NNormal - Kjerag Series

Mafate Speed 4 is still great. Big fan of the Nike Zegama 2 these days too. Both are on the heavier side but are very protective and have great grip. I feel a bit more nimble in the Mafate though. I have a Kjerag that I really like but I guess I have poor footwork because I think I need more cushion. I really hurt my foot landing on a root in the last race I wore them on. Mafate Speed 4 Lite is very cool but I want to see some reviews from trail runners. Hoka is positioning it as a lifestyle shoe which I think is odd and is causing it to be looked over by real runners (I think).

VJ MaxX2 and Arcteryx Norvan SL3 are my current go-to for northeast trails. Nnormal kjerag is a good option that sort of splits the difference between those other two, but isn’t as good as either one.

Here’s my contribution. I haven’t done controlled tests like you did, but I run a lot of rocky vertical terrain and have put lots of miles in all these shoes. Trying to focus here on wet rock grip from the outsole and ignore other shoe attributes (fit, lock down, flexibility/stiffness, weight, cushion, etc) that also come into play with their overall ability to do the job on wet rock 5: VJ Maxx 1&2 VJ Spark Arcteryx Norvan VT (limited mileage) 4. Arcteryx Norvan SL 1, 2, &3 Salomon s/Lab Sense 7&8 Nnormal Kjeraq 3. La Sportiva Helios SR La Sportiva Vertical K & VK INOV-8 F-Lite 195 2. Whole bunch of older inov-8 x-talon and RocLite models NB minimus Salomon s/lab ultra 3 Salomon s/lab sense 7SG 1. Old Nike Terra kiger Salomon s/lab sense 1, 2, 3 For spiked shoes, I actually think they suffer quite a bit on rock because they don’t stick instantly like pure rubber soles. 4. VJ Devil 4 3. VJ bold race, VJ ice hero, INOV-8 ORoc 280

There is a new version coming out. I don’t think the changes are substantial though.

Yeah, the kjerags are a good option. I have a pair, but prefer the norvans for steep and technical stuff. Norvans are lighter and fit my feet much more precisely. Kjerag upper is a bit sloppy on me so my foot isn’t as secure as I’d like for rocky downhill stuff. Kjerags definitely have a little more cushion and “pop” to the midsole, which is nice, but not enough cushion or outsole grip that I’d reach for them over my preferred all-arounder: VJ maxx2

I can only chime in in Nnormal but figure I will. They were arguably the most durable trail shoe I’ve ever owned, but they had zero cushion/give (IMO). If you don’t mind firm shoes, they’ll last you forever (I ran several ultras in them), but I won’t buy them again because I like a little more comfort.

I sized down from my normal true-to-size for Kjerag 1 (10.5 to 10). But I was randomly in a store in durango that had the kjerag 2.0. Tried the kjerag 2 in US 10 and it was definitely way to tight. Unless this new upper has more give than the former, I will likely get my normal 10.5 when i pull the trigger.

I sized down from my normal true-to-size for Kjerag 1 (10.5 to 10). But I was randomly in a store in durango that had the kjerag 2.0. Tried the kjerag 2 in US 10 and it was definitely way to tight. Unless this new upper has more give than the former, I will likely get my normal 10.5 when i pull the trigger.

Very curious to hear how Kjerag 2 compares to norda 005. The norda looks sweet but the outsole wear makes it hard to justify the cost. Kjerag 2 seems like a good compromise. Anyone have a feel if the new midsole significantly extends the length of run someone would do in it? people claimed the kjerag 1.0 could handle up to a 50k but i kinda maxed at 25k.

Kjerag is a good shout. I enjoyed NB SC Trail too.

I have the same problem as you and the shoes that block my heel best are the NNormal Kjerag and various Salomon models such as the Genesis

The Normal Kjerag Brut has a fantastic outsole for muddy and wet slopes but you should expect premature wear if you run on more abrasive surfaces. The La Sportiva Mutant are a good compromise but not as light as the Kjerag

I don't know about hybrid shoes, but for trail I've settled on Nnormal shoes. I have the Kjerag and love them. They also do a softer model, the Tomir, that I'm eager to try. I would highly recommend having a look at them.

Don't have the Pros, but they're on the list. I do have the Kjerag 02 and only have positive things to say about them. Light, nimble, really responsive midsole. One of the first trail shoes that has given me that "fun factor." No complaints about the grip, either. Outsole remains the same from the first version, so you'll be able to judge whether it's sufficient!

Cheers for the review! Did you have any problems with the tape that wraps around the upper where it meets the missile peeling away on the original Kjerag (1.0)?

Appreciated. My pair started peeling in the same place but spread all the down the side of the shoe. Have returned them, will glue my next pair before it becomes a problem.

Im ~85kg and found that i prefer firm and responsive when running (short) races, with a not-too-stretchy upper. I think the brooks catamount could be a good option - they feel fast, stable and sturdy (i have the 2’s). The kjerags works well for me too i must say.

Have both. Was surprised that the Pro’s felt like a lot more shoe/more substantial than the Kjerag 2’s. I really like both. Pro’s have more bouncy-vibes but the Kjerag 2’s are definitely more lively than the 1’s. I just used the Pro’s for a technical mountain 100M (swiss peaks 170) and they performed very well on rock, dirt, mud, grass, flat or 35% in/declines, rain or shine. The Kjerag’s would have been too minimal for this i think, and the grip in wet grass/mud would probably not be good enough. For shorter distances in dry conditions, i still think the Kjerag 2’s are my prefered