Comments on: Top 3 Most Disappointing Running Shoes of 2012

By: George

George — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I know this is heresy but I have to go with the Kinvara 3. Loved the K2. But the Kinvara 3 just feels hard. I was told they would soften up after a while. But 150 miles later, they're still hard. I even BQ'd and set a 21 minute PR marathon at Philly in them but still don't like them. Maybe it's the resultant calcaneal stress fracture that has me peeved but I liked the 2 much better. And did not have the wear problems that others complained about.

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I disagree with you about the MT101. The toebox on that shoe was way too narrow for me and I had to tape up my pinky toes for any runs longer than 4 miles due to the rubbing. They fixed this in the 110 thankfully. I didn't run into the issue with the lateral midfoot/forefoot buildup.

As for shoes that I didn't like:

3) NB MR00. The side-attached tongue and flat laces / fabrid eyelets made the shoe much less comfortable than it could have been. The sole was flat and dead. It should have either been thicker with a tiny bit of cushion (like the MR730) or thinner (Merrell shoes) so that I could have some road feel.

2) MT00. This shoe took minimalist a little too far. The nylon moccasin with bubbles on the bottom went overboard for a trail shoe. I seldom found trails that were smooth enough to run comfortably in this shoe that I wouldn't rather just run barefoot on. I would have liked a bit more structure.

1) Cascadia 6. Probably the worst shoe that I've owned since I stopped buying Nikes after the Air Max in 1994. Not a minimalist shoe at all, but I loved the Cascadia 5 so I bought the 6 without trying it on. The shoe was way too built up, the lugs were totally wrong and it seemed like the first step off of the cliff for that shoe line.

By: claudia

claudia — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

As a hardcore fan of the original Nike Free Run, I thought that the 3.0 v.4 would be the perfect replacement. Alas, the weird, stretchy upper failed to hold my foot in place and within the first few runs in them, my IT band hurt. I returned them and am back in my collection of old original Free Runs, running pain free. In short, I TOTALLY AGREE!

By: Matt Butler

Matt Butler — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I found the MT110 shoe nirvana, I have run up to 18 miles on mostly muddy/dirt trails with no complaints at all. Sad to hear the Nike Free v4 suck so bad, the v2 was one of my favourites until they fell apart.

By: Todd

Todd — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I have the NB MT110 and don't feel the lateral buildup at all. Have you tried a 2nd pair on to see if it was a manufacturing anomaly? I had a pair of NB Minimus Road that was an excellent shoe for me. When they wore out I bought another pair. Same size and model and every time I ran in them I developed a pain under the ball of my big toe. I went back to the 1st pair and had no problems. I ran in the new pair several times and always developed that pain. I couldn't figure it out and eventually recycled them.

By: Ashwyn Gray

Ashwyn Gray — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Excellent post, Pete!
Another note about the MT110: A friend just sent me a picture of his pair after 160-ish miles. The outsole was worn almost completely flat. And, the midsole appeared to be peeling away from the upper. These were falling apart! He contacted customer service and was told that the shoes were expected to last for 200 miles. Only 200 miles for a trail shoe?!? That's just silly, I think.

By: Ilich L

Ilich L — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Couldn't resist a pair of the 110s for $40 for Christmas. Ran 10 miles of rocky/muddy trails in them yesterday afternoon. Compared to my 1010s, they're built up a little more on the outside of the forefoot where my foot contacts the ground, have more (firmer) cushion and a rock plate that doesn't remind you it's there with every step.

For me, they're the perfect trail shoe. Thanks Santa.

By: Pete Larson

Pete Larson — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In reply to chris.

We'll at least have one overlap in our top 3 trail shoes :)

----
Pete Larson's Web Links:
-My book: Tread Lightly: http://ow.ly/bdUO0
-Blog: https://runblogger.com
-Twitter: http://twitter.com/Runblogger
-Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/Runbl...
-Discussion Forum: https://runblogger.com/forum

By: Evan

Evan — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In reply to Ashwyn Gray.

Really? I have over 700 miles on mine (almost all trail) and most of the rubber is still left. Few cracks in the black plastic upper, but still very runnable. This is basically the cheapest per-mile shoe I've ever bought, (and I just got another pair for 40 bucks online)....

By: ultrastevep

ultrastevep — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In reply to Pete Larson.

I sent mine back after one run due to this reason...

By: Garth Somerville

Garth Somerville — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Although I understand the complaint about the MT110, I have stuck with them for all of my trail racing and I have to say they have not let me down. On one pair the upper ripped open during a race, but New Balance replaced them for me at no cost.

I would love to have an MT110 with a little more cushioning! But I don't know of any current shoe that would fit that spec (the same weight within a few ounces, same fit, and roughly same traction but with more cushioning) I had hoped the update would be to add some cushioning but it turned out that is not the case.

By: Pete Larson

Pete Larson — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In reply to Kevin Schell.

No, haven't tried the 4.0 because I was scared off by the fit of the 3.0. Is the 4.0 fit the same?