Comments: Bring back the original MT110 -- it was the best trail shoe ever made in my opinion. The new version is nothing like the old. Why fix what was never broken?
From: Anonymous. June 11th 2015
Comments: Another disappointed buyer. These shoes feel outright clunky compared to the real mt-110. Nothing feels worse than having the front of my foot crammed into a tiny toe box. I was hoping to get a shoe like a rugged mt-110 that I could use to train for ultras. Can't do that with a shoe designed to torture your toes. I can't believe Anton K. said these were 'perfect'....
From: Dan, Wheat Ridge, CO, USA. March 24th 2015
Comments: This is one of the most regrettable shoes I have bought. I currently have 3 pairs of the MT110 V1, decided to try the V2, they ruined it. Hope they fix it soon. So sad everyone wants pillows on their feet now though.
From: Nate, CO, USA. March 19th 2015
Comments: When not compared to the original 110s, this shoe is pretty good. If you want a lower profile shoe with serious traction, this is your go to. There is plenty of protection underfoot and the lugs dug well into mud, dirt and rooted terrain. That said, they were pretty uncomfortable on road stretches and I found myself searching for grass at all costs on the .5mi road to the trail head. Also, they were incredibly slippery on wet wood bridges. In the month I ran in the shoe only 1 lug (the same on each shoe) was torn off. Unfortunately, the upper failed me pretty quickly. After less than 100mi on single track terrain (no flat irons or rock fields), a huge tear formed in the mesh between the more substantial part of the upper. I didn't notice it until the end of a run, but I wasn't going to take my chances being in the woods on a snowy trail and have a shoe blow out completely. The gracious folks at RW offered me a new pair of replacement shoes. LONG STORY SHORT: not a bad shoe , the protection, traction and slim fit of the shoe made it pretty fun to run in. Wish the upper would have been a bit more reliable.
From: Rob, Riverhead, NY, USA. January 8th 2015
Comments: Like others have commented, this is a 110 in name only. I absolutely loved the original. I am currently doen to the rockplate in my last of 8 pairs. NB please bring back the real 110s!
From: Matt. October 27th 2014
Comments: I will pretty much just second what Joe said as far as the update (this really should have just been given a different name and not been a 'version 2'). On the down side, I'm finding the blisters on my pinky toes are a problem. I felt potential hot spots there when I first put these on, so I did put some lube on the toes. In spite of that I had developed a blister on the right little toe by 4 miles into the run, and a lesser one was starting on the left by the end of the full 6 miles of the maiden voyage. (I was wearing medium thickness NB tech socks.) This was puzzling since the shoes otherwise seemed to fit me fine and felt good on the trail; post-run I looked at the 'vents' in the material there and noticed I could feel them with my fingers on the inside of the shoes in the exact spot of the toe blisters (in the photo you'll see these near the 'N' in New Balance). I think NB made a simple boo-boo with these vents that created an unnecessary seem inside, and I have seen other reviewers (besides Joe) comment on these hot spots. I'm guessing v3 will take care of this mistake, but in the meantime I'm trying to decide if I should return these or try to work with it. I liked the better traction and better under heel protection (vs. the 110v1 in which I occasionally bruised my heel).
From: Matt, Albuquerque, NM, USA. August 26th 2014
Comments: Not a fan. I loved the first version. I had at least 10 pair. Don't like the plush tongue and didn't like the inside material. Wasn't soft enough to run without socks. The arch was non-existent. I did like that they had a more grippy outsole.
From: Nate. August 19th 2014
Comments: First, you should know that this shoe doesn't share anything with the original 110, outside of the fact it's still 4mm drop. It's a completely new model, with the biggest change coming from ditching the NL-1 Minimus last for the PL-4 last. The outsole is much more aggressive, with a new stickier compound that covers the bottom completely and delivers better traction. I had no problems with this outsole on my first 10mile run on mud, wet rock, road and grass. No more exposed eva in the midfoot outsole. There's also a change in the eva, now using REVLite which gives a "cushier" feel. The shoe has a 16/20 stack height in favor of the older 14/18. With this in addition to the new eva, I feel like I can really push harder and faster than the original because of the additional foam. Especially in the heel I notice it's way more substantial when running downhill. The new last does take some getting used to though if you're in love with the original. It's a little snugger in the f orefoot and looser in the heel and midfoot. I haven't ran in them without socks, but the interior is seamless. Doesn't seem like it's made to be worn sockless though. The upper looks to be made of the same fabric as the New Balance 1400v1, and now uses a suede like material for the overlays. I don't think it drains as well as the original, also it now has an insole. Only issue I had is with my pinky toes. They're both rubbing the upper a bit and causing some irritation with socks on. Nothing that a few band aids can't fix. It's a good update overall and I'm happy, but I will miss the original model cause the fit on v2 isn't nearly as "dialed in" for me. I can live with it though. The simplest way to explain this update would be to imagine if you took the 110v1, blended it with the 1400v1 and put that on the PL last...now you have the 110v2.
From: Joe, Franklin, TN, USA. July 17th 2014