NB110 vs NB WT10

Would be grateful for any thoughts on the above, especially relating to performance on muddy trail

Hi Goji,

I have the MT 110's and love them. The WT10's have less cushioning (ie. very little) The 110's have a nice wide forefoot, drain quickly and are dead light. Do you heel/mid/forefoot strike? I have learnt over the last few months to mid/forefoot strike and find there to be enough cushioning on the 110's but wouldn't want any less! I think the 110's have a slightly more agressive tread too. You can also pick them up in places like Sports Direct for £40 which is a bargain as they wear really well. Good luck!

Thanks, I run with midfoot strike and my road shoes are minimalist-ish Brooks pure flows, but was looking for something that can deal with mud on trail and the pure grits have not convinced me.  I found MT110 on amazon for under £40 so I guess I will get these

thanks again 

In the grand scheme of things 40 pounds is worth the risk. I'm interested in your thoughts on the pure grits, was looking at those for my next pair. Let me know how you get on!

Neither of those shoes are any good in mud Goji....

If you are going to be on proper muddy hills then yes, something with a more aggressive grip would be better, Inov8 do more aggressive soled shoes (Mudclaw is one) I agree with Steve, the MT 101's are good too, I have a pair of nearly new size UK 9's that are a little small. (plug) They have a bit more cushioning than the 110's but still nice and light and quite flexible. Think they are discontinued now but they can be found. I found the 110's a bit of a weird fit to begin with too, it looks like they kinda push your toes inwards! After going out in them though I love them! The upper is fine and doesn't cause me any probs, cleans up easily and seems pretty tough.

Steve, do you have a Pompino? I must applaud your choice of bike! Mine is tucked up in the shed until it warms up a bit!

Goji, I wouldn't send them back just because they look wierd - the're just foot shaped  and they make more sense when you run in them (honest!).

However 110s do come up small so if you think they are too short, they probably are! - my first pair were a bit marginal (never caused a problem, but I felt they had the makings of black toenails) so when they came up for replacement, I sized up. I'm now on my 3rd pair!

Before the 110s, I had 3 pairs of 101s which were also great but more restricted in the toe-box and I soetimes got a rub on the side of my little toe from the stitching of the overlays (Note: I always run sockless) which appeared to be a fairly common complaint.

Neither of these shoes is a true UK-muddy-conditions shoe, though the 101 is better than the 110 by some margin - I wish someone did the 110 with a Mudclaw sole (and at New Balance prices!).

goji wrote (see)

Roland, thank you for this tip - which would you recommend then? I would prefer modest cushioning but not outright barefoot.

It all comes down to you Goji and be honest here...do you run at a decent pace or will you slow down and tip toe through the gloop...

OldAndCreaky wrote (see)

Goji, I wouldn't send them back just because they look wierd - the're just foot shaped  and they make more sense when you run in them (honest!).

However 110s do come up small so if you think they are too short, they probably are! - my first pair were a bit marginal (never caused a problem, but I felt they had the makings of black toenails) so when they came up for replacement, I sized up. I'm now on my 3rd pair!

Before the 110s, I had 3 pairs of 101s which were also great but more restricted in the toe-box and I soetimes got a rub on the side of my little toe from the stitching of the overlays (Note: I always run sockless) which appeared to be a fairly common complaint.

Neither of these shoes is a true UK-muddy-conditions shoe, though the 101 is better than the 110 by some margin - I wish someone did the 110 with a Mudclaw sole (and at New Balance prices!).

I liked the 101s, and the grip was OK, but not great - studded enought but easily clogged. The big downside was they are so lightly constructed they fall apart evry quickly, especially when wet/muddy.

The closest I've found to a 110 with a Mudclaw sole for NB prices is the La Sportiva XC - on sale at Pete Blands for £40 - absolutely brilliant in the mud!

runboy wrote (see)

Steve, do you have a Pompino? I must applaud your choice of bike! Mine is tucked up in the shed until it warms up a bit!

I do have a Pompino, tremendous bike. It's kind of the NB101 of the bicycle world. Stripped down, minimal, a bit of an unloved ugly duckling and great offroad. There back on topic.

If anyone's still reading this and think about NB you might think about going up a whole size - I got a blackened toe at the weekend in my 'half a size too big' pair. Not enough to be a real bother - I still have another pair in a box the same size, I won't bother trying to change them (that'll be my 3rd pair too). They're finding their limits in this really sloppy stuff, but still my preferred shoe for hilly trails with the odd bit of tarmac.

For Runners, By Runners still have stock.

You must be thinking of the Crosslite sean - the La Sportiva XC has a pretty minimal midsole with just a 5mm heel drop (compared to 4mm on the 110). Hardly a skyscraper!

ha, 1mm makes all the difference. You're right though; i was thinking of the Wildcats.

How are the uppers holding up in the mud and wet?

One to consider then....