in dog$hit, only to find it's YOU!

They're holding up fine, I'd say only halfway used. Still plenty of tread, no tears. I expect to go 500 miles in them.

These are lasting way better than my Solomon XA Pros did- their laces broke in 175 miles (which was a pain because they're gimmicky things you can't easily just replace with regular string and they broke in multiple places in the middle of the JMT. I had to cobble them back together with a series of sheet bends and other knots). Their soles began to delaminate at 250 miles. I know people love them but mine were expensive junk.
I'd say the MT100s are doing as well as any other trail shoe I've owned.

Despite being a minimal shoe, their construction is solid.

Your posts are getting me in intersted in the NB MT100.

How do you find the shoe comapared to Inov8 shoes?

They seem lighter, more durable and cheaper but my concern is the grip on wet/snow (the Inov is very good in this dept) and the plastic plate on the forefoot looks like it would affect flexibility. A review from gearjunkie seemed to confirm that.

The inov8s can be bent very easily so minimal flexibility loss, very important for allowing natural forefoot strike and propulsion. It's all too rare in trail shoes that mostly excel for flat pounding.

Planning on trying on the NB MT100 for myself to find out (the cost and weight savings are tempting) but wanted to see if others had compared them already.

I had a pair of Roclites and returned them- too narrow for me. But from what I saw, I think the Inov8s are way overbuilt for what I want- definitely less flexible and felt pretty clunky compared to the mt100.

I remember reading the gearjunkie review: what he's saying couldn't be further from my experiences and most of those you'll find here. I believe he says that only an "elite" could run more than a 5k in them. Nonsense.

There’s a pretty in depth video review here: http://runtheultras.com/?tag=mt100.

I’ve had a pair of Roclite 295s for about a month and really like them, I can do a little comparison in a couple days after I’ve had a chance to test out the MT100 (arriving tomorrow).

I also really like these shoes. I was very happy about how they handled wet rocks durning stream crossings, but they suck in the mud and slush. Other than that they are great.

I've had mine a bit over a month. Just day hiking and running thus far, as it is still ski touring season.

I really, really like them thus far. The minimal upper with few seams is good (I fear interior seams after my feet got wrecked during Le parcour last fall). The degree of sole rigidity seems just enough, and I have no doubt that they'll work very well this summer for all sorts of backpacking.

They drain water and dry in a flash.

I am concerned about the durability of the mesh, and did extensive pre-emptive treatment with aquaseal. I did encounter a potential risk with this treatment that I've never had to worry about with other shoes. I was generous enough on the outside of the toebox that the seal soaked in enough to create a rough spot on the inside, which gave me a blister on the outside of my little toe. Easily fixed with some emery cloth, but something worth noting.

These shoes will be a hit with this crowd, I reckon.

I'm looking forward to mine coming. I ordered some recently.

After reading that link above, I do worry now that the arch will be too high. Do the arches feel really high? For example, I think Chacos feel really high in the arch.

I also worry the plate under the forefoot will have me slapping the ground hard or be too stiff and cause me trouble. Do they feel stiff?

I purchased the very similar MT 600 this past December out of curiosity and because they were on sale at Fred Meyers for $35. And at 8.75 oz (size 11) it would be the lightest shoe I've ever hiked in. I tried to research this shoe but wasn't successful in turning up anything…and I still don't understand the New Balance numbering system. Oh, well!

Over the course of the past three months I've gone out on many day hikes in every conceivable weather, which in the tropical PNW usually means soggy. Here's my observation:

Since the tread is rather shallow (compared to Inov8 Rocklights) traction on snow was dicy; otherwise it was adequate on wet rock and muddy trail.

The sole plate is both light and durable, admirably doing the job it's intended to do: preventing sharp rocks from bruising the soles of your feet.

The sole plate is NOT stiff as some above have speculated. It is, in fact, more flexible than the Inov8 Rocklite sole, so one indeed will be able to take full advantage of forefoot flex.

The upper fabric seems to be as durable as that on any of my other shoes so far, but I doubt that will be much of an issue because the shallow tread undoubtedly will wear out way before the fabric.

They are comfortable to wear on the trail dayhiking, but I don't think they would be my first choice for the longer trip until I give them a go on an overnighter…just to see how they perform carrying a load.

The thin rigid forefoot Rock Stop New Balance incorporated into the outsole of the MT100 DOES affect torsional flexibility, which is exactly why the 2010 NB MT101 which is replacing the now soon to be obsolete MT100. The MT101 will use the RockStop design however it is being toned down for the updated model.

The key with the MT100 is balancing protection and flexibility for trail runners. The MT100 was originally a special project shoe specifically designed around the needs of ultrarunners and New Balance Trail Ambassadors Anton Krupicka and Tyler Skaggs, both of which are known for their uber critical and minimalist approach to trailrunning, they've both been known to chop up shoes, remove outsole thickness and remove materials to suit their lightweight style of long distance trailrunning. The MT100 was tested by both runners in many ultra events in 09 and really ran the paces in the 09 Hardrock 100 ultra race. The very shoe that the MT100 was modeled after in 2009 was the now discontinued New Balance 790, which was one of the most popular minimalist trail racing shoes for a few years up to 2009 when they were phased out by New Balance.

The shoe Monty is referring to shares some of the guts but is a bit different than the current MT100, the NB 600 was essentially a beefed up version of the lean 790's which were notorious for it's EXTREMELY short outsole life and horrible traction in loose rock and messy conditions. The 790 and 600 are in fact, more flexible in the forefoot region than the MT100's, quite a bit, many 790 fans were actually upset when the MT100 rolled out in October 2009 because flexibility was slightly cast aside for more forefoot protection. The big downside to the older 790's and 600's was the use of blown rubber that surfaced in many places along the outsole. The blown rubber did provide mild cushioning, however it greatly affected traction and shoe life. The current MT100's have minor use of blown rubber in the outsole but you only see those areas pop out towards the rear of the shoe. My running buddy ran through a pair of New Balance 790's in one month, just for comparison he is now on his 6th month in his first pair of MT100's.

Does anyone know when the MT101 is coming out?

I already have one new pair of MT100s on reserve in the closet. I like them so much I might just buy another pair in the event I don't like the 101s.

Piper- I don't think the arch is high in the MT100s. Chacos and Tevas have way too high of an arch to me as well- the MT100s certainly are pretty flat comparatively.

Arch support is a strange concept. Look at a masonry diagram (I build kilns): an arch is designed to resist downward pressure; it is the keystone and voussoirs that transfer the weight to the imposts. The easiest way to ruin one is to push upward on the keystone/underside of the arch…which happens to be right where shoe "arch support" is placed. I'm not sure the arch of the foot is supposed to be "supported".

>> They're holding up fine, I'd say only halfway used. Still plenty of tread, no tears. I expect to go 500 miles in them.

The "conventional wisdom" in runing shoes is that the life expectancy is around 500 miles. Less for racing flats. IMO, getting 500 miles out of a pair of flats is outstanding.

I just got my pair today, and my initial impression is very positive. Very breathable, super comfortable (ordered a half size up and they're perfect). What surprised me is that they feel like more of a shoe than my Inov8 295s.

Like Eugene said, the Rockstop plate definitely seems to be affecting forefoot flex and making the shoe more torsionally rigid. They may well break in, in fact, they seem to be getting more supple as I sit here bending and squishing them. The area beneath the rear of the foot, on the other hand, seems rock solid, and is raised more than my Inov8s. I don't think I'm ever going to get much flex in that area. In addition, the midsole and the heel cup feel like they add a good amount of lateral stability.

That being said, I like the shoe a lot! I strained my knee a couple days ago, otherwise I would have gone for a quick run already. I can see these being real good for hiking, but I'm not sure how much running I feel like doing in them, I don't like raised heels much. I'll probably ultimately go for a really minimal trail racing flat like the Inov8 XTalon 212 or 190. But for the price, you really can't beat it. For now, these are fine, and probably my fave hiking shoe for nice weather (I'll bring my 295s out on mud or snow).

I like:
Comfy fit for barefoot enthusiasts
SUL upper
Cool foam heel cup: a good amount of stability while still being flexible

Don't like:
Thick, inflexible heel padding
Rock plate could be more sensitive

The MT101 is scheduled for an October ’10 release. I’ve yet to try it, but wrote about it after the winter Outdoor Retailer show in January: Trail Running Shoe Highlights from ORWM ’10 . The final shoes will likely be a hair heavier than the MT100.

Heavier! Doesn't make much sense? Why fix something that works? I know that the RockStop plate was going to be toned down a tad, however I'm confused on the weight gain? Perhaps it's all that gloss and glitter their putting in the updated MT101's in Oct. Oh well, it'll still sell well and make trail runners very very happy!

Bryon! Barely caught the name. Excellent job on Marathon De Sables! Michael Wardian killed it, 3rd place finish, just stellar. Love your blog by the way, I check it out almost every day as you keep the trail running love flowing. Cheers.

I have to order them do they fit true to size? smaller, larger? wide narrow?

thanks

Robert,

It has been my experience with the 2 pairs (size 12) I own that the NB MT100 fits TRUE to size. The NB MT100 has a D width (standard/medium). Depending on your shoe size the specs on the width are going to vary.

Remember, the MT100's were designed to be worn WITHOUT socks or perhaps a VERY thin liner sock or typical lightweight mesh trail running sock (ex. Defeet Aireators, Darn Tough Vermont 1/4 mesh, Smartwool PHD Running Ultralight), not for example a Darn Tough Hiker boot sock or something of the equivalent.

Eugene,
From my OR notes, NB added slightly more support on the outside of the upper and thickened the tongue from a single layer to a double layer. Nothing major here, just tweaking a design where a couple failures were found. I can't imagine that the production model will be much heavier. To that point, the forefoot is supposed to be more flexible.

Happy trails,
Bryon

Ps. Thanks for the kind words re iRunFar and our Marathon des Sables coverage! I hope to go back to MdS in 2012!

After putting a couple hundred miles on mine, including a few actual backpacking trips, here are my thoughts:

-I got a hole towards the heal on the inside of the left shoe after the Thorofare trip the other week, same place as the back of the huge tear in Eugene's photo on the first page of this thread. I fixed it with duct tape and aquaseal, but the durability of the mesh uppers is still a concern for me. Granted, the postholing, bushwacking, and river crossing I did on that trip is well beyond the intended use, so I can't really blame the shoe.

-The stiff, forward canted heel piece finally started to bug me, oddly enough on the first extended run I did in them. I've been cutting the heel down little by little since, and prior to the Thorofare trip though I had it licked. Alas, after the trip I got these odd horizontal lines of irritated, almost calloused skin where the tops of the heels pushed into my achilles at full stride. Not blistered, just irritated. I didn't notice it at all during the trip, only after, but it's still noticeable and a bit of a nuisance more than a week later. I'll be cutting the heel down even more now, as there's no sign of slippage yet. As of now I've taken 6-7 mm off the achilles area.

-I love, love, LOVE the midsole of this shoe. The height, amount of rocker, amount of cushion, and amount of stiffness is IMO absolutely perfect. No sore feet on the Thorofare trip, even after the 25+ mile day three. Quite remarkable considering I came into the trip with very minimal training and time on the feet.

-The mesh and lack of padding drain water very well and dry super fast. Great for hikes with lots of wading and puddles.

-The tread is ok. It does fine under normal conditions, though I'd prefer the deeper braking lugs to extend a bit further forward from the heel. The main tread is far to shallow to work at all well in mud, but the trade off is a fast and light pattern that does fine on hardpack and rock. I've yet to notice tread wear much faster than what I consider normal for a trail runner.

In conclusion, I'm really hoping I can sort out the heel issue, and that the uppers hold together ok. I'm afraid that I'll have to go back to something like the Sportiva Fireblade or Crosslite so that during high hiking season my shoes will last more than 2 months, but I'm very loath to give up the lightness, speed, and extreme comfort of this shoe.

You nailed it with the description of midsole balance, breathable mesh upper that sheds water like a siev, lightness and comfort. Without a doubt the MT100’s are an excellent option for fair condition hikes and trips, they can handle more strenuous trips like your Thorofare trek but definitely aren’t intended for it. Like you mentioned, postholing, bushwhacking and extensive river crossings aren’t ideal for the MT100’s, they can fit the bill in the midst, but the condition of the shoes degrade quickly and won’t be around for long using them in rough backcountry environs.

I thought I’d share some photos of my 2nd pair of MT100’s after only 2 trips, granted both trips had countless river crossings, lots of bushwhacking segments and downed trees, but nevertheless, you can see what just a weeks worth of days on the trail can do. I’ve never had durability issues with trail runners like this. I’m well aware of the MT100’s limitations regarding the uppers so I willingly accept their current state and I’m not all surprised.

Day 2 of my last outing, lots of bushwhacking.

This was my “good” pair of MT100’s. This photo I took today, now dry and clear of mud from the last river crossing 2 weeks ago. They’ll still be more than sufficient for weekly trail runs, though I’m retiring them for backpacking.

Right upper, front toe rand blow out

Left upper, front toe rand partially blown out

Picking at the blown toe rand on my right. Double row stitching at the rand.

I recently started running in a pair of MT100, and thought I would shed some light…

Due to the lightweight materials, i felt they fit slightly larger than normal. The shoe drains water and dries super fast, plus has good protection for its weight.

I know some people use these sock-less, but i think that a matter of personal preference. I tried it with these shoes, but I think I would have to go a half size down for it to (maybe) work. Also, i need socks with these shoes to protect the back of my achilles tendon from blisters (smaller size could work better tho)

Over all, awesome shoe. Highly recommended.

Looking for a 10.5 pair of these, seem to be sold out everywhere. Anyone know where they may be in stock?

I know the 101's are due in October, but I wanted to grab a pair before then.