Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
New Balance Minimus Zero March 2012 only 4.4oz/pair
Display Avatars Sort By:
(jhaura) - F

Locale: Trail
New Balance Minimus Zero March 2012 only 4.4oz/pair on 03/09/2012 15:01:37 MST Print View

Just launched March 2012. The 3rd generation updated model called the New Balance Minimus Zero MT00 is a 4.4oz trail running shoe that is looking sweet!

Anyone going to get a pair? I just bought the MT10s, but these look tempting...

Chris W
(simplespirit) - MLife

Locale: .
Re: New Balance Minimus Zero March 2012 only 4.4oz/pair on 03/09/2012 15:06:31 MST Print View

I have a pair in the 4E for review here. The D width is too narrow for me. They've only been on a shortish day hike so far but it included lots of rooty and rocky terrain with water crossings and off trail bushwhacking. I had zero issues with sore feet (even though I expected soreness) and they drain like nothing I've worn before. So far these are the only trail shoe that fits me correctly without requiring that I size up considerably. With all that said, they're probably too wide for things like serious side-hilling and unfortunately they don't offer a 2E.

Jace Mullen
(climberslacker) - F

Locale: Your guess is as good as mine.
New Balance Minimus on 03/09/2012 15:13:51 MST Print View

How many miles do we expect a pair of these to last?

Hamish McHamish
(El_Canyon) - M

Locale: USA
_ on 03/09/2012 15:51:21 MST Print View

4.4oz? Bloated and too heavy.

I kid, I kid; looks promising.

Edited by El_Canyon on 03/09/2012 15:51:55 MST.

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
New Balance Minimus on 03/09/2012 16:27:14 MST Print View

After having owned and loved 2 pairs of the original Minimus Trail my biggest concern would be durability with the new ones. I managed to get ~250 miles at best out of each pair, but in my book that's a pretty bad return for a shoe that costs ~$100. The foam surrounding the rubber wore out very quickly, literally leaving me with holes worn through it while the actual rubber was still in decent shape. On one pair, the rubber began to delaminate from the foam. Looks like the new ones have even less real rubber on the sole than the originals. The foam spots left me pretty vulnerable to sharp stuff. A few times I had some bad run ins with thorns or sharp pieces of wood. Given the new ones are even more foam-soled, I'd be concerned. Only the green is rubber- the rest is blown foam.


I don't doubt they feel good- I loved the feel of the others. Perhaps one of my favorite shoes ever. But I think they're pretty expensive for a shoe that gets trashed really quick. Wish I were wealthier, otherwise I'd certainly consider the new ones. As a distance runner, I'd be very suspicious of any reviews of these that don't take into account durability and how much mileage was put on them in how long.

Edited by xnomanx on 03/09/2012 16:38:28 MST.

christopher smead
(hamsterfish) - MLife

Locale: hamsterfish
Water crossing shoe? on 03/09/2012 17:16:23 MST Print View

At 1/3 the weight of crocs, and lighter than my 7 oz sockwas, I'm tempted to get these to use as a stream crossing/camp shoe.

Think they dry out fast?

Chris W
(simplespirit) - MLife

Locale: .
Re: Water crossing shoe? on 03/09/2012 17:19:28 MST Print View

I didn't time it or anything, but they drained almost instantly and dried pretty quickly as well.

Eugene Smith
(Eugeneius) - MLife

Locale: Nuevo Mexico
"New Balance Minimus Zero March 2012 only 4.4oz/pair" on 03/09/2012 18:57:30 MST Print View

Stream crossing shoe?

Bringing footwear that rides in your pack specifically for fording streams is an exercise in redundancy. Wear appropriately lightweight breathable trail shoes to begin with and you won't ever need to remove your shoes for stream crossings.

ALL of the New Balance MT and Minimus shoes will dry out fast, really, any given sub 9oz. trail running shoe is going to dry quickly. To achieve a sub 9oz. trail shoe companies have to employ mesh uppers, simple synthetic overlays, fully synthetic materials, blown foam midsoles, etc....all pretty standard stuff nowadays.

Ultra Magnus
(Ultra_Magnus) - F
Sizes and colors? on 03/12/2012 15:24:08 MDT Print View

Anyone know if they'll be coming in 15's? preferably in a wider widths? I've been interested in the older Minimus shoes but they only came up to a size 14. I did email new balance about that, because they make their traditional running shoes in HUGE sizes, like up to an 18, I think. They replied quickly and said they'd pass the request on to the appropriate people.

And I also don't like "loud" shoe colors. I find it annoying, esp. if I plan to also wear the shoes in more casual settings. For example- I'm looking for less bulky shoes to pack for days when I bike to work. My current trail runners take up a ton of space in my backpack. A "splash" of color on a small cute shoe turns into "OMG- My eyes! My eyes! It burns!" on the much larger canvas of a big shoe.


Chris W
(simplespirit) - MLife

Locale: .
Re: Sizes and colors? on 03/12/2012 17:19:38 MDT Print View

They come in black but I can't speak on sizing.

USA Duane Hall
(hikerduane) - F

Locale: Extreme northern Sierra Nevada
Camp shoe on 03/12/2012 19:19:47 MDT Print View

Eugene, I like to get out of my hiking shoes and into camp shoes to let my feet dry out and get a break. Worth it to me. Although I did lose a Croc to the Kern River last summer when trying to cross one braid of the river. But! A $100?

Warren Greer
(WarrenGreer) - F

Locale: SoCal
like the idea on 03/12/2012 21:46:26 MDT Print View

but wonder if a shoe like that can provide real support and protection from rocks, roots, and other sharp stuff? Is there any kind of rock plate in there?

Rob Vandiver

Locale: So Cal
MT00 on 03/12/2012 21:57:25 MDT Print View

No rock plate, as far as I know. I think I will be waiting for the MT1010 Minimus Amp. Looks like the everything I was looking for in a shoe. That's until I wear them, of course.

Stanley Chen
(silentbeat07) - MLife
MT 1010 on 03/13/2012 04:28:10 MDT Print View

Wow it seems like the MT1010 would be great to hike in. Can't wait to give that a try!

christopher smead
(hamsterfish) - MLife

Locale: hamsterfish
4.8 oz each on 03/13/2012 21:34:49 MDT Print View

Hey guys,
Maybe everyone knew this but me, but it turns out these are not 4.4 oz per pair. Mine just arrived and on my kitchen scale measure 4.8 oz EACH in size medium. Darn I knew it was too good to be true!

I'll be keeping these as trail runners only. Not spare water crossing shoes.

Overall they seem cool though. Very silnylon-ish on top and little tentacle things on the bottom.

(jhaura) - F

Locale: Trail
Re: New Balance Minimus Zero March 2012 only 4.4oz/pair on 03/13/2012 23:49:50 MDT Print View

Ahh, good catch @Christopher, 4.X oz per shoe not pair. The NB website didn't specify if it was per shoe or pair. Maybe all their weights are by shoe, which would be weird, but as you show it seems to be. Anybody know for sure if that's NB's practice?

As for durability, most of the reviews I've read and the posters here seem to concur, that they are not very durable. Which means about 250 miles as opposed to 500 or so for a good trail runner.

Also, the grip is an issue with the Vibram patches. In tests at irunfar, they determined the Merrell Trail Glove to be the best zero drop trail runner in terms of grip and durability.

But I must say, NB takes the cake on sexiness, style and lightness. Most of those points are not all that valuable on the trail though.

I'm interested to see what @Chris Wallace comes up with in his review for BPL.