New Balance Minimus Road Review

Available in March 2011, the New Balance Minimus Road as part of the company’s Minimus line along side the Minimus Trail and the Minimus Life.  The entire line features a 4mm heel-toe drop to aid in forefoot striking, lightweight construction, and a “less is more” philosophy which is literally the graphic on the shoe “< = >”.  Very clever, but I wasn’t convinced that this would be a shoe that I could run in on the roads.

New Balance Minimus Road upper lateralFirst Impressions
Having had the pleasure of running in the Minimus Trail, I expected similar construction, weight, and road feel just without the Vibram outsole.  The Minimus Road is slightly heavier than the trail (8 vs. 6 ounces) and the shoe immediately reminded me of a vintage NB shoe in both appearance and simplicity.  This shoe is incredibly simple and to the point.  It lacks a removable insole, which is consistent with the rest of the Minimus line.  It feels very well constructed.

Two things I noticed immediately were that the shoe fits a half size small (even compared to other recent NB shoes including the Minimus Trail and MT101) and the forefoot is narrower than other recent NB shoes (widths will be introduced in Fall of 2011).  When researching the specs for this shoe, NB states that they created this shoe from the same Minimus last and that the forefoot width is the same as the shoes named above.  This narrower feel could also be caused by it fitting a bit too small for me, but I still feel like the forefoot was narrower in this shoe just from looking at it.  Due to the snug fit, testing the shoe in my usual fashion a bit difficult, so I was subjugated to a series of 5-7 mile outings on the roads, crushed gravel paths, and bike paths.

New Balance Minimus Road upper lateral white

The women's New Balance Minimus Road.

Upper
The Minimus Road’s upper is plush and, for those indoctrinated  in the practice, could be worn sockless without irritation.  New Balance reverted to very simple laces rather than the bubble laces they’ve been using lately.  The heel collar features ample padding (no achilles irritation here) and the shoe was very comfortable right out of the box.  At first I was disappointed that the upper wasn’t some barely there mesh, but after road tests in colder weather I appreciated the protection of the Minimus’ upper from the elements.  That does not prevent the upper from being breatheable and its tough, dual layered mesh should be plenty durable.

New Balance Minimus Road UpperMidsole
The Minimus Road is a firm ride with the EVA in the midsole feeling more like dual density rather than pillowy foam (compared to a Nike Lunaracer of Saucony Kinvara).  I’m sure this will increase the durability of the shoe and I feel it provides a better road “feel”.  This doesn’t mean that the shoe lacks cushioning, in fact quite the opposite is true.  For comparison’s sake I feel like the closest companion in the current shoe market to the Minimus Road is the Brooks Green Silence.  I find that this firmness increases the propensity of midfoot/ forefoot striking, but whether people like the firmness or not will be a matter of personal taste.  This firmness also increases the amount of support the shoe offers and I feel that it could accommodate neutral runners to mild pronators without issues.

While the name first had me envisioning a barely there racing flat, the Minimus Road is a training or uptempo shoe for everyday running.  I also was surprised by the overall height of the midsole as it puts a significant amount of material between you and the road, something I appreciated.  The minimalist aspect of this shoe is really contained in its low drop and lack of support devices rather than lack of midsole foam.  There really isn’t much in the way of arch support in the Minimus Rd and to NB wearers this is to be expected and appreciated, allowing the arch to function un-impeded by artificial support.

Outsole
The Minimus Road features a grippy outsole consisting of hexagons that do not protrude out from the outsole.  I never experienced traction issues with the outsole and I appreciated that it didn’t get in the way.  The heel of the outsole features carbon rubber and is rounded toward the back of the shoe to decrease heel striking.  I felt that it automatically led me towards a midfoot plant.  There are no flares on the outsole and every edge feels rounded and natural.

New Balance Minimus Road OutsolePerformance
New Balance could have easily made a low profile racing flat style shoe and simply called it the Minimus Road.  However, it would not suffice as a training shoe for those of us out there who don’t feel that our metatarsals were made to pound pavement.  The features of this shoe which make it a unique development are the rounded heel, low drop, and overall durability of this shoe that facilitate it being an everyday trainer.  That being said, the “Born to Run” crowd may be disappointed by this shoe.  Early specs released by New Balance brought jeers regarding the 4mm drop and many wondered why NB didn’t create a zero drop shoe.  I abhor large 12-14 mm drops in running shoes, but I am not someone who could run high mileage on the roads in a zero drop shoe (not yet anyway).  I think that the 4mm drop and significant and firmer cushioning allow the Minimus Road to be worn as an every day high mileage shoe, and not just a training tool as the Minimus Trail is often referred to.  This shoe reminds me of my time working at a running specialty store and finding the trainers and racing flats from the 1970s and 80s before Nike came out with gigantic air pockets.  These shoes were firm, durable, and flat without any bells or whistles.

My own experience in the Minimus Road was that I wanted them to be a half size larger so that I didn’t have to cut my run short for fear of blisters on my toes.  This shoe made me want to get up on my toes and turn the legs over.  In fact my second run in the shoe turned into an improptu tempo run and I felt like the firmness of the midsole aided the shoes transition.  I especially liked wearing this shoe on crushed gravel paths as the firmness of the midsole complemented the softness underfoot.  I enjoyed the simplicity of this shoe and a back to basics approach in construction and features.  Personally, I am pleased that New Balance made a performance oriented shoe with enough protection for high mileage running on the road rather than a prop for the weekend warrior identifying with a fad.  This shoe represents moderation for the minimalist crowd rather than gravitating to the extreme poles.

For a someone who trains on the roads and is looking for a more minimalist shoe I would recommend the Minimus Road as a great shoe to encourage a more natural foot strike.  Transition to this shoe with caution, as the 4mm drop will leave you with sore calves that can pull on that Achilles tendon and pretty soon you’ve got crunchy crepitus buildup around an inflamed Achilles tendon.  NB even includes a warning for new folks transitioning to minimalism.  I have no doubt that this shoe could withstand 500 miles of road running and could function as an everyday trainer.  However, I would be very careful about rotating a shoe with a 4mm drop with a shoe with a traditional 12-14 mm heel drop as you may experienced the aforementioned issues.  And remember, buy a half size up!

Availability
The men’s Minimus Road will be available in the blue/green and black/red versions seen above. The women will have a white/orange version. All colors will be available at the initial March 1 release. The shoes will retail for $100.

Call for Comments
Are you looking forward to trying this shoe? Do you favor or incorporate minimalist shoes into your road running?

New Balance Minimus Road river

Tom Caughlan

is iRunFar’s Minimalist Gear Editor. Tom’s passion for trail running and specialty running retail experience shine through in all of his highly technical reviews, which do range outside minimalist shoes.

There are 70 comments

  1. Turi

    I've been trying to move my road running in a more minimalist direction, and am looking forward to giving these a try. From what you say about fit, I'll definitely try a pair on before I order them –

  2. Tobias

    Thanks for the great review. I'm looking forward to trying these out when they're available to regular people. I've been training in flats on pavement for shorter runs (under 7 miles). And, I certainly agree that a little extra cushioning between the road and my feet would be nice for my metastertials. So, I've been looking for an adequate long-distance road trainer. But, I've been dissatisfied with the options. As you mentioned, the Kinvara and Nike Frees have a pillowy cushioning, which I don't like. And, the firmer cushioned shoes, like the Green Silence or (my current distance road trainer) the Mizuno Ronin 2, have a heel-to-toe drop that's well over 4mm. So, I'm really anxious to try on the New Balance Minimus Road shoes!

  3. Surfing Vol

    I was not planning on buying the Minimus Road — until I read your review. I have Kinvaras and New Balance MT101s in my rotation, along with Puma FAAS 300s, and I'm a big guy. Low drop shoes feel good and encourage good form. I've had no problem running in the low drop shoes, except that I got Achilles tendinitis following my last half that I ran in the Kinvaras. I'm not sure whether to blame low-drop shoes for the AT, and I'm able to run and am on the verge of being back to 100%.

    Regardless, based on my experience in the MT101s and your review, I'm going to buy a pair of Minimus Roads.

  4. Tyro

    I've put in a year with LaSportiva Crosslites (same 10-11mm heel drop as the MT 101s) and am chomping at the bit to get something flatter. My plan is to get the Minimus Trails (rather than the Trail Glove because my feet are too soft & need the extra protection) and just use them for the few occasions I run on the road. If I start training for a road marathon again, the Minimus Road will be high on the list.

  5. Martha

    I'm definitely looking forward to trying these — I've been doing some of my shorter road runs in Nike Free shoes, and I love them, but I don't love that the Nike sole constantly picks up rocks which can't be dislodged easily. I've also just bought a pair of the WT101's to try on the trails. Thanks for the very thorough review!

  6. Tom Caughlan

    I'm not sure what the price will be, I would think reasonably around $85. It looks like the best data I can find regarding release date is 3/1/11. The wait is almost over!

  7. Paul D.

    Any idea what colors will be available? I heard from a NB dealer that black/red will be available first with blue/green in May, not sure if this is true though.

  8. Mariko

    I tried these and found what you found–smaller than usual NB shoes and narrower as well. It really felt like it was built on a much narrower last than normal (I run in the 101s). The ride was really nice, though, so maybe I will size up yet again and give them another shot!

  9. Hugh

    I'm doing my first 50 miler this year and am looking for a lightweight shoe that will do the job. I currently run in NB MT101 for trails but find after 20+ miles on the pavement, my feet really start hurting and metatarsals are barking at me. Ditto for my Saucony Shay XC flats which are fine on the track or road races <10 miles.

    My default road shoe is the Adidas Supernova Sequence 2. Not in love with this shoe even with my razor blade mods as it is too narrow in the toe box and has WAY too much heel drop, weight and heel pad. I have a relatively wide forefoot so the Minumus Road may not be the best bet. Any other suggestions?

  10. Chris

    Bryon,

    I've been running on the MT101's for the past 4 months. Do you think there would be a big difference with the heel drop if I switch to this shoe for road running or maybe not as bad compared coming from a typical running shoe?

    Thanks,

    Chris

    1. Bryon Powell

      Switching from the MT101 to the Minimus Road would represent a significant change. You would still need to slowly and carefully transition. Your foot may be stronger from the MT101, but your lower legs aren't used to such a small heel-to-drop.

      1. Tom Caughlan

        I would guess the heel drop is approximately 18mm to 13mm. But, I don't have official stats on that.

        Antirabbit,

        The Kinvara feels quite a bit softer underfoot and the upper is quite a bit looser and more minimalist. I think that the Minimus Rd offers more support just due to the midsole foam being firmer. The upper of the NB fits and feels more like that of a traditional road shoe.

        1. Antirabbit

          Tom,

          Thanks. Ive been in the Kinvara's since the came out. I very much like them, but find my feet want less marshmallow feel at times. Feels really cool for a 8-10 miles, but I feel it gives way after an hour or so, perhaps the firmer feel is better for the long haul.

          I really want to try these out!

  11. Andy

    If I read the review correctly, widths will be available for the minimus road in the fall? True also of the minimus trail? I'm already rocking a size 13 in the MT101 to fit my width so it'd be pretty sweet to more true to my size with a width option.

  12. David

    It seems that the last used for the Minimus Road is different than that for the Minimus Trail (in spite of advertising to the contrary). Why would they do that? I just got the Trail Gloves, and LOVE the open feeling of the forefoot and toes. I was hoping for something similar in the Minimus Road, but alas, I may need to wait for the Altra line in another 6 weeks…

  13. Andrew

    I just bought a pair of the Road Minimus and found there to be ample room in the toebox (felt like my feet were swimming). I have logged many miles in the MT101s and feel that there is at least as much width in the forefoot if not more in the Minimus (This after only one short run in the Roadies)

  14. Todd

    Just read on their site that the Altra's now have a release date of May/June. Previously, it read April. Not sure if they are getting delayed or what. I've been waiting patiently for them. In the meantime, I snagged a pair of Minimus Road and I have to say, I love them!

  15. Jim Rossi

    I went from the NB 883 straight to barefoot, then to Vibrams. Other than sore calves, which eventually strengthen, I had no issues. I ran NYC in 2009, then the LI Half in 2010, and soon after went shoeless. Since then, I've been slowly relearning the form, and am up to 4.5 miles in VFF's with no problems. Changing my form has allowed the pain in my ankle's soft tissue to heal, though. And at this point I have come to love the feel of the ground. I can't go back to the 883's. Maybe I'll try the NB Min Roads in the fall when it gets cold, but for now I just love the "barefoot" feeling.

  16. Greg

    I purchased the trail minimus and the road minimus 2 days ago. Today I ran a 6 hour trail training run with the trail minimus. I didn't wear any socks and had not even a hint of a blister. Trails varied from carriage trail to single track; rocky to pine needle footing. The shoe feels great although, in a perfect world, I would like a little arch support. I found the shoes to fit true to size for me.

    I will incorporate the road shoe into my training starting Monday and I hope it feels as good as the trail shoe.

    Greg

  17. Jake

    If New Balance has created such a minimalistic shoe with a "back-to-basics" feel, look, and construction, then why does the shoe need to be $100? (Assuming, of course, that New Balance is using less materials on all aspects.) Although I would rather the NB Minimus line vs. Nike's Free+, at least the Nike Free+'s only cost $85, whereas the Minimus line will exceed $100.

    Some may argue that "It's only $15. C'mon, mate!" Sure. Whatever. But I am partial to thinking that New Balance is taking advantage of the new barefoot running craze by increasing the cost of a shoe line that surely does not cost near as much to manufacture as their other, non-minimalist lines.

    New Balance is in it for the buck, just like Merrel.

    1. Bryon Powell

      Just three quick thoughts: (1) Not all materials cost the same. Perhaps materials used in lighter shoes cost more… that's sure the case in other sports. Plus, there's the quality of materials needed to be worn without socks. (2) The construction parameters are likely much higher on a pair of shoes like this than a run of the mill road running shoes. The interior construction of the Minimus Trail is phenomenal. (3) Why shouldn't a company charge what the market will bear? That's how the whole system works, right?

      1. Jake

        Thanks, Bryon. I suppose I hadn't considered points 1 and 2. The system, referencing point 3, works as you mentioned; however, analysis and research shows it can work better as much lower costs. However, this surely isn't an economics discussion.

        Thank you for your honest insights. I'm actually quite excited for the Minimus Road and Life. I know of another shoe tester who has actually began running in the Life and shelving his Road. He claims the Life offer him more of a barefoot feel without the "minor" arch support of the Road.

  18. Dan

    I tried on the Roads today and must say I was pretty disappointed. They are WAY more shoe than I was expecting. I used to run in the Kinvaras and they are definitely more "minimal" than the Minimus. For a long while I've been looking for an alternative to the Nike Free 3.0 because I've always had the impression that the Frees are gimmicky for whatever reason. After trying on a bunch of different minimalist shoes I've come to realize that the 3.0's are in my opinion the best things out there. Compared to other shoes the 3.0's are lighter, less supportive, more flexible, and cheaper.

    On a different note, the Trail are completely different from the Road. I really like the Trail version.

    1. Ben

      I'm not so sure about Dan's statement of the Kinvara being "way" more minimalist than the Minimus. I've put over 500 miles in the Kinvara and have been aching to get something with a wider toebox. The minimus road offer just that. They also seem to ride a little lower than the Kinvara. They are definitely of the same vein though. Dan, you should check out terra plana EVO.

    2. Dan

      I didn't mean my comment sound like the Kinvaras are way more minimal than the Roads, just that the Roads are way more shoe than I was expecting. I don't have a lot of mileage experience to speak on the Roads but my initial impression is that they were more shoe than the Kinvaras. I do agree with you about the ride of the Kinvara, you do seem to feel up on a platform with them but I tended to get the same impression with the Roads. I'm still not sure why minimal shoes still need around 15 mm of chushioning in the forefoot.

      The EVOs are something I would like to try out but they are pretty expensive. I have a pair of dressy Terra Plana shoes I was able to snag off The Clymb and I love them.

  19. Leon

    I'm with Andrew, John. I run in MT101's and have a pair of Minimus Trail and both of those shoes are narrower than the Minimus Road. In fact, I'd say that it's the Minimus Trail that I'd buy "up" a half-size. Unless you actually wear Wides, I don't think the Minimus Road is going to strike you as particulary narrow, especially with the forgiving materials in the upper.

  20. Sammy V

    I've been running a couple of years in lighter, but not minimalist shoes. I'm wanting to make the move. I can't decide between the Kinvara and the Minimus Road. Any insights?

  21. Wendi

    The Minimus and the Nike Free are NOT the same! I have tried both and love the Minimus. The Nike Free has a larger heel and does not really encourage a midfoot strike in the same way. No comparison really in my opinion.

  22. Wendi

    I have been running in my Minimus Road shoes for a week now and really like them. Aside from some calf soreness on the left side, which I know will diminish as I get accustomed to them, these shoes perform very well. They are lightweight, have a wide forefoot, and a very comfortable fit (I didn't have to buy a size up or down). I live in Minnesota where barefoot running or Vibrams aren't a good idea in the winter, so this is my transition shoe until warmer, safer running comes. It has been great!

  23. Sam

    Just picked up a pair after a demo/form running workshop from NB. I have a little soreness in my arch, but I know that's because of form.

  24. Jeff K

    Your Achilles is due to forefoot or midstrike running. When you land on your forefoot you put undo pressure on your calves and Achilles which is why a lot of mid strikers get Achilles injuries. landing flat foot will get the best of both worlds but will also wear out shoes much faster

    1. briderdt

      Um… NO! How, then, would you explain achilles tendonitis in heel striking runners? Forefoot landing doesn't put undo tension (it's not "pressure", as you can't push on a tension member), STAYING on the forefoot does, which isn't correct form. And the only reason your shoes would wear out faster is if you're shearing them at the ground. Your foot should be landing with no forward or backward movement relative to the ground. I guess what I'm getting at is that if any of the things that you profess are true, then "you're doing it wrong".

      1. Jeff K

        Brideedt, nobody is exempt from Achilles injuries but generally speaking most midfoot and forefoot strikers can be more prone to this type of injury because you are putting more pressure on the Achilles causing it to stretch more and also putting more pressure on the calves. This of course does not mean everybody who forefoot strikes will get an injury and why you only increase 10% a week. However, midstrike you got the wrong definition of what it is supposed to be. Your foot is to hit the ground right behind the ball of your foot and not forefoot. That still places pressure on your AChilles but not as much as a forefoot striker. It is advised for full marathon that you land more flat footed to avoid undo stress on Achilles. There are a lot of misconceptions about running and injuries but I am a sub3 marathoner so I think my knowledge far exceeds most average joes who are middle of packers.

        1. briderdt

          Speed is not indication of knowledge. I've known plenty of fast cyclists and runners who have no clue. But if it's speed you want, then I'll put up my 15 and change 5K and 1:05 half marathons. And the answer to that would be "So what?"

          The only reason that there is undo "pressure" (which I disagree, and if you thought about physics or mechanics, you'd know is an incorrect term) on the achilles is if you don't relax the lower leg on footstrike (whether midfoot or forefoot), and if you don't allow the achilles and calves to stretch and adapt.

          The podiatry industry loves to trump out all the injuries from "too much too soon" as the evils of barefoot running or bareform running. The fact is that if some one did ANYTHING too often without adaptation, it would cause injury.

          Anyway, I'm done with this. Try looking around the other bareform running sites for an education, and have fun thinking your sub-3 marathon is all that and a bag of chips.

          1. Jeff K

            Briderdt, you are funny. I doubt your a 1:05 half marathoner based on your original comments that are black and white thinking, not to mention I highly doubt a world class runner would be wasting their time on this board. You may not think a sub3 time is good but I am 45 years old so I think you are pretty wrong on that considering my age. i.e., "the only reason there is undo pressure….etc…etc… there is no one absolute reason why Achilles get inflammmed. There could be several factors that can contribute. If avoiding Achilles was so easy, then every Jane, Dick, and Joe could easily formulate a way not to get injured. But generally speaking, landing on your forefoot over a long distance probably greater than a half marathon one would stress out the tendons regardless. In fact there are experts which I will include if need be, that have proposed that mid strikers and forefoot runners for full marathons should land more flat footed to avoid injuring the achilles from putting too much pressure.

  25. Jeff K

    John, narrow I gurantee that they are not. In fact they are wide for D normal with. I was hoping to find ones that are narrower.

  26. Whitney

    I agree about these shoes being plenty wide enough. I usually run in Vibram KSOs, but wanted something a little less extreme for occasionally resting my calves/ankles. I tried on several pairs of minimalist-transition shoes including the NB Minimus Road, the Adidas Adizero, Brooks Green Silence, etc., and settled on the Minimus because my wide feet had plenty of room to splay out in the toebox.

  27. Whitney

    I haven't run in both, but I tried both on in the store on the same day and did a test lap or two around the store in each, and I agree with Tom when he says that the Kinvara is much more pillowy. The Minimus is flexible and offers what feels like firmer, denser cushioning and a better road feel, while the Kinvara feels "squishier" and is more of a softer ride. They have the same 4mm drop (from what I have read), but the Kinvara feels thicker as a whole and you can't feel the ground as much.

    1. Jeff K

      Whitney, my Minimus I have I only use for short tempo runs. I did use them at race pace 7:00 pace on a 20 miler and they really beat your body up. The Kinvara's will be much more appreciated and they are also 1/2 ounce lighter than minimus

  28. Jeff K

    The Kinvara's are a lot better overall. They are also exactly 1/2 ounces lighter than Minimus. People who like the concept of "barefoot" will argue "Minimus" is better but most serious full marathoners who are sub3 will prefer the Kinvara's as they are also flats, but Saucany was smart enough to make the heel a little raised to allow the Achilles to not have to support the full blunt of landing. The Minimus forces you to run on your forefoot which I don't care how carefully you get your body adjusted to it, the shoes will eventually make your Achilles sore and lead to injury. Minimus is good for ultramarathoners who are running at a slower pace but the faster you go, a sub3 marathoner will not want a racing flat that is hard as a brick.

  29. Shooter

    I love these running shoes! They are without a doubt the best shoe for people wanting to transition to minimalist running. They have more room in the toe box than my old Asics GT2150’s so you really can splay your toes out to get a relaxed landing. I went for my first 2.5 mile run in them today and had no issues at all. I’ve been transitioning to minimalist running by using my old Asics and running more flat-to-fore foot. This process for me has been a 7 month journey. I now run about 23 miles a week with my long runs of 8 miles in this manner. Today, I hopped on the treadmill at lunch time to test drive my new Minimus running shoes and the feeling of running/landing is so different. My feet are a little more sensitive after the run due to the reduced shoe padding, but my feet will toughen up in the next couple of weeks…kind of like marathon training when you hit new mileage plateaus and your feet have that “I’m tired!” feeling!! Overall, these are exactly the kind of shoe I’m looking for; A transition to more natural running without going to the Vibram FF’s. Why did I start on this path? I read “Born To Run” and was so inspired by the authors journey. After suffering from “runners knee” for the past 6 years, I am completely pain free since I’ve switched to a mid/fore foot strike – and New Balance Minimus is going to be my new BFF.

    -Cheers all

  30. GeeDee

    I bought these shoes two weeks ago and have done 3 runs in them, one of 6.5 miles, then 5.5 and then 8.5.

    I started running in April '10 and used plimsolls first (due to not being able to afford shoes!) and then went for a pair of Nike TR Free's, which have been my only shoes up until buying the NB Minimus.

    I really wanted a pair of shoes that were lighter, thinner soled and more neutral than the Free's I have, so I was very interested in the Minimus Road. In fact, one of the main selling points for me was that I read on a number of occasions about the wide toe box, toes being a problem area for me ever since I bought the Free's.

    So, I love the look of them, love the whole philosophy behind them, love the sole. However, I have a few bugbears which is hard for me to admit because I really, really, want to love this shoe and more importantly, can't afford to just go out a get another pair of shoes anytime soon!

    The toebox is a major disappointment for me, rather than feeling wider than the Free's, it actually feels a lot narrower, and does a hell of a job of pulling the outsides of your toes inward as much as possible, hence, a ton of fresh new blisters, and blisters in places I never used to get them before.

    Maybe it's because the sole, as much as people want to think so, isn't a million miles away from the Free's, in terms of being thin and not having much drop from the heel to toe, but I didn't really feel this 'encouragement' to run midfoot that people seem to detect.

    I guess really that's it actually! The toebox, and the 'not feeling the natural pull towards midfoot' thing. But the toebox, like I say, a major disappointment – the whole show fits narrow, which is great around your heel and midfoot but on the toes, on a nearly-neutral lightweight shoe like this, I think they missed a real trick in not making the toebox extremely wide, so you could fit your toes almost splayed out if you so felt, or at least a more 'free' feeling.

    Bottom line is I'm going to stick with them, because I want so much to 'click' with this shoe, but if the toe blisters persist then back to the Nike Free's I go!

    Although it doesn't encourage midfoot running, it does help when you are adjusting your form to midfoot, which is what I'm currently doing, hence the sore calves! Although they're designed to be worn sockless, for me, doing that straight off wasn't a great idea and to be honest although I like the idea of it, I doubt I will be doing that again.

    One thing I have got from this shoe, and the Free's I own, is that I know now I can run on a thinner sole, I don't really feel the 'stiffness' many people talk about on this shoe though. I also now know that my next shoe absolutely must have a wide toebox.

    Pros: lightweight / looks good / low profile / better to run on midfoot than in usual chunky-heeled shoes

    Cons: narrow fit / tiny toebox / feeling of 'minimal/midfoot/neutral-ness' not as apparent as I thought it would have been straight off (but that could just be because I've never ran in, or even owned a pair of 'traditional' running shoes).

  31. dfrank511

    just ordered my second pair of these – cuz i found them for $65 on ebay (maybe they're not selling so well?) anyway, i really like these shoes a lot (obviously). they are a nice compromise to zero drop shoes, which my legs didn't agree with during marathon training last year. the 4mm drop seems to be perfect for me and the undercut heel is awesome. can any others out there who are using these tell me how many miles you are getting out of these? i am @ 400ish and use them for all of my road miles (anywhere from 5 to 25 mile runs).

  32. Rick

    I've had Achilles problems on and off for years.. I read 'Born to Run'.last year became interested in Barefoot runinng .. Tried the vikram but they did not work out..never got used to the 5 finger deaign and found they were too hard on myfeet..Next was the Nike Free.. Which I found too be very comfortable but too soft for running.. Been running in the minimus for the last 6 months..gradually increasing distances . with goal of running NYC marathon in November…having one several 10k's and recently 2 halves with them.. without a recurrence of my Achilles Tendonitis ..I have on occasion tried to mix it up and tried running with my old stabiliized NB sneakers , but it as like running with cement blocks on my feet..no going back .. The Minimus can be hard on the calves..and require adjusting your foot strike to compensate..and I am still working on that.. But that has mostly been soreness not injury . I highly recommend transitioning into these sneakers slowly .. over a period of time . a mile or 2 at first..with gradual increases over a period of a month or so.

  33. Rishi

    Could someone tell me if the trail shoes are good to use on a treadmill. i am not a professional runner but i prefer the lighter shoes. i got the trail minimus in black as i absolutely adore the feeling on my feet when i wear them. it feels similar to my first running shoe the adizero in yellow..introduced during the football worldcup in korea.

  34. Nigel

    I don't like these shoes to much. I bought a pair and what ends up happening to me is my joints start hurting rate after each run. I'm not sure why. Maybe because the bottom of the shoe is very hard. The shoes just doesn't let you land naturaly like a vibram does. If you want to go minimus with less joint pain get a pair of vibram's.

  35. Chin Wui Mon

    Hi There,

    Been running with Minimus Road for a while but usually not more than 7-9 km.I find it rather too firm but i do like the forefoot area being wide n the lightness as well. Would you recommend this shoes for a road marathon use?

  36. Matt

    Has anyone else found that the construction of the shoe while standing causes your foot to roll inward when you stand there. I did not feel this when I was trying them on at a major store. I came home and ordered the shoes online and felt this immediately upon putting them on. I have been running barefoot for about 2 1/2 years so I know this is not the position my foot is striking the ground in. It seems to put a lot of pressure on the outside of my big toe. I just wanted to see if anyone else had experience this. Maybe I am weird or maybe I got a defective pair of shoes. There is also the possibility that this shoe just isnt right for me.

  37. mike

    Matt,
    Yes. I notified the same inward roll when standing, much more on my right side than left. I also was thinking my shoes might be defective. I don't really notice it when running though. It also seems to be getting better as I get more mileage on them. I only have about 20 miles on them so far. I have had some calf soreness but I am stepping down from Nike Bowermans–big change.

  38. Matt

    Mike,

    Thanks for your input. It appears we are not alone in this. I must say I am not blown away with the shoe so far. I wish they would have made the outsole flat instead of trying to pitch the shoe so it puts your foot in the position that "they" think it should be in.

  39. John doe

    If I may make one suggestion. I used to own a pair of these but it was a bit heavy, too firm and I didn't like the way they felt. Since then I have switched to Saucony Hatori's and they are so much lighter and better

  40. André

    Hi, I from Brazil and started running with this shoes.. I like minimalist style, and a running 5km for day and 5 days of week.

  41. Bill

    I've been using NB Minimus Road for 6 months now, mainly in 10K and 21K. I switched to minimal shoes coming from those thick padded Adidas shoes and before I used to get injured almost every long runs. When I switched to NB Minimus Road, I've had no injuries since and my pace increased. I enjoy running more now. I'm doing my first marathon in 4 weeks and will trust it with this pair. I think I'm gonna need to buy a new same pair, hope there is still out there. I simply love this shoes.

Post Your Thoughts