Maybe I’ve missed a thread but what has happened at Newton Running?
I understand Danny Abshire has left the company and the Running Lab in Boulder has closed its doors.
Wonder if anyone knew the inside story?
A real shame as the company really pushed natural running into the mainstream.
“A real shame as the company really pushed natural running into the mainstream.”
i don’t know anything about the goings-on at newton, but, if there is one theme that is taking over running right now it is forefoot cushion. nike’s zoom vaporfly is a rewarmed sock racer / air mariah pulled out of the closet, and it’s a darned good idea. hoka’s revolution was not just cushion, but forefoot cushion. same with saucony’s kinvara and a lot of other very popular shoes.
this is 100 percent contrary to what i understand danny abshire’s thesis to be. abshire’s firm belief - pardon the pun - is that the proprioceptive value of the contact with the ground required that foam and cushion not be there in the forefoot of the shoe. a lot of people (me among them) thought this was not tenable. whether he was right or wrong we’ll know in the end i suspect but as of now the market has moved more toward the forefoot cushion theme.
The newton running model also advocated the natural placement of the foot within a running shoe which is anything from 0-5mm I understand.
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t newton one of the first companies to really push this concept and run naturally.
Don’t most companies now have a take on this theme.
“Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t newton one of the first companies to really push this concept and run naturally.”
it depends on what you mean by “run naturally”. if you mean your forefoot strike should occur just below the knee, and the midfoot is the place where the strike occurs or is most important, i coached this 35 years before newton was ever a company, and i learned it from others much older than i.
i began running in a shoe called a tiger marathon.
pretty low drop.
that said, what i do credit newton for is helping break the hegemony of brooks, asics, saucony, NB, et al, and making it possible for new shoe companies to come along and change the way shoes had been made for a generation.
Fair point - I suppose it would more fitting that they were responsible for ‘reminding’ people of the concept?
they were certainly a pivotal company. when you look at everything that’s come along to disrupt the shoe market - hoka, skechers, altra, on running and so forth - i think a little bit of newton is in all of them, even if it’s just the knowledge that you can get shoes on the shelf and move other, larger brands off the shelf. and, yes, they very much helped break the notion that shoes should have 12mm and more of drop.
In my experience, the old four lug Newton shoes had a bunch of cushioning in the forefoot. I’d still be running in them if they hadn’t dialed that back to make a bunch of shoes that performed like every other shoe on the shelf, just a lot more expensive.
Interesting.
Danny and his wife Jennifer seem good people, I hope it all works out for them.
Maybe I’ve missed a thread but what has happened at Newton Running?
I understand Danny Abshire has left the company and the Running Lab in Boulder has closed its doors.
Wonder if anyone knew the inside story?
A real shame as the company really pushed natural running into the mainstream.
Newton really didn’t push natural running into the mainstream. Born to Run pushed natural running into the mainstream. And really, it was Tony Post over at Vibram that truly capitalized on it, turning the positioning of the KSO into a running model, and then launching the Bikele.
Newton caught alongside that wave as the “shod” version of things, although it was deemed inferior for not having the whole separated toe thing. But, I’m digressing.
Really, Newton truly “caught fire” after Saucony put out the Kinvara. Having a mainstream manufacturer come along with the low offset, light weight story, validated a lot of the work that Newton had put into the Gravity, Motion, and Distance line-up.
Newton’s downfall is two fold, really - #1 Hoka completely disrupting the marketplace after they were acquired by Deckers, and #2 way overextending the line-up beyond the core competencies.
I say this in every thread about Newton: they were always going five lug. Always, always, always. The original shoes were supposed to be five lug, but the factory they were in couldn’t build them to that tolerance. So they swapped 'em out. Would Newton have ever been that popular if the original design worked its way into the marketplace in 2007? Who knows.
They just tried to go too mainstream too quickly without having enough funding to really make it work. I still think there’s a place in the market for a line-up of:
Gravity
Motion
Distance
Kismet
Fate
Boco
That line-up doesn’t have significant overlap in it, and because most of those shoes are built off of two lasts, reduces cost expenditures. That would help keep them around…for whoever decides to sink some money into it.
Interestingly, Newton first tried to sell their IP to Saucony before launching their own line-up. It might make more sense for a different brand to acquire the IP and bring some of it into their product line. Or, alternatively, I could also see one of the larger store chains deciding to acquire them as a house brand (similar to the exclusive distribution agreement that Karhu just signed with Fleet Feet).
TL:DR - Newton got lucky to ride a wave in 2007-2010, but made significant missteps in 2011-2013 that have led them to where they are now.
Interesting thanks for the info and I agree with you ref the five lungs.
they were certainly a pivotal company. when you look at everything that’s come along to disrupt the shoe market - hoka, skechers, altra, on running and so forth - i think a little bit of newton is in all of them, even if it’s just the knowledge that you can get shoes on the shelf and move other, larger brands off the shelf. and, yes, they very much helped break the notion that shoes should have 12mm and more of drop.
Yea, and they jacked up the “acceptable” price of a running shoe to well over $100.
Poop on them for doing that…(says the guy who probably bought 15 pairs over the period of 5-6 years)
When I started in the industry in 2005, the average transaction price was…$100.
In 2007, when Newton came to market, it was…$100.
When I moved to Maine in 2009, it was…$100.
The average transaction cost started edging upward in 2009, progressing to $110, and then finally edging to the $120 mark we have now.
Newton didn’t do that. The mainstream models like the Brooks Adrenaline, Saucony Guide, Asics GT-2000, etc. did that.
When I started in the industry in 2005, the average transaction price was…$100.
In 2007, when Newton came to market, it was…$100.
When I moved to Maine in 2009, it was…$100.
The average transaction cost started edging upward in 2009, progressing to $110, and then finally edging to the $120 mark we have now.
Newton didn’t do that. The mainstream models like the Brooks Adrenaline, Saucony Guide, Asics GT-2000, etc. did that.
Makes sense. I bought my first pair of Newtons in 2009…$150+ bucks, if i remember correctly.
I just ordered my first pair of Newtons a few weeks ago and followed their sizing chart that said I needed the same size as Hoka. They are at least a full size smaller. Contacted them immediately for a return authorization and have followed up with multiple emails over the past three weeks and a phone call yesterday, all of which have gone unanswered. WTF?
From what I’ve heard, they recently laid off roughly half the staff in Boulder…they’re down to something like 10 people there.
Call your CC company, send them the emails, and charge it back. That’s unacceptable regardless. If they are still in business they better do good business… especially after racking up profits for so long at super expensive shoes for what they are.
Just called them again and there was no answer and their voicemail is full. Guess I’ll be charging these back!
I think a lot of people bought a pair, maybe two. After they got injured or got fed up with the chronic achilles or calf injuries, they moved on. I wouldn’t be surprised if a large percentage of Hoka users were former Newtonians.
When I started in the industry in 2005, the average transaction price was…$100.
In 2007, when Newton came to market, it was…$100.
When I moved to Maine in 2009, it was…$100.
The average transaction cost started edging upward in 2009, progressing to $110, and then finally edging to the $120 mark we have now.
Newton didn’t do that. The mainstream models like the Brooks Adrenaline, Saucony Guide, Asics GT-2000, etc. did that.
I thin a $20 uptick for a $100 shoe over 10 years is normal inflation. Thats what you can and should expect for all shoes.
I do recall that the first few runs of the Newtons back <2010 were $170+ when the more typical shoe price was $85 at the time for a top-of-the-line running sneaker.
**Newton got lucky to ride a wave in 2007-2010, but made significant missteps in 2011-2013 that have led them to where they are now. **
Newton got some early traction and action, by going big and deep in triathlon. However, this can come back to haunt a brand, and I think this is part of the reason that Newton has struggled.
Tell a triathletes that something, anything will make them 5% - 10% better/faster, and you immediately have their ear and are well on your way to a sale.
When Newton launched, triathlon in North America was at peak growth
Fast forward to just a few years ago and Newton seems to have made a number of attempts to go beyond being a “tri-brand”, but the specialty run market while much much bigger than triathlon it is VERY hard to break into, and can take A LOT of work, effort and resources. Also being known, even if it’s just a perception, as a tri-brand, can act as a bit of an anchor for you in the single sport markets.
And now the running shoe business is very crowded with not just the main stays (Asics, NB et al ), but all these other players Hoka etc . . Now Newton’s challenge has become even bigger.
And I’m not even going to go to the actual technology of the shoe