New Balance Minimus Amp (MT1010) Preview

More Trail Running Shoe Options

To find more options for trail running shoes, check out our Best Trail Running Shoes article and our full collection of trail running shoe reviews.

New Balance Minimus Amp (MT1010) Preview

New Balance bills its forthcoming Minimus Amp (MT1010) as “part of New Balance’s effort to continue to expand its spectrum of minimal offerings,” adding, “The shoe provides a minimal fit and feel, much like that of the [Minimus Trail a/k/a MT] 10, but with more traditional midsole heights and a more supportive upper.”

[Note: We’ve since published a review of the New Balance MT1010.]

I see the New Balance MT1010 as a low-to-the-ground, lightweight – at 7.7 ounces for a US men’s 9, it’s the exact same weight at the MT110 (MT110 review) – trail shoe that’s protective and supportive enough for everyday trail running shoe for those of us who aren’t waifish, who don’t run like a gazelle, and who don’t always run on buffed out, rock-free trails. In other words, it’s a trail running shoe for most of us whether we’re training (20 or) 100 miles per week or running a 100-mile race over rugged terrain.

New Balance Minumus Amp MT1010

The New Balance Minumus Amp (MT1010)

Protection, Stack Heights, and Midsole Details
The caveat with this shoe, as with any Minimus model, is that if you’re used to running in a traditional drop shoe (10-12mm) or even a shoe with an 8mm drop, you’ll want to transition slowly and carefully to the MT1010 just as you would with any other 4mm (or lower) drop shoe.

The Minimus Amp should appeal to both the traditionally shod runner looking for something lighter and lower as well as the minimalist runner looking for protection on tough terrain. As noted, the Amp has a 4mm, which comes from 10mm forefoot and 14mm heel stack heights. More important for those looking for protection in the long run, the MT1010 has a RockStop rockplate, a feature otherwise lacking from the Minimus line. Based on a quick hands on investigation the rockplate runs to the midfoot and seems more substantial than that of the MT110. All in all, the MT1010 has more meat under feet that the MT110… so it’ll be your call which model better suits your needs.

For the real shoe nerds out there, I’ll note that MT1010 has a REVlite midsole.

New Balance Minumus Amp MT1010 - medial upper

The MT1010’s outsole is best done justice with an image, but a few words first. The Vibram outsole is placed in a strategic strike-path pattern meaning it’s found only where you need traction and durability. Otherwise, the midsole or rockplate are exposed.

New Balance Minumus Amp MT1010 - outsole

The MT1010’s outsole.


New Balance Minumus Amp MT1010 laces

The laces and tongue on the Minimus Amp.

Like the rest of the Minimus line (and the MT110), the MT1010 is built on New Balance’s natural last (NL-1 or WNL1). As you’d expect, it’s also built for sockless wear and, accordingly, lacks a removable sockliner.

As to the Minimus Amp’s upper materials and construction, it’s more substantial than the rest of the Minimus line and notably different that the MT110. Rather than the MT110’s ovelay-free perforated synthetic leather, the MT1010’s upper is highly breathable monomesh reinforced by strategic overlays particularly as part of a medial (inner) midfoot metatarsal wrap. The MT1010’s tongue is two thin fabric layers that wrap the top of your foot more than being a gusseted tongue.

The MT1010 will be available for men in half sizes from 7-13 as well as in size 14 with widths of D and 2E. The WT1010 will be available for women in half sizes from 5-11 as well as in size 12 with widths of 2A, B, and D. The shoe will hit retail shelves in July 2012 for $105. We’ll have more details for you before then.

Call for Comments

  • Are you looking for a more robust minimalist trail runner? A lighter everyday trail runner?
  • Do you think you’d up for the MT1010 over New Balance’s other Minimus Trail and MT110 options?
  • What are you most excited about in the MT1010?

Bonus Photos with Additional Colorways!

New Balance Minumus Amp MT1010 - orange

The Minumus Amp in orange.

New Balance Minumus Amp MT1010 - orange medial upper

The medial side of the orange Minimus Amp.

New Balance Minumus Amp MT1010

More MT1010 colorways.

New Balance Minumus Amp MT1010

Even more Minimus Amp colorways.

There are 125 comments

  1. Dan

    hey bryon you said "Based on a quick hands on investigation the rockplate runs to the midfoot and seems more substantial than that of the MT110. All in all, the MT1010 has more meat under feet that the MT1010… so it’ll be your call which model better suits your needs." but the 110 has a midsole of 19mm and 15mm vs 14mm and 10mm for the MT1010 so the 110 sounds like the more substantial trail shoe.

    also the outsole looks best suited for buffed out, rock-free trails. not my kind of running.

    1. Bryon Powell

      Dan, More height doesn't necessarily mean more substance – part of the difference is the tall lugs of the MT110 vs the lower laying lugs of the MT1010. The MT1010 definitely seems more substantial in hand.

  2. hillbh88

    It's like they made a different color scheme and patterned area to denote the spot where I have blown out my last 3 pairs of 110's. I think I'm going to have to snag a pair of the 110's first and see how they run

  3. Adrian

    Right on, I love the range of options we're getting out there. I had some good runs on my NB Minimus Trails this year but when the foam got crushed the protection dropped to nil and they got pulled from the trails. (As as aside, the broken-in MT00s make a good road shoe.)

    For 2012 I'm looking at the 110s for a couple ultras and see how they perform. If they don't work well, there are a lot of competitors. So much different than just a few years ago.

  4. David

    Looks interesting. I'm glad to hear about the rock plate but the tread hardly looks grippy enough to be a trail shoe. Also, the heel cup looks interesting. I'm thinking this is the offspring of the Hoka and MT10.

  5. Sam Winebaum

    In almost all respects MT 1010 looks like a "for trail improved" Brooks PureFlow. Weight, drop, and especially the heel design and pods on the outer edges of the outsole/midsole. It doesn't seem to have the filled in area to the outer edge of the mid foot which I suspect is what really keeps me on my midfoot in combination with the heel. I really like the outer sole. I think it will have effective grip on most all surfaces except mud. The PureFlow is a road shoe with minimal out sole profile. I wonder how MT 1010 will feel on hard surfaces and even pavement. I bet pretty darn good.

    1. Matt Smith

      Isn't the Brooks PureGrit the "for trail improved Brooks PureFlow"? Seems like the 8oz near-neutral trail trainer is getting a lot of play these days…

      1. Sam Winebaum

        Matt-while I have not tried the PureGrit reading the reviews and seeing pictures it seems to me that this MT 1010 is closer in design to the PureFlow than the PureFlow is to the PureGrit on a number of levels…All the Pure shoes with the exception of the split toe and inverted heels have after that have different uppers (different fit) and outsole/midsole designs.

    1. Bryon Powell

      That's a bit of an overstatement. If I recall correctly, the MT110 will be available in 4E and this will initially be launch with an additional wide model… unlike the vast majority of trail shoes.

      1. Bill

        Have been told by NB and running warehouse that mt110 will only go up to 2E. Not an overstatement. Look at the new minimal and neutral shoes that they've released in a 4E???

  6. Andy

    Also thought it bears some resemblance to the Brooks Pure line and might be a direct competitor with the Grit, though weighing in at about an ounce less.

    I share the concerns about the outsole: Are those huge spaces showing orange actually exposed midsole? I've loved the Minimus, but here in rock-strewn New England the exposure between the lugs has been an issue and, based on the photos, looks even worse with the 1010.

    1. Sam Winebaum

      What is interesting is that the True Grit does not have the outrigger pods and has a full outsole. I have not tried the PureGrit but love the PureFlow on the road. The few times I have taken them on trails I found them mushy and unstable for me. I bet the rock plate and the fact the outsole pods are connected will help with stability on the MT1010. Agree with you Andy about the spaces and New England. I have found that anytime the outsole is made of pods there can be early wear and de lamination at the edges of the pods. I do see that the pods are connected in groups so that may help mitigate wear. I run in New England and Utah. The MT 1010 should be excellent for the smooth (relative to New England) trails in UT not so sure in New England.

  7. David

    So awesome to have all these 4mm drop options coming out. (see also Merrell Mix Master). They are either realizing that (most) true minimalist runners need more protection for long distance on rugged trails (compared to VFF or flimsy stuff good < 20 miles) or they are trying to draw in the Cascadia crowd. Probably both. The 110 looks to provide better ground feel, so I'll try that first and see if protection is adequate past 20 miles on rocky stuff.

    1. Andy

      True – thanks for the reminder. And the PureGrit doesn't actually have a rock plate either, but plenty of protection with a full outsole. The only shoe with a rock plate I've worn is the Cascadia, a great shoe but in no way minimalist. Very excited about both the 110 and now the 1010.

  8. Alex

    I guess I'm waifish then, although I don't think I run like a gazelle, since that looks way to cushy for my liking. If I can run 50 in the Saucony Hattori, I imagine the 110 will be enough for anything. But I am glad to see those served who would like more.

    1. KenZ


      How was the Hattori? I've enjoyed the Kinvaras a lot, but it feels a bit too much for me. On the other hand, the Harrori seems awfully minimal for 50 miles! Was your 50 on road, smooth trails or what? For trails, I'm New Balance all the way (101, and now waiting for my 110s). But roads the best (for me) so far has been the Kinvara. Just looking for a little less shoe.

  9. Jeremy

    That shoe looks solid for the low weight and seems like it fills a big gap in the NB shoe line (the gap where most runners run). I do think a few angled blade/lugs for sidehilling and canted trails are necessary. Would like to see a bit more drop than 4mm, but it's better than 0 drop. I need to start a counter-culture website bucking this rear-lower leg destroying fad. I think I'll call it….

    "Big Stack Differential Afficionado."

    Our motto…"I like big drops and I can not lie"

      1. Mike Place

        Awesome. Thanks, Bryon. Sounds like I'd better hurry up and ruin my current pair of 101s. I know just the thing to do it, too. [Heads out the door, bound for Mount Aire.]

  10. Mark

    Thanks for the great preview, Bryon. These look like great shoes!

    Still, with all the variations out there, it's getting harder to keep them all straight. It would be extremely helpful if somebody put together a list that ranked trail shoes from minimalist to tank. Is that something you might be able to do? It would be so great if you did.

      1. Bryon Powell

        I get what you guys are saying, but I've no desire to get this info for all trail shoes. I don't feel like hearing it from X Company or Y Company's fan boy that I've not included certain products. On top of that, there's the subjectivity in things like minimalism, protection, and traction. The subjectivity would be present even if one person rated all of them. Maybe this could happen someday, but I'd rather go very in-depth on a few top models than spend time worrying about 60 or 70 models… and that's likely excluding the plethora of tiny barefoot/minimalist companies.

        1. KenZ

          If people were motivated, one could start a wikipedia page for trail shoe specs, and "the people" could keep track. Bryon's point of the fanboy (and fangirl) factor would be interesting in editing a wiki site though.

  11. slickrock joe

    I'm testing a pair and really like the feel and ride, but I must have ramped up to fast into the low drop heel, because I have a bit of the posterior tibial tendon pain and lots of calf soreness. Is this typical for this kind of shoe, and how long before I adapt, if ever? I like the lower shoes because I'm always tweaking my ankles.

    1. Ethan

      These symptoms are typical of the transition to a lower-drop shoe — soreness is to be expected, the tendon pain is a bit more worrisome and suggests you should cut back a bit. Not that you can generalize, but it can take anywhere from 3 months to 1 year + to adapt.

  12. Craig Thom

    Currently running in Nike Lunarfly2 road and trail shoes that give good support for flat feet with a 10mm heel-to-toe drop which works well on long trail runs and see how I go with low-heel-to toe drop 3mm Inov-8 X-Talon 190 before the release of Salomon S-Lab Sense. Injury is the biggest issue for me with a lower toe drop before selecting a shoe to wear for The North Face 100. The New Balance Minumus Amp with a 4mm drop looks like a good shoe to test in the bush.

  13. Nate Sanel

    I've been running in a pair of the MT110's since August. I ran the first 70 miles of Leadville in them and found the fit to be perfect. I mean perfect. This was the first time I had ever run a 100 with no blisters and that was a Godsend. I had to change out of them because of the lack of cushioning at that point in the race. To me the 110 is just about perfect up to the 50 mile or so point. I have around 400 miles on them and they have zero tears and the tread is holding up excellent. They are extremely well built. For the Bartram 100 2 weeks ago I wore the MT110's for the first 50 miles, but then changed into a pair of the Brooks Pure Grits. The cushioning felt instantly better on the bottom of my feet, but the uppers are not even close to the perfect fit and feel of the NB's. I was thinking about how awesome it would be to have a pair of shoes with the MT110 upper and Puregrit lower. Looks like NB was already on top of it. I am very excited to see the Amps! If they fit like the 110's they will be my 100 mile shoe.

  14. Toe

    Slightly corn-fused, are both the MT110 and 1010 built on the NL-1 last?

    "Like the rest of the Minimus line (and the MT110), the MT1010 is built on New Balance’s natural last (NL-1 or WNL1). Unlike the soon-to-come MT110 (MT110 review). As you’d expect, it’s also built for sockless wear and, accordingly, lacks a removable sockliner."

    1. Bryon Powell

      Toe, The second sentence is just a bit of bad proofreading re an unfinished thought… that I can't remember the conclusion to. Anyway, both the MT110 and MT1010 are built on the NL-1 and WNL-1 (women's) lasts.

  15. Todd Gallagher

    Just wondering if the outsole is in fact made by Vibram as I don't see their oh so familiar yellow "Vibram" on every peice of rubber on said outsole? Thanks for posting this review, and all the hard work you do on irunfar!!!! You rock!

  16. Dan H

    Will be interested to hear reviews on the cushioning difference between the mt110 and mt1010. To me these shoes really seem to overlap each other just by looking at the specs. The podded sole being the only real difference I can see. Can't help thinking the pods protruding from the side will screw with the natural landing and pronation of the foot though.

    Final thought: Why is NB putting rock plates on the shoes that already have more cushion and leaving them off the shoes with less cushion (MT10, MT00)? Rather than creating a shoe that's the same as the MT110, I'd like to see something with the cushion of the MT110, but without the rock plate, so it will have more forefoot flexibility. This would actually fill an empty niche in their product line. The disadvantage of an inflexible forefoot is that it can lead to achilles tendonitis. For that reason, I can't run more than a couple miles in the MT110.

  17. Bryan Hojo


    My thoughts exactly. The Hoka meet the Minimus. I've watched peoply plod around in the Hokas for 24 hours. Just can't see running in moon shoes.

    However this looks like it takes out some of the bulk. Can't wait to try them. I hope they have widened the toe box. I went with the Trail Gloves over the MT10. All around better fit.

    We get a sneak peak at this in January NB is touring Anton around, I hope they bring enough samples to try on.

  18. Bryon Powell


    It's all about money in a quite reasonable way. Here's a very rudimentary sketch. It costs money to make additional molds for each size a company will offer in, say, 4E. I've no idea the population of 4E runners, but I'm guessing it's very small. If additional companies start making 4E shoes or the same company offer even more models in 4E then that small costumer pool is even more widely spread making it even harder to recover the costs on each 4E model. If there was a bigger demand companies would make more models of very wide shoes.

    I see three options for an expansion of the number of very wide trail running shoe models out there:

    (1) Get more wide-footed folks running the trails;

    (2) Buy more wide-sized trail shoes; or

    (3) Be willing to pay a premium.

    1. Andy

      Here in the east we are looking at least til mid-Jan or Feb, and most online suppliers (e.g., Zombie) say it'll be some weeks. I was jonesin' so bad I called Eclipse and, lo and behold, a pair is en route as we speak. iRunFar comes thru again. Thanks Darren, and Bryon!

  19. Art

    ok shoes are great, and maybe even necessary for most of us. but it seems the discussion topics of late are composed entirely of shoes and elite racing.

    How about a bit more diversity.

    Training Techniques



    Pacers v.s. No Pacers

    Trekking Poles v.s. No Trekking Poles

    More self planned stuff in the spirit of R2R2R

    How to do a Grand Slam

    How to win an Ultra Lottery

    the topics are endless . . .

    1. Bryon Powell

      Hi Art,
      FYI, the editorial schedule for iRunFar is as it comes. As of late, I've received a number of time sensitive stories regarding shoes which followed on the heals of attending one of the most competitive ultras of the year. There'll be a slow news season during the late winter and spring that more evergreen stories will pop up. If you'd like to see iRunFar publish five days a week such that there's room for such instructional pieces at the same time as the time-sensitive shoe/elite pieces, please feel free to make a donation so that I can hire other writers and/or a copy editor… there's only so much I can do.


      Ps. Thanks for the suggestions. Next time, however, I'd ask that you consider sending them to me directly via the contact form found on iRunFar.

      1. Art

        sorry Bryon.

        will be more direct/discreet next time.

        and yes I know you are a small staff and very busy.

        its just that my closet is already filled with 30 pairs of shoes :-)

  20. slickrock joe

    Thanks, I guess I shouldn't be thinking about SP50 in June in these. So I better read up more to find something to replace my old Montrail Streak.

  21. brian best

    Hi Todd,

    These samples were not finished prototypes. The final production versions will be vibram with the vibram badge on the bottom instead of the new balance flying NB.

  22. Joel

    Comparing these to the Hokas is rather absurd. There is no similarity between those tall trail monsters and these lithe, low to the ground shoes.

  23. slickrock joe

    My old Montrail Streaks are done – I could wear them forever, a couple Squaw Peak 50's, but wore them our quickly. The NB MT1010 feels great but too aggressive drop change for me and have developed tendon pain. The Altra LonePeak feels too aggressive as well. My weak ankles seem to do better in neutral and lower riding shoe. I'm 140lb, mid-pack runner but love to trail run the Wasatch and slickrock. I need a shoe for my 50 in June. Any advice? Thanks

  24. Jeremy

    Less than the Kinvara? Less than 7 oz? Too much shoe? Too much shoe for ultramarathons in the mountains?

    I would really like to know what is driving this? Are people getting much faster in these flats- training in them day in and day out? Or, is it a health thing? Are people having better luck with staying uninjured in flats? Or, is it just the Kool-aid marketing fad book thing?

    I guess I will be a believer when someone can put on a Jurek/Roes-like streak of dominance and stay in good health wearing flats. Is anyone winning mountain 50's and 100's in these things? Seriously, I want to know. Every top caliber runner I can think of is training/racing in more substantial shoes.

    1. KenZ

      Since I made the Kinvara comment, I'll throw in a response. The Kinvara is definitely not used (by me) as a trail shoe: it's a road runner, up to about 50m. And I do love it; on my second pair. I think it's so personal that it's hard to really tell what is better/worse.

      However, it is certainly true that there are two places where it is worst to carry weight: your feet and your hands (were we biking, it'd be the rims). An ounce off the shoes is worth a lot more efficiency-wise than an ounce off the pack. Yeah, I get it… it's only an ounce, but that's a lot when it's on your feet doing what they're doing.

      And yes, after getting in the MT101s, which are simply awesome (to me), the Kinvara's DO feel like a bit too much. Now, for my last 100, I used the Montrail Mtn Massochist, which is in no way, shape, or form a minimalist shoe. And I love that shoe too. And I wear it for really rough, wet, rocky, off-trail conditions as well. But there's a feeling of putting on the 101 that just _feels_ better, long before I take my first step out the door.

      Like most people on here, I've got a lot of shoes I rotate, and that rotation depends on road or trail, smooth or rough, short/med/or long, wet or dry, and how my legs feel that day. But all that said, _feel_ when I run is the top issue, and time and time again when I'm pulling a pair of shoes out of my quiver for the day, I find myself reaching for the lighter, less substantial ones time and time again, at least for runs under 30 miles. Not because I'm concerned about weight, but because I LOVE how they run. Love it. 20 trail miles (not too rough terrain) in the Mtn Massochist vs the MT101? 101 wins for me every time.

      OK, so that's me. I do think your questions are very valid though. There does seem to be a bit of an obsession regarding minimalism, and we can all probably point to one book as to what started the drive. That's not blame, just noting it. As for whether flats or more substantial shoes are "better" and the injury component, I don't think there are enough trail racers out there to be able to draw any statistically significant conclusions. Too many factors, too few people. Someone gets injured… is it the shoes, or did they not do enough core/hip stability work, or did they just have a bad day? Only in road racing/marathons do I think you have enough people to study. The top runners there seem to use flats. Does that translate to trails? To 50s? To 100s? I don't think anyone can draw that conclusion.

      Sorry for the long comment, but I think your point is valid and well taken. Might be better to move the discussion to the discussion boards so it doesn't get lost here.

  25. Brant

    I agree with both comments. I personally run in the MT101s and I love the shoe. It is comfortable was well as supportive for me. Now Mind you I don't run in hard core mountains i.e. Leadville or racing pertaining to that. I live down in Texas where it is mostly flat but I still get out to the "Hill Country" here in Austin for to enjoy the trails out there. Regarding the flats it is all preference I guess. I went to flat on the roads before I started trail running and I just never went back. I just happen to favor one over the other. But I am truly looking forward to the new MT1010.


  26. Shaun Pope

    I have tried the mt110's and their ability to run the valley hills of Ohio. Its a wonderful racing shoe but is meant for the neutral runner if to be worn as an everyday training shoe. After trying on the mt1010's at Vertical Runner, my hometown trail running store, I instantly noticed the increased amount of support it gave to a over-pronator like myself. If you love the minimus 4mm drop series by NB, then look to get the same great medial support and protection by the mt1010. The other incredible thing about this shoe is its ability to flex at the forefoot, due to the design of the rock plate and the "amp" designed Mid/outsole…. A major improvement from the 101's inability to flex.

    In conclusion…. Can't WAIT!!!


  27. Stefan

    This was also my first thought: a cheap looking version of the PureFlow. My second thought: what's the point in 4mm differential? Why not zero drop?

  28. Andy

    Having just taken my new 110s for their first spin on the local rocky New England singletrack, I am pleased to say that they certainly provide more protection than the Minimus but without that soft, flexible feel we love so. I liked them a lot but could really feel the rock plate without much extra padding, and wonder how my feet will fair in them on the long haul. Guess you can't have cake and eat it too, but perhaps the 1010 will be the best of both worlds. Looking foward to summer!

  29. Chris G.

    I WAS lusting over the 110's but we have a new leader in the race to be my first ultra shoe for Tahoe in July.

    Chris – San Diego, CA

  30. Ryan Holler

    Stack heights

    MT1010: 14 mm heel / 10 mm forefoot

    MT110: 19 mm heel / 15 mm forefoot

    Bryon, this doesn't make sense if the 1010 is supposed to be a more substantial shoe… unless the 1010 it has a removable insole that isn't counting toward the overall stack heights. ???

    Also, your sentence, "All in all, the MT1010 has more meat under feet that the MT1010… so it’ll be your call which model better suits your needs," could potentially answer my question, but it appears to have a typo, saying "MT1010" both times. Which is which?

    Thanks for your otherwise stellar reviews!

    1. Bryon Powell

      Hey Ryan,
      Thanks for pointing out the typo. I've corrected it to read that the MT1010 is meatier underfoot that the MT110.

      Stack height doesn't necessarily reflect substance. The MT110 had tall lugs, which leads to a tall stack height. The MT1010 feels like it has a much more substantial rockplate than that of the MT110. Trust me, when you get a chance to hold (or wear) both models, you'll agree that there's more to the MT1010.

  31. Brian

    Thicknesses for both are….

    7/11 Eva (6mm rubber) mt110
    10/14 Eva (5mm rubber) mt 1010

    If you're interested in the stack heights just tack on 2/3mm for strobel material.

    The rock plates are both the same thickness/durometer, however the rock plate on the mt1010 extends a bit further back on the lateral side to add a bit more protection for the trail runner just getting into more minimal product.

  32. Brian

    Hey all,

    Believe it or not we are just starting to update the Mt 1010 pictured above and I'm curious if there is any interest in going to a zero drop but with some meat, say 14mm of Eva and 5 of rubber. Thoughts?

    -Brian Best of New Balance

    [Edit: Added Brian's credentials for authority.]

    1. Bryon Powell

      If New Balance is going to add a zero-drop MT1010 or are going to substitute a zero-drop version for the current 4mm drop MT1010 PLEASE added an 8 or, better yet, a 10mm drop version of the MT110 or MT1010 for the rest of us. I absolutely love the MT110 and suspect I'll like the MT1010 equally well. However, I can't even manage three runs totaling less than 15 miles in five day without lower leg issues in the MT110 and that's simply due to the low drop.

      I'd say that folks have a great selection of low- to no-drop trail shoes from New Balance at the moment. Please throw the rest of us who like the lighter, more responsive shoes an option, as well. It'd be my pleasure to discuss this more in-depth at any time. You can use the contact form to get in touch. Folks at NB such as Kristin S. and, probably, Bryan G have my info, too.


      1. Sam Winebaum

        Agree with Bryon. Zero not for me either. How about keeping it at 4mm (works fine for me in KInvara, Brooks PureFlow, Hokas) and engineering a way via changeable insoles to increase drop to 8 to 10 mm when desired. Include both insoles: 4mm drop for short and fast and a 4-6 mm boost for longer runs.

  33. Amie Murphy

    hey Shaun,

    I run in the area too..ive seen you run a few times! like the 110? I wear my kinvaras for everything because i cant find a trail shoe i like and want to stay in the 4mm drop zone…

    i tried the peregrin at Regis and they just felt too stiff ( compared to my kinvara) …

    Im excited for the MT1010 they look perfect!

    how flex is the 110?


  34. David Henry

    Brian. I definitely think a 14mm of eva and 5 of rubber for a 19mm stack height would be a great shoe on the minimus last. Something just a tad meatier than the 110, but with a similar fit. I would be fine with zero (I use the Altra models that have similar stack heights, and are zero drop, with great success, but wish they were lighter like this shoe is looking to be) or 4mm (even 6mm is ok), for me over that is overkill and reduces the stability on technical trail.

  35. Ethan

    To throw a contrary opinion out there, yes, I would like to see a zero-drop MT1010, particularly with a fair amount of EVA, which should provide enough form-degeneration protection

  36. David

    As I have been scaling mileage in the MT101s they have been a great shoe. I haven't yet gotten the MT110s. This MT1010 looks like it would give me the advantages of the original minimus trail and the cushion of more of a Hoka. I think my feet would love this and at just over 7oz per shoe I could handle the swing weight that has deterred me from other heavier shoes. I've also been running short distances (to 10 miles) in the minimus trails this winter and really enjoy the advantage of the 4mm drop for my midfoot strike. I have been looking at Montrail to find a more cushioned trail shoe, but would be thrilled to be able to stay with NB for that cushioned style trainer/racer. Thanks Bryon for keeping us in the loop and thanks NB for listening.


  37. Jeff L.

    I'm DYING for a zero-drop trail shoe that offers some protection. I don't want to feel like I'm running on stilts or pillows. But after a rough 50 mile trail run, I admit I need some cushion to soften some of the rocks and roots on the trails. I have a pair NB trail shoes, but even the 4 mm drop is noticeable.

  38. Rob

    I run mostly barefoot but race in the 101 and now the 110 and would love a zero drop 1010. I am eyeballing the 1010 for the Cactus Rose 100 down here in Texas.



  39. Brick

    I have MT10s, MR10s and 101s and like them all.

    The only problem I have is in Australia most trails have some very rocky sections which need more protection.

    I have tried the Hoke Bondi's which are good but feel a bit like I am running on stilts.

    The 1010s look ideal.

    Bring on July and hope I can get a pair online.

    Do you know if they will be selling them in Australia.

  40. Mike B.


    I'm going to Tahoe as well for the 50m in july! I have been using the new

    mt 110's now for about a month with pretty good success. I say pretty good

    because of the lateral underside being built up more than the medial side

    issue. Like many others have said, there's no doubt it's there and I don't notice it running on dirt. I think I'm over it but now that I see this mt 1010

    I will probably be all over those!

  41. Sean

    I have switched from my ultra-supportive ASICS runners (with 12mm heel/toe diff) to the MT101 and I have to say, what an incredible difference. I used to have aches and pains after my runs, but I have eased into the 101's and I was sore only after the first run. The shoe is so comfortable that I am now wearing them whenever I can, and I am going to try to find another pair, just for running in. The people at New Balance really know how to make a great shoe. I am looking forward to trying out both the MT110 and the MT 1010.

  42. Branndon


    Zero drop with real cushioning would be great. I have tight calves and past achilles issues from a twisted ankle and was still able to transition to zero drop Altras in a short period. Now trying anything with heel rise (even 4mm) feels uncomfortable.

  43. Noviant

    Just bought the MT110 on the web based on my experience with a minimus road from last year. What a surprise to discover that the sizing is different. Where 2E is perfect for a minimus road, the MT110 is much narrower ! Now I need to replace it with a 4E fro the same feet!…

  44. Noviant

    Especially with the MT110 being much narrower in 2E than my minimus road from last year ! The 4E is even more critical with the architecture of the MT110 shoe.

  45. lor

    Try the Hokas yourself…you will definately not feel like you are plodding around in them. Amazingly light!! and most people won't try them just because of how they LOOK. i do want to try the MT1010's though, but I am sure most of my long runs will be in my Hokas, that is for sure.

  46. Willy

    I am way late to the party, but I wanted to give some input. the idea of a zero drop version sounds amazing, I just ran the Lake sonoma 50, in the trail zero, love the shoe, worked great, but i destroyed both shoes with massive tears on both shoes. I have spent a lot of time (years) to run in minimal zero drop foot wear, I prefer to run in a zero drop, without the compromise of even 4mm.

  47. John Macklen Sr.

    When I walk in the 110's I feel like my feet are rolling inward but I don't notice it when I run. I have read that the lateral edge is thicker than the medial edge. Will the mt1010 AMP be the same way?

  48. Doug (aka Snurfer)

    Hey Bryon,

    Being that it is mid-June I'm surprised to have been unable to find much on the web about this shoe, re: "The shoe will hit retail shelves in July 2012 for $105. We’ll have more details for you before then"… Any update?


  49. Dave Mount

    I was wondering the same thing. I'm so eager to try a pair that I've had a Google Alert set up for the last months. Not much info so far. Is July still the date?

  50. Nate Sanel

    I just got mine yesterday and did a quick 10 mile trail run in them. Here are my initial thoughts. The fit is slightly looser than the MT110 and the upper is very light and breathable. They still very much run like a minimal shoe, but have considerably more cushioning. I would say they are somewhere between the MT110 and the Brooks Pure Grit as far as that goes. I think people who like the feel of the 110 but want a little more shoe are going to love it.

    1. KenZ


      Do they have the weird build-up on the outside like the MT110 does that many, many people have notedly been annoyed with (including I've seen several comments from people who shave the outside lugs off the forefoot to reduce the over pronation they induce)? Because of that buildup on the 110, I like it a LOT less than the old 101. I'd be interested in the 1010, but not if it keeps this seemingly dysfunctional manufacturing feature.

  51. Nate Sanel

    Ken, when I first put them on I thought I noticed that it was still built up there, but as soon as I took a few strides in them I changed my mind. I'm one of those people who felt it in the 110 but it never bothered me. If this does indeed have the same build up (I really don't think it does), it is very much less than the 110.

    1. KenZ

      Awesome, thanks. This may be one of those shoes that I need to try before I buy (and then buy in the store I try it, of course!).

      At first I didn't think the 110 build up was bad, but I do end up running a lot of roads and mixed road-trail. Then the 110 build up really annoys me. If all you were running was rough, rocky trail… then who cares about any of it, because every step is totally different. Am sure I'm preaching to the converted.

  52. Mike B.

    Believe me I can't wait for these to come out! Got the Tahoe Rim Trail on

    July 21 and know these will be perfect. If Bryon is reading this or anyone

    else please pull some strings with New Balance to bring these to market a.s.a.p.!!!!

  53. Russell

    Ok….WAY late here, but whatever:

    This is the perfect answer for me! Im currently in the mt 110 and use the Saucony Peregrine 2 when my feet ar beat up (24/20, 4mm drop, 10.2 oz), but like many have said they just don't have the FEEL of the 110s….super excited for this shoe, and can't wait….my wife will be stoked too as she like the fit of the 110 , but opted for the brooks pure grit because she wanted more meat.

    Now all you need is a super extreme wet/snow/ soft ground type shoe ah la La Sportiva C-lite but with a 4mm drop….then my quiver could be entirely NB.

    Keep up the good…


  54. Katfish

    The 1010 has hit the shelves in South Africa. I have run in a pair a few times and offer my opinion (bear in mind i am a light (50kg) forefoot runner, who mainly runs on dry rocky trails in cape town.

    I have loved the new balance 101s and the 110s, so i was as keen as everyone else to try the 1010s.

    The 1010 is very different to the 110s, and has reinforced my personal preference for the 110s.

    A few points of comparison:

    1. sizing: i took a women's size 6 in the 101s and 110s, but the 6 in the 1010 was way too big for me. the 5.5 was perfect. however, my male friends have found that the sizing is comparable with their standard size.

    2. cushioning: the 1010 feel 'squishy'. more cushioning than the 110s yes, but for me it has the downside of giving a longer sensation of the terrain, as the sponginess takes the impact, rather than the stunning 'dancer' immediate impact and release feeling i get in my 110s.

    3. upper: i have run through rivers with my 110s and i marvel at how well the water drains out, and my foot remains so snug, never feeling 'loose' in the shoe. i haven't run in the 1010s but the material does not look to me like it would be as forgiving in wet weather.

    4. general feel: my foot just doesn't feel as neatly housed as in the 110s. it feels more like the old fashioned feel i recall, of your foot inside a shoe. whereas the 110s feel like a perfect cast-slipper around my bare foot. i had a bit of burning in places after a 16km run in the 1010s, whereas i my first run in my 110s was in a 20km race, and i came away dazzled by their light, responsive and perfect fit and feel.

    5. grip: less impressive than 110s, specially on slightly slippery rocks.

    Having read other reviews of the 1010, i agree that for those who aren't light, forefoot runners, the 1010 may be the preferred choice, especially for longer distances. for me, the 1010s would be most suited to a basic even jeep track, but for any route that requires great agility and immediate responsiveness, i would always rather have the 110s.

  55. MikeZ

    Just got my MT1010 today in NZ.

    The MT1010 is a very different shoe to MT110 and MT10. It has a stiffer flex but more cushioned underfoot. The upper is far more porous. I ran in the rain today with lots of puddles and it let water in within the first minute of the run. The upside is that it drains very very well which makes the 1010 ideal for trails with lots of river crossing.

    The fit is also more forgiving, which IMHO is due to the upper material. Whereas the MT110 has a plastic like upper, the mesh upper of MT1010 gives a little bit more room for the toes to move. However, even in my size 9 2E width MT1010 (wore size 9D in 110) there is no 'frowsiness' as the mid foot and rear foot fit tighter than the MT110. The more snug rear foot/heel means debris is less likely to get into the shoes.

    The lugs of the MT1010 looked a bit suspicious to me at the start. However, I had no problem running through muddy wet grass and it should hold up well on most track conditions. Have not yet tested it on slippery rock but bear in mind that MT110 used a much softer, stickier rubber which would help with wet rock grip but breaks down all too easily.

    The biggest problem of MT110 has been the intentional higher lateral mid/outsole build up which I believe contributed to my current shin pain caused by tibialis posterior tendon irritation. I was glad to see that MT1010 has a more 'traditional' slant in which the outsole of the heel is slightly lower on the outside than the inside.

    MT1010 is definitely the go-between shoes for 'transitional' runners looking at getting into minimalism. It is also an ultra distance shoes for the already efficient mid/forefoot runner. I don't think MT1010 is a groundbreaking update of anything which New Balance already has on the market but it is going to be the closest one will get to a pair of shoes which can potentially appeal to a wide range of runners.

  56. KenZ

    "The biggest problem of MT110 has been the intentional higher lateral mid/outsole build up "

    I so agree. I loved the 101s. Bought a 110 the first week it came out, ran in it for a week, and it's been in the closet ever since gathering dust. Mainly because I bought up three pairs of 101s to tide me over until something else comes along. Met a guy this weekend who bought up SIX pairs of 101s.

    For that replacement shoe for the 101, it's not the 1010, but I will definitely look at the 1010 as an option for the longer distances. Right now using a Montrail Rogue Fly which I really like, so I'm not sure I want to up the quiver quite yet.

    Thanks for the really good reviews (MikeZ and Katfish); these are very helpful.

    1. MikeZ


      Have you tried Pearl Izumi Peak II ? It slightly stiffer than MT101 but has a seamless upper which makes it far more comfortable to wear barefeet or with thin socks. The heel-toe drop is virtually identical. Peak II is slightly heavier at ~ 9oz but it has reinforcements along the the forefoot upper where 101 is prone to tearing. The grip on PeakII is far more superior with deeper lugs. Definitely the shoes to consider for 101 fans.

      1. KenZ

        Thanks for the suggestion; hadn't even looked at PI. They're on the short list for the next purchase now. Plus, the 101 does have crap for traction, so deeper lugs would be most welcome.

  57. Paul Harmer

    MT1010 -soles failing after 60k

    M1010 soles very disappointing: after just 60km, back stud on one shoe falling off and 2 off the front ones unglued already. On other shoe 3 front orange studs separating from rest of sole.

    Very frustrating as shoes now becoming very comfortable :(

    P Harmer (Cape Town)

      1. Katifsh

        hmm. P Harmer's comment prompted e to check my 1010s (after 100km). was surprised to find that at the front of both shoes, a 'stud' is starting to peel away. i do run partially on rocky terrain, but not the best sign for a model designed for ultras

  58. Andy

    That's disturbing to hear. I unboxed my first pair today with glee and managed a quick loop on mixed terrain. The feel and fit are great (to be expected), but we'll see if they hold up. I do recall my first pair of 110s sustained a tear to the upper in the first week and NB happily exchanged them. But if this is a fatal design flaw in the 1010's outsole that's a different story. Was hoping to get this pair to last at least thru a 50m in late Sept but I'm not optimistic based on this.

  59. Garth

    Warning – Try them on before buying! I went to pick up a pair of MT1010s today and I was shocked to discover how incredibly different the sizing is from the other NB shoes. I just assumed they would fit the same as my 110s or MT10s. I wear MT101, MT10, and MT110 without problems, but with these I pulled the laces all the way closed so that a big pyramid of upper material formed in the front of the show and they were still too loose. It wasn't even close. The width and length were correct and I could not go any smaller in size. It's just the volume in the upper is HUGE and I can't possibly fill it, lol I'm incredibly disappointed because I was looking forward to these and they felt good in the store.

    So I think some people are going to love these shoes, while others will have to continue the search. To cheer myself up, I bought a second pair of 110s which I can now wear down or file off the lateral edge ;-)

  60. Andy

    Garth – I agree the upper/toebox is very soft and roomy. Maybe try running for a few hot hours and see if your feet can swell to fill them!

    I also agree completely with Katfish's 5-point review above. The other thing I would add as a quasi-negative is that although I have yet to take them through any bodies of water (dessicated woodlands here in New England), I've returned from each of my now 5 runs with sopping wet shoes. At first I thought it was just a really humid day (humidity has been very high all week), but the shoes are wet and stay wet for a long while post-run unless placed in the sun to dry.

    And, after only about 30 miles (yes, rocky terrain), one front lug is already starting to peel.

    On the bright side, while lacking that "snug, cast-slipper" feel of the 110, they are super-comfy and lack the stupid lateral edge rise that all three pairs of my 110s suffer from (not resolved by one attempt to shave off lugs). Still unsure about whether the bit of extra stack height and softness will serve well over the longer haul and outweigh the weaknesses. I may start my next 50m next month in the 1010s, but a pair of 110s will be in a drop bag for sure.

  61. Danna

    Has anyone else noticed a prominent seam or ridge under the toes about 1/2" from the front of the shoe? I didn't notice it when trying them on, but after my first 4 miles on trail today I ended up with a blister under my longish 2nd toe from rubbing over the seam on downhills. I checked out my wt110s, wt00s, wt10s and 730s (yeah I'm a fan) and none of them have anything that this noticeable or this far back. I guess its possible to go a 1/2 size up so the toes couldn't reach it, but my super narrow feet tend to slide to the front of any shoe, so that might not work. Just wondering if I got a defective pair or if they're all like this? Can't imagine trying to go without socks. Trying to decide whether to send them back or rig a thin insole over it… bummer either way. At least an insole would help fill some of the extra volume, but I wasn't looking to add to the stack height.

    Ever since I took a box cutter to the lateral lugs on my 110s I've been incredibly happy with them, but I was excited to try the 1010s for ultra distances. At least they have no lateral build up, and with the exception of this toe rubbing issue, they ran like a dream.

Post Your Thoughts