I received the AllOut Rush last winter (Disclosure: these were media samples provided free of charge by Merrell), and it’s taken me a long time to get to this review. The main reason is because my experience with the shoes has been rather mixed. However, I believe in writing honest reviews, so I’m going to lay out my feelings on them here. I’d also be curious to hear about your experience with the Rush if you’ve tried them.

Most of my initial runs in the AllOut Rush were during last winter, and so were on a mix of packed snow, ice, and intermittent bare asphalt. Though traction was good, the shoes just did not feel right on my feet. My expectation was a cushier ride given the added sole stack relative to other Merrell models I have run in, but the shoes felt surprisingly firm under all conditions, and particularly harsh on the stretches of road that I had to cover (and in fairness tom Merrell, this is not intended as a road shoe). I stopped running in them for a long time as a result. Last month I spent two weeks in northern Vermont and decided to take the shoes with me for a second chance – my feelings remained pretty similar, too firm a running shoe for my taste even on dirt roads and trails. It’s worth noting that Thomas Neuberger over at Believe in the Run had similar feelings about the ride of this shoe. (However, as I’ll get to below, I have found them to be great casual and light hiking shoes.)

While on the subject of cushion, there is some discrepancy between what Merrell reports for stack height (24.5mm heel, 18.5mm forefoot) vs. what Running Warehouse reports (28mm heel, 17mm forefoot). I just measured my pair and got 23mm heel, 16mm forefoot, but they have been broken in so my numbers are likely closer to Merrell’s numbers if it were a fresh shoe.

One thing to note about the stack height numbers in this shoe, and I think this influences the ride considerably, is that 8.5mm of the stack height is attributable to the luggy, rubber outsole. Simply stated, there is a lot of rubber on the bottom of this shoe. Much of the outsole is also continuous – there are no breaks for flex grooves, so it makes it hard to compress the midsole in any given spot. I’m wondering if this helps to contribute to the firm-feeling ride. Merrell did also include firmer midsole plates under the heel and forefoot (see photo at right) and this might further add to the firm feel.

One of the issues that arises with the extensive outsole on this shoe is that it affects the way the shoe is balanced from a weight standpoint. Running Warehouse reports a weight of 9.1oz in men’s size 9 for the Rush, so it’s not a terribly heavy shoe. However, much of this weight is localized in the outsole, so it feels heavy under the foot. If I had to recommend a change for future iterations of the Rush it would be to maybe add some flex grooves to the outsole, or at least break it up in some way to reduce weight and improve the ability to compress the midsole cushion. I’m curious to try the Merrell AllOut Flash since it seems to incorporate many of these wishes (though it is a more road-oriented shoe).

One final, minor complaint about the Rush before we get to the good stuff. When my buddy Nate got these shoes he notice that the forefoot upper tends to pucker when you cinch down the laces at the bottom of the lace row. He has narrower feet than me so the puckering was quite apparent. I have noticed this as well but on a much smaller scale and it has not interfered with comfort in my case (you can see the puckering in the photo to the left).

Given what I’ve written so far it might sound like the AllOut Rush was a total disaster for me. For running, yes, I’d say it has not been a good match. However, I have used the Rush extensively as a casual shoe and for light hiking, and for both purposes it has been excellent (and it’s also a great looking shoe from a design standpoint). My sense is really that the Rush should have been marketed more as a light hiker than as a trail running shoe because it excels in this area. I’ve done multiple short hikes in them, and the firmness ceases to be an issue. Furthermore, the extensive outsole becomes a plus for protection and grip on the trail. The weight balance also feels more boot-like than running-shoe like and so the Rush feels more at home in the hiking environment.

Another thing I really like about the Rush is the fit. The shoe fits like a typical Merrell Barefoot shoe (e.g., like the Bare Access or Trail Glove) so it has a nice, snug fit in the heel through forefoot and a great, roomy toebox. I particularly love that the Merrell toebox is accommodating near the big toe – you can see in the photo below how the forefoot does not curve inward abruptly in this area as it does in many other shoes. This allows for solid toe splay, and makes the shoes very comfortable for all-day wear.

The upper of the Rush is minimally structured but is made of a relatively thick material. It does a good job of keeping the foot warm, and makes this a great all-around casual cool-weather shoe. And in winter the lugs make it great for walks in the snow and over crusty ice.

Conclusions

The Merrell AllOut Rush did not work out well for me as a running shoe – it felt too firm underfoot and I felt like the weight-balance was more boot-like than running shoe-like. However, due to its comfortable fit and performance as a light hiker and winter casual shoe, the Rush will likely remain on my shoe rack for the foreseeable future. If you like a firm feeling, luggy trail shoe with a fair amount of stack height, then the Merrell AllOut Rush might be worth a shot (we all have different preference!).

Purchasing Options

The Merrell AllOut Rush is available for purchase in the US from Running Warehouse, in multiple colorways at Zappos, and at Amazon.com. Outside of the US it can be purchased at Amazon UK or one of the many Merrell country-specific websites (e.g. Merrell UK here, Merrell Canada here). Purchases from these retailers provide a small commission to this site and help me to keep pumping out reviews like this one – your support is much appreciated!

(Update: I have now reviewed the Merrell AllOut Rush here)

In the comments section of my post yesterday on why I run in minimal shoes, the Merrell AllOut collection came up. I haven’t posted much about this line yet, but I got a chance to try them on back in May and I’m really looking forward to their arrival.

In a nutshell, the AllOut collection is new line that steps back a bit from the Merrell Barefoot collection by adding softer cushioning and a higher heel-toe drop (6mm). It’s not intended to replace Merrell Barefoot, which will continue to exist alongside AllOut, but rather to offer broader options to runners with different preferences (Merrell has already done this a bit with the Mix Master trail shoe). The last is similar to that found on shoes like the Trail Glove and Bare Access, so it retains the wide Merrell Barefoot forefoot construction that I love. Given that 4-6mm drop and slightly soft cushion is my sweet spot for a distance shoe, I’m hoping these will be a good match!

The feature Merrell is pushing in these shoes is a new sole design. The midsole is quite soft, almost squishy, but they put a firmer foam plate under the heel and forefoot to allow better feel in those areas (see photo below). This seems similar to what Newton does with the plate under the forefoot, but the Merrell shoes have no forefoot lugs like a Newton. I was only able to stand in them, and the shoes were a size too small for me, but my first impression was positive.

To give you a bit of taste of some of the shoes coming in the AllOut collection, below are preview videos that were recorded by Runningshoes.com at the 2013 Summer Outdoor Retailer Show (all images are still captures from the Runningshoes.com videos).

Merrell AllOut Rush

The Merrell AllOut Rush is a 6mm drop trail running shoe with 5mm lugs. This shoe is intended as a protective, dedicated trail running shoe.

Merrell AllOut Fuse

Whereas the AllOut Rush is a luggy trail shoe, the AllOut Fuse is more of a road-to-trail shoe with a grippy sole but no pronounced lugs. Of the two, the Fuse will probably be the better match for my typical running needs.

At each meeting Merrell typically provides attendees with a pair of one of their new shoes, and this year each of us received a pair of the Merrell Ascend Glove to try out. I’ve now put in about 25 miles on the shoes, mostly on trails, and am ready to render my verdict.

To allay any fears of bias that may taint my review given my relationship with Merrell, I will say that I have not been crazy about some of their recent offerings. I think the Road Glove 2 is a step back from the original, and the Proterra Sport is a nice shoe, but the sole is too stiff for me and as a result my heels got torn up on a hike in the shoes. I like the Bare Access 2, but it’s too firm for me to use it for long distances on the road. In contrast, the Ascend Glove hit a sweep spot for me, and I’ve been absolutely loving it so far.

I’ve seen the Ascend Glove described as the Trail Glove with more cushion and a luggier sole, or as the Bare Access with a rock plate and tread. Both are reasonably accurate descriptions – think of it as a hybrid of the two shoes.

Merrell Ascend Glove (Gore-Tex version is picture here)

Upper, Fit, and Feel

The fit of the Ascend Glove is classic Merrell – wide in the forefoot, glove-like through the midfoot and heel. Of note is the fact that though there is arch support, it does not feel as intrusive to me as in some of the other Merrell Barefoot shoes. The interior is suitable for sockless running, though as is typical for me with Merrell Barefoot shoes the lack of cushion around the ankle collar means that I get skin-ripping abrasion near my Achilles insertion. Thin socks solve this problem.

The upper is composed of a double-layer of synthetic mesh – the inner layer has a tighter weave to keep debris out, and the outer layer is more open. The result is a shoe that is highly breathable and that sheds water really well. I did 5 miles on trails with my friend Nate a bit over a week ago and he took me through quite a bit of mud and water. The Ascends let the water flow in, but it flows right back out without issue. Some silt got into the shoes through the weave, but mostly very fine stuff and I didn’t have any issues or discomfort.

The lacing system on the Ascend Gloves uses traditional eyelets rather than the Omni-Fit system featured on the Trail Glove. This will disappoint some, but works fine for me.

One final comment about the Ascend Glove upper has nothing to do with function or performance, but the shoe looks fantastic, probably my favorite Merrell shoe in terms of appearance since the original Trail Glove.

Sole

The sole of the Ascend Glove is zero drop with a stack-height of 10.5mm (6mm midsole cushion, the rest is the Vibram rubber outsole). This is slightly less midsole than the Bare Access 2, and as a result the Ascend Glove feels more flexible to me.

The sole incorporates a rock plate in both the forefoot and heel. I’ve run over quite a bit of pointy crushed rock in these shoes and will say that they provide better protection than a thinner-soled minimal shoe, but you will feel rocks if you take a direct hit. That being said, I have not experienced any discomfort running on crushed rock sections of trail. They provide better protection than a shoe like the New Balance MT10, and comparable protection to the Inov-8 Trailroc 235 or Altra Superior.

Merrell Ascend Glove Sole (yes, I have dogs!)

One of the things I like about the sole is that it is full-contact – no cutout under the arch as in some other Merrell Barefoot shoes. This makes for a very smooth ride. The outsole is luggier than the the Trail Glove, but only slightly so. This is not a mud shoe like an Inov-8 X-Talon, but I have not had traction issues on any of the trails I have run (though admittedly I have not tackled thick mud). The benefit of the flat lug design is that the shoe handles well on roads as well as trails, making it a solid hybrid shoe. The ride on roads is firm, and feels great on softer surfaces.

Performance

As I mentioned at the outset I’ve put in about 25 miles in the Ascend Gloves. They are similar enough to other Merrell shoes that I feel this is sufficient to get a good handle on them, and the experience so far has been very positive. My first run in them was a quick 3-mile trail run out in Oregon, and my immediate reaction was that they were a lot of fun to run in, especially downhill. Very reminiscent of the Inov-8 Trailroc 235. I’ve put in another 10-15 trail miles back in NH, along with 5-10 on the road, and the shoes have handled just about everything well. I even took them along on a camping trip last week and wore them almost exclusively out and about, including a full day at Santa’s Village. They are super comfortable as a casual shoe, and I love their versatility.

Conclusion

If you’re looking for a zero-drop trail shoe with a rock-plate and a wide toebox, the Merrell Ascend Glove is definitely a shoe to consider. As mentioned a few times, closest competitors would be the Inov-8 Trailroc 235 and Altra Superior, and maybe the New Balance MT10 (though it lacks a rock plate). The Ascend Glove holds is own with all of these, and in my opinion is the best looking of the bunch (because we all know that’s the reason most people choose a shoe!).

The Merrell Ascend Glove can be purchased at Amazon and Zappos.

Merrell Ascend Glove 6-Pair Giveaway

The folks at Merrell were kind enough to offer up six pairs of Ascend Gloves for a giveaway – 3 for the guys and 3 for the ladies. To enter, simply follow the instructions in the Rafflecopter widget below:

“Well, if you haven’t yet noticed I’m impressed with the shoe. I love to run (right?), so using these shoes makes it so I can really just run. The extra protection and grip in the sole is SO appreciated. I feel like the Merrell folks read my mind recently. I mean in almost every instance I can get by with the Trail Glove 2, Road Glove 2 or the Bare Access 2 and I have for many miles. However, having the ability to just let fly without worrying about anything on rough terrain is a beautiful thing.

My pair has only about 70 miles on them so far. I have used them on the crushed gravel surfaces flawlessly, trails, grass, dirt of all kinds. The run up to and from on paved roads for a few miles is also smooth and comfortable. In a month or so, I will be spending a few weeks running on rough mountain trails robust with skree and other challenging surfaces. I will update this post upon my experiences there.

Although I wouldn’t want to waste those sweet Vibram nuggets on pavement- it works. This new Merrell Ascend Glove is a winner, folks!”

You can read Vitarunner’s full Merrell Ascend Glove review on the Forum here, or on his own website here.

The Merrell Ascend Glove is available for purchase at Amazon.com.

Then I had kids.

Since my oldest son was born back in 2003, long hikes have been few and far between. We do manage a few every summer, and after my Vasques finally bit the bucket I bought a pair of Garmont boots that wound up tearing the heck out of my heels every time I wore them. I’ll never forget the bloody mess they created on a hike from the Von Trapp Lodge in Stowe, VT. I haven’t worn them since.

After becoming a runner, and then discovering more minimal shoes, I’ve grown accustomed to hiking mostly in lightweight trail running shoes. They keep me close to the ground, rock plates handle most anything I typically encounter on a trail just fine, and I’m generally not doing anything too long or intense so super rugged boots are usually unnecessary.

I was excited last Fall when I was at Merrell HQ in Michigan and they told me about how they were trying to re-engineer the hiking boot with lessons learned from their Merrell Barefoot line. They introduced me to the Proterra Sport and the Proterra Mid Sport. Both are considered “speed-hiking” shoes, which are kind of a cross between a hiking boot and a trail running shoe like the Merrell Mix Master. I was intrigued by the concept, and received pairs of each to try out earlier this year.

The Proterra Sport and Proterra Mid Sport are similar shoes, with the Mid having a higher ankle collar. I’ve spent most of my time so far in the lower cut Proterra Sport.

Compared to most shoes that I wear, the Proterra Sport feels like a tank – my pair in size 10 weigh in at 13.8 oz on my scale. While walking in them I feel like I can crush anything in my path, much like Godzilla smashing down buildings. I suppose this is a good thing if you want protection on the trail. The rigid sole also feels super stable – it provides a nice, wide base, and at 4mm drop it doesn’t feel liking I’m wearing a pair of high-heeled shoes. It also has an inverted lug design that they were really excited about when unveiling the shoe last fall – I can’t say whether or not this is better or worse than a traditional lugged sole, just different.

In terms of fit, the Proterra is a super comfortable shoe, and a nice departure from many other hiking boots I have worn. The forefoot is wide and squared off – it fits kind of like a Keen shoe. Plenty of room to move the toes around. Since the upper is a synthetic mesh it breathes well, thought it is not waterproof (I did wear it a bunch this winter and it handles snow pretty well without getting soaked).

In most respects Merrell has created a hiking shoe that pulls some of the best aspects of minimalism into the hiking shoe niche. The wide forefoot and 4mm drop sole in particular are great. Where I have run into problems is with the rigidity of the sole.

There was apparently some debate about whether to include a shank in the sole. My knowledge of boot design is rudimentary relative to my knowledge of running shoe design, but my understanding is that a shank functions to increase rigidity and supports the sole under the arch. Shanks are common in work boots and hiking boots – for more on the function of a shank see this article from the Outside Gear Guy. The “molded TPU arch shank” in the Proterra may be part of my problem with the shoe.

My issues with the Proterra manifested on a 7 mile hike last week in Vermont. My wife and I were climbing a rocky switchback trail, and I started to feel a telltale abrasion on the backs of my heels. Blisters were in the works, and we were only a mile and a half into the hike. The problem was obvious – the rigid sole doesn’t flex well, and every time I pushed off my forefoot the back of the shoe levered down, then when I took the next step onto my heel the heel pushed back up. The result was rubbing and abrasion at the back of the heel.

Given that I’m running a marathon in a week, the last thing I needed was bloody, open sores over my Achilles insertion point on each foot. I went into panic mode and tried tightening the lacing to hold the shoe in place with a better lockdown. That actually made things worse. I went the other direction and loosed them up as much as I could. The heels still continued to slide up and down relative to my skin, but there was enough space now that the abrasion stopped. I kept them really loose for the remainder of the hike and managed ok. I think this is exactly the same problem I had with the Garmont boots I used to have. Rigid soles don’t work well for me, and I won’t tolerate blood and pain to break a shoe in.

This phenomenon is not unique to hiking boots. A running shoe with an inflexible sole can cause the same problem. The original Altra Lone Peak was criticized for this, and early releases of the Altra Torin (which has a thick sole) were missing a set of lace holes which prevented a good lockdown of the heel. I value flexibility greatly as it helps me avoid heel abrasion, and it’s a problem I have rarely had since going minimal.

It might be the case that a good break-in period would increase the flex in the sole and help me avoid this problem, but I’m hesitant to risk blistering on my heels since it makes both walking and running miserable for several weeks (if you’ve got a lot of miles on the Proterra, I ‘d love to hear about whether flexibility increases as they break in). I could also continue to wear them really loose, but that might not be the best option for someone wanting stability in a hiking shoe.

My advice to Merrell would be to keep most everything about the shoe the same, but remove the shank from the sole and attempt to increase flexibility. The heel counter is also not well padded, which increases abrasion, so adding a bit more padding behind the heel might be of benefit.

I like what Merrell is trying to do with the Proterra, but for me it remains just a bit off from being a shoe I’d choose for a long hike. I need to give the Proterra Sport Mid a try and see if the higher ankle collar locks my foot down a bit better to prevent the abrasion. On the positive side for Merrell, my current preferred hiking shoe if I needed something a bit more than a trail running shoe would be the Merrell Mix Master Mid. It’s basically a waterproof, beefed up version of the Mix Master 2 trail running shoe, and it shares its flexible sole and rock-plate. There is a new version called the Mix Master Mid Tuff that I have not tried yet, and the original Mix Master Mid is on clearance at 6pm right now for $76.99 (as of May 18, 2013).

The Merrell Proterra Sport can be purchased at Amazon.com and Zappos.MSRP is $100.

Below are available color options for the men’s Proterra Sport at Zappos:

Merrell Trail Glove 2

Major updates include:

1. They have added grooves to the rock plate in the sole to increase flexibility and make the shoe less “slappy.”

2. The upper is less structured and made with seamless material for a “soft, natural feel on the foot.” I did get some hotspots when running sockless in the original Trail Glove so hopefully this will alleviate that problem.

3. They removed two of the OMNIFIT lace closures to mimic the closure system in the women’s Pace Glove. They say that this should ease getting the shoe on and off an allow for better forefoot splay. They also had reports that the bottom 2 closures put pressure on the top of the foot in some runners and that contributed to the decision to make this change.

Other than the above changes and some cosmetic updates, this is largely the same shoe that people have come to love. They did make a point to tell me that they did not alter the arch contour since they get a lot of positive feedback about how it contributes to the glove-like fit that the shoe provides. I’ve never been bothered by the arch contour in the Merrell Barefoot shoes, but I know some people don’t like it. Appears more like it than don’t since it has not been changed.

I should have a pair of these soon, so stay tuned for more!

Merrell Pace Glove 2

In addition to the Trail Glove, Merrell is also updating the women’s Pace Glove. I didn’t get a list of the updates to this shoe, but from the photo below it looks like the elasticized ankle collar has been replaced with a more traditional ankle collar. I had heard complaints about the elastic collar digging into the skin, so this alone should be a welcome improvement.

Below are the Ascend Glove photos posted by Running Warehouse, and I’ll hopefully have more details soon!

In many ways, we complement each other nicely since he’s a trail ultrarunner and I’m primarily a road runner. As such, we often share thoughts on shoes the other has not tried (e.g., he’s the reason I may give in and try a pair of Hokas). Nate and I have also been working together lately on reviewing the same shoe from our individual perspectives, as well as doing some product development work with Skechers (e.g., we wear-tested countless iterations of the Go Bionic, and are currently wear testing a trail version of that shoe that is fantastic – stay tuned on that front).

A few weeks ago I posted my review of the new Merrell Bare Access 2 zero drop shoe. Today Nate posted his take on the shoe, and I wanted to direct you to it since I think it’s always valuable to read multiple perspectives on a given shoe. Like me, Nate liked the shoe a lot. Unlike me, however, Nate has received a shipment of Merrell’s M-Connect line for 2013 – I’m jealous, and am hoping I have said package on my doorstep when I return home this evening (see his post to see what I’m talking about!

Read Nate’s Merrell Bare Access review here: http://bikernate.blogspot.com/2012/11/merrell-bare-access-shoe-review.html

The Bare Access 2 is the newest addition to the Merrell Barefoot line, and is the successor to a shoe that I like a lot and reviewed not too long ago. The Bare Access is Merrell’s cushioned, zero drop offering, and it was a strong enough performer that it made my list of recommended running shoes. In a niche that is growing rapidly, the original Bare Access scored points in having a nice, roomy toebox, a lightweight, reasonably flexible build, and a comfortable ride out on the road.

For the most part, most everything that I liked about the original Bare Access carries over into the new model. Fit is identical, cushioning is similarly firm (zero drop, 13-14mm stack height), and interior comfort is excellent (note: as with other shoes in the Merrell line, the BA2 has a contoured fit under the arch, so if you don’t like arch support, you may not like this shoe).

The main differences between the BA1 and BA2 include the following:

Merrell Bare Access 2 (top) and 1 (bottom)

1. The Bare Access 2 has a redesigned upper. I was initially concerned when I saw the upper of the BA2 since it looks and feels like the monofilament style upper that has suffered tearing issues in so many shoes of late. Merrell themselves had trouble with the upper of the original Mix Master trail shoe and had to pull it from the market. I emailed my contacts at Merrell about this and received the following response:

“The Bare Access 2 mesh is polyester…..not monomesh nylon. The polyester mesh has passed all of our stringent testing. We have had no issues on the extended wear testing as well. From a distance, the mesh has the sheer look, but their makeups are totally different. Both from a composition stand point and also from a weave structure.”

Given Merrell’s reputation for quality build, I suspected they wouldn’t make the same mistake twice, and this response allays my fears about upper durability in the BA2. I like the look of the BA2 moreso than the BA1, so I guess that’s a score in favor of the new model. In looking at the photo below, it appears that the space between the lace rows is much wider in the new Bare Access – not sure if this means anything, but it’s clearly a design difference and may allow for a better fit for those with a high-volume midfoot.

Merrell Bare Access 2 (top) and 1 (bottom)

2. The second major difference is that the BA2 has a full coverage Vibram rubber outsole compared to the mostly exposed foam sole of the BA1. One complaint I have frequently seen about the sole of the original Bare Access is that abrasion tends to eat away at the surface of the exposed foam (you can see this in the photo below). This happened in my shoes too, but it was more just cosmetic scuffing than any real breakdown of the sole material.

The Vibram sole of the BA2 should improve durability in the newer model, but the expense is that it adds about an ounce to the weight of the shoe (the BA2 comes in at right around 7 ounces in size 10 compared to 6.2 ounces for the BA1). It also makes for a bit more ground contact noise on the run since the rubber has less give than exposed foam. Merrell could probably remove a good bit of the rubber from the midfoot region of the shoe without sacrificing durability to shed some weight and improve flexibility (the horizontal white grooves across the forefoot do allow for pretty good flex up front). One point to note is that the grooves in the rubber outsole tend to pick up small pebbles – I don’t notice this while running since they are tiny.

Merrell Bare Access 2 (top) and 1 (bottom). Not the abrasion of the red sole on the BA1 below the toes. You can also see how the rubber sole of the BA2 picks up little pebbles.

That pretty much sums up the major differences between the two shoes, and will refer you back to my Bare Access 1 review for more details. I’ve run in the BA2 three times so far, and the experience has been great. It’s a bit firmer than I typically like, but that’s just a personal preference, and it does make for a stable feel underfoot. Unlike some, I enjoy the glove-like fit provided by the contoured arch, and the Merrell Barefoot last works really well on my feet – nearly perfectly proportioned.

Comparing it to other shoes in the cushioned, zero drop niche, the Bare Access 2 is lighter and more flexible than the Altra Instinct 1.5, but firmer and not nearly as flexible as the Skechers GoBionic. I’d compare it most closely to the New Balance Minimus Road MR00, but the BA2 is a bit wider through the midfoot, which is a plus for me. All of these are excellent shoes, so the choice largely comes down to one of personal taste with regard to fit, flexibility, and firmness underfoot.

For more information and to purchase the shoes, visit the Merrell webpage to view the men’s and women’s versions of the Bare Access 2.

The original men’s Bare Access can be purchased at a discounted price from Zappos.

For another take on the Bare Access 2, visit Believe in the Run, Biker Nate, Coach Caleb, and Vagabond Running. There is also a Bare Access 2 on the Runblogger Forum.

The Mix Master 2 came out this summer (disclosure: the pair reviewed here was a media sample provided free of charge by Merrell), and aside from the new upper material it’s pretty much the same shoe I reviewed last December. As such, I’ll try to be brief since most of what I wrote in the previous review applies to this shoe as well.

First and foremost, Merrell has succeeded in fixing the upper issue with the original Mix Master. I’ve run over 40 miles on the Mix Master 2’s and have had no durability issues. In fact, the MM2 has come to be my favorite lightweight trail shoe for the reasons I’ll outline below.

My favorite thing about the Mix Master 2 is the fit – like the Merrell Barefoot shoes it feels as if it was made specifically for my foot shape. The heel and midfoot are snug but not constricting, and the forefoot is plenty roomy for me. I get no hotspots from this shoe, even when sockless, which is a big plus. A big improvement over the Merrell Barefoot shoes is that the ankle collar in the Mix Master is cushioned, so it does not dig into the skin over my Achilles. The upper drains very well – it did not get waterlogged the one time I ran through a stream in it.

The sole of the Mix Master is well-cushioned but firm – this is not a springy shoe. Stack heights reported on Running Warehouse are 16mm heel, 12mm forefoot (weight comes in at under 10oz), so it’s a reasonably close-to-the-ground ride. Despite have a full-length, lugged rubber outsole and a rock plate, it’s a pretty flexible shoe. The lugs provide reasonable traction (no slippage as I have experience in the Brooks Grit), but the thin sole will allow you to feel rocks underfoot (though the presence of the rock plate means no sharp pain or serious bruising as experienced in a shoe like the NB Minimus Trail).

I’ve used the Mix Master over quite a variety of terrain, from rooty trails, to roads, to gravel road, to a rugged section of the VT100 race course, and it has handled all very well. It’s a solid hybrid shoe that can handle both roads and most trail conditions very well (maybe not so great for mud with the low lugs, but haven’t tried it for that).

I can honestly say that as I plan to run a few trail ultras next year (looking for a new challenge!), the Mix Master 2 would be the early frontrunner to be the shoe on my feet. I’ve enjoyed every mile that I’ve put on them so far, and give them my highest recommendation! In fact, my wife was recently in need of a trail shoe, and given all of the options out there, I bought her a pair of the women’s Mix Master Glide – she’s a tough critic, but so far she seems to be enjoying them (and I haven’t been yelled at about the shoe choice!).

For more additional commentary, I’ll refer you back to my original Mix Master review since it mostly applies, and also check out my hard-core trail running buddy Nate Sanel’s review of the Mix Master 2.

For more information, you can check out the Mix Master 2 on Merrell.com. They also have an Aeroblock version and a waterproof light hiking boot (which I also have, but have not tried yet).

The Merrell Mix Master 2 can be purchased at Running Warehouse.

The Bare Access is Merrell’s contribution to the zero-drop, cushioned shoe niche, where it competes with shoes like the Altra Instinct, New Balance MR00, Saucony Hattori, and the soon to be released Skechers Go Bionic, Saucony Virrata, and Brooks Pure Drift. For me, these shoes nail a sweet spot by being flat, but also by providing enough cushion to take the edge off on a longish run. Along with 4-5 mm drop cushioned shoes, shoes in this category find their way onto my feet for most of my miles these days, and the Bare Access is one that has been on my feet as much as any other shoe over the past several months.

The Bare Access scores big points with me for its fit. It’s one of those shoes that feels as if it were made just for my foot. Snug in the heel and midfoot (but not overly narrow in the midfoot like the NB MR00), it opens up into an ample forefoot that provides plenty of room for my metatarsals and toes to spread out. It does have a bit of contour under the arch, but this doesn’t bother me at all, and it feels less prominent than in the Merrell Road Glove. The Bare Access is a ridiculously comfortable shoe, and it’s one of the first that I reach for when choosing something for all-day use (if you’re looking for a zero drop shoe for casual, non-running use, this is a great choice) .

The upper of the Bare Access is well-made and seems to be very durable. The mesh upper allows the shoes to breathe well, and internally it feels great on a bare foot. The footbed is non-removable, but there are no raised edges where it is stitched in to cause blister issues (a problem for me in some shoes with integrated footbeds). Unfortunately though, sockless running is not possible for me in this shoe because like many shoes in the Merrell Barefoot line (e.g., Trail, Sonic, and Road Gloves), the ankle collar digs into the skin behind my Achilles tendon in a fierce way – damage has been done on the few occasions I’ve attempted to run in the Bare Access without socks. Fortunately, socks do take care of the problem. If I had one suggestion for Merrell (and this applies to most shoes in the Barefoot line), it would be to add some cushion inside the ankle collar, particularly behind the Achilles.

The Bare Access also scores points with me by being very lightweight. Running Warehouse lists it at 5.7 oz in size 9, and the shoe feels very light in hand.

The midsole is 13mm thick in both heel and forefoot, and there are Vibram rubber patches on the heel and across the forefoot (see photo above). Interestingly, after 40+ miles of running and a substantial amount of casual use, I see virtually no wear on the Vibram rubber patches (see photo below). The lack of any wear on the heel suggests that I’m landing midfoot-forefoot when I run in these shoes – in shoes with more heel lift like the Saucony Guide 5 or Adidas Adios 2 I still tend to scuff the heels up, though not nearly as much as a I used to when I first started running. I still firmly believe that heel-toe drop is a major factor in determining how my foot contacts the ground when I run.

The one spot where I am seeing considerable scuffing is on the forefoot in front of the Vibram rubber patches. I’ve seen this reported by a few people, but I don’t think it’s a significant problem. The EVA used to make the midsole seems to scuff really easily, and the surface gets kind of stringy/fuzzy. But, it seems more like surface scuff only and it does not appear to be wearing down excessively – it’s kind of hard to describe in words. One other note about the sole – I have seen a small amount of peeling of the Vibram forefoot patch away from the midsole – it has not progressed beyond just the front edge under the big toe coming loose, and it should be an easy fix with a bit of Loctite vinyl/fabric glue.

On the run, the sole of the Bare Access is quite firm, and it is a bit stiff from front to back (it does flex quite well under the forefoot though). I can imagine the shoe would be a bit slappy if you are a heel striker in it, but this has not caused me any problems. I actually found them very comfortable on my 14 miler today, and my feet and legs felt great (happily, calf soreness from running zero drop seems to be a thing of the past for me).

So how does the Bare Access stack up compared to other zero-drop, cushioned shoes? For me, it’s a better fit through the midfoot when compared to the New Balance Minimus Road MR00 (and lacks that lateral sole bump in the MR00 – if you own that shoe you know what I mean), and it’s significantly lighter than the Altra Instinct. As such, if I had to choose one of the three it would probably be the Bare Access. My other favorite in the zero-drop, cushioned niche is the Skechers Go Bionic – it’s the most flexible of any of the shoes mentioned and fits me great, but has a much softer feel than the others, so that’s a differentiator. If you like a firmer sole in a zero drop shoe, the Bare Access is a great choice.

All-in-all, the Merrell Bare Access is a fine choice if you’re looking for a zero-drop, cushioned shoe with a roomy forefoot – it’s a perfect pick for someone looking to try zero drop for the first time. For me it’s a very versatile shoe that I use for both running and all-day casual wear, and for that reason it will likely stay in my primary shoe rack and remain part of my regular footwear rotation.