Our verdict

The moment we took the Minimus TR v2 out of the box, we knew that it was no longer the minimalist trainer we'd come to expect. It seems like New Balance tried to elevate the shoe's performance by adding a few bells and whistles but while some of them worked, others backfired. Gladly, one essential component remained unchanged - the Minimus TR v2 still offers a very planted low-stack and low-drop platform wrapped in a lightweight and flexible package. However, we highly recommend reading through the shoe's cons to make sure that they won't ruin the training experience for you.

Pros

  • Grounded minimalist platform
  • Basic impact protection for HIIT
  • Planted and stable for lifting
  • Comfortable for sockless wear
  • Highly flexible for planks, lunges, etc.
  • Very lightweight
  • Excellent breathability
  • Protection for rope climbs

Cons

  • Fiddly tonge (thin, long, shifty)
  • Rockered sole feels unsteady for deadlifts
  • Heel bumper protrudes too much
  • Not very durable

Audience verdict

N/A
Not enough reviews yet

Who should buy

We believe that the New Balance Minimus TR v2 is worth considering if:

  • you are looking for a minimalist training shoe that feels very light and low to the ground
  • you are transitioning to barefoot shoes but still want some impact protection for HIIT
  • you prefer close-fitting trainers that can be worn sockless

New Balance Minimus TR v2 review

Who should NOT buy

If you are exploring the realm of minimalist cross-trainers, there are a few solid alternatives to the NB Minimus TR v2 that you might as well consider: Altra Solstice XT 2, Reebok Nano 2.0, and Adidas The Total.

All three options provide a very generous toebox space and are better suited for deadlifting because of the flatter sole. Especially, the Adidas The Total as it was made with deadlifting in mind.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 lab test

Cushioning

Heel stack

Intended as a barefoot shoe, we are not surprised that the New Balance Minimus TR v2 has the lowest heel stack of all our tested cross-trainers. According to our calliper measurement, it is only 14.0 mm thick.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Heel stack

This type of shoe mimics the experience of working out barefoot and offers only the most essential layer of underfoot protection. It feels exceptionally grounded and planted but definitely takes some getting used to if you are transitioning from regular training shoes.

Test results
Minimus TR v2 14.0 mm
Average 24.7 mm
Compared to 40 training shoes
Number of shoes
13.7 mm
Heel stack
36.2 mm

Forefoot stack

The Minimus TR v2 also turned out to have the lowest forefoot stack of only 11.8 mm.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Forefoot stack

While this setup offers very natural and unhindered movement, please keep in mind that cushioning is practically non-existent here.

High-impact exercises that put a lot of pressure on the ball of the foot (like rope jumping) are going to feel less cushioned and supported in this minimalist trainer.

Test results
Minimus TR v2 11.8 mm
Average 18.4 mm
Compared to 40 training shoes
Number of shoes
10.6 mm
Forefoot stack
27.7 mm

Drop

We were surprised to discover that the actual heel-to-toe drop of the Minimus TR v2 is even lower than the stated 4 mm!

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Drop

The difference in stack heights showed only 2.2 mm based on our own calliper measurements. We think that barefoot shoe purists are going to be very happy about this fact.

PLEASE NOTE: Having little to no heel elevation in a shoe puts your foot in a very flat position - the same as if it were standing barefoot on the floor. Paired with the shoe's low stack, it offers the benefit of better proprioception and muscle engagement but can backfire in straining the Achilles or other parts of your feet and legs. If this is your first minimalist trainer, we highly recommend taking the transition slowly and consulting your physician if necessary.

Test results
Minimus TR v2 2.2 mm
Average 6.3 mm
Compared to 40 training shoes
Number of shoes
1.8 mm
Drop
13.4 mm

Midsole softness

Note: a low durometer measurement equals a soft material, whereas a high measurement means it's firm.

According to the brand, the NB Minimus TR v2 uses FuelCell foam for its midsole. But because the cushioning layer is so thin and dense, it doesn't feel as bouncy as a FuelCell running shoe would.

But the good news is that the foam doesn't feel dead either.

Having cut the shoe in half, we found that its midsole is made of two different-density foams. And because New Balance doesn't mention any other foam in the specs, we assume that these are just two densities of the FuelCell.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Midsole softness

As a cross-training shoe, it makes sense that the firmer foam is placed in the heel for better balance and stability. Pressing our Shore A durometer against the darker compound returned a higher reading of 30.0 HA. It is a firm type of foam that is less prone to compression under weight.

Test results
Minimus TR v2 30.0 HA
Average 27.7 HA
We use an average of four tests. The photo shows one of those tests.
Compared to 40 training shoes
Number of shoes
17.4 HA
Midsole softness (soft to firm)
47.0 HA

Secondary foam softness

Note: a low durometer measurement equals a soft material, whereas a high measurement means it's firm.

However, the forefoot portion of the midsole is notably softer. Our durometer showed a low reading of 22.0 HA which is 36% softer than the shoe's heel foam.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Secondary foam softness

It makes the platform a bit more forgiving for jumps and high-impact exercises where you spend most of the workout on your toes.

Test results
Minimus TR v2 22.0 HA
Average 31.1 HA
We use an average of four tests. The photo shows one of those tests.

Insole thickness

The insole is practically non-existent in the NB Minimus TR v2. It is fully integrated into the midsole (non-removable) and only makes up 1.7 mm of the platform.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Insole thickness
Test results
Minimus TR v2 1.7 mm
Average 3.9 mm
Compared to 40 training shoes
Number of shoes
0.0 mm
Insole thickness
5.7 mm

Rocker

Seeing a toe ricker and a heel bevel on a minimalist training shoe left us... genuinely perplexed.

New Balance Minimus TR v1 vs v2
NB Minimus TR (flat sole) vs. NB Minimus TR v2 (rockered sole)

The whole idea behind minimalist shoes is that they mimic the barefoot experience as much as possible without interfering with the natural biomechanics. But since the Minimus TR v2 already looks like New Balance's design experiment, why not? 

Because on the bright side, the new geometry of the Minimus TR v2 didn't feel like a problem. It actually made walking and running in the trainer a bit smoother. Our only point of concern was the shoe's stability for deadlifting - our feet had to negotiate their way out of leaning too far forward.

Size and fit

Size

We do not have enough votes yet (10+ is required). Please help contribute if you own this shoe, or add votes to other shoes you own.

Owners of this shoe, how do you like the size?

Small True to size Large

Toebox width - widest part

As a minimalist shoe, the Minimus TR v2 is supposed to feel like a second skin. But we think its snug-fitting toebox may feel too close to some people's skin.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Toebox width - widest part

Even in the widest forefoot area of the shoe, our calliper showed a notably narrow reading of 95.8 mm. Luckily, those who need a bit more space can opt for the wide option (2E for men and D for women).

New Balance Minimus TR v2 fit

We also found that wearing this New Balance shoe without socks makes the fit less restrictive and more glove-like. Even the brand claims that the trainer's soft inner lining is intended for sockless wear.

Test results
Minimus TR v2 95.8 mm
Average 100.3 mm
Compared to 40 training shoes
Number of shoes
90.4 mm
Toebox width - widest part
108.5 mm

Toebox width - big toe

Gladly, there is no aggressive tapering in the tip of the shoe's toebox. It showed a standard calliper reading of 78.0 mm at the big toe area.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Toebox width - big toe
Test results
Minimus TR v2 78.0 mm
Average 78.4 mm
Compared to 33 training shoes
Number of shoes
65.0 mm
Toebox width - big toe
87.5 mm

Heel feel

Even the rubber outsole of the Minimus TR v2 showed mediocre performance in terms of durability.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Outsole hardness

Using a Shore C durometer, we measured the hardness of both gum and black rubber of the trainer. However, the readings were nearly identical with 75.0 HC in the black compound and 71.0 HC in the gum (only 6% softer).

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Gum rubber hardness

That way, both rubbers turned out to be significantly softer than the average rubber used in training shoes.

Stability

Lateral stability test

It's hard to complain about the lateral stability of a minimalist training shoe. When your feet sit so close to the ground, it is nearly impossible for them to buckle over.

Be it squatting with heavy weight or doing lateral shuffles, the Minimus TR v2 kept us planted and surefooted.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 side support

Torsional rigidity

Aside from the shoe's inherent stability as a barefoot trainer, there is no support whatsoever. This New Balance trainer is meant to move along with the foot like it doesn't even exist.

Twisting it in our manual test revealed the complete absence of torsional rigidity in the Minimus TR v2. On a 1-5 stiffness scale where 5 is the stiffest, it gets the lowest score of 1.

Test results
Minimus TR v2 1
Average 2.7
Compared to 40 training shoes
Number of shoes
1
Torsional rigidity
5

Heel counter stiffness

Don't let the shoe's puffed collar mislead you. Aside from being very generously padded, it has no structure and hardly offers any heel hold either.

We gave it 2 out of 5 only because of the padding.

Test results
Minimus TR v2 2
Average 2.8
Compared to 40 training shoes
Number of shoes
1
Heel counter stiffness
5

Midsole width - forefoot

Measuring the platform dimensions of the NB Minimus TR v2, we didn't find it particularly wide.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Midsole width - forefoot

Our calliper returned a standard reading of 111.6 mm in the widest part of the shoe's forefoot. But we have nothing to complain about - the lateral and medial flanges proved to be wide enough to keep us steady during the workout session.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 ateral flanges

Test results
Minimus TR v2 111.6 mm
Average 110.5 mm
Compared to 40 training shoes
Number of shoes
101.0 mm
Midsole width - forefoot
117.9 mm

Midsole width - heel

The heel of the Minimus TR v2 doesn't have any significant outriggers showing a narrower-than-average reading of 83.0 mm.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Midsole width - heel

However, there is a pretty bulky heel bumper at the back covered with a protective rubber piece.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 heel design

Even though we understand that this is intended for headstand pushups, we also think that this much protrusion is just an overkill. It can do more harm than good getting in the way during other exercises. 

Test results
Minimus TR v2 83.0 mm
Average 87.4 mm
Compared to 40 training shoes
Number of shoes
76.5 mm
Midsole width - heel
97.4 mm

Flexibility

Stiffness

Another benefit of a minimalist shoe? Absolute freedom to bend your foot like there is no shoe at all.

Our force gauge showed that the Minimus TR v2 needs only 10.9N to bend to a 90-degree angle. That is 60% less than it takes an average training shoe.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 plank

We loved how agreeable this NB trainer was for planks, burpees, lunges, and agility training.

Test results
Minimus TR v2 10.9N
Average 17.8N
We use an average of four tests. The video shows one of those tests.
Compared to 40 training shoes
Number of shoes
4.3N
Stiffness
37.9N

Weight

Even though the 2nd version of the Minimus TR gained about 1.6 oz, it is still one of the lightest cross-trainers on the market.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Weight

Tipping the scale at 8.9 oz (251g) in a men's US size 9, it is 1.5 oz lighter than the average gym shoe.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 flexibility

In addition, its extra low stack, airy upper, and highly flexible construction help the New Balance Minimus TR v2 disappear on foot!

Test results
Minimus TR v2 8.85 oz (251g)
Average 10.72 oz (304g)
Compared to 40 training shoes
Number of shoes
6.38 oz (181g)
Weight
13.83 oz (392g)

Breathability

Don't let the shoe's puffed collar mislead you. Aside from being very generously padded, it has no structure and hardly offers any heel hold either.

We gave it 2 out of 5 only because of the padding.

Breathability

While the original Minimus TR struggled with breathability, the TR v2 managed to provide fantastic ventilation!

Putting the shoe through our breathability test, we saw large puffs of smoke rapidly escape through the toebox. This came as a surprise because the fabric did not appear very porous through the lens of our microscope. 

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Breathability microscope test

Despite its densely woven nature, the shoe's upper textile felt very nice and airy on foot.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Breathability under microscope

But mesh is not the only source of airflow in the Minimus TR v2. When we hovered its half-cut upper over the LED light, we saw sizable perforations all over the tongue as well.

With all these findings on top of our positive on-foot experience, we readily gave this New Balance trainer the highest breathability score - 5 out of 5!

Test results
Minimus TR v2 5
Average 3.6
Compared to 40 training shoes
Number of shoes
1
Breathability
5

Durability

Toebox durability

At least it's good to know that the shoe's outsole is sufficiently thick - our calliper showed a standard reading of 3.3 mm.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Outsole thickness

Test results
Minimus TR v2 3
Average 2.6
Compared to 29 training shoes
Number of shoes
1
Toebox durability
5

Heel padding durability

The lining inside the shoe's heel collar didn't give much hope either.

Within only 4 seconds, our Dremel burned through the textile lowering the shoe's heel padding durability score to 2 out of 5.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Heel padding durability test

As much as we love the sock-free option of this NB trainer, it probably won't be long before our toenails scratch a hole in its lining.

Test results
Minimus TR v2 2
Average 2.6
Compared to 27 training shoes
Number of shoes
1
Heel padding durability
5

Outsole hardness

Even the rubber outsole of the Minimus TR v2 showed mediocre performance in terms of durability.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Outsole hardness

Using a Shore C durometer, we measured the hardness of both gum and black rubber of the trainer. However, the readings were nearly identical with 75.0 HC in the black compound and 71.0 HC in the gum (only 6% softer).

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Gum rubber hardness

That way, both rubbers turned out to be significantly softer than the average rubber used in training shoes.

Test results
Minimus TR v2 75.0 HC
Average 82.9 HC
We use an average of four tests. The photo shows one of those tests.
Compared to 40 training shoes
Number of shoes
57.5 HC
Outsole hardness
94.5 HC

Outsole durability

As much as we enjoyed the extra tacky grip of the shoe's softer rubbers, they didn't show the best durability in our Dremel test.

After 22 seconds of exposing the black rubber to sandpaper at 10K RPM speed, we saw a rather deep dent that smoothed out the traction pattern.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Outsole durability test

Our tread gauge showed that the dent was indeed deeper than average at 1.6 mm.

Even though the rubberdid not boast the best abrasion resistance, we appreciate that New Balance went the extra mile with protection for rope climbs.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 rope protection

The Minimus TR v2 features both rubber wraps and sturdy midfoot overlays to prevent the rope from burning the shoe. The only caveat is that the protection covers a relatively small area and slashing the rope outside of it means ruining the shoe anyway.

Test results
Minimus TR v2 1.6 mm
Average 1.1 mm
Compared to 25 training shoes
Number of shoes
0.0 mm
Outsole wear
2.0 mm

Outsole thickness

At least it's good to know that the shoe's outsole is sufficiently thick - our calliper showed a standard reading of 3.3 mm.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Outsole thickness

Test results
Minimus TR v2 3.3 mm
Average 3.6 mm
Compared to 40 training shoes
Number of shoes
0.0 mm
Outsole thickness
5.1 mm

Misc

Price

The retail price of the Minimus TR v2 sits right at the average for training shoes. But because of the shoe's very unique (even experimental) design, we think that it's worth waiting for a discount.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Price

There are a few nuances about this trainer that could potentially become deal-breakers for many people. Especially since you can get so many excellent and reliable trainers at the same price point.

Test results
Minimus TR v2 $120
Compared to 40 training shoes
Number of shoes
£60
Price
£150

Tongue padding

Aside from the cushy heel collar, the upper of this New Balance trainer is very minimal. The tongue in particular is some of the thinnest barely showing 2.0 mm on the calliper.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Tongue padding

Test results
Minimus TR v2 2.0 mm
Average 5.4 mm
Compared to 40 training shoes
Number of shoes
1.0 mm
Tongue padding
10.4 mm

Heel tab

New Balance didn't add any finger loops at the back of the Minimus TR v2.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Heel tab
Test results
Minimus TR v2 None

Tongue: gusset type

On the downside, the shoe's thin, long, and non-gusseted tongue was quite a nuisance!

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Tongue: gusset type

As we got to the more intense part of the workout, the tongue started shifting around and folding over calling for our attention too many times.

Test results
Minimus TR v2 None

Removable insole

We think it will be problematic to use a custom orthotic with the NB Minimus TR v2. That's because its in-built insole is not removable and the in-shoe space is quite limited.

New Balance Minimus TR v2 Removable insole
Test results
Minimus TR v2 No