Arc'teryx - Norvan LD 4 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.

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.

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.

The La Sportiva Prodigio Pro sounds like it'll fit what you want (but perhaps size up 1/2 size). It's a fun shoe that's well made, bouncy, and good for easy or faster trail efforts across all distances. The Hoka Speedgoat 6 is OK, but nothing standout either. I've also enjoyed the Topo MTN Racer 3 and Arc'teryx Norvan LD 4.

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.

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.

Sylan is too rockered for tech terrain, look at the Norvan LD4 rather. Depending on the distance you might be able to run in a more minimal shoe like the Merrel MTL Long Sky 2 Matryx, or Salomon Pulsar 2 SG or Kjerag 2, Kiger 10.

Ye what kind of distance is this? Otherwise i would recommend the LD4 or for more cushion the Prodigio Pro

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.

As a counterargument, I've been scrambling in all conditions, in Poland and various European alps, across summer and winter, in Arc'Teryx Norvan for 5 years and if i wasn't for the outer sole being worn out and me being too lazy to replace only that, they'd still be my main hiking shoe. I'm also lousy when it comes to pulling my feet high and hit rocks, roots and branches all the time. The reinforcements are placed exactly where they should be. Even the mesh part, of which I recall being worried about when buying those, survives thousands of thorns and branches trying to pull it apart. With all honesty I could not be happier with a hiking shoe. I might purchase another pair this winter. In spring I've gotten Dachstein X-Trail as they have similar attributes to Arcteryx ones and I loved the design and fit. I can't vouch for their quality yet though, other than the fact that they look and feel very well made.