New Balance MR740TR Review

This is a preview of a member exclusive premium article.

These come after the MT876OR shoes we reviewed recently, but they have several differences, apart from the normal cosmetic changes. We received two pairs, both size 10 4E, so my wife and I could both try them out.

New Balance says of them: "Especially well-suited for distance runners in search of mild stability, the 740 trail runner features a medial post for pronation control and ABZORB cushioning in both the heel and forefoot." I am not sure what that really means, but the 'mild stability' bit suggests that the shoes are not designed to take control of your foot and distort it into a shape or motion some 'expert' thinks you should have. Needless to say, I approve of the reluctance to interfere with your natural foot mechanics.

ARTICLE OUTLINE

Specifications
Field Testing

# WORDS: 1270
# PHOTOS: 3

--- End of free preview ---

Member Exclusive

A Premium or Unlimited Membership* is required to view the rest of this article.

Membership Login

* A Basic Membership is required to view Member Q&A events

This topic is empty.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

Author

Posts
Jun 28, 2011 at 12:33 pm #1276038

Addie Bedford
BPL Member

@addiebedford
Locale: Montana

Companion forum thread to:

New Balance MR740TR Review

Jun 28, 2011 at 7:37 pm #1754170

Warren Greer
Spectator

@warrengreer
Locale: SoCal

Roger,

Thanks for the review. And thanks for posting Wills comments. I like that he compared them to other shoes and also mentioned that they are wide. I've only started wearding trail runners a few months back, but don't plan on wearing b**ts any time soon or again if I can help it. I now have two pairs and one is wider and it feels much more stable and grippy. I haven't worn the narrower pair anywhere except the gym, but for the ounce or two per shoe they save, they don't feel as reassuring. BTW, the mesh on mine also lets the dust in but I guess that's what you get when you have such a breathable fabric. Also, I like the black color with accents much better than the previous shoe you reviewed that was red. I'd much rather have less attention brought to my feet.

Jun 29, 2011 at 4:21 am #1754255

Aaron Sorensen
BPL Member

@awsorensen
Locale: South of Forester Pass

I get Rodger and his New Balances. I have been an Asics fan forever.
But what I get out of this website is getting reviews of items that no other website would. I get a unique spectrum of items that would push the U/L movement and help lighten my load. On top of this, this site also gets out in left field sometimes with some unique pieces of gear.

So what am I getting at? I can go to Zappos and read 20 reviews about the NB MR740's.

I would like that something unique, especially if it going to be a pair of hiking boots/ shoes tested.
I get a huge base of gear tests outside the shoe realm here but not much in this dept.

Just once I would like to see a review on something as abnormal as the Hoka Mafate Trail Boot, or some similar "different" than the run of the mil shoe review.

Jun 29, 2011 at 4:43 am #1754257

Roger Caffin
BPL Member

@rcaffin
Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe

> I can go to Zappos and read 20 reviews about the NB MR740's.
I've read them too at times. Yeah, well …

> I would like to see a review on something as abnormal as the Hoka Mafate Trail Boot
Ah, but are they worth reviewing? We prefer to focus on UL stuff which is going to work. More value to our readers.

Sorry!

Jun 29, 2011 at 10:46 am #1754354

Paul Melzer
Member

@pmbooks
Locale: SoCal

Just a thought, since many of us are interested nowadays in the amount of mm drop from heel to forefoot, could you consider adding this info to shoe reviews? For example, the New Balance MT101 has a minimal 4mm drop. Thanks, Pawl

Jun 29, 2011 at 10:53 am #1754357

Paul Melzer
Member

@pmbooks
Locale: SoCal

>Ah, but are they worth reviewing? We prefer to focus on UL stuff which is going to work. More value to our readers.

>Sorry!

I don't mean to sound snarky, but at 13 ounces the MR740TR is anything BUT an UL trail running shoe; in fact, it's on the heavy side. (sorry)

Jun 29, 2011 at 2:08 pm #1754430

Greg Mihalik
Spectator

@greg23
Locale: Colorado

Paul,

I don't believe these are touted as running shoes, but rather hiking shoes.

However, I'll bite…

What are your 3 preferred UL trail running shoes?

Jun 29, 2011 at 6:38 pm #1754533

Michael Davis
Member

@mad777
Locale: South Florida

These sound a lot like my favorite hiking shoe for rough terrain, the New Balance 909's. I use the NB 100's on mild trails but, for me, the extra support of a shoe like this is welcome on rocky, mountainous trails.

Thanks for the review!

It seems that these have been discontinued, although a few are available in outlets if one is lucky enough to find their size.

Jun 29, 2011 at 6:55 pm #1754538

Paul Melzer
Member

@pmbooks
Locale: SoCal

>I don't believe these are touted as running shoes, but rather hiking shoes.

>However, I'll bite…

>What are your 3 preferred UL trail running shoes?

I've not worn the MR740TR, but the review suggests they're well-suited to the distance runner. And, being one who is interested in fastpacking, I'm interested in what works for trail running with light packs. If a shoe can withstand that test, for me they can withstand a hiking pace.

As an "experiment of one," my favorite shoes right now——focusing on the trails I'm training on——are the MT101s of New Balance, which provide enough protection [for me] against rocks, yet are quite light (7.2 oz at size 9). I've turned away from all the extra support/protection/motion-control found in most running shoes these days.

I'll admit—-though I'd not assume as much—-that it might be a different thing if I were carrying 40 pounds for 3 weeks…then I might welcome a little extra support.

As for another two preferred shoes, I like Inov8s (Flyrocs and a couple of other styles), but my focus for the past year or two has been to work towards a more minimal shoe. I have some other zero-drop shoes, Merril Trail Glove, but have not really worked my way into using them.

Jun 29, 2011 at 7:04 pm #1754542

tom lakner
BPL Member

@lakneremu
Locale: midwest

ya know, every time i follow these threads and find out about a shoe that might fit (13 4E) I am unable to locate any. Is this site so closely followed? Whats the story?. It's akin to reading about a fabulous hike but sorry, there's no shuttle available.
Thanks

Jun 29, 2011 at 8:02 pm #1754553

Greg Mihalik
Spectator

@greg23
Locale: Colorado

2nd hit on Google.

Jun 29, 2011 at 8:04 pm #1754555

Christopher Holly
Member

@climber72
Locale: At my desk

"The lacing is designed with two sets of holes at the ankle region: you can see the holes in the first photo. With our high arches, the highest hole – the one nearest the back of the shoe, is completely superfluous!"

I agree with this, but for very different reasons. In my experience, a lot of footwear makers include this troublesome hole as a way to lace a heel lock – which simply does not work. On the flip side, some makers argue that the hole is there to take up extra volume in the shoe, which is total BS too. If the shoe is too high volume for your foot – buy something else!

As to the rest of the review – I agree that most of the information can be had at Zappos or any number of other online retailers. But, as I am in the market for some trail runners for use on the JMT next month, I welcome this review. Everyone has an opinion when it comes to shoes obviously, so where are the Reader Reviews of something like the above mentioned "Hoka Mafate Trail Boot"? Please tell us why this boot should be spotlighted in a BPL review!

To wit – I acted on good reviews from a number of sources (none from BPL mind you) and secured a pair of TrekSta Evolution Mids that ended up eating my heels alive. Now, would these boots work for someone with a more robust heel and a higher volume foot? You bet!

That said, this input on the NB line of trail runners is just another data point as far as I am concerned, and a very welcomed data point. Personally I am leaning towards the Saucony ProGrid Xodus 2.0 for my hike, but to each their own.

OK – done ranting – back to lurking.

Jun 30, 2011 at 3:44 am #1754603

Roger Caffin
BPL Member

@rcaffin
Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe

Hi Tom Lakner

True, the extreme sizes are all gone. My apologies – this review is seriously late. It was held up too long.

Instead, have a look at the New Balance 814s. They are currently available in a 13 4E. A review should be published Real Soon Now.
Summary: I LIKE them.

Cheers

Jun 30, 2011 at 8:08 pm #1754877

tom lakner
BPL Member

@lakneremu
Locale: midwest

roger, thanks, i ordered a pair today. i've had heel problems with inov8 roc 295 and needed to find somethiong asap. big feet take forever to find gloves for.thanks for your articles and the hard work you put into them.

Jul 1, 2011 at 3:20 am #1754964

Roger Caffin
BPL Member

@rcaffin
Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe

> I am leaning towards the Saucony ProGrid Xodus 2.0 for my hike
That comes in a Medium width, which probably means a C or a D. That's a far cry from 4E in width. If that width fits you, great; if it doesn't – a world of sorrow.

Cheers
Author

Posts