Weight: 8.0 oz (size 9)
List Price: $110
Drop: 4 mm (18mm heal, 14mm forefoot)
Released: March 2011
Pros: Light weight, durable, undercut heal helps correct form, enough padding to protect feet on higher mileage concrete runs.
Cons: First 100 miles of arch pain – long break in period, loose some traction on wet ground.
SIZE & FIT
Length seemed to be pretty standard and the toe box was nice and wide, allowing for plenty of toe splay. I ended up wearing 10’s – same size as my typical ASIC running shoes.
CONSTRUCTION
Drop – 4 mm drop seems to be the sweet spot for many “minimalist”/”transitional” shoes, as the new brook shoes ended up with the same specs. The drop is low enough to allow good mid/forefoot form.
Heal - One very noticeable feature of the Road is the undercut heal. This helps promote mid-foot strike as it becomes more difficult to catch the heal first when landing, but the shoe also maintains enough padding so at the end of long runs when form breaks down, the protection is there.
Soles - When I first saw these shoes I was sure the soles would wear quickly, and figured I be lucky to get 250 miles from the shoes. Much to my surprise the seemingly soft soles held up to over 500 miles of serious running, wear really only becoming apparent after about 400 miles. The soft but durable soles were also soft on the ground, creating much less noise than my hard rubber Merrell trail gloves and it was fun gliding by people before they heard me coming. The hexagon pattern and strategic voids created a flexible sole that allowed for comfortable foot movement. Grip was fine under most circumstances although they lose a little on wet roads and have almost none in mud.
 |
| NB Road sole when new. Notice the under cut heal... |
 |
| Wear on the shoe after 500+ miles. Heavy wear on outside edge, some closer to the heal shows a bit of over stride. Also see typical forefoot strike wear. |
Uppers / Lacing – The shoes come with thin laces that untie easily, especially if wet (sweat…) A tight double knot fixes this issue for the most part. Thin uppers really cut down on weight, offer good breathability and really don’t detract in any way from the shoe.
Liner – The liner was sock soft, but not blister resistant. I ended up with blisters on my first sockless run (a normal occurrence for me in New Balance shoes regardless of socks) so with my sock protection I didn’t get to enjoy the soft insides of these shoes.
Padding – The padding on these shoes is sufficient for high mileage runs, while remaining low profile and close to the road. However, if you’re looking for lots of road feel, you won’t find it here.
Arch – My biggest complaint about these shoes – I didn’t feel any arch when I was trying them on in the store, but they absolutely destroyed my feet during my first run. After about 100 miles they seemed to work themselves out and become non-intrusive.
PERFORMANCE
First Run / Initial Impressions
I put on the shoes enjoying the sock like liner and headed out for my first 6 miler in them. After 6, I’ll try not to over exaggerate this too much, I absolutely hated these shoes. I wanted my money back. I was already shopping for the next pair – they were that bad. I had some major blisters on the insides of my feet, a blister on one of my toes and my arches were killing me. I honestly couldn’t name one thing I liked about the shoes.
To be 100% honest I’ve tried New Balance shoes before – twice – and both times had the same blister problem on the insides of my feet. I’m not sure why New Balance shoes and my feet just don’t get along – I’ve never had this problem with any other brand I’ve run in. I was hoping the new Minimus line would end my New Balance woes, but was sorely mistaking (at least at first glance).
Quite honestly the only reason I kept the shoes was to give them a fair shake so I could write this review. I’m glad I did – they redeemed themselves significantly after being broken in.
After A Few Miles (~530)
I’ve finally decided to retire my Roads after over 530 miles including most of my Chicago marathon training. After the extremely uncomfortable initial break in period (~80-100 miles) during which the arch seems to get flattened out some, they became usable every run shoes and my go to for long training runs and anytime I wanted a tried and true shoe for any situation (except hardcore trails).
Socks fixed my blister issues, the wide toe box and (now) flat insoles are comfortable and accommodate a mid/forefoot strike. The cushioning protected my feet over the high mileage runs, the heal cushioning offered the protection I needed when my form got sloppy and the under cut heal helped me maintain good form for most of my running. The sole began showing some wear around 400 miles but lasted until almost 500 before it got rather noticeable (it seems I strike / scuff the outer edge of my foot sometimes).
These shoes were a solid choice for any terrain from hard roads to mild trails. Once you start getting to more technical trails or slippery surfaces you’ll want to find something with a little more bite. These aren’t ideal shoes in the rain, though on rougher surfaces they’ll still suffice, look for something else if you’re going to be seeing slippery surfaces (slick cement, mud, ice, etc).
CONCLUSION
I don’t think $100 shoes should require much if any break in time and I’ve never owned a pair that took this long to get comfortable. If you’re looking for a light weight shoe that will accommodate mid/forefoot strike and high mileage, this break in period may be worth it, but if you’re looking for something comfortable right now – buyer be ware! (Though different foot/arch types may find this more comfortable than I did – try to get a short test run before you buy)
I’m ready for a new pair but dreading that first 100 miles – still, for 400 miles or so of solid shoe, I will probably be getting a second pair.
No comments:
Post a Comment