Forums >Gears and Wears>New Balance 890
Anyone running in New Balance 890s? Do you like them?
By chance, would love to know if anyone runs in them while wearing orthotics.
My local shoe store was going to fit me in an 890 (but didn't have my size in stock) and I'm wondering what others think of the shoe.
BTW - I am currently running in Asics 2150s and LunarGlide +2s - with orthotics.
TIA for your responses.
Kerry
HF #1048
I have a pair of 890's. I like them a lot for easy days and some long runs--they are super soft and flexible.
I don't wear orthotics and don't know anyone who does, and I don't have any experience with the 2150 or Lunarglide but I believe those are both somewhat posted, which the 890 definitely is not. It's a very neutral, somewhat cushy trainer.
They could stand to be a tiny bit lower in heel IMO, and they run bigger than any other shoe--I bought a size 9.5 because that's what I wear in every other shoe and I swim in them a bit. If I get another pair (and I probably will) I will buy a half size smaller.
Runners run.
I have a pair and I think I jumped in way too quick with them. I've been in the Mizuno Wave Riders for three years and a friend told me to try the 890s as an alternative. Anyway, ran in them two days in a row for 3 miles each day. They felt great. So great that I decided to wear them in a 5K. I ended up with some serious sore shins. I think I should have worn them alot longer to get use to the new feel before racing in them. Anyway, they felt great the first two days I wore them doing short, easy miles. I suggest moving into them slow since it's a new shoe for you.
I've been wearing the 890s, and I like them. I actually wanted a lightweight flexible trainer with a high heel. Go figure.
The Logic of Long Distance
Fanatic #3965
Kerry, if you wanted a NB shoe that's a bit more similar to what you are already wearing, perhaps try a pair of 905s. They're still really light and flexible, but have a medial post.
Kirsten
'07: 1324.5 | '08: 1561 | '09: 1810.9 run ~ 208.7 bike | '10: 1,000.3 run ~ 3513.5 bike | '11: 710.3 run ~ 4157.9 bike '12: 659.9 run ~ 3365.6 bike (100% benched by ortho last 4.5 weeks while in long-arm cast)
• DON'T BREAK ANYTHING!!!
• get within 5#s of 130#s (and stay there, gotdammit!)
• 1st olympic distance duathlon
• 1st Iceman Cometh mtn bike race
• Half Fanatic
• punch Type 1 in the junk
Eye of Sauron
Why is it that I can remember the differences between shoes for shoe manufacturers that name their stuff with nonsense names (Adrenaline vs Addiction, for example), but when it comes to New Balance, the numbering completely baffles me?
I mean, a number shouldn't be any worse than a word...
And once again Mr. Wizard (aka: Stevie Ray) explains the internet.
Why is it that I can remember the differences between shoes for shoe manufacturers that name their stuff with nonsense names (Adrenaline vs Addiction, for example), but when it comes to New Balance, the numbering completely baffles me? I mean, a number shouldn't be any worse than a word...
Just wait...NB is apparently discontinuing the 90X series and replacing it with another random series of #s.
To make it easier, New Balance alternatively refers to the 890 as the "Baddeley" (mens version) or the "Barringer" (womens version) after English middle distance star Andy Baddeley and American steeple chase record holder Jenny Simpson (nee Barringer.) Or sometimes they call it the "Revlite" after the type of foam used.
Really I don't know how they could have made it any simpler--you must just be getting old, srlopez.
New balance is actually phasing in a new numbering system that actually MAKES SENSE. The first digit(s) will refer to the "level" of technology in the shoe. (1080s are more advanced / higher end than the 880s). The last two digits will refer to the level of stability, where lower numbers will be higher stability (880s are neutral, 860s are stability, 840s are motion control). This should be happening pretty soon, the 759s are now 880s as of July i think.
Hmm....you've all given me something to think about. If I go back to the shoe store, may try them. The numbering the used had me confused, too, but the explanation provided here on the new numbering system makes sense. To be honest, I was surprised when the guy pulled the 890s after I said what I had been wearing.
These just look like the New Balance version of the Brooks Launch. Has anyone tried both? Having said, that, Kerry, you could also get fit for the Launch and Ravenna (its stability version) and see how you like those.
As an update - got the Ravennas and tried out today. The level of support (with the prescript orthotics) was fine - I didn't feel "overcorrected" at all. However, the level of cushioning in the forefoot was not enough for me. I tend to land mid- or forefoot and my feet got cranky really quickly. Nice shoe, but not the right one for me.
Climbing Mt Ruapehu
I have them and really like them. Comfortable and good toe room. Haven't had any foot issues at all. I have worn them on 2x30km runs and definitely wearing them for my first half marathon.
The only thing I have noticed is that after 200km in them I have seen the mid sole cushioning collapsing a bit which usually takes a lot longer on other shoes. Anyway if they don't last 800km I don't really mind too much. I am really enjoying them
i pronate just a little but seem to get away with a neutral shoe like this one.
Light! 280grams is just awesome, they are only 30g more than my ultra light trail shoes.
Personal Race Records:
M 3:52:48 (Auckland 2011), HM 1:38:16 (Taupo 2010), 10km 45:05 (Sir Barry 2010), 5km 20:21 (How Pak 5km 2010)
2012 Goals:Run the 75km Hillary Trail in a day (done 10/3/2012)
© 2013 RunningAHEAD, LLC. All rights reserved. | Privacy