28 in Trail Running Shoes
NNormal - Kjerag 02 Black
Running these analyses costs money. Buy through my links to support the site! I may get a small commission for some links, and it doesn't cost you anything. Thank you!
Reddit Reviews:
Topics Filter:
Based on 1 year's data from Mar 17, 2026 How it works
Liked most:
10
1
"Maybe cause it weighs 7g? lol"
"they’re extremely light and nimble - a great speed/race shoe!"
"The Nnormal Kjerag is a very agile"
17
2
"My first pair is still going at 850 miles."
"when I finally tried another brand, Nnormal (the Kjerag) that touted longevity, I have to say - it was real…I am over 500 miles on my first pair, bought a second pair assuming the first was close to dead, have put 100 miles on those, but the first one keeps going! ... Per their marketing now I just want to see how they are at 1000km, which I will hit in the next couple of weeks. ... Once you are at that kind of time, I think you are getting your moneys worth out of any shoe especially trail since so much can fall apart!"
"I am on the heavier side and tend to run on steep terrain, which makes me retire most shoes before they reach 300 miles. ... I have a pair of Kjerag that is almost 400 miles, and I continue using it for shorter runs."
21
6
"It is especially incredible for downhill running, better than any other shoe I've ever ran with."
"I am on the heavier side and tend to run on steep terrain, which makes me retire most shoes before they reach 300 miles. ... I have a pair of Kjerag that is almost 400 miles, and I continue using it for shorter runs."
"Nnormal Kjerag... are perfect for this."
6
0
"Nnormal Kjerag... are perfect for this."
"I have been absolutely loving my Nnormal Kjerag, including long days on rugged mountain terrain. ... They’re amazing."
"I’ve used them for both short scrambly efforts, and a 50 miler."
7
10
"Definitely more volume in toe box compared to Kjerag 01 (or just a more forgiving upper?) ... which I couldn't buy because they were -too- tight for me over the arch. ... With the Kjerag 02 I only sized up half a size, which is what I often have to due to slightly wider feed than average."
"The shoes fit like a glove!"
"the shoes that block my heel best are the NNormal Kjerag"
Disliked most:
5
3
"the upper began to separate from the midsole after just 50 miles."
"Kjerag upper is a bit sloppy on me so my foot isn’t as secure as I’d like for rocky downhill stuff."
"the upper began to separate from the midsole after just 50 miles."
0
5
"Rubbish grip for 80% of the trails i run in the UK. ... They are in the cupboard for some dryer days out."
"in the wet, muddy stuff, they have no grip."
"the only downfall being swampy conditions due to smaller lugs and poor ventilation."
1
11
"they had zero cushion/give (IMO) ... I won’t buy them again because I like a little more comfort."
"Anything over 90 mins and they're too uncomfortable."
"Kjerag is very minimal underfoot - don't expect anywhere near Speedgoat level of cushion or protection with those."
1
7
"I did end up going for a run with them yesterday though and I don't think they're going to work for me. I want them to, but there's just not enough room for my toes in the end. ... Ultimately I do like them and their build quality is clearly superior to Speedgoats. But between their non-wide toebox and having to *size normally* to accommodate that instead of *sizing down* like the internet suggests because they *fit long*, I found they fit a bit awkwardly. ... I've ran in them four times now and rolled my ankle three of those times. Yesterday put me on the verge of injury. I want to like them, and they're built very well, but they're not built for my feet. I think they're just too narrow and throw off my balance."
"just a little too narrow in the forefoot to be comfortable over longer distances."
"Tried the kjerag 2 in US 10 and it was definitely way to tight."
1
3
"I've ran in them four times now and rolled my ankle three of those times. Yesterday put me on the verge of injury. I want to like them, and they're built very well, but they're not built for my feet. I think they're just too narrow and throw off my balance."
"I did end up going for a run with them yesterday though and I don't think they're going to work for me. I want them to, but there's just not enough room for my toes in the end. ... Ultimately I do like them and their build quality is clearly superior to Speedgoats. But between their non-wide toebox and having to *size normally* to accommodate that instead of *sizing down* like the internet suggests because they *fit long*, I found they fit a bit awkwardly. ... I've ran in them four times now and rolled my ankle three of those times. Yesterday put me on the verge of injury. I want to like them, and they're built very well, but they're not built for my feet. I think they're just too narrow and throw off my balance."
"just a little too narrow in the forefoot to be comfortable over longer distances."
AffectionateShow4239 1.0I 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.
Agreeable-Corner-698 1.0Kjerag is a good shout. I enjoyed NB SC Trail too.
Apprehensive_Name191 1.0Don'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!
Automatic_Ordinary00 1.0Have 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
For trail use i find my adidas terrex speed ultras still have speed in them after 700k. Kjerag 2 should also last long, but im not at high mileage yet. not high stack though, so a different sensation.
bash-s 1.0NNormal Kjerag 2 is the best for me! I also have Norda 002. But the kjerag is the best. So lightweight with an amazing ground control but also really good (soft) cushion! It feels like a second skin to me 😁
Switched to NNormal Kjerag. The Kjerag 2 is super comfortable but still has excellent ground control and is very very lightweight
Captainbananapants7 1.0I've been comparing the Nnormal Kjerag02 and Norda 005. Also the Patagonia "trail" clothing is very nice. Ps. The Norda 005 are very nicely built but too much foam for me and "unstable". I enjoy the Nnormal Kjerag 01 and 02 more. I'm running technical forest (MTB) trails 90% of the time. It's been a fun summer testing.
chefwoodworkerartist 1.0Foot shape and running style makes a massive difference for shoe selection. If you have a normal to narrow foot and are a predominantly forefoot lander then the speed ultra is the best shoe so long as the terrain isn’t to technical. If the terrain is slightly more technical but still some sections you can open up I think the prodigio pro is the best. If you are a heel striker/ mid foot lander then Norda 005’s (if you want soft) If the trail is super technical and you have a narrow foot the nnormal kjerag 2 is an amazing shoe for precision. If you like a slightly stiffer high stack shoe the arc’terx sylan2 that is about to be released is awesome. It has a vibram lite base sole and a way more mild rocker than the 1. (I have a prerelease pair as I work at a shoe shop) Basically there are lots of shoes I would consider depending on a what the race is like
darekd003 1.0I don’t like mine but if I can only bring one pair of shoes somewhere then this is the pair. They are great as a daily walk around town and I *CAN* run in them if I wanted to.
deeppowder81435 1.0I have both shoes. Have around 600 miles on the pros. Love the shoe but durability has not been great on the first two pairs. Third is better. It’s my go to shoe for running in the San Juan’s of Colorado. The Kjereg 2 are nice for a lighter more trail feel. They cut across my foot where the laces start towards the toe and I think I will return them. For me the pros are way more comfortable. I generally do a longer run with them of around 20 miles with 6k of climbing and they’re great.
disturbed_panda 1.0Got these and the new Tomir 02 NN (straight laces) yesterday. Only used them for two walks in the forest (some short running to test as well) to get a feeling of them / trying to dial in lacing etc. The midsole is really great, and has a lot of bounce, but I think that with my weight these won't be shoes for the long distances, even with the increased stack. Definitely more volume in toe box compared to Kjerag 01 (or just a more forgiving upper?), which I couldn't buy because they were -too- tight for me over the arch. When I tried on the Kjerag 01 I had to size up a full size for them to fit at all, and even then it was slightly uncomfortable. Almost two thumbs width of spare length in the front is just not doable. With the Kjerag 02 I only sized up half a size, which is what I often have to due to slightly wider feed than average. I find the shoes to be slightly longer than I prefer for me feet, but that's about it.