New Balance 890: thoughts?

I like them. I think the toe to heal is a bit too much at 12mm but I can use them to run more than an hour. I got about 400 miles before the cushion was gone. Which is what N.B. says you should get out of them.

I got some about a week ago and have been mixing them in with my other shoes. I like them so far. They're fairly comparable to the Brooks Launch and Nike Lunarfly which are what I've been wearing recently as trainers.

123 look wrote:

I like them. I think the toe to heal is a bit too much at 12mm but I can use them to run more than an hour. I got about 400 miles before the cushion was gone. Which is what N.B. says you should get out of them.

Meh . . . that's what, 6 or 7mm more than a 'low' heeled shoe? That's a tiny difference. I just don't understand why people worry about this, if you have a midfoot or forefoot strike you shouldn't even be weighting the heel of your shoe in the first place.

Another great thing about not heel striking is that you can wear shoes until they fall apart, instead of the prescribed 400 miles.

And to answer your question, I tried the 890 but ended up swapping them for a pair of the 1400, which I like quite a bit. You should check those out.

I hear the next 890 (january) 890v2 will have a lowered heel. I hope the upper has a better fit. It's kind of baggy and the anle collar rides a bit high.

I have been looking for a replacement for my Mizuno Wave Riders b/c I hate the new model. I finally bought the 890s, and I love them. They're much more durable than the wave riders and are very comfortable. I don't worry about the heel to toe drop. I'm a mid to forefoot striker, anyway, so I pretty much just look for light neutral shoes. I'm probably going to buy a second pair.

I wish they would stop giving them stupid numbers. It' a hell of a lot easier to know the difference between a "kinvara" and a "Pegasus" than between a 458 and 783

Agreed, I always have to do a Google search to know what shoe people are talking about.

Opinion sought wrote:

I work at a running store and was dicking around today

You're not this guy are you?

If you get the men's it's the "Baddeley 890" and the women's is the "Barringer 890". I'm a guy but I'd rather have a shoe that said Barringer than Baddeley.

Thanks for the feedback. I've always run in stability shoes, but I strike more with my midfoot, especially when running fast. Im not trying to do all my mileage in a light weight trainer, I just want a pair for tempo/faster runs. I'm thinking if I'm up on my toes more on these runs, the lack of arch support shouldn't be an issue.

The shoes felt really loose and wide. They were also really soft to the point where it was uncomfortable to run in them. If you are used to stability shoes, I don't see how you will like these shoes.