New Balance - Fresh Foam X Hierro v9

Hi all, Just wanted to ask for an assessment (opinion) on the sole wear on my NB Hierro V9s after 285km...

Cheers. Yes, road to trail then road to home. They're wearing pretty quickly but there's some life left. One issue I have with this shoe is I 'fall off' them on occasions, they can twist under my foot. I'm considering the Gel Trabuco as a replacement when they're done even though I've been a long term NB fan.

Yes, resoling is an option. I find that the upper on these is less snug. On tramlines the shoe feels like it rolls whilst my foot remains upright. It's disconcerting. My older V7s were a completely different shoe.

These have more cushioning but less 'feel' for the trail I sense.

Midsole is holding up well. They ride really nicely, very good job of cushioning rocks and stones.

I normally wear SG wide size. Went with NB Hierro 9, it’s a much softer ride but a bit heavier.

I have always worn Speedgoats in wide (2e) the past but moved to a NB Hierro 9 this year. It’s a softer, more comfortable ride. Gonna try the Norda 005 when they arrive in a few days.

5'10 and 210 and I dig the New Balance Hierro series, my 8s are going strong at 250 miles and 9s are quite nice in the rotation as well.

Great review, and I fully agree with basically everything you said. I ran the Grand Ballon Trail (50K, 2500 altimeters) in them and I was very pleased with the level of comfort they gave me.

Hello, here my feedback based on my experiences with trying on these shoes in store: Altamesa: I found it had good cushion except for where my toes were and it felt like they wouldn't soften no matter how many km's I put into them. Speedgoat 6: toe box felt weirdly roomy for a narrowish shoe and they didn't quite fit right. Hierro: I was able to try on the v7, v8 and v9 models all at one store. The v9 we're the best out of the 3 but I still didn't like the v9. It just felt oddly bulky which was a shame as I love NB shoes. The 1080's are my favourite. Stinson 7: I just bought a pair from MEC yesterday and they felt so good on my feet as soon as I put them on. I'm a little used to heavier shoes so that doesn't bother me. I really want a max cushion trail runners that doesn't need to be super technical trail focused. Salomon Ultra Glide/Ultra Flow: i really wanted to like these but they were a little narrow and just didn't have the comfy impact I was expecting. Altra Timp 5: I think these shoes are awesome except for the way the upper material bends at the toe box. It just feels weird and I can tell it will create problems for me a few km's into a run. I also have the Topo Ultraventure 4 which are great but I don't know how well I would enjoy them past 30km. I have Columbia Ecolite (the ones that look like they infused golf balls into the form) which have been great but just aren't on the same level as other trail shoes. I had the Brooks Caldera 6 which were okay and had great traction but they hurt my feet and caused blood blisters on the outside of my big toes so I was able to return them when I got the Stinson. I've tried on many other runners and I have the believe that you should go with the shoe that fells the best on your foot. E: forgot to add that I also tried on the hoka mafate speed 4 and I almost bought them as they were don't in the toe box compared to the speed goats 5 & 6 but I wanted slightly more cushioning. I think the mafate is a great comparison to the topo Ultraventure 4

Absolutely adored the OG-EUs. Also quite like this year's New Balance Hierros (I was a tester last summer).

I did not have this issue with the Hierros ¯⁠\\⁠\_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠\\\_⁠/⁠¯

I do a lot of technical terrain, I have the zegama 2s in my rotation. Don't take them for that purpose. They are bouncy and nice running, but they are too soft for technical terrain and scrambling for me. I use them as recovery and easy trail shoes. I like Asics trabucos for that kind of high mountain activities, but 13s upper can't handle rough terrain. Maybe you could find the 12s on sale, or just go with the 13s and be ok with getting 400km more or less from the upper. Asicsgrip is in my opinion on par or better than megagrip. I have just raced 10 hours and a half on them in high altitude with 3.600m + and 4.000m -, lots of scrambling and some running parts. Ending with "fresh legs" and no pain. Mafate speed 4s are in my opinion better than speedgoats for technical terrain. Great traction in every surface and stiff enough while still confortable for long efforts. I was a long user of hierro V5 and v6, the V8 was a "road shoe", the v9 is made very narrow now for my shoe but it looks nice. Tomir 2.0 could be another option and also prodigio pros, but I haven't try myself this ones.

***1. Introduction*** **About me**: I'm a 46-year-old male, 6'3" and 188 lbs (85 kg) — a self-described “bigger” triathlete. Think of me as your odd ex-pro swimmer: strong in the water, pretty awful on the bike, and solid on the run. Most of my running is on concrete, but in the hot summer months, I switch things up with hiking and the occasional trail run. I'm primarily a forefoot/midfoot runner. I don't know how relevant my PBs are, but just for context: I can run a sub-3-hour marathon, a 1:20 half marathon, and a 35-36-minute 10K and I haven't run a 5K in ages. I mostly run in Asics and Saucony (check my comments in r/AskRunningShoeGeeks for more), so I like to switch brands for hiking and trail running. In the past, I’ve used Salomon, Mammut, and Scarpa. Last year, I got a pair of Merrell Agility Peak 5s, which I absolutely loved. I picked up the New Balance Hierro v9 after reading positive online reviews (e.g., The Run Testers et al.) I’d never owned or run in New Balance shoes before, so I figured, “Why not?” I was specifically looking for a max-cushioned trail shoe, and I snagged a 30% off deal online that felt too good to pass up. ***2. Shoe Details & First Impressions*** **Size**: I typically wear an 11.5/12 in running shoes and went with a size 12 in the Hierro v9. It's not the roomiest shoe, though; it honestly fits more like an 11.5. **Specs (Size 12)**: 11 oz (311g), 4mm drop, 33mm heel / 29mm forefoot stack height **First Impressions**: I really dig this Dark Juniper colorway. Right out of the box, they felt super comfortable and plush. You can immediately feel the max cushioning, and that Fresh Foam stack really stands out. The Vibram outsole also looked impressively grippy. ***3. The Ride & Performance*** I've taken the Hierros on three runs across technical trails with lots of climbing. Most recently, I did a 10+ mile trail run (~3000 ft / 900m of vertical gain) on muddy, wet, and technical terrain. Initial impressions confirmed - the Hierro v9 is a super comfy, well-cushioned shoe with excellent grip. It protects your legs on long outings, and the low-drop setup is great for forefoot/midfoot strikers like me. The ride feels smooth, efficient, and easy on the joints. It’s a pretty heavy shoe, so you don’t get that “disappears-on-the-foot” feeling you might with lighter, nimbler options. **Midsole**: The Fresh Foam X midsole is soft yet responsive and offers great protection. It handled rocky, rooty, and smooth dirt trails — and even the odd paved section — without a hitch. One thing to note: it’s not very flexible; it actually reminds me of a carbon-plated road shoe in terms of stiffness. I enjoy that feeling, but others might find it too rigid. **Outsole**: The Vibram Megagrip is just awesome. Even on steep mud and slick rocks, I felt secure the entire time. **Upper & Fit**: The upper is breathable and supportive. There’s lots of padding in the heel, and the tongue gusseting adds to the plush feel. Toe protection is solid. The lacing is up to snuff. ***4. Stability & Protection*** **Stability**: This is perhaps the only area where I found the Hierro falls slightly short. I found that the thick cushioning compromises a tad the stability on highly technical terrain. Compared to the Merrell Agility Peak 5, I did miss some ground feel, which I value. That’s why I’ll be rotating these depending on the run and terrain. **Protection**: No complaints here. The Hierros provide excellent protection from debris and strong underfoot shielding from rocks and roots. **Durability**: with just 50+ miles, it’s too early to say. Anything I write now would be speculative. ***5. Pros & Cons*** **Pros**: - Really comfortable and plush ride - High-quality materials - Exceptional traction on all terrain - Ideal for forefoot/midfoot runners like myself - Great energy return - Significant leg protection on long runs **Cons**: - Slightly unstable on highly technical terrain - A bit on the heavier side - Reduced ground feel - Might be too stiff for some ***6. Conclusion & Recommendations*** As you've probably gathered, I'm really enjoying the Hierro v9. I feel like it could be a great choice for bigger runners who value comfort and cushioning (one of my all-time favorite road shoes is the Asics Superblast 2). It delivers a plush ride and outstanding traction. I’ve never owned a trail shoe quite like this; my previous pairs have been nimbler with more ground feel. But as I get older, I’m leaning more into the extra protection this shoe offers. As I mentioned earlier, this was my first-ever pair of New Balance shoes in over 20 years of running — and I’ve been so impressed, I’ll probably grab out one of their road models soon. If you have any questions, ask away!

***(1) Introduction*** About a month ago, I wrote a post on the New Balance Hierro v9 [(here is my original review)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RunningShoeGeeks/comments/1l73wga/new_balance_fresh_foam_x_hierro_v9_50_mile_review/). I was quite impressed with its comfort and trail capabilities, and truly believed I had found an excellent shoe for my long runs and hikes. However, as any runner knows, curiosity often leads to new explorations. When u/jorho41 commented on my post, I discovered he had shared an in-depth review of the Asics Trabuco Max 4 [(read his insights here)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RunningShoeGeeks/comments/1l6uycl/asics_trabuco_max_4/), a shoe I had considered before buying the Hierros. Then, out of nowhere, a significant online discount popped up — 50% off my size 12. It was an opportunity too good to miss. So despite u/johro4’s mixed review, I grabbed a pair to see what the Trabuco Max 4 was all about. I decided to put these two max-cushioned trail shoes head-to-head. For reference: I’ve logged well over 100 miles on the Hierros and about 60 miles on the Trabuco Max 4, both on the exact same trails. I’m training for a technical trail run near home, so I’ve covered the course multiple times. ***(2) Specs*** Hierro v9: US M12, weight ~11oz (311g), stack height 42mm heel / 38mm forefoot (4mm drop), midsole Dual-density Fresh Foam X, outsole Vibram Megagrip with 4.5mm lugs. Trabuco Max 4: US M12, weight ~11oz (312g), stack height 40mm heel / 35mm forefoot (5mm drop), midsole FFBlast+, outsole AsicsGrip with 3.5-4mm lugs. ***(3) Fit & Upper Comfort: Tie*** There’s no clear winner here. Both shoes are constructed with breathable mesh, providing a secure and comfortable fit around the foot. They both feature ample padding in the heel and tongue for an accommodating feel. With the Hierros, the only minor issue I had initially was that they felt a bit snug. But now that I have over 100 miles on them, they’re perfect. Either the midsole foam has compressed a bit or the insole has molded to my feet, but whatever it is, they feel flawless now. The Trabuco Max 4, on the other hand, has that classic 'disappearing' sensation on the foot that I really appreciate in Asics shoes. **Bottom line**: both shoes are well built and offer excellent comfort and secure fits. ***(4) Midsole & Cushioning: Slight Advantage Hierro*** The Fresh Foam X in the Hierro delivers a truly plush and bouncy ride. It feels protective and offers good rebound, maintaining a consistent feel over long distances. In contrast, the FF BLAST+ in the Trabuco Max 4 provides ample cushioning, but it feels firmer and more responsive compared to the Hierro. It offers good energy transfer, partly due to the Guidesole rocker, and effectively protects the legs, though with a different kind of cushioned feel. If the Hierro feels like a deeply cushioned sofa, the Trabuco Max 4 feels more like a responsive, supportive platform. Both offer high levels of cushioning, but their softness and energy return clearly differ. I have to be completely honest here: I’m a FFBlast+ fiend. I love it in the Novablast 4 and in the Superblast 2. The moment I slipped into the Trabuco Max 4, I had that familiar feeling. I like how responsive the foam is while still feeling protective and cushioned. However, the Fresh Foam X feels much more plush, and that sensation is fast becoming one of my favorites. **Bottom line**: I think the Hierro has a more modern, luxurious, and plush feeling to it. But both have high stacks, you lose the ground feel that many seek and that nimbler shoes provide. ***(5) Outsole & Traction: Hierro Wins*** The Vibram Megagrip outsole on the Hierro v9 is simply outstanding. Its 4.5mm lugs provide excellent, reliable traction across various surfaces, from dry dirt to slick roots and muddy patches. I've always felt incredibly secure, and it consistently inspires confidence in diverse conditions. The ASICSGRIP on the Max 4 performs adequately on dry, moderate trails. However, aligning with u/johro41's experience (and now my own), its performance in wet and muddy conditions was meh at best. The 3.5mm-4mm lugs, while present, are not great on serious mud, leading to a noticeable lack of grip. Also, technical terrain like steep scree fields can be tricky in the Trabuco. **Clear winner here**: Hierro’s grip stands out as superior. The Trabuco Max 4 is suited for drier, less challenging trails where extreme grip isn’t a primary concern. ***(6) Stability & Protection: Tie*** Despite its high stack, the Hierro v9 offers a good (not great) stability. While it can feel a tad less nimble on extremely technical, off-camber terrain, its overall protective qualities are excellent. The integrated Toe Protect feature also adds robust front-foot defense against rocks and roots. The Trabuco Max 4 features a wide platform, which inherently contributes to its stability on relatively flat or rolling ground. And even though its high stack can sometimes lead to a feeling of being less connected to the ground, the firmer FFBlast+ foam offers better stability overall. Both shoes offer a high degree of protection from underfoot elements due to their substantial stack heights, but the Hierro feels a bit sturdier and its TPU Toe Protector is genuinely effective. **Bottom line**: Both are protective maximalist options, The Hierro’s construction feels more solid and confidence-inspiring on harsh terrain while the Trabuco is definitely a more stable shoe. ***(7) Road-to-Trail Versatility: Slight Advantage Trabuco*** While comfortable enough for short road sections, the Hierro's weight and robust build can make it feel a bit cumbersome for extended pavement use, especially given my preference for lighter, snappier road shoes. With its 5mm drop and slightly firmer, more responsive cushioning profile, the Trabuco Max 4 feels a bit more efficient and natural on road connectors compared to the Hierro. If your runs frequently involve mixed pavement and trail sections, this shoe might offer a more balanced and comfortable transition between surfaces. **Bottom line**: The Trabuco Max 4 is better for mixed road-to-trail use. ***(8) Durability & Longevity: Too Early To Call*** With over 100 miles on the Hierros and about 50 miles on the Trabuco Max 4, it's still too early to give a definitive verdict on long-term durability for both. So far, both shoes show expected minimal wear on the outsoles. The Hierro's Vibram lugs appear very robust and show little sign of degradation. The Trabuco Max 4's outsole is also holding up. I'll keep monitoring them. ***The Verdict: Pros & Cons*** New Balance Hierro v9 ✅ Pros: Comfortable upper, no hot spots Excellent lockdown despite softer upper Feels very stable on moderate terrain Great Vibram outsole grip, even on mud and wet rocks Dual-density midsole feels protective and plush without being mushy Less bottoming out than Hierro v7 ❌ Cons: Heavy, but does not feel sluggish Less nimble than lighter shoes Upper is quite warm in the summer Asics FujiTrabuco Max 4 ✅ Pros: Responsive, snappy FFBlast+ midsole that still protects well Excellent road-to-trail versatility – feels efficient on pavement Stable ride thanks to firmer foam and wide platform Disappears on foot like most Asics do ❌ Cons: Mediocre traction in wet or muddy conditions Less ground feel due to high stack Not ideal for extremely technical trails ***Conclusion: My Final Takeaway*** Considering all factors, the New Balance Hierro v9 remains my top choice for comprehensive trail running. Its superior comfort and, crucially, its consistently reliable grip in varied and challenging conditions make it a more dependable partner on the trails I typically encounter. I feel more secure in the Hierro, and that confidence is key. In fact I will be using it for my upcoming races and that says it all. While the Trabuco Max 4 has its strengths – especially its road-to-trail versatility and responsive ride – its limitations in grip are a significant drawback for me on wet, muddy, or very technical terrain. However, I will still use it for easier trails, hikes, and mixed road-to-trail courses where its firmer, snappier feel and Guidesole rocker shine. Also, I like having different trail shoes to rotate, for the same reasons I maintain a shoe rotation for road running (e.g., injury prevention, extending the lifespan of footwear, and optimizing performance**). So I don’t regret purchasing the Trabuco at all. As a running shoe hoarder, the more the merrier in my book – if you’re like me, you know what I mean

I bought these 3 months ago after struggling to find a trail shoe I could wear for long miles. I am IN LOVE with these shoes. I am used to a lot less shoe but long runs and ultra made me need more protection for long days. I'm an older runner so my feet require more than my old Lone Peaks could offer. I have tried several brands and was not happy until these. The toe box doesn't look roomy but it is! Buying another pair for AC100 in August. :)

I'm on the heavier side as well at 6'1" & 180ish lbs. I've really enjoyed these for all my trail runs lately in Forest Park, Portland. For sizing I'm normally 11.5 but I bought these in 11.5 wide. The wide fits perfect for me in the toebox.