Newton used to use a 4-lug system, and it created a bit of instability since the lugs did not extend to the margins of the shoe (I occasionally felt like I was rolling off of them, particularly while cornering). The 5-lug system has improved stability quite a bit since the lugs now span the entire forefoot, and I have had positive experiences running in both the original Newton Energy and the Newton Motion III (both have 5 lugs).

Among the new shoes released this year were the Newton Kismet and Newton Fate. I ran in both a bunch over the summer (this review is long overdue!), and both are in the middle of the Newton range in terms of both price and lug prominence/responsiveness. Newton now differentiates their shoes as POP1, POP2, or POP3 – lower POP numbers mean more prominent, responsive lugs (e.g., POP1 shoes like the Distance III or Motion III), and higher POP numbers indicate more forgiving, less protruding lugs. The Kismet and Fate are both POP2 shoes. I’m going to cover the Kismet here, and in a forthcoming review I’ll cover the Fate (the shoes are very similar).

Specs

Per data on Running Warehouse, the Kismet weighs in at 9.3oz in men’s size 9, and has a stack height of 27mm heel, 20mm forefoot. In contrast, Newton reports that the Kismet is 4.5mm drop, and that number is actually written on the side of the sole. Not sure why the discrepancy, but my caliper measurements come closer to what Running Warehouse reports (it’s a bit tricky to measure with calipers though due to a central cavity under the heel). In any case, 2.5mm is not a huge difference. MSRP for the Kismet is $129, so on the lower end of the scale for Newton shoes.

Upper and Fit

The Kismet is a great looking shoe. If there is one thing Newton does well, it’s to make shoes that pop with color, and the bright green of the Kismet really stands out. The upper is composed of an outer layer of engineered mesh that is reminiscent of the upper of the Nike Pegasus 31 or Free 3.0 v5 – very stretchy and soft. Internal to the outer mesh is a layer of closed mesh – also very soft against the foot, and does a good job of keeping road grit out of the shoe while remaining breathable. Upper support is provided by faux-suede overlays and a fairly prominent heel counter. On the whole, as far as shoe uppers go, I like this one a lot.

Fit is where Newton almost always nails it for me, and the Kismet is no exception. I’ve always appreciated the relatively high-volume toebox of Newton shoes, both in terms of width and height, and the Kismet toebox is awesome. Plenty of room for the toes to move around, and no restriction on the foot. I think the volume of the forefoot enhances breathability since it does not tightly wrap the foot (there is room for air to circulate). The insole is about 4-5mm thick and adds some arch support – if you need more volume then swapping for a thinner insole could help.

Sole

It’s impossible to review a Newton shoe without talking about the lugs. The biggest difference I can see between the lugs on the POP2 Kismet and those on the POP1 Motion III is that the front ends of the Kismet lugs are rounded off a bit. This makes for a slightly smoother transition as you roll forward over them (I can feel this while walking around with the Motion on one foot and the Kismet on the other). Both the POP1 and POP2 shoes have an open chamber above the lug membrane into which they compress under pressure (see image below via Newton), whereas POP3 shoes have a foam-backed chamber.

If you’ve never run in a Newton shoe before the lugs can take some getting used to. When I come back to Newtons after not having run in them for awhile it always takes me a bit to re-acclimate to the lugs, but the sensation of the lugs on the Kismet does seem to disappear after a few runs. I have not yet tried any of the POP3 shoes (Aha or Energy II) so can’t compare to those yet.

The heel of the Kismet feels fairly soft and forgiving, and this makes for a comfortable ride for my stride (I have a mild heel strike in most shoes – and yes, running in Newtons does not change this). Outsole coverage is adequate with most major wear areas covered by some amount of rubber outsole. I am seeing some wearing at the front of the forefoot lugs (see photo below), but this is typical of my experience with Newton shoes – I think some amount of friction is generated as my foot roles forward off of the lugs.

I mentioned above that the Kismet and Fate are very similar shoes. The Kismet is billed as the “stability” shoe of the pair, whereas the Fate is the “neutral” equivalent. Near as I can tell the only major difference is the presence of an “extended medial bridge” in the Kismet (labeled e.m.b. in the sole photo above). Basically, the sole under the midfoot is a bit wider in the Kismet than in the Fate,which supposedly improves stability (this same e.m.b. is also present in the Motion III, which is the higher priced equivalent to the Kismet). To be honest, I can’t really feel much difference between the Kismet and Fate, so not sure how much of an effect the wider midfoot has on the ride.

Ride

My take on the Kismet in terms of ride is that it’s a very comfortable shoe capable of handling distances all the way up to the marathon. Cushioning is more than adequate for running long, and I like the lower-profile feel of the lugs. It’s not as responsive as a racing flat, but it gives back a bit more than a softer-soled shoe. Fit is near perfect on me, and I’ve enjoyed nearly every mile I’ve run in them.

Conclusions

If you are interested in trying a Newton shoe, the Kismet would be a great place to start, particularly given that at $129 MSRP they are priced lower than most of the original core line of Newton shoes. To be honest, I’m not really sure what benefit you get paying $46 more for a shoe like the Motion III – the ride just isn’t that much different, and I don’t anticipate that durability would be that much different either. The Kismet is a shoe that can eat up a lot of miles, and I’d rank it among the better shoes I have run in this year. Definitely worth a look!

The Newton Kismet is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Zappos, and Amazon.com (or your local running specialty store). Purchases made via these links provide a small commission to Runblogger and help to support the production of reviews like this one – thanks!

This is Part 2 of a 4-part series – you can also view previews of Altra, New Balance, and Hoka summer 2014 releases. Since these shoes have yet to be released, I have not run in any of them. If you have, we’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments!

Newton has several new models set for release within the next few weeks. Traditionally known for relatively high-priced shoes, Newton seems to be aiming for the lower end of their pricing spectrum with a few these new releases (Fate, Kismet and Aha), and the BoCo Sol seems to address some of the limitations of the original BoCo AT. Release dates for all of these seem to be in the late June/early July window.

Newton Fate

When Newton made the move to 5 lugs across the board this year they introduced what they are calling the POP scale (POP stands for Point of Power). As I understand it from this RunBlogRun interview with Newton president Craig Heisner, lower POP numbers mean more prominent, responsive lugs (e.g., POP1 shoes like the Distance III), and higher POP numbers indicate more forgiving, less protruding lugs. The Newton Fate is middle-of-the-road as a POP2 shoe, and price is $129 MSRP, so lower than most Newton shoes other than the Energy NR (and the Aha described below). Specs reported in a few places indicate that the Fate slots in at 4.5mm drop and a bit under 10oz. The Fate is the “neutral” partner to the Kismet (see next). Great looking shoe!

Newton Kismet

The Newton Kismet appears to be the stability equivalent to the Fate. Not sure what the exact differences are, but the Fate/Kismet pairing seems similar to the Gravity/Motion neutral/stability pairing at the high end of the Newton pricing spectrum. Specs look very similar to the Fate: 4.5mm drop and just under 10 oz in weight. Also like the Fate, MSRP for the Kismet is $129.00.

Newton Aha

I first heard about the Newton Aha in the Running Shoe Geeks group on Facebook. I know very little about this shoe, and the only place I have seen info on the shoe posted is on the Road Runner Sports website. It looks to be the first of the Newton POP3 shoes, which means the lugs should be the least pronounced among Newton shoes.

The Aha is spec’d at 6mm drop and 7.4 ounces, so lighter than the Fate and Kismet. MSRP is $109.95, so the combo of price and the POP3 lug platform would suggest that this may be intended as an entry-level shoe for people interested in the Newton platform (as a way of transitioning into the feel of a shoe with forefoot lugs, which can take some getting used to). From a color standpoint, the Aha is rather subdued for a Newton shoe – wonder if that’s a strategy to get people onto the platform and then attract them to the brighter (and more expensive) models.

Newton BoCo Sol

I reviewed the Newton BoCo AT trail shoe last December. They fit great, have a nice roomy toebox, and the sole offers excellent protection and decent traction. My one big concern with the BoCo AT was that the upper was rather thick and I had concerns about how it would handle the heat of summer from a warmth and breathability standpoint. The Newton Boco Sol looks to have been built to address this concern as it swaps in what appears to be a more breathable mesh upper onto the BoCo AT platform.

Next Post: Part 3 – New Balance Summer 2014 Releases (or jump to Altra or Hoka previews)

I’d asked Newton about this in the past, and apparently there were some manufacturing associated with building a 5 lug shoe. I’m not sure what the difficulty was, but Newton seem to have solved the problem and their shoes are now all migrating to a 5-lug design. This is a positive step, and the 5-lug Newton Energy was one of my favorite shoes from last year (the Energy was an entirely new shoe for the brand and was designed from the ground up on a 5-lug platform).

In the past few months Newton sent me pairs of the Motion III and Distance III to try out (Disclosure: both shoes were media samples provided free of charge for review purposes). I’ve now run about 40 miles in the Motion III, which Newton describes as a “supportive” trainer. Have not yet run in the Distance III. I should also note that I have not run in previous versions of the Motion, so I cannot compare to those – this is a new shoe to me.

Overall I’ve really enjoyed running in the Motions. I’ve done several easy runs, a hill workout, and yesterday I did a 10 miler in them. They have done the job on all occasions, and I’d put them in that hallowed class of shoes that disappear on my feet.

In typical Newton fashion, the Motions fit me really well. Snug through heel and midfoot, with a nice, roomy, high-volume forefoot – they fit true to size on me. No points of abrasion, no blisters, just comfort. The upper is well made and seems to be of high quality. The mesh is of a type that doesn’t seem like it will tear easily. The forefoot is breathable, the midfoot less so due to extensive overlays, but my feet have not felt excessively warm while running in the shoes. Enough about the upper though, the sole is really the part we need to focus on.

In my opinion, Newton was wise to move to the 5-lug design. These shoes feel plenty stable, and I have not experienced any of the cornering issues I occasionally felt in my old pair of Distance Racers. The heel is moderately soft, and the forefoot lugs compress nicely. I can’t say that I feel any extra pop from them, but they provide good cushion under the front of the foot. At a reported 3mm drop (25mm heel, 22mm forefoot) they are in my sweet spot, and they just work really well with my stride. And at 9.4oz in my size 10 they are also reasonably light for a shoe with a lot of rubber underfoot.

Speaking of rubber, my wear pattern on the outsole of the Motions is typical of what I have seen in other Newton shoes. I tend to contact and scuff on the heel but load mainly through the midfoot and forefoot, and I see abrasion on the outer/lateral heel, and the front of the second and third lugs under the forefoot are a bit worn – nothing more than what I would expect after 40 miles (compare upper and lower images below):

My overall impression is that the Motion III is a shoe that I’d be perfectly content to use for eating up miles. It’s not a shoe I’d choose for speed, but it’s a shoe I’d be more than happy to use for running long. It just works.

Now the big question – is this shoe worth the MSRP of $175? Here’s where things get tricky. Personally, I would say no. There are plenty of shoes that sell for under $100 that I would be just as content to use for eating up miles. The Newton Energy at $115 costs $60 less and works just as well, if not better. Newton would argue that their shoes cost more to make, and that they are more durable than most other shoes. I still find the durability argument debatable – sure some people can get 1000 miles out of a pair, but others may wear the lugs or heel outsole down in far less. And there are people that can get 1000 miles out of a much cheaper shoe. So for me, this is not a shoe I would buy for myself (and I will be donating my pair as is my practice with most media samples after a review is complete). But if you are a fan of previous versions of the Motion and are intrigued by the 5 lug design, I can highly recommend it. Great shoe.

See also Thomas Neuberger’s review of the Newton Motion III.

The Newton Motion III is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Zappos, and Amazon.com. Outside of the US they are available at Sportsshoes.com. Purchases made from these sites support the work done here on Runblogger and help keep reviews like this coming – thank you for you support!

When I took the BoCo AT out of the box my initial though was that they looked like a great winter running shoe. Though I’m not sure this was Newton’s intent, the red and green colorway just screams Christmas. If Santa Claus is a trail runner, these are the shoes for him! The lugged forefoot lugs (lugs on lugs, double lugged, secondary lugs, not sure how to describe them…) looked a bit cleat like which suggested good traction in snow/crusty ice, and the upper fabric was much thicker than I expected which suggested warmth. My initial feelings have been confirmed after about 20 miles of running in the shoes, mostly in sub-freezing temperatures on trails and rocky dirt roads (I was going to hold off for a few more runs before reviewing, but I think I’ve got this shoe pretty well pegged for my purposes and Nate may do a follow up review from the ultra perspective).

The first thing I noticed about the BoCo AT after putting them on was the fit. Near perfect on my feet. Nice heel and midfoot lock with a spacious forefoot and minimal toe squeezing. The insole is thin and of uniform thickness, and thus this shoe has none of the heel slippage I experienced with the Newton Energy (which has an insole that is thick and cushy under the heel). The BoCo AT fits the way I wish the Saucony Peregrine would fit – the latter is cramped near the toes which is a mark against an otherwise solid trail shoe.

I bring up the Saucony Peregrine because in some ways the BoCo AT reminds me a lot of that shoe. They are similar drop (4mm for the Peregrine, 3mm for the BoCo), similar weight (10.1 oz for the Peregrine, 9.7 oz for the BoCo), and both feel similarly bombproof on the trail. I often find that the more protective a trail shoe is, the less I like the ride on the road. Such is the case with the BoCo AT – again like the Peregrine, the BoCo is kind of a harsh ride on pavement. The midsole actually feels soft, not quite Newton Energy soft, but it has some give on hard ground . However, the outsole rubber is extensive and thick and does not ride well on the road. Take it off the road and it shines. This isn’t really a fault as the tradeoff is great protection for its intended use: trail running. I’ve run about 15 miles of rooty trail and rocky dirt road in the BoCos and have felt very well protected on all surfaces. The lugged forefoot lugs  in particular (green areas in the photo below) protect the foot quite well, and landing on rocks square on the forefoot causes no pain.  This is not a shoe you choose if you want great ground feel, but if protection on trails is your need, these will serve you quite well.

Another area where the BoCo performs similarly to the Peregrine is traction. On my first run in the BoCo’s I joined Nate for 5 miles on wet, leaf covered trails behind our local hospital. There was quite a bit of up and down, and I never had any traction issues. On my second run about half the distance was on snow dusted asphalt, and they handled that nicely as well. Anybody who has run in a Newton shoe before knows that the forefoot lugs give their shoes a bit of a different feel, and when you add secondary lugs to the protruding forefoot lugs it makes fore great traction when landing on the forefoot. Everything is pretty much frozen up here in NH already, so I haven’t gotten into any mud or standing water, but I think they will do quite well on the crusty ice that covers our sidewalks much of the winter (still waiting for the first big snowstorm!).

One of the things I like about the BoCo AT relative to many of Newton’s shoes is that although there are only four forefoot lugs, Newton has added lug ridges to the medial and lateral forefoot on either side of the lug row. This helps with forefoot stability, which is particularly important on uneven trail surfaces. Many people have noted the stability issue in Newton’s 4-lug road shoes, and though Newton didn’t mimic the 5-lug design of the Energy and MV3 here, they solved the issue in a different way quite effectively.

One final thing I’ll mention that was a pleasant surprise is warmth. I didn’t realize until I started writing this review that the BoCo AT has an all-weather upper with a water-resistant coating. I’m not surprised though as one of the distinct things I have noticed about the shoe is that they keep my feet really warm. I’ve run most of my miles in them in sub-freezing temperatures, including a particularly frigid run last week in Maine, and my feet have stayed quite warm in all cases. I haven’t been able to test the water resistance as we mostly have ice now, so if you have any experience getting these wet leave a comment. My worry is that these shoes might run pretty hot in summer, but for a winter shoe they seem pretty much ideal.

Conclusion

I’ve been pretty impressed by the Newton BoCo AT so far. I haven’t run in them a ton yet, but with the worst of winter ahead of me I foresee them getting a fair bit of use since they combine good traction with a warm, weather-proof upper. I’m really interested in trying them on crusty ice as I think they will serve quite well in nasty conditions. The ride is great on softer surfaces, not as great on asphalt, but they really weren’t built for use on the latter. If you’re in the market for a winter trail shoe with a bit of Christmas spirit, the Newton BoCo AT is definitely worth a look.

(Note: as I mentioned in the review, Nate also has a pair of these and I hope to post some thoughts from him as well in the near future – stay tuned!)

The Newton BoCo AT is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Amazon.com, and Zappos. MSRP is $129.00.

Newton Running

Shortly after receiving the Energy I got an email announcing the Newton BoCo AT, a dedicated trail shoe that incorporates small triangular lugs onto the forefoot lugs typical of other Newton shoes.

Newton’s previous foray into the trail shoe market, the Terra Momentum, seemed like a half-hearted effort to me – it’s basically the Sir Isaac with a more outdoorsy looking upper. It’s also heavy, and could best be described as a road-to-light trail hybrid shoe. I skipped on the Terra Momentum given that I hated running in the Sir Isaac, and the shoe appeared to be based on the same clunky platform.

In his review of the Terra Momentum on iRunFar, Tom Caughlan concluded with the following:

“…as a trail shoe, the Terra Momentus performs inadequately due to its high platform and stability components. I, for one, will trade agility and a low profile “feel” for the trail over premium cushioning and stability simply because I want to avoid face plants on the trail.

Possible changes for future updates that I hope to see are a lower profile, which will sacrifice cushioning and some stability. If Newton decided to make this change they could probably get the shoes down around 9 ounces, which would appeal to the rapidly-growing population of minimalist trail runners looking for light shoes. I also think that Newton should reduce the size of the Activator lugs on the forefoot in favor of a more aggressive outer sole for traction.”

With the BoCo AT it seems as if Newton took Caughlan’s advice to heart and made the very shoe that he suggested that they make.

The BoCo AT (not sure I’m crazy about that name…) appears to be a much lighter and lower profile shoe compared to the Terra. It has a 3mm drop midsole (same as the Newton Motion) and weighs in at just under 10 ounces in men’s size 9.

Newton incorporated lugged forefoot lugs which should help with traction (lugs upon lugs!). Lugs are also found on the heel and tip of the forefoot. It also looks like the outsole has been extended downward in strips along the inner and outer margins of the forefoot (same height as the lugs), which should hopefully reduce mediolateral instability caused by the 4-lug design. I’m surprised they didn’t just go with the 5-lug design of the MV3 and Energy for this shoe, and I wonder if this will compromise action of the inner and outer lugs? My guess is that this sole design will wear down rapidly on the roads, so may be best to keep this one on the dirt.

The other shoe recently announced by Newton is the Distance Elite. The Distance Elite appears to be a hybrid of the MV3 and the Distance:

Newton MV3 Upper

+

Newton Distance Sole

=

Newton Distance Elite

Weighing in at 7.2 ounces, it’s only marginally lighter than the Distance, and is priced the same at $155. Personally, I’m a fan of the Newton Distance, and thus I imagine I’d like the Elite, but I’d really see no reason to own both. The Elite seems to make the Distance a bit redundant – why would I choose a heavier shoe with the same sole at the same price? Thus, I’m a bit puzzled about the purpose of this shoe, just doesn’t seem differentiated enough from the Distance.

Both the BoCo AT and the Distance Elite will be available on November 1.

What do you think, are either of these on your wish list?

My first run in the shoes wasn’t bad, and heel-slippage seemed to be a non-factor once I got moving. But, they were still ridiculously soft and I remained skeptical.

Shortly after that first run I came across a discussion about the Energy on the Running Shoe Geeks group on Facebook (join us!), and most of those who had run in it were also complaining about the softness and loose heel lock, and the consensus seemed to be that the shoe morphed into something beautiful if you ripped out the insole entirely.

So, on my next run I swapped out the included insole for a thin, flat Skechers GoRun insole and the shoe was transformed to the point where I would say that if I were running a marathon this Fall I’d almost certainly choose the Energy for the race. It’s a perfect match for my stride over long distances.

The Sole Makes the Shoe

The Newton Energy is the second Newton shoe model (along with the MV2/MV3) to incorporate their new 5-lug design (see below right):

Newton Distance Racer (left) and Newton Energy (right)

One of the issues I have had with previous Newton shoes like the Distance Racer (see above left) is that the four lugs do not extend to the margins of the sole on each side. This makes the shoe feel a bit unstable mediolaterally, particularly when making turns in the shoes. Furthermore, the lugs protrude downward quite a distance from the sole making it feel like you are rolling over a speed bump if you walk or run heel-toe in the shoes (I hate walking in 4-lug Newtons). The new lug design fixes both of these issues in that by adding a lug they now extend all the way to the inner and out margins of the sole, and the lugs no longer protrude as much – I can walk much more comfortably in the Energy than in the Distance for example.

The other big, big difference between the sole of the Energy and the sole of other Newton shoes is that it is indeed very soft. It’s soft to the point where if you heel strike hard with the insole removed you’d likely bottom out the cushioning. The only shoe I can compare it to in this sense is the original Skechers GoRun. Now, this is where the lugs really save the day. Because the lugs are made of firm rubber and are overlain by a firm plate, the forefoot gives a bit initially but has a much firmer and responsive feel to it during propulsion and toe-off. As someone who primarily loads from the midfoot forward, the shoe is a great match for my stride. It’s firm exactly where I need it to be, and if I do load the heel slightly I barely notice because of the softness in that region. I’m not sure I’d like running in the Energy if I were a hard heel striker, but if that description doesn’t fit you then this shoe is amazing.

As for stack height, with the included insole the Energy is reported to be about 6mm drop. With the insole removed it’s about 2-3mm drop. That sounds about right based on how the shoes feel on the run (my caliper batteries are dead so I couldn’t measure it myself…). Weight is reported to be 8.6 oz in men’s size 9.

Upper Construction and Fit

As mentioned at the beginning of this review, the fit of the Energy felt off the first time I tried them on. The heel wasn’t locked down well and the midfoot felt a bit tight. After swapping out (or removing) the insole for a thinner one the fit is great. Snug through the heel and midfoot, and a roomy but not spacious forefoot (similar to other Newton shoes I’ve worn). Running Warehouse reports that the shoe runs 1/2 size large, but I found that a size 10 fit me fine (however, I do wear a 10.5 in a lot of shoes, including most Saucony models). You definitely will not need to size up in these.

The upper is composed of a stretchy mesh that is not at all constricting, and the interior is a smooth material that feels good against the bare foot. The interior of the heel and ankle collar is well cushioned and comfortable. There is a plastic heel counter, but no noticeable arch support with the insole removed. I tried running sockless in them and got blister under the ball behind my big toe, but that could be do to the fact that I swapped in a non-Newton insole. It wouldn’t be fair to criticize Newton for that.

Performance

I’ve run 45 miles in the Newton Energy in the past 2-3 weeks, including runs of 13 and 14 miles. This is one of those shoes that disappears on my feet, and quite honestly, if I had to choose just one shoe right now for all of my runs over 10 miles this could very well be it. The forefoot is responsive enough for distance racing speed, and it’s soft enough for slow, easy miles. I’d opt for something lighter and firmer for a 5K, but this shoe would handle most of my other needs without issue. I’m a big fan!

Regarding durability, I am seeing wear of the anterior 1/3 of the lugs, to the point where the tread is no longer visible. There is still a ton of rubber left though and I have found this to be typical of my experience with other Newton shoes. Wear on remaining portions of the sole is minimal.

Conclusions

If you’re a light heel striker to forefoot striker this is definitely a shoe to consider, and at $119 it’s the lowest price shoe in Newton’s collection. These days it’s priced right within range of many other shoes in its niche, though I’d love to see the price down around $100. If you’ve been wanting to try a Newton, this would be a great place to start.

The Newton Energy is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Zappos, City Sports, and Kindrunner.

For another take, check out Thomas Neuberger’s Newton Energy NR review at Believe in the Run.

Yesterday Newton introduced a new shoe set to be released in July. The Newton Energy is reported to be a 6mm drop, 9oz (men’s)/7oz (women’s) shoe that incorporates the forefoot lug design from the MV2 racer. This lug design is a bit different from that on other Newton shoes as the lugs are not quite as prominent, and they extend all the way to the margins of the sole so that there is less of a sense of mediolateral instability that some find in other Newton shoes. The MV2 was in my opinion a poorly implemented shoe (which will be receiving a much needed update), but the lug design held promise and I’m definitely interested in giving the Energy a try.

My buddy Thomas over at Believe in the Run posted the full Newton Energy Press release if you’d like to read more.

One of the benefits of attending the Newton summit was that all participants were given a pair of Newton’s forthcoming MV2 (pronounced MV squared) racing flat, which will be available for sale next month (MSRP $125). I learned quickly upon arriving in Boulder why people consider it to be one of the best locations for running in the country, and I more than took advantage of my time there by running about 20 miles over two days (elevation gain and altitude were tough!). About 15 of these miles were on the Boulder Canyon trail in the MV2, and I feel comfortable sharing my initial impressions of the shoe (I will update with additional thoughts if needed as I accumulate more miles).

Newton has long been a promoter of what they like to refer to as “natural running.” In a nutshell, natural running can best be defined as the form you would use if you were running barefoot – midfoot/forefoot landing close to the center of mass of the body (among other things). All of Newton’s shoes are characterized by having a relatively small height differential between the heel and forefoot, but until now most of their shoes have retained a fairly thick midsole (I have previously reviewed the Newton Sir Isaac and the Newton Distance Racer). With the MV2, Newton introduces it’s first ultralight racing flat (< 6 oz). Unlike many flats, the MV2 is true to the name of the category by being a zero drop shoe, meaning that the heel and forefoot are level with one another while the foot is inside the shoe (i.e., no heel lift). I haven’t had a chance to measure the total sole thickness yet, but it’s comparable to a typical road or cross-country flat.

I’ve been excited to try out the MV2 ever since I had the opportunity to take a look at an earlier prototype back in January, and because I have enjoyed running in the Distance Racer quite a bit (which is only about 2mm heel-forefoot drop). All Newton shoes are characterized by the presence of protruding lugs under the forefoot. The forefoot lugs depress when you contact the ground, and release on pushoff – whether this provides any meaningful performance benefit I can’t say, but it’s a novel concept. One of the few complaints that I have about the Distance Racer is that because it has only four centered forefoot lugs, it can be a bit sloppy when changing direction. One of the big changes in the MV2 is that Newton has found a way to add a fifth lug, and the lugs in the MV2 extend right to the border of the sole on each side (see photo below) – this provides a much more stable feel under the forefoot than in either the Distance Racer or Sir Isaac. Another thing I like about the MV2 is that the lugs are not as prominent – they don’t extend as far out from the sole of the shoe. This makes the MV2 a bit more comfortable to walk in than the other Newton shoes (walking in the Distance Racer or Isaac feels like walking over a speed bump with each step).

The remainder of the sole of the MV2 is similar to to that of other Newton shoes. The midsole is made of the same material as other Newton shoes, which means that the MV2 should retain cushioning better than EVA based flats (i.e., it will not break down with repeated compression like EVA does). There is rubber in all of the right places, so I expect durability will be good as well (after 15 miles I can barely detect a scuff on the sole of my MV2’s). The sole is quite flexible, and can be bent and twisted with relative ease.

The upper of the MV2 is very minimal and composed of a synthetic mesh that breathes very well. The mesh is a bit scratchy in spots, and I haven’t tried sockless running in them yet, so no comment on that yet. Aside from a very flexible heel counter, there are no structural elements in the upper. From an appearance standpoint, the upper retains the bright coloring of other Newton shoes, and color variants are in the works (see black/yellow version at bottom of post).

In terms of fit, the MV2 runs small, and I had to size up from a 10 to an 11 to get a comfortable fit (I rarely ever size up). Many people I spoke with at the summit sized up by at least a half size. If I had to change one thing about the MV2 it would be to widen the toebox. Like many who have made the move into more minimalist shoes, I have grown accustomed to wearing shoes that run wide in the forefoot, and the MV2 last is fairly narrow (far less roomy than other Newton shoes I have worn). The lateral edge of my foot hangs over the midsole when seated in the shoe, as it does when wearing most racing flats or spikeless cross country flats. I would compare the fit to a shoe like the Brooks Mach 11 or maybe the Saucony Grid Type A4. I didn’t find them uncomfortable at all on the run, but I’ll need to go for more than 5 miles in order to determine whether the tight forefoot fit becomes an issue. If you don’t mind a typical racing flat last, you probably won’t have any problem with this shoe. If your preference is for a shoe that fits like the New Balance MT101, Minimus, or Altra Instinct, then this one won’t suit you very well.

The sockliner of the MV2 is removable, though the material underneath is a scratchy mesh, so sockless running without the liner might no work too well. There is no noticeable arch support in the shoe, and the sockliner is completely flat. Newton is taking an interesting approach to their first zero drop shoe by including an oval-shaped wedge of 3mm-thick EVA that can be inserted under the heel of the sockliner for those who want to transition a bit more slowly into a flat shoe. I have not tried this “heel lift” yet, but I know a few people who routinely alter the lift of their shoes in this manner.

As I mentioned, I ran about 15 miles in the MV2 while out in Boulder (that’s me above in the MV2’s on a bridge in Boulder Canyon). All were mostly on either concrete path or gravel, and the shoe felt great underfoot, and the narrow forefoot didn’t bother me while on the move. The sole under the forefoot is extremely firm in the region of the lugs, and gives good ground feel. Because the forefoot feels firmer than the heel, the shoe actually feels like it might be negative drop at times during stance, and it gives the calves a really good workout. If you aren’t accustomed to running in a zero drop shoe, this one definitely demands a gradual transition.

In summary, the MV2 is an extremely light, zero drop shoe that will appeal to both Newton fans and those looking for a flat shoe that retains a bit of midsole underfoot. The lugs are not as noticeable as those on other Newton shoes, and the fact that they extend to the edges on each side is a big design improvement. I suspect that this shoe will retain the excellent durability of other Newton shoes, and thus may outperform many EVA based racing flats in this regard. Minimalist runners who prefer a wide toebox will probably not enjoy the feel of this shoe, but if you are accustomed to running in racing flats or XC spikes then this shoe will feel fine.

The Newton MV2 is set to be released in September 2011, and the MSRP is $125. They are currently available for pre-order on the Newton Running Website.

Update 9/16/2011: The Newton MV2 is now available at Running Warehouse.

Below is a fuzzy picture of a black color variant of the MV2:

Late last summer my friend Mark Cucuzzella, owner of the Two Rivers Treads Natural Running Store, convinced me to give Newton another chance and offered to send me a pair of Newton Distance Racers to try out. I agreed to give them a try, and I’m honestly quite happy that I did.

The Distance Racer is Newton’s lowest profile shoe, with a heel-forefoot drop of only 2mm. Despite this low ramp angle, Newton’s are far from what I would call a true minimalist shoe – and to their credit, they don’t claim to be minimalist. There is a healthy slab of firm midsole in the Distance Racer, and the measurements reported by Running Warehouse bear this out – 30mm heel, 28mm forefoot. Furthermore, the Distance Racers sport Newton’s trademark forefoot lugs, which compress and spring back with each step (see sole image below). In other words, there is quite a lot of material and technology underfoot. Despite this, weight is still kept reasonable, and my Distance Racers come in right at 8.6 oz in size 10.

What I have found from running in the Distance Racers is that the low heel-forefoot drop combined with the unusual feeling created by the protruding forefoot lugs makes these shoes an excellent choice for someone looking for a more substantial shoe that will still encourage a barefoot-style gait. I have found it quite easy to maintain my form in these shoes – a far better experience overall than I had with the Sir Isaacs. If you’ve never experienced the feel of Newton shoes, it really is a lot different than other running shoes. The forefoot lugs are immediately noticeable when you put them on, to the point where I don’t really enjoy walking in them. Any heel to toe rolling over the lugs makes you feel like you are hitting a speed bump, and this helps to encourage a midfoot or forefoot strike.

There is really quite a lot that I like about the Distance Racers. The upper is roomy and well constructed, and fit and feel are both excellent. In particular, the toebox is high-volume, making for a very roomy forefoot fit. I also like the wide open mesh used in the upper as it allows for fantastic ventilation. There is very little arch support, and the removable insoles are completely flat. I have run in these shoes both with and without the insoles, and the latter is a perfectly viable option and makes for an even roomier fit (as well as a firmer ride). From an aesthetic standpoint, this shoe hits my sweet spot – the neon yellow and red simply look great.

From a performance standpoint, I have been pleasantly surprised by the Distance Racers. In fact, lately I find myself grabbing them frequently, and I’ve recently turned in some amazing runs in these shoes (including a sub-34 5-miler and a sub-19:00 5K – both were solo time-trials and these times are near my best for each distance). I can’t say that the lugs actually provide any kind of meaningful propulsion, but there is something pleasant about the way they compress as your center of mass passes over the shoe.

If I have one gripe about the Distance Racers, and Newton shoes in general, it’s that making sharp turns in the shoes can be a bit sloppy. Because the lugs do not extend all the way to the sides of the sole (see photo above), cornering can cause you to feel a bit unstable on the forefoot – kind of a side-to-side rocking. Word is that Newton has developed the ability to make the lugs go all the way across the forefoot to the edges on each side, and this will appear first in their 5.8 oz MV2 Speed Racer flat set to be released in the not too distant future (you can see the Newton MV2 Speed Racer here in the June issue of SGB Performance).

It’s also worth mentioning the other drawback of Newton shoes: price. Like all other Newton shoes currently on the market, the Distance Racers are an investment at $155. I have heard many people say that they get a lot more miles out of a pair of Newton’s than they do out of other shoes, so the cost may be justified. I will also say that I think highly enough of this shoe that I bought a pair for my wife to rotate along with her Vibram Bikilas – getting her to work on her form seems to have mostly resolved a chronic hip issue that she had been dealing with up until last Fall (her experience is one of the reasons why I’m such a believer in this stuff!).

All in all, I have been impressed with the Distance Racers, and suspect that they will retain a regular spot in my shoe rotation. Even moreso, I have been impressed by Newton as a company. I have had the opportunity to speak with Ian Adamson, Newton’s director of product development, on several occasions, and met him in person at a running injury conference in Shepherdstown, WV back in January. What comes across clearly in talking to Ian is that Newton genuinely believes in their product and the virtues of natural running, and they are strong advocates of getting directly involved in running communities through educational outreach and training workshops. I’m apparently not the only one who thinks that Newton has a unique and positive approach, as just this past week news came out that former Reebok CEO Paul Fireman has invested 20 million dollars in Newton Running Company – big things appear to be ahead for Sir Isaac!

The Newton Distance Racer can be purchased at Running Warehouse.

When I first heard about the Newton Running shoes last year, I found them intriguing, mainly because I’d been hearing so much about how humans evolved to land on the midfoot or forefoot when we run. Newton running shoes are unique in that they are designed specifically for midfoot/forefoot runners. They accomplish this by reducing the height of the heel and increasing the cushion in the forefoot such that the overall offset or difference in thickness between heel and forefoot is minimized. In other words, Newton shoes have a flatter sole than most typical running shoes, and this makes it less likely that a runner will heel strike in them. In addtion to the minimal heel-toe differential, Newton shoes also have a unique system of “actuator lugs” under the forefoot that are designed to absorb shock upon impact and then release it on toe off (see the rectangular red lugs on the forefoot of the shoe to the left) – Newton calls this Action/Reaction Technology™. The idea is that the lugs get compressed under pressure when the forefoot contacts the ground, then they spring back, releasing energy during toe-off. The technology sounded interesting to me, but the steep price  of Newton shoes had kept me from pulling the trigger on buying a pair (see more thoughts on Newton pricing at the end of this post) .

One of the nice things about writing a reasonably well-trafficked running blog is that occasionally companies will send you free gear to try out in exchange for a review. So it was that late last year a marketing rep for Newton shoes (and other outdoor sports companies) sent me a pair of Newton Sir Isaac shoes to try out (disclaimer: I received no form of compensation other than the shoes themselves). Here is how Newton describes the Sir Isaac:

“The Sir Isaac guidance trainer is designed for runners of all levels who are committed to Natural Running. Whether you follow Chi, Pose, Evolution, barefoot running or just want to run better, the Sir Isaac allows you to run naturally — with greater efficiency and less overuse injuries.“

What, you might ask, is “natural running?” Well, Newton has an answer for this as well:

“Landing on your midfoot/forefoot is the most natural way to run. It is also the fastest and most efficient way to run. Newton Running shoes are the only shoes that were developed specifically for Natural Running.“

I’m going to avoid debating about whether heel/midfoot/forefoot running is most efficient or most effective at “reducing overuse injuries” as this would probably take an entire post. Furthermore, at this point I’d argue that Newton has some competition in the so-called “natural running” marketplace (see shoes like the Vibram Fivefingers, Terra Plana Evo, and maybe even the new Saucony Kinvara). Rather, my goal here is to simply report on my experience with the Sir Isaac shoes. If you’d like to read more about the Newton Running philosophy, you can click here to read an interview post that I did with Newton’s director of product development, Ian Adamson, or visit the Newton Running website.

I’ll start off by saying that I really wanted to like these shoes. I was envisioning putting them on and suddenly being able to spring along the ground like a gazelle, feeling the energy return from the actuator lugs with every step. Unfortunately, what I wound up discovering was that the Newton shoes, or at least the Sir Isaac model, don’t seem to suit my running style – I’ll explain why I say this below.

Here are my collected thoughts on the Newton Sir Isaac shoes after about 40 miles of running in them:

Appearance: The Newton Sir Isaac is a nice looking shoe, although a little too white given my personal preference for flashy/loudly colored shoes. I like the orange highlights, but in the Newton lineup, I’d go for the yellow Distancia or red Gravitas if it came down to appearance alone (which, to be honest, is not a very good reason for choosing a shoe).

Fit: The Newton Sir Isaac is a very comfortable shoe. The upper material is soft and nicely breathable, the toebox is plenty roomy for my average width foot, and the shoes fit true to size. From a fit standpoint, these shoes are perfect for my foot.

Performance: This is by far the area where I have the most commentary. When you first put on a pair of Newton shoes, you can immediately tell that there is something different about them. The combination of a lower heel + thicker forefoot with the actuator lugs combine to make it seem like your forefoot might actually be higher off the ground than the heel is – it’s an odd feeling if you’ve never tried these shoes on. It think this is probably mostly due to the fact that the actuator lugs extend downward beyond the level of the forefoot outsole, and this gives the sensation that there is an extra bar or wedge of material below the forefoot. It’s not uncomfortable, just different – the closest feeling that I’ve experienced to this is wearing cross-country racing flats. One unfortunate outcome associated with thickening up the forefoot is that I lost some degree of ground feel in the Sir Isaac’s – I simply felt too high off the ground. XC flats on the other hand combine a Newton-like feel but are closer to the ground, which better suits my personal preference (and they’re a lot cheaper).

My expectation was that once I started running, the forefoot actuator lugs on the Newton’s (see photo above) would make me want to shift to a more forefoot landing, but to my surprise I think I actually heel struck worse on my first Newton run than I do in most of my other shoes. I don’t fault the shoes for this at all, and after making a conscious effort to shorten my stride and increase my cadence, they began to feel a bit better. That being said, I never got to the point where I actually felt truly comfortable running in the Sir Isaac’s, and based on my wear pattern on the heel (see photo below), I’m pretty confident that I have been heel striking in them pretty regularly (and you can also see this in the videos I posted below – I could only get a forefoot strike when I consciously forced it, which felt uncomfortable). I’ve read plenty about how to adjust to the Newton’s, and how it takes time and effort to adjust your stride, but after almost 40 miles I haven’t seen much improvement, and this is despite the fact that I also run regularly and seem to midfoot strike in minimalist shoes with a relatively thin heel (XC flats, Vibrams Fivefingers, etc.).

One of the things I’ve realized is that for me, a mild heel strike seems to be the most comfortable gait in most pairs of shoes. I’ve come to grips with this and am at the point where I really don’t see much point in putting the effort into trying to change. I suspect that I do midfoot strike in the Vibrams (and sometimes in XC flats), but if I had to guess, I’m likely a mild heel striker in just about everything else, and that’s ok with me. I suspect that mild heel striking is most efficient for my body, and I’ve gotten over any desire that I might have had to change. It’s worth noting here that Daniel Lieberman, in his recent study on footstrike patterns in barefoot and shod runners, even noted that a few of his habitually barefoot runners were heel strikers. Furthermore, I’ve posted video of elite male runners from the 2010 Boston Marathon showing clearly that several of them are heel strikers as well (including 2009 NYC marathon winner Meb Keflzighi) – so it’s clear that heel running isn’t necessarily as inefficient as it’s purported to be in some cases. It’s quite possible that if I wore the Newtons for my next 50 miles and really focused on altering my gait things might change, but I’m still not sure I see a great deal of benefit in doing so. Please realize that this is simply my opinion, and others may disagree.

Newton Sir Isaac from Pete Larson on Vimeo.
Slow motion video of treadmill running in Newton Sir Isaac shoes – used my natural gait, and still have a heel strike here (I’m a newcomer to Newton’s – only one 5-mile run so far). Video shot at 300 frames-per-second with a Casio Exilim EX-F1 camera.

Newton Sir Isaac from Pete Larson on Vimeo.
Slow motion video of treadmill running in Newton Sir Isaac shoes – tried to shift to a more forefoot footstrike here, but still feels strange (video shot after only one 5-mile run in the Sir Isaac’s, but I don’t think my gait has changed much since). Video shot at 300 frames-per-second with a Casio Exilim EX-F1 camera.

A couple of things are worth mentioning with regard to my experience in these shoes:

1. I did not request them, and was actually surprised and excited when they were included in a package from Backbone Media (I had genuinely been wanting to try the Newton’s out, but pricing deterred me). My reason for pointing this out is that if I were going to identify the Newton shoe that would be best suited to my personal tastes, it would not have been the Sir Isaac. The Sir Isaac is meant to be a shoe for those transitioning into forefoot running, and at >11.5oz (weighed on my postal scale) it’s considerably heavier than most shoes that I normally wear (I prefer more minimalist shoes that are less than 10oz, and the lower the weight the better). In the Newton lineup, the Distancia would likely be more suited to my style, so it’s entirely possible that I just got the wrong Newton shoe for me.

2. I’ll disclose that I am a member of Brooks ID, and have committed to racing in Brooks shoes for 2010 (Update: I resigned from Brooks ID in mid-2010). However, this has in no way influenced my review of these shoes. I have written critical statements regarding some Brooks shoes (i.e., the Brooks T6 Racer did not work for me), and I have written some very positive reviews of shoes from non-Brooks manufacturers (e.g., Vibram Fivefingers KSO, Nike Free 3.0,  La Sportiva Wildcat GTX)

3. I know a lot of runners, including several friends of mine, who think very highly of Newton running shoes. If you’re reading this review with eyes toward trying out a pair, keep in mind that I’m just one person, and these shoes may simply be the wrong choice for me. However, that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t work for you. In particular, if you are already a midfoot/forefoot runner, few shoes out there are specifically designed with your gait in mind, and the Newton’s might therefore be worth a try. If you want to put in the effort to try an change your gait, then these again might be a good shoe choice. In the interest of fairness, if you want to read about runner’s who have had much more positive Newton experiences, check out these posts:

-Brandon W. (aka @IronBrandon) – Why I Wear Newtons
-Steve S. (aka @britishbulldog) and Thomas N. (aka @neudesigns) – Newton Gravitas Review (and comparison to the Saucony Kinvara)
-Running and Rambling – Newton Gravity 2010 Running Shoe Review

And for a review from a primarily barefoot runner who also had a negative experience with the Sir Isaacs, check out this post by Jason from Barefoot Chronicles: Newton Sir Isaac Review.

Price: I’ll end on the subject of price – Newton shoes are expensive. The Sir Isaac’s sell for $149.00, and they are the cheapest shoes in the Newton lineup. I have no doubt that these shoes are well made, and I like the fact that this is a small company with a unique idea, but spending this much on a pair of shoes would be a stretch for me. However, if you’re a genuine forefoot runner and these are the only shoes that work for you, then maybe the price is worth paying. At the very least, I can help out by providing a link that gives you 10% off Newton Shoes at Running Warehouse, which is probably one of the best discounts you’ll find on Newton’s (see below).

Update 6/22/11: I had a much more positive experience running in the Newton Distance Racers – you can view my Newton Distance Racer review here.