Norvan LD 4 GTX Shoe

I’ve heard no so good things about ON, so would skip those. Personally, I have arc’teryx Norvan LD 4s (they come in both gore tex and non gore Tex versions), they also have a vibram sole. I think they’re the most “normal” looking trail runners I could find and they have everything I need.

Trolling can be funny it’s a skill that you don’t have. I have this shoe alongside Sylans and Norvan 4s. I run mostly single track and hard pack and they KILL my legs…because they aren’t meant for that kind of running. My lack of understanding what this shoe was for has in turn showed me what *is* good about them. They fit snug, have great ground feel, are breathable and dry fast. Scrambling in them and hopping off rocks etc in them is great. I can’t see how this shoe could be great for technical terrain and groundbreakingly comfortable. Comfortable is high in importance for road running but running on technical terrain it seems as though you must sacrifice that in exchange for stability, as the degree of both is decided by the same thing (the midsole)

Consider Arcteryx Norvan LD4 as well? they carry small sizes (I just retired some LD3s in size 5.5)

Jumping in. I’ve had the Norvan LD 2’s, LD 3’s, & now the LD 4’s. They are great shoes. Honestly some of the most comfortable running shoes I’ve owned. I was rather surprised given arcteryx isn’t the first company I would think of when it came to footwear. They’ve changed the most recent model (LD4’s) in such a way that your foot kind of slides into an elasticized sock. Rather than a classic tongue situation. If that makes sense. It takes longer to put them on now. I found the LD3s the most comfortable but I’m still breaking on my LD4s so we will see. Quality is meh decent. The LD2s split at the edges where the upper toe fabric bends. The sole eventually wore right through as well. I felt I got a decent life span considering what they went through. But I’ve also got merril approach shoes that are 20 years old, saw much worse, and are still going strong.

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.

I have both those and they work really well for me for running. It sounds like this is a walk though for which I personally prefer something a little firmer. The Arc’teryc Norvan LD4 have worked really well for me for walking (but I think maybe too firm for running)

Arc’teryx norvan LD4. My favourite walking shoe as I like a bit more cushion for running.

Agree - I use the LD4 for hiking and find them very comfy as long as I don’t lace them down too strong. Too hard for running for me.

Vibram does seem to vary model to model, both in the actual compound and the implementation. Zegama 2 also has quite a lot of rubber missing in the heel. Prodigio Max is a model with full coverage rubber and is pretty close in stats to the Zegama 2 if you want a close replacement. Otherwise I found the Norvan LD4 has fantastic grip, but it's more minimal. The lightbase material is much more tacky than the regular megagrip of the Zegama 2 which is formulated more for durability.

Prodigio Pro would handle this fine, or if you want less cushion, more precision then the Kjerag 2. Mainly it's about the rubber compound on smooth rock, and La Sportiva and Vibram are top choices. If you just want to mainly hike, then Norvan LD4 is a great cross-over shoe.

It's 4 mm. But honestly the Z2 didn't feel low like the Kiger 9's did. It's softer and with more rocker. I prefer lower drop = more forefoot cushion and a more stable heel. Peg Trail 5 did suffer from a tall unstable heel. That limited it to less technical use.

For hiking a would go for something more grounded like the Norvan LD4. Zegama 2s are are quite tall and soft and you don't need all this cushion for hiking anyway.

Ye I bought them for running, but now use 'em for hiking. I put Inov-8 boomerang insoles in them to help with comfort. Another thing is rockered shoes are generally terrible for hiking. The Norvan is pretty flat.

Only comparing to the Z2 here, but the Prodigio Pro is more a race shoe - more rocker, better lockdown, lighter weight, but maybe not the best comfort due the bootie upper and doesn't accommodate swelling well. I'm glad to take them off my feet at the end of a race. Zegama 2 is more a comfort cruiser. Deeper cushion and more comfortable upper. It's a shoe where you prioritize foot comfort over pure performance. That might sound dumb, but foot comfort is often a priority in long Ultras.