J'étais sur place pour la présentation à chamonix et c'est simplement une chaussure, super technique sans fioriture et élégante , en deux mots " la classe " . Alors peut être que le prix peu repousser mais la durabilité de Norda n'est plus à prouver , j'ai des 001 qui ont déjà vu beaucoup de terrain différents et elles sont après nettoyage comme neuve . Merci à eux de proposer des produits comme ceux là.
Super curious about this. 211g for a trail shoe is insane. Kinda curious about that new Vibram coumpound though... often stickier/gripper = softer and less durable.
Love my 001, two pairs, hundreds of kms on each and going strong. Can’t wait to try these, the fear is the $$, guessing $350cdnish. But they provide the durability to justify. He didn’t ask release, but I hear spring 25.
As a pronounced forefoot supinator and forefoot striker, I am intrigued. I destroy uppers and/or most midsole materials within 300 miles of standard trail running, and usually within 250 miles of rugged *mountain* trail running. I'll have to snag a pair and see if I can destroy them.
Both the interviewer and the norda spokesperson don't know what they are talking about with regards to supercritical foaming. Supercritical just refers to the process in which the foam is made, all materials, whether it is EVA, TPEE, PEBAX are foamed, and that can be a traditional foaming process, in which standard air is used (a mixture of elements) or a supercritical process in which a single gas is used for a more uniform and higher performing expanded polymer.
Not sure what peba you have used. Haven't felt that in the Zegama 2 (pushing 300 miles) or my recent runs in the Tecton x 3. Even my peba insole in my Speedlands look new still.
won't absorb water but this is a highly breathable thin debris proof upper not a water resistant one. Their winter shoes are highly water resistant Dyneema
First, matryx is better than any dynema. The foam here is not going to compete with any peba based blends -- there is a reason why whether the Adidas ASU or the Tecton x 3, blends and carbon are being used -- to provide some softness with responsiveness. It is the best performing stuff out there. Then that outsole looks utterly worthless -- as if a design out of Tetris will provide superior grip and control. Then you have the price, which I assume will be in the $300 range -- thus more than the Tecton X 3, and likely more than a pair of Speedlands. Norda might be okay for some through hiking (and they look good), but I don't see them as a serious race shoe.
I think it really depends on the race. Peba-based ASU and Tecton X 3's def will be better for runnable ultras (ie. Leadville and Western States), but in technical mountain ultras (ie. Hardrock) I think the actual benefits are less distinct. NNormal's racing shoe, the Kjerag, is EVA-based and quite successful in mountain races. As for Norda, Jason Schlarb ran in the 005 at Hardrock 100 and the outsole worked well for him 🤷♂ I highly doubt he would've run in shoes with poor grip and control in technical mountain trails.
@@NateCrail The Kjerag costs $195. This Norda 005 will be over $300. For technical terrain, the Kjerag is phenomenal -- but I cannot use it for my long runs -- though I like it as part of a 2 shoe quiver. Further, I have no idea whether Schlarb's shoes had this traction. I know that when Bowman ran Hardrock, Speedland made a special shoe for him that had much more traction. So I am not going to assume he used something with that type of traction at Hardrock. My experience with the 001, was that it had awful traction, despite having Vibram -- not close to the traction that the Zegama 2s, the Speedgoats, the Mafate, etc. This newest traction looks worse. My point is: Norda gets a lot of hype, but I think it is the result of marketing more than performance -- and my experience with the 001 means it will take a lot of great reviews for me to even consider it.
Horses for courses. In general, the Peba shoes like Tecton x3 or Adidas Speed Ultra (I have both) excel in the more runnable terrains and I will most likely pick them for normal trail races over Norda. But when it comes to highly technical terrain, the Norda wins hands down. I have both 001 and 002. That's not only my opinion but also my few training partners. With just a few minutes of technical downhill in the Norda is enough to win them over that they went out to buy Norda for themselves.
@@aanhthuu then they haven't run in the Kjerag. The Kjerag is far superior in technical downhill performance and costs $100 less with a matryx upper. The Norda fit, and heel counter, make it awful for technical downhill...but folks run in Lone Peaks too so everything is subjective. I've pushed my Tecton x 3s in some serious terrain and have been fine. Not sure they are just a WSER or UTMB shoe.
I am a big Norda fan. The 001s just work so well for me. I cant wait to try these out...
I love what Norda is doing! This is amazing stuff - they won’t be for everyone but it’s great having a small brand with amazing design and materials!
J'étais sur place pour la présentation à chamonix et c'est simplement une chaussure, super technique sans fioriture et élégante , en deux mots " la classe " . Alors peut être que le prix peu repousser mais la durabilité de Norda n'est plus à prouver , j'ai des 001 qui ont déjà vu beaucoup de terrain différents et elles sont après nettoyage comme neuve . Merci à eux de proposer des produits comme ceux là.
Very interesting, it.s hard to find a top new trail shoes with such a low stack height. Well done Norda
Super curious about this. 211g for a trail shoe is insane. Kinda curious about that new Vibram coumpound though... often stickier/gripper = softer and less durable.
Jason Schlarb talks about durability in our interview with him here ua-cam.com/video/7sXNYnM1fI0/v-deo.html
Love my 001, two pairs, hundreds of kms on each and going strong. Can’t wait to try these, the fear is the $$, guessing $350cdnish. But they provide the durability to justify. He didn’t ask release, but I hear spring 25.
Is the toebox wide (as in close to footshaped)?
way to go, Nick!
As a pronounced forefoot supinator and forefoot striker, I am intrigued. I destroy uppers and/or most midsole materials within 300 miles of standard trail running, and usually within 250 miles of rugged *mountain* trail running. I'll have to snag a pair and see if I can destroy them.
Both the interviewer and the norda spokesperson don't know what they are talking about with regards to supercritical foaming. Supercritical just refers to the process in which the foam is made, all materials, whether it is EVA, TPEE, PEBAX are foamed, and that can be a traditional foaming process, in which standard air is used (a mixture of elements) or a supercritical process in which a single gas is used for a more uniform and higher performing expanded polymer.
looks promising! any information on price yet?
👍🏻 For design.. Also guality is i presume.. High
Interesting. Let's see the price, the durability, the fit, and how well those spread out treads work in the Rocky Mountains.
I just looked on their website. The price is around $300 for most of their shoe models. Nah, I'm good.
Jason Schlarb got 3rd place at Hardrock 100 wearing the 005s.
Love TPEE. Much better than pebax. Pebax dies prematurely.
Not sure what peba you have used. Haven't felt that in the Zegama 2 (pushing 300 miles) or my recent runs in the Tecton x 3. Even my peba insole in my Speedlands look new still.
What's the lug height?
3.5 mm if I recall.
My god 211 grams 🎉🎉🎉.. Can take it for a road race..
Remind me, is the Dyneema upper water resistant (not “proof”) as well?
won't absorb water but this is a highly breathable thin debris proof upper not a water resistant one. Their winter shoes are highly water resistant Dyneema
Price?
First, matryx is better than any dynema. The foam here is not going to compete with any peba based blends -- there is a reason why whether the Adidas ASU or the Tecton x 3, blends and carbon are being used -- to provide some softness with responsiveness. It is the best performing stuff out there. Then that outsole looks utterly worthless -- as if a design out of Tetris will provide superior grip and control. Then you have the price, which I assume will be in the $300 range -- thus more than the Tecton X 3, and likely more than a pair of Speedlands. Norda might be okay for some through hiking (and they look good), but I don't see them as a serious race shoe.
Yeah well, that’s just like your opinion man. ✌️
I think it really depends on the race. Peba-based ASU and Tecton X 3's def will be better for runnable ultras (ie. Leadville and Western States), but in technical mountain ultras (ie. Hardrock) I think the actual benefits are less distinct. NNormal's racing shoe, the Kjerag, is EVA-based and quite successful in mountain races. As for Norda, Jason Schlarb ran in the 005 at Hardrock 100 and the outsole worked well for him 🤷♂ I highly doubt he would've run in shoes with poor grip and control in technical mountain trails.
@@NateCrail The Kjerag costs $195. This Norda 005 will be over $300. For technical terrain, the Kjerag is phenomenal -- but I cannot use it for my long runs -- though I like it as part of a 2 shoe quiver. Further, I have no idea whether Schlarb's shoes had this traction. I know that when Bowman ran Hardrock, Speedland made a special shoe for him that had much more traction. So I am not going to assume he used something with that type of traction at Hardrock. My experience with the 001, was that it had awful traction, despite having Vibram -- not close to the traction that the Zegama 2s, the Speedgoats, the Mafate, etc. This newest traction looks worse. My point is: Norda gets a lot of hype, but I think it is the result of marketing more than performance -- and my experience with the 001 means it will take a lot of great reviews for me to even consider it.
Horses for courses. In general, the Peba shoes like Tecton x3 or Adidas Speed Ultra (I have both) excel in the more runnable terrains and I will most likely pick them for normal trail races over Norda. But when it comes to highly technical terrain, the Norda wins hands down. I have both 001 and 002. That's not only my opinion but also my few training partners. With just a few minutes of technical downhill in the Norda is enough to win them over that they went out to buy Norda for themselves.
@@aanhthuu then they haven't run in the Kjerag. The Kjerag is far superior in technical downhill performance and costs $100 less with a matryx upper. The Norda fit, and heel counter, make it awful for technical downhill...but folks run in Lone Peaks too so everything is subjective. I've pushed my Tecton x 3s in some serious terrain and have been fine. Not sure they are just a WSER or UTMB shoe.