New Balance MT1010 Review

The New Balance Minimus Trail (MT10) is known for its sock-like fit, highly flexible sole, and minimal protection from sharp rocks. The New Balance MT1010 (also know as the Minimus Amp) aims to change that with a more generous fit in the forefoot, a much more aggressive lug pattern, a rockplate that provides ample protection, but still maintains the MT10’s ideals of lightweight minimalist trail running. [Note: You can learn additional details about the shoe in our New Balance MT1010 preview.]

New Balance MT1010

The New Balance MT1010.

When you first try on the shoe, you’ll notice much more roomy fit for natural toe splay. I found going a half size smaller worked well for most of my 1-2 hour runs, but I needed my regular 10.5 for ultra distances. The toebox is slightly pointed and features a suede-like toe cap with a few key overlays that provide a durable blister-free fit up front. The midfoot and heel are looser than the MT10, but still provide a good firm fit. Overlays are thin and precise and add to the lightweight feeling of the shoe. A heel counter is included, but it is a very flexible plastic piece that accommodates a variety of foot types.

New Balance MT1010 - upper

The New Balance MT1010’s upper.

Throughout the product development process the Revlite midsole was wear tested at different durometers, and eventually a firmer formula won out. In general, the MT1010 is a bit more cushioned than the original Minimus, but it is far from mushy. Where this shoe shines is in the responsive rockplate and super grippy lugs. The forefoot experience is spot on and gives a solid blend of proprioception, protection, and grip. The added rockplate definitely extends the range of the Minimus Amp for minimalist ultrarunners, but it does not lend any extra features like arch support or extra heel cushion found in other minimalist ultra shoes. In fact, the arch is comprised of three foam lugs that create the barefoot sensation of a “floating arch.” Grip is maximized through 19 lugs with sharp ridges locking in immediately on impact. The spacing between the lugs kicks in two fold in soft terrain, and provides solid grip everywhere from Pacific Northwest mud to Colorado scree to California silt to Appalachian rock fields. All these features come together to give a combination of grip, proprioception, protection, flexibility, and freedom.

New Balance MT1010 - outsole

The New Balance MT1010 outsole. (Note: The production model uses a Vibram outsole.)

The Minimus line is founded on the ideals of low drop, flexibility, and proprioception in a lightweight package. The MT1010 brings these ideals to runners that find themselves on rocky trails with long distance ambitions. The shoe retails for $110 while it weighs in at 7.5 ounces with a 4 mm heel-to-toe drop.

Call for Comments (from Bryon)

Since the MT1010 is already trickling onto the market, we should be able to have lots of feedback from reader. So…

  • What are the New Balance MT1010’s strengths?
  • What are the MT1010’s weaknesses?

[Editor’s Note: The reviewer is a New Balance athlete who we feel was able to provide insight into the development of the shoe as well as an extremely in-depth account of the differences between the MT1010 and the MT10 based on a large amount of actual mileage that other runners have not yet be able to log.]

There are 210 comments

  1. tom

    great shoes! love them. good article.

    one remark though: after a bit less than 5000 m (16500 ft) of "climbing" in them (and some 80 km (50 miles), the inner lugs on the rear of the shoe started to get off. mainly running in pretty rocky terrain, the rockplate did a great job, but the issue with the lugs!? anyone experienced something similar?

          1. Dom

            Stack hights seem like a simple thing to measure, but on well lugged shoes, different measurements can come about. I think the running warehouse measurement might be off the thickest lug and the new balance one off the rock plate. It's 'feels' like it's around 14/18 but that's just a feel.

  2. Justin McMillan

    Thanks for the review. I just got some MT110s on sale for $55. I loved the 101s, but they are not around anymore. I have a question for anyone: why would somebody choose the 1010s over the 110s? Is it just personal preference? Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks!

    1. HP

      Justin, I think it would mainly be for the bigger stack heights. Gives a more cushioned ride. I love my 110s but switched over to Vertical Ks for that reason.

    2. Bryon Powell

      For the many of us who are neither anatomically gifted nor dedicated to wearing the least amount of shoe possible, the MT1010 offers a wider platform for great stability and, seemingly, more protection. While I've yet to go long in either the MT110 or MT1010, I'd feel much more comfortable attempting an ultra distance run in the MT1010.

    3. Dom

      One thing I wish I'd differentiated more in the article is that the Minimus concept is geared more towards foot strengthening in training, and not such as much a racing platform.

      In training, I enjoy the 1010 a lot because it rides better for me running 60-80% intensity. In racing 80-100% effort, I like the snugger fit of the 110. For me, I use the 1010 much more than the 110 because I have a few thousand miles to run a year in training and just a few hundred to race.

    4. Mariko

      I have worn the 101s for several years now, and when they were discontinued, I tried the 110s. I had to return them because they were too narrow in the midfoot (I guess I have wide feet all over and not just in the toe box area). They are built on different lasts. The 1010s are built on the same last as the 110s (NL-1), I believe. I am ever hopeful, though, that maybe the 1010s will fit my duck feet.

  3. Andy

    There has already been a fair amount of discussion/review over at the original iRF 1010 preview, with some mixed opinions. Others have noted the lugs peeling away, and one of mine has already started after only 30+ miles on moderately rocky terrain.

    The 1010 is very comfy, roomier and softer than the 110, and thankfully doesn't suffer the raised lateral edge that has dogged its cousin's first iteration. Still not sure how they (I) will fare over ultra distance in them but plan to find out in the coming month. No, it's not the perfect shoe, but perhaps the yearning is part of the game …

    1. Dom

      I have to ask what production model you're running in, we did have problems in the orange mesh colorway, and my black/blue production model has been bombproof for 100 miles.

      I think it is one of the more perfect training shoes. I don't have many races that I'd pick it as the best shoe to race in, but it was never intended to be that. The 110v2 will be that ;)

      1. Andy

        Thanks Dom. My first pair is the black/blue, though I have a second pre-ordered pair on the way that I belive is black/red. I'm sure many of us will be trying the 1010 for upcoming ultra-distance races and it will be interesting to see how things play out. As a mid-packer I'm not worried about bombing down the course as much as whether they will provide comfort and snug enough support and traction over the long haul. In the meantime, will eagerly await the 110v2!

  4. dogrunner

    I'm looking forward to the revised 110 (without the high lateral edge), but ordered the 1010 for trails that demand greater underfoot protection. I'll see how these work, but I'm especially interested in how they fit. One thing that NB has over every other shoe I have tried (many!) is real options for wider feet. I think the last is a little funky (at least not shaped like my foot, so maybe it is my feet that are odd-shaped), but the 2EE width of the 110 and especially the 4EE width of the Minimus Zero Trail have given my toes plenty of room. The other attraction for me to the 1010 is that they promise more foot protection but not at the cost of higher weight. We'll see how that goes too. My biggest concern is that they not be too cushy. Cushioned shoes always mess with my knees (I guess I have weak ab/adductors ;) ). This review gives me some hope that the cushioning will not be excessive.

    1. Andy

      I don't think you'll find the cushion excessive, but certainly more than the 1010. I also have put a few miles on a pair of Brooks PureGrits and would say the feel is not entirely different, though the PureGrit is ever-so-slightly cushier and a bit looser, less foot-cradling all around.

    2. Anonymous

      It seems like NB is the only company making trail running shoes for (truly) wide feet. Montrail seems to have stopped a few years ago. It makes online shopping easy, but no stores ever carry wide models in stock for trying on.

    3. fitz

      I'm with you on the last. It's not perfect for me either, but in the wide version I can get by. I like the 110. Interested in this shoe too though as I've peaked out at about 20 miles in them and I have my first 50 this fall and I need a second pair of shoes…. another 110 or these 1010 is my question now.

      To Anonymous's point … I hear what you are saying about trying to find wide options. The Altra last is great for me, but the Lone Peak is too "hefty" for me. It's a gamble buying anything on line, but the only way.

  5. Dom

    Which production run did you get? Pre-production (orange mesh) model had some faulty glue that went out on me too. The factory fixed that problem for the production models for sale now.

    1. Anonymous

      Well, ordernd "normally" in Germany (living in Austria). They are orange/Blue with Orange lugs and a yellow rockplate… thanks for the Information!

  6. Dom

    I've ran in the PureGrit and think these two shoes are going at the minimalist training in different ways. The PureGrit offers a bit thicker cushion 20/16 (8.9oz) to make up for it's lack of a rockplate, and the 1010 feels thinner 14/10 (7.5oz) and more responsive with the rockplate. The PureGrit has a bevel under the arch that gives a little more support on long runs, the 1010 avoids support and gives that "floating arch" feeling with the foam lugs. I think you'll notice a bit more proprioception and grip in the 1010, and a bit more support and cushion in the PureGrit. Still, similar concepts.

  7. Guy C.

    Thanks for the review. I use a more substantial shoe (Cascadia 7), but would like something lighter –but still with enough support– for shorter mountain runs (14-33K), as many of them are here around Mexico City).

    Dominic, would you wear these for the AC 100 if you were to run it again?

    1. Dom

      I definitely train in these on the AC course, but for racing I'd probably go with a 1400 with some trail modifications. Everyone has different opinions on drop, and I think low drop is a huge benefit in training, but not always in competitive racing.

      1. David Henry

        Curious what the "trail modifications" are for the 1400…seems like they need a rock plate to me. I'd swear they aren't any thicker in forefoot stack than the Road Zeros and can't imagine running anything very technical in them. I also have trouble handling the drop in both the 1400 and 890v2. I want to like both those shoes, but something missing for me (maybe a tad soft on trails).

        MT1010s look good and I have some on the way so I'm excited to give them a spin. Mainly racing in MT110s now and training in racing flats (Nike Streak XC and Adidas Hagio) and more recently running some in the Inov-8 Trailrocs. Tons of good options out and/or coming out in the near future!

        1. Dom

          Drop is a highly personal thing with trail runners. You can take the top 5 guys at Western States or North Face and find no consistent trend.

          I think the 1400 and 890v2 aren't the best for technical terrain, but the 1400 does let you open up your stride on things like cruiser singletrack and fireroad and the 890v2 does a stellar job protecting your feet in a tough 100 miler. The 110 is super precise on technical trails but they give up some cushion on exposed fireroads. When it comes down to it, the best feeling is having exactly what you need for the task at hand; nothing lacking and nothing getting in the way.

          1. Dom

            Oh and their is a demmand for a trail 1400, no design work yet. In the meantime I add some rubber on the foam cut-out under the pinky toe, and trim in the heel.

  8. MikeC AK

    The 110 and mt10 are my favorite trail shoes. It looks like the 1010 is a little looser in the heel, hope its not too dramatic.

    My only complaint on the 110 is the tread doesn't stand up to alpine scree abuse, most shoes don't though..

    1. Dom

      I appreciate the lugs on 90% of terrain, but that rare exception is super sharp and wet rocks that are narrow enough to get to the plastic rock plate i.e. alpine scree. Tony's rigorous mountain running demands are going to be seen in the 110v2.

      1. David Henry

        I was hoping the 110v2 was going to head in a more mountain running direction…sounds like it will be a killer shoe and a type of shoe (mountain oriented) I've been longing for a company like New Balance to make.

  9. amg

    These look and sound great, esp. considering NB doesn't stock the 110 in New Zealand. My concern is the space between the lugs. Or is the combination of exposed rockplate and midsole sufficient enough protection? Of course it will depend on terrain I guess. (My normal running trails are generally very hard-packed in summer with lots of volcanic rock, turning pretty muddy in winter.)



    1. Dom

      The 1010 will slice through the mud, but volcanic rock is a tough surface for minimalist shoes. Depends how you run, but it should protect your foot well enough at the very least.

      1. amg

        Sounds good. I like to use my Frees during summer anyway, but they are no good in the winter slop. These are definitely worth a try. Thanks for the review.

    2. Steve T


      Hi, I live in NZ too and had a pair of 110s shipped from Zombie Runner(out of Calif.US).

      They shipped them to my door within 6 days and cost exactly NZ$123, freight included. Have had them out through the Hunua Ranges here in Auckland and they have been great so far. I don't find them too thin although I have been wearing the MT10s for a year or so. I plan to train in and race them at the Tarawera Ultra in March.

      Good Luck


  10. Rob - Alexandria, VA

    Interesting comments about the Pure Grit's lack of traction. I've definitely experienced that over the past few months while running on even well-groomed trail. I'm getting ready to try the MT110 for the groomed stuff and the 1010/Amp on more technical trail. Looking forward to seeing whether NB has dialed a shoe that provides the right balance of minimalism and bombproof protection on technical trail.

  11. Scott

    It's good to hear they widened the toe box some. That was the reason I didn't enjoy the feel of the MT110. Or the plastic-y feel of the upper.

    Lack of stable feeling traction has me passing on these… Lately that foam is appearing in many a midsole. It doesn't , to me, seem to be conducive to traction , especially not laterally. These "bubble pod" outsoles/midsoles that NB keeps using seem to be designed more for the visual composition of the shoe rather than actual functionality of the traction.

    1. Dom

      The spread out bubbles help to keep the shoe more flexible a normal sheet of rubber. The rubber pods have a sawtooth pattern that lock firmly in any terrain on the uphill: if it's soft, the pods sink in down to the rock plate; if it's hard, the rubber teeth lock in.

      The foam pods under the arch are to discourage the use of pronation support. Other models give wedges under the arch to provide support, but the Minimus line is focused on developing the arch. Initially a pronator might feel like there's a hole in the arch, but as they strengthn their foot, they'll find it floats more and the foam pods under the arch aren't even used.

  12. Brian K

    I was dreaming about a Minimus with a rock-plate for these Pa/Ny trails virtually from the first time I took the original MT10's out for more than two hours. Unfortunately it looks like that in addition to giving us the rock-plate, they've also taken away the glove fit and lower stack height that made the MT10 so appealing to me. I haven’t worn the 1010’s yet but it seems like they’ve, more or less, designed it to replace the 110’s. I’d expect the 110 line to be discontinued next year, if it hasn’t been already, assuming they are trying to get all their minimal trail shoes under one moniker (Minimus). I’ll still be buying a pair of 1010’s, but I still think they should take an MT10, stick a forefoot rock-plate in it, stick a sliver more rubber under the heel to maintain the 4mm drop, and call it good.

    1. Dom

      You can definitely expect to see a reinvented perfomance trail/mountain running flat in the 110v2 (already in prototyping). I'd argue that the Nike Free collection hasn't taken away from Nike's racing flats, and New Balance hasn't shrunk their performace trail line with the addition of the Minimus collection.

      Placing a rockplace in an existing model isn't quite as simple as it sounds (you can actually try it on your own with a good saw, some plastic, and shoegoo). The less there is to a shoe, the easier it is to make it fit like a glove. However when you add a rockplate, the forefoot requires some addition/subtraction of rubber and foam to deliver a good forefoot feel.

      The 1010 is designed to help trail runners transfer to minimalist trail running and also give minimus runners more protection. The 1010 was not designed as a racing platform, but it might be the ticket for some runners. (I've seen people finish 50 mile races in the minimus recovery shoe MX10). Hope this helps!

  13. Hone

    Dom- I am currently trying to get in shape for my first 5k and need a shoe that will get me to the finish live in one piece. I only have 5 weeks left on my training schedule before my 2 weeks taper. Will this shoe help me achieve my life long goal to become a runner?

    From the pictures they kinda remind me a bit of the 790s. I loved that shoe. How about a bro deal on pair?

    1. Michael

      Same deal in oz. I get mine from zombie runner or wiggle(uk). Size is normal for the 101's and 10's, although wiggle list uk sizes which is 1/2 smaller than us in NB shoes. I order some brooks online, got the wrong size, and sold them to a mate for a loss of about $40, still saved over $100. Wiggle also ship for free. Try amazon too.

      btw, I called NB australia about a pair of 101's when they were released, and they would special order them for $150 + $100 shipping per pair! yeah right, great service… wonder why we go online!

  14. dogrunner

    Just received my 1010s. Strange thing – I ordered a 10.5EE, the box that just arrived says 10.5EE (US), which is what I ordered, but the shoes inside are labeled 11EE. They are noticeably longer than the MT00s in 10 4E on my feet right now (my favorite casual shoes), which makes sense, but here is the really strange thing. I tried on these behemoth 11s and the fit seems ok. Width is good (4E would be better, but these are good), the length is noticeably long (>1 inch in front of my toes), but they feel ok, walk ok (have not tried running yet) and my forefoot is comfortable. I think maybe because of the shape of the last (the way the lateral side angles on a line from midfoot straight to the big toe, my small toes get cutoff by shorter length sizes, but because these shoes are "extra" long, all my toes have space. Its just that the big toe has lots of extra shoe in front of it. The shoes do not slide around – they lace snugly enough that I don't feel any heel slippage or lateral foot motion, so I'm keeping them and I'll find out tomorrow how they run.

    Other stuff – weight does not feel to bad, proprioceptive feel is good (not as good as the MT00, but there is a reason I like those so much for everyday wear).

    Now, where is that 110v2!! ;)

  15. Andy

    Dom — What do you think about the 1010 for 50 miles of mixed hardpack, gravel, singletrack (not too techy) and a wee bit of road? I'm having trouble picking the right shoe for an upcoming race. I agree the 110 lacks cushion for terrain like this, though I loved them on a very techy/rocky 50m in May. I wore the 1010s today for 4 hours of mixed techy singletrack and some road and they were comfy and had great traction, but they do give up something in snugness and support for racing. Any thoughts? I would even look for a new shoe (e.g., the 1400) if the fit/last were similar to the 110/1010. Thanks.

  16. treage

    If I wear a 10.5 in Nike's, does anyone know if I should buy these 1010's in the same size? Wider or regular width? Never bought New Balance Minimus before and I want to order them online.

  17. Anonymous

    Here's a quick review on the MT1010 I put up. As far as comfort and fit it blows the MT110 away, but the outsole is falling apart after only two runs (20miles) total. [broken link removed]

  18. jymx

    Mud? Went for about 8miles in the mt1010 this weekend of which 1-2miles where fairly muddy. All the fancy separation on the bottom and exposed plate area are magnets for mud. if i had to run 20miles and 4 miles where muddy then this would not be the shoe i choose. ill take it for a longer less muddy run soon and update this comment. otherwise everything else about the shoe is groovy. i ran them wet for at least 5miles not soaked but wet, felt quite comfortable.

    1. Dom

      I think traction separation can work in varrying amounts of mud and not so well in really thick mud/clay. I can remember shoes like the speedcross with huge lugs getting caked and loosing traction. I think certain conditions are impossibly hard for any shoe.

      1. dogrunner

        For clay mud I prefer something like the 110 over the 1010. Lower lugs with less space to jam up. I have now 4 runs in the 1010s (2 x 6 miles, 12 miles, 8 miles) over 3 days on dry dusty / rocky routes and traction has been excellent. But I fear what they would do on mud. Plenty of rock protection, btw. In my thinner soled shoes I have to step lightly on this route. In the 1010s I ignored the surface. But still getting used to the extra weight.

  19. Dom

    The 1010 presents an interesting midpoint between entry into minimalist running and minimalists looking for a little more protection. There's an equation of good proprioception/protection/lightweight performance that shoe companies are trying to crack for the myriad types of runs long distance trail runners do. In this digital age, designers have a lot more access to feedback so keep sounding off what you like and don't like.

    1. dogrunner

      OK, here's a thing ;)

      Generally I like this shoe, but I think there is too much heel! I mean the outrigger sort of projections laterally from the heel that inhibit foot motion. I really feel it in my right knee. I'm sure it is how the shoe relates to my gate peculiarities, but I'm thinking of cutting off the part of the outsole and bumps that are outside the heel and not directly under it. IF it was not for the knee pain I'd be pretty happy with this shoe for rougher trails.

  20. Jason

    I picked up a pair this past weekend. I wear a size 10 in the 110 and was surprised to find that I needed a size 9 in the 1010. Have run them on several short runs on rocky terrain and am truely impressed by the under foot protection. I will be headed out to the Bandera 100k course to train for a smaller race in October (Cactus Rose) and am looking forward to putting these shoes to the test.

    Will post more later.


    1. Andy

      Re. size: I now own two pairs, and the second (red/black) is nearly a 1/2 size snugger (and shorter) than the first (blue/black) despite both being 10.5 D. I've noticed this with some other NB shoes — the quality control and sizing is imperfect.

      1. Michael

        Hi Andy,

        Are they all US stock? UK sizes are a 1/2 larger. I'm a US12, and a UK11.5. Could explain it? Pre-production vs production? I've had about 9 pairs of NB MT X's, purchased from different outlets worldwide and all ran true to size.

        Does anyone else see this variation in size? Could be that everyone notices that the blue ones are larger?

        Reason for the qns is I plan on ordering some this week, but online (not available in AUS yet – if ever)

        1. Andy

          Hey Michael. Yeah, both 10.5 US, one from Running Warehouse and one direct from NB. Both are production, I believe. The difference is subtle, but noticeable. Both are great but the slightly snugger red/black is more to my liking. I now have about 50 miles on them (combined) and really like the shoe. Definitely softer and not as dialed in as the 110 for very technical terrain, but great combo of comfort, traction, and lightweight.

  21. Cliff

    I agree with the comment on NB being one of the only companies out there that have anything to offer folks with wide feet. On that note, I should mention that the toe box of 1010 is not as wide as the MT10, MR10, MR0 and MT110. I may return them because they are a hair too narrow. Typically I can't wear a NB wide shoe because they widen the entire shoe not just the toe box and at that point the mid and rear of the shoe are too big.

  22. monte cervino

    I've heard of the issue that some parts of the shoe's outsole tend to disintegrate very fast, that is after a mere 100 miles or so, has anybody else had to deal with this problem. The reason why I ask is that I certainly won't get a shoe wearing off that quickly.

    Thanks for your help in advance.

    Greetings from Germany

  23. Mike B.

    Shoes that have an outsole that flares out like that hurt my feet. An outsole that is directly under the last with no flaring are much more comfortable.

    Is this flaring supposed to add support? Stability?

    1. Bryon Powell

      I'd say such flaring does both. Was just talking with a manufacturer last week that was redoing all its molds for a forthcoming model as its testers through there needed to be more flare. Personally, I find it useful.

  24. Mike B.

    Thanks Bryon. I thought that might be the purpose. I saw you last weekend in Leadville at the coffee shop after the race. I was going to say hello but you looked pretty swamped.

  25. Rod

    Checked out a few pairs today but havent run in them yet. No question that they fit differently than the 110. I will be a full size down. Just a warning about ordering online based on your previous fit of the 110.

  26. Dom

    The sole issues some others mention are due to early production runs that used a poor adhesion process. I've had those issues in the pre-production models, but the factory cleaned this up and my production pairs have had no issues on rocky terrain.

    IF your pair delaminates prematurely, New Balance has a program with running shops and online retailers to provide a refund for the shoe.

  27. Dom

    Two things:

    Too much of a "flaring" or a "lever arm" on the outer edge can cause excessive pronation if a runner's foot is landing at an canted angle.

    Too little "flaring" can cause supination and even cause a runner to roll and ankle outward.

    If you look at the 101 to the 110, the heel width definitely shrunk as NB designers tried to avoid this lever arm. However, it was a specific design feature for a trail racing flat. So, comparitively for the 1010, it might feel wide because the 1010 is built more for training, and avoiding rolled ankles rather than pursuing a racing design.

    My advice: trim in the flared edges with a kitchen knife if it seems too wide. Go little by little and find what you like. I've done this with the 101 for shorter races like 50k's, but then left it on for 100 milers. Hope this helps!

  28. dogrunner

    Thanks for the additional info Dom. My problem is on the medial side – I land mid/forefoot, then as my heel comes down and the foot pronates a little, the medial heel seems to stop the motion and "plant" the heel and the reaction is my foot rotates outward from the fixed heel. The effect is to twist my knee. At least that is my interpretation of what I see, feel, and what my footprint in the dust looks like. In the MWU or even MT00, my foot tracks straight. In the 1010 it clearly sweeps outward from the forefoot rotating around a fixed heel. Anyway, I'm willing to experiment and eat the cost of the shoe if it doesn't work because otherwise I like the 1010 on rocky trails. I'm also really looking forward to the revised 110 because I prefer a lower stack height (but without the higher lateral edge).

    1. Bryon Powell

      The fact that Dominic is sponsored by New Balance and why I chose to publish his review despite that is clearly stated in the review itself. I believe that his intimate knowledge of the product has been useful in the review itself, in his comments, and in his corrections to me base on my inclusion of information about pre-production versions of the MT1010 that had significant differences than the actual production model.


      1. Chet

        Hi Bryon,

        I kind of jump the gun, and was fare to brash. I did not read the fine/italic print before commenting, totally my fault, I am very sorry. However I still have a issue with a person that is involved in the development process posting reviews to the public. I work in the design of consumer electronics, I can tell you I would be dammed to give a product I worked on anything but a extremely positive review, its just the way it goes, ask anybody in design you tend to get very attached to your products and a lot of times its almost impossible to get over it. I think Dominic's review was a very good one, along with his ongoing comments, it is clear he cares, as all people do that are involved in product evolution. I am just saying from my point of view this is walking a fine line between a unbiased review and a form of third party marketing, but it is your website so you can do what ever you want.

        I think you do a AMAZING job Bryon and I do not mean to rock the boat, just speaking my mind hope you can understand. Keep up the Great work, I really enjoy it!

        Thank you,


        1. dogrunner

          Just another perspective here: as long as we know who is providing the review just let the reader decide what to make of it. There are plenty of other reviewers out there, including some who provide little more than marketing BS. This review did a lot more than that. I also like speaking directly to manufacturers or their reps – when else can I give feedback to someone who might be listening. I'm just one opinion and I don't think my experience reflects everyone, but at least I get a public place (IRF) to express my opinion, and maybe the shoe company notices? That's not a bad thing.

    2. Bryon Powell

      BTW, "Chet" this is the third hyperbolic or inflammatory comment you've made in the past 28 hours and you've done so under two different names. Please act with civility and respect here on iRunFar. Dissenting opinions and criticism are welcome, but there's no need to offer such viewpoints in the manner you're doing. What you're doing is trolling and it's not welcome here.

  29. Chad

    I'm currently running in the Brooks Pure Grit, as well as rotating with the New Balance MT 110. As of a few weeks ago my 110's tore across the toe box ripping the plastic material in the upper. I contacted New Balance explaining that i rotate them with my Brooks and only using them on short runs. I told them they only had about 30 miles on them and they asked me to send them back to them, in which I did. I received a credit to the New Balance website for $85.00 :). I live the fit, comfort and ride of the Pure Grit however I don't enjoy it's terrible traction on wet surfaces or it's lack of rock plate and lack of forefoot protection. I contacted Brooks and the Pure Grit 2 is due out Dec/Jan or late November. I need a shoe for Fall when the leaves start to drop and become slick especially covering slick rocks. I don't feel confident that the Brooks Pure Grit 1 will provide the traction I will need come this Fall. Since I have the credit to the NB store, do you think the MT1010 is comparable at all to the Pure Grit in terms of comfort, fit and ride with added traction and protection. I'm also a 10.5 in the Pure Grit and MT110, would you suggest the same size?



    1. Andy

      Chad – sounds like we are the same person wearing the same size and the same shoes, though I have worn my 110s up to 50 miles. Have now worn nothing but 1010s the past 3 weeks (also size 10.5) and am quite happy. I'd say the fit and feel is somewhere between the 110 and the puregrit, and the traction is great. The 1010 may be a tad shorter in the toe (the purgrits are cut long) and definitely have a better toe bumper. I do see others have said they took a size smaller in the 1010 compared to the 110 (though one person said a size larger!), but that has not been my experience. I've had them out for up to 20 miles on techy terrain and have been very happy. Because of the superior cushion relative to the 110, they also feel OK-to-good for fair stretches on the asphalt.

      1. Chad

        Andy – Thank you for the vote of confidence. Plus the $85 credit makes it even more sweet :). I did enjoy the 110's very much especially for traction and rock protection on my shorter more technical runs. I am glad NB stood behind their product as has Brooks and Saucony for me. NB did say there was a defect in the perf pattern in the toe box which cause the tear in the synthetic upper material. They gave me no hassle even with the shoes being ran on for 4 months and purchasing them not from the NB site. My girlfriend is currently running in the Minimus 10's and is complaining that her feet are hurting from the rocky terrain of our new favorite 12 mile trail. I told her how much I love the PureGrits but she's seen me slip often on slick surfaces and have bruises on my forefoot so she is considering the 1010's as well for the Fall. I will have slight envy of the Blue and Orange colorway she is looking at.

        1. Andy

          For what it's worth, I am the proud owner of 3 pairs of 110s in various stages of decrepitude (includng a pair dating back to last January), but none has ripped since my very first pair on my very first run, which NB promptly replaced with great, friendly service. The 110 uppers are definitely prone to traumatic tearing on rocks or roots but it's not a given. The upper material of the 1010 is quite different, softer, and I believe the 110v2 will be improved in that dept. as well.

  30. Olya

    These shoes are not designed for running downhill. I took them for a test run in the hills today (5hrs, steep trails and steps) and I am very disappointed. All my toes hurt by the end of the run and both big toes turned blue. These shoes maybe ok on flat terrain, but not in the mountains or hills.

    1. Dom

      The 1010 might feel too thin depending on your perspective of what you're used to wearing and expecting in a trail shoe. I should also note that if you have fit issues, the shoe does come in a narrow and wider width.

  31. Mike Behnke

    Hey Dom,

    So if I see the MT 1010 in the orange /red color for sale in a store or on do I need to avoid these due to the problems mentioned before? Also, if I use the MT 10 trail and road zero for 6-11 mile runs on country roads/pavement and the mt 110 for 12-22 mile runs on the above terrain I know I'm going to love the mt 1010. However, does New Balance have something with a low drop but more stack height for when I do road marathons? I need another year probably until I'm good enough to use the road zeros. Thanks much!

    1. Dom

      You won't find the same batch that was pre-released. Those have markings on the collar that distinctly say "NOT FOR RESALE"

      The road marathon shoe you're looking for is probably the MR10, 4mm drop with a bit more cushion beneath the foot. Hope this helps!

  32. Tony

    MT1010: Just finished a trail marathon over a combo of hard packed trails, sand, roots and ruts. Rocks were not prevalent nor were technical obstacles. I made the right choice as I felt they provided me with amount of cushion I enjoy in the Pure Grit (my previous trail shoe), while giving me a better "feel for the trail."

  33. John

    Just finished a 50 miler in the hills of West Virginia. The surfaces consisted of hard packed roads and single tracked trails full of mud, roots, and rocks. I had only wore the mt1010 for an easy 3 mile run prior to the 50 miler. I love this shoe. The shoe was light and nimble. I ran through mud and water and the shoe shed the water and mud quickly. It had good traction and provided excellent protection from sharp rocks. I never experienced any hot spots in the shoe. It was my first 50 miler and my feet felt better than they had after any 50k I had ran. After examining the shoe post-race I saw no wear on the shoe or any parts of the shoe coming off as some others experienced. We'll see how it holds up after a few more miles.

    1. Andy

      Very nice! That's a strong endorsement for the shoe's ability to hold up and run well under various conditions and over (at least) 50 miles. Confirms my shoe choice for VT50m next month. Congrats on your first 50 miler!

Post Your Thoughts