Arc'teryx - Norvan LD 3

Arc’teryx Norvan LD3 - have run all my ultras in them with minimal foot issues

The norvan ld3 were great all rounder shoes. Haven't tried the ld 4 and don't know if I will know that I don't have my pro discount anymore. The Genenis are tried and tested shoes that work great in a variety of conditions. The Matryx upper is an upgrade over the Arcteryx's upper. I would personally go for the Genesis.

Hello, Last year, I bought a pair of Arc'teryx Norvan LD3 as a "do-it-all" shoe for running, trail running, and hiking while traveling — something versatile enough to be worn casually as well. I love their aesthetics, and the full VIBRAM Litebase outsole is fantastic. At the time, I was looking for a replacement for my ageing Peregrine 13s, which had racked up around 550 km (341 miles). I really enjoyed the Peregrines, especially in muddy conditions where the lug design gave me great confidence on downhills. However, they had three major drawbacks: * After about 3 hours, they became tiring on the feet. The mesh rock plate under the forefoot becomes quite noticeable on rough, faster sections, especially as the cushioning starts to fade during longer runs. * The aggressive lug design demands a lot of focus on uneven terrain at higher speeds. If you're fatigued and your stride loses some vertical lift, it’s easy to catch a rock with your foot and risk a twisted ankle or a fall (though this might partly be due to my running form). * The outsole is very slippery on rocks — I really wish Saucony would use Vibram rubber on the Peregrines. As I was training for a 50 km race this spring/summer, I didn’t want to rely on my worn Peregrines. I decided to take a chance on the new Norvan LD4, mainly because they have similar stack heights and a VIBRAM outsole. Long story short: the LD4 is very close to what I always wished the Peregrine could be. \------------------------------------------ First impressions: they are noticeably firmer than the Norvan LD3 — you can tell as soon as you step into them. For context, I tend to prefer firmer, more precise shoes for trail running (shoes like the Kiprun/Evadict XT7 or the Evadict/Kiprun Race Ultra). That's why I didn’t switch from the Peregrine to the LD3 — I didn’t find the LD3 stable enough on technical descents for my stride. The LD4 is firm, but not harsh. It protects you from sharp rocks while still offering excellent ground feedback, much like the Peregrine did. Importantly, the cushioning is consistent: during a recent 4-hour training run, the foam didn’t break down like it did with the Peregrine. As proof, I set a PR on a steep downhill near the end of the run (after 3h30 of running). Overall, the ride feels "old school" — don’t expect the bouncy, highly dynamic sensation you get with modern superfoams. But it’s lively enough for faster, flatter sections and remains reliable throughout longer runs. The outsole features 4 mm lugs with a broad pattern, offering a smoother ride over uneven terrain — better even than the Peregrines — and good grip on rocky descents. As for fit, it works well for me. The toebox feels slightly wider than the LD3’s, but I haven’t experienced any blisters or discomfort so far. Toe protection is excellent. There’s a sturdy membrane up front that takes up a fair amount of space, offering much better protection than the Peregrines. Finally, on looks: it’s subjective, but I find them quite stylish. The orange color is very bright out of the box — almost like high-visibility hunting gear — but the intensity fades quickly. After a few days of brushing them clean, the color has already noticeably softened. \---------------------------------------- There are some drawbacks, though: * Traction and grip in deep mud felt better with the Peregrines — they really shine in those conditions, in my opinion. * Lockdown can be hit or miss, and I experienced some toe banging on very steep downhills. That said, it’s mostly on me — I should have probably sized down by half (taking a 41 1/3 instead of a 42). * The knitted tongue tends to slip when putting the shoe on, so it needs to be properly adjusted before starting a run. * I use the second set of eyelets for a runner's knot, but the laces are just barely long enough to make it work. With time and experience, I figured out the best way to lace them up, but overall, the lacing experience was better with the Norvan LD3. In the end, I really love the Norvan LD4. They’re very close to what would be my "ideal Peregrine." They perform great on uphills, are enjoyable on technical terrain, and are smooth enough for easier trails. While they might not be the best choice for extremely muddy conditions, they’re precise and offer a lot of ground feedback. I believe they’re ideal for races up to around 70 km (50 miles). However, for distances of 100 km (62 miles) or more, you would probably want something with a bit more cushioning. \------------------------------- I'm 32, 177cm/5'10 Distance ran with the shoes : 92km/57 miles, 5 867m / 19 252 ft of elevation gain I encounter nearly every terrain possible : * From dirt, leafy trails, light mud, rocky trails to hard iced snow * From hills to steep pass The only exception will be heavy mud.

As much as I think the canvas white one are slick, I think they're a far more trail focused pair of shoes. Harder to slip on maybe to firm for casual walking as you need a bit of force to make the foams work So I suggest finding a discounted pair of LD3

Appreciate more Arcteryx exposure. I think their trail running shoes are overshadowed cause' people think their shoes are as expensive as the clothing. After promotions they are very approachable, and also delivers what need to be done. Speaking from a pov of a Norvan LD3 owner

I am going to challenge you on this - the Arcteryx shoes use the exact same outsole compound as the Nordas - Vibram Megagrip Lite-Base. As for tread pattern, that's very much terrain dependent and personal preference - so it's really subjective. For the record, I have and love many pairs of Nordas. I also have and love many pairs of Arcteryx shoes. I run primary in the Coast Mountains of Canada and both of those shoes perform very well in that region. I think that the durability of the Nordas is unmatched - you're absolutely correct, but I also think that the durability of the LD3, LD4, Sylans are very good. I have run many hundreds of KM ( I do keep close track of my milage for each shoe) with various pairs of Arcteryx shoes and I have had no major issues beyond normal wear and tear. I guess I just get frustrated by this narrative that Arcteryx shoes are "bad". They may be bad for you, but they are not bad for me. And they are not bad for many others.

Arc'tery Norvan LD3 is the most stable trail shoe i've had. Not sure why, as the platform is not wide or anything.

Fit and feel are very personal for shoes. I’ve never had good fit with the Norvan LD. Tried them for gen 1 and 3. Didn’t work well. For that reason I’d go with Salomon.

Very poor lateral stability and a bad tread pattern that’s actually very slippery on mixed trails. Durability is also lacking and I only get about 350km out of a pair of Norvan LDs. Whereas my Nordas and Speedlands I can get 1200km and 700km out of a pair

I really really like my Arcteryx Norvan LD’s. Super light, comfortable, decent grip. They’ve lasted great too. I’ve got the 2’s and I’m going on 6 years probably 500/600 miles and no holes, peeling etc.

I’ve always used trail runners for this Salomon speed goat 6s or Arcteryx Norvans line up are my go to depending on the grip I need.

My take, Arc shorts (Incendio) are awesome. Favourite shorts personally (7inch). I also have a superlight weight Arc merino t shirt for running which has been a comfortable alternate to all the synthetic I have. Can’t recall the model. I’ve had two pair of their shoes, the OG Norvan, and more recently the Sylan. OG Norvan was good, Sylan was a very different shoe, quite unique, a little stiff with a little of rocker and a bit unstable. Would not recommend. I’ve mostly run in Salomon, and would choose both their shoes and their Hydration vest over Arc, but greatly prefer Arc’s apparel (including Norvan jacket). Also, I just got my first Norda’s, and to me they’re the Arc or shoes. Premium material, great fit (for my feet) and look great. The durability on feel and upper so fair have been really strong.

Mine were squeaking and the sizing was odd. Length was okay, still narrow. The La Sportiva last isn't for slightly more than standard width, I am afraid. Given the spectacular reviews this shoe got, I can only say it was a grave disappointment. Will rather run again in my unspectacular but absolutely reliable Xodus Ultra 3, Salomon Ultra Glide 2 or Arc'teryx Norvan. For Hiking I would say the fit is just too firm and the foam squeaky, it got even louder after some 22km in both shoes.

Arcteryx trail shoes are pretty narrow and have wicked good grip. Vibram Soles.

For day to day running a shoe wearing out faster isn’t a big deal. When I’m on backpacking trips for weeks at a time, a shoe failing can cause big issues. I haven’t managed to justify the price of Nordas for casual running yet, but I love them for thru hikes where I don’t have to worry about the hundreds of kilometres between me and the next shoe store. Plus compared to some shoes my Nordas have lasted more than twice as long. Their uppers seem to be indestructible, so at 1000km when I retired them they were in better shape than my Arc’teryx shoes at 300km, On Clouds at 100km and Hokas at 10km (aka when they all got their first holes). The people I know who love Nordas are those who tend to shred shoes - if you’re not destroying your uppers long before you wear out the soles there’s not much point to them. 

The thing is, for a lot of us getting shoes to that 700mi is impressive, let alone the 300-400mi after that where the shoe works but is less awesome. My Hokas got a hole in the upper on day one (so within 5km). My On Clouds got multiple holes in the uppers week one (so within 100km). My Arc’teryx got holes in the uppers within 150km. My cousin’s partner has similar issues with regularly destroying uppers in the first few hundred kilometres, long before the soles show signs of wear.  Is it “gimmicky” for us to finally have an upper that is durable enough that we can actually use the shoe until the rubber is worn down? Or is it a shoe that is well designed for our needs?

Dayhike - arcteryx trail runners or day hikers. Backpacking trips - scarpa boots (saved me from ankle rolls many times)

Not supportive at all in the shoes but they are nice to dayhike in with lighter loads.