Norda 001 Review

 

Norda 001 Review

Stoat Rating: 8/10 (10/10 for design, but quality issues compromise the product)
Weight: 290g in UK 8.5
Stack: 26mm/21mm (5mm drop)

Overview

I really enjoyed the ride of this shoe. I would go as far as to say that it would be 'perfect' for me as a long distance shoe that I would happily take beyond 100km. The overall ride is protective, springy and doesn't have any hint of mushiness that I often find with higher stack shoes (Speedgoat, I'm looking at you). The upper is very minimal, and so the combination of this and the larger stack makes it less appropriate for extremely technical terrain, but I found it to be extremely comfortable and capable on more than just buffed out trails. I do think that it suits a larger volume foot and I found a bit of a sizing challenge on my narrow feet. I have some question marks over the general build quality - I have seen a number of the bonded reflective components coming away after 100km of running and a few inconsistencies in build, but the ride is so good that I'm willing to put up with this for now...

Comfort

The upper of this shoe is very simple and fairly minimal, particularly in the heel area. Overall the impression is that the upper is constructed from a single layer of material which is a dyneema blend which prevents it from loosening when wet. The shoe has a robust toecap and a thin, gusseted tongue. The heel continues the minimal feel without any padding, but I found that it held my foot well. Sizing was tricky: in a size 8.5 (my usual size) the upper fit like a glove, hugging my foot perfectly with no excessive padding however, the length of the toebox just felt a touch short. The half size up was loose on my foot, and the lack of padding meant that it was not possible to get any sort of secure fit, so I stuck with the smaller size.

Overall there is a bit of a general take-home message for me here - there is no need to have oodles of padding to get a comfortable and secure fit in a shoe BUT, a shoe that is a poor fit for your foot will be more noticeable in a shoe with minimal padding. In this scenario, some padding may help disguise or alleviate that poor fit somewhat, so you may view that as a good thing in that it makes shoes have more universal appeal, or a bad thing in that it disguises a poor fit! Everything is on a spectrum though and I certainly think that excess padding is a generally not a good thing as it disguises fit and often compromises a good lockdown.

Overall I felt that the upper and sockliner were extremely comfortable, but would caution that the lack of any rigidity in the upper (no heel counter etc..) does mean that the overall sense is of the foot being well strapped down to the midsole, but it is a bit more on the midsole rather than in it (although in practice there it a bit of a 'bucket seat' in the midsole).  This means that the shoe had a limit to the level of technical terrain that you would want to run with it - don't get me wrong, this is not limited to padding along buffed out single track, but they are probably not going to be your shoe if you want to bomb down fast technical descents in the mountains.

Ride

The ride of this shoe is about perfect for me for longer outings - seriously I love it. The midsole is a Vibram (who knew they made midsoles?!) EVA midsole which feels very stable but retains a good level of spring to it. The TPU insole tops it off nicely to give a level of step in comfort and spring. Many TPU midsoles, while attractive on easy terrain can get a bit too unstable on more technical trails and I think this one is soft enough to provide some cushion but without the instability. For reference it definitely feels softer than most Salomon or La Sportiva shoes, but certainly former / more responsive than the Hoka Speedgoat 5 / New Balance Moretrail V2.

Outsole

The outsole is Vibram Megagrip with 4mm deep chevrons. I like the fact that it is a full coverage outsole which means that you get good grip wherever you make contact with the footstrike. There is no attempt to split the outsole into zones to allow more flexibility but overall the ride felt good and was not compromised by this. I did think that there was an opportunity for some weight reduction here though as the outsole is wrapped up the heel which seems like it might add unnecessary weight.

The full coverage outsole is in stark contrast to the current trend of having large areas of exposed midsole. I like the full coverage as I find exposed midsole to compromise grip and protection, often unpredictably as the response of the shoe is very different if the contact points hit outsole or midsole.

Aesthetics

I like the look - they have a distinct style to them which is not as 'athletic' as a lot of running shoes, but seems to me to fit better with a mountain / trail style. There are quite a few reflective highlights on the shoe which is a nice addition. One quirk is that the upper uses Dyneema which cannot be dyed, so, regardless of the shoe colour that you pick, it will have white flecks in the upper which is the Dyneema. This is why many of their colourways are based on a white upper.

What I'd Change

I think that the primary thing that I would change with the design would be to allow a few more mm of length in the toebox for a given upper volume, as the current design is problematic for people with lower volume feet. The upper can always be loosened to allow for larger volume feet, but for people with a narrower feet there is nothing that you can do to make it fit.

Secondly, I would be inclined to stop the outsole curling up the heel of the shoe mostly to take a bit of weight out of the shoe.

My final thought would be to try to create an elasticated material collar entry to the shoe round the heel. The intention for this would be to act as a debris gaiter.

Outside of those design changes, I think that the brand has some quality issues to iron out. I tried 3 pairs of the shoes and they all had wrinkles in the material under the insole. One of my shoes developed a twist (along the axis of the shoe) and a lot of the bonded components are starting to come away after only 70km of running.

Final thoughts

This is an excellent shoe. If I were to design my dream shoe, it would not be far off this, with the primary issue being the length of the shoe relative to it's volume - people with higher volume feet can probably just size up. The price is very high and I would not mind this, except for the fact that the shoe has some quality issues to overcome.

Salomon Sense Pro 4

 

Salomon Sense Pro 4 Review

Stoat Rating: 9.5/10
Weight: 260g in UK 8.0
Sizing: I'm nornally a UK8.5 in most shoes (including most Salomons) but I sized down to an 8 in these which I put down to the fact that the upper just fit my foot very well so I didn't need to allow any extra room.

Overview

A precise, fast feeling shoe which runs nicely on firm or softer ground and could be used for distances up to a 50k and beyond if you don't have issues with dirt ingress. Brilliant.

Upper

The fit of this shoe matches my feet very well. It is not a wide shoe, but wider than the S-Lab 6 SG which is my main point of comparison. It also has a slightly squarer toe and softer toebox and all these things combine such that I ended up sizing down half a size compared to my usual Salomon size in spite of the fact that it is the same length overall. This is a good thing as I think that I'm a better fit in the heel and midfoot as a result when compared to my S-Lab 6 SG which I have in a UK8.5. Overall I think it is a testament to how well these shoes fit my feet.

The upper construction feels very simple and is made from a very open mesh material which breathes well and should result in a cool shoe. On the downside that open mesh is prone to letting in dirt - not a killer for half or marathon distances, but is one of the main downsides for anyone considering using this shoe for longer distances or in really wet conditions. I'm generally a fan of the ripstop nylon upper of the S-Lab 6 which I have found to be excellent in the conditions that I run in, but I can understand that people who prioritise breathability over dirt ingress would prefer the open mesh of the Pro 4. Salomon uses it's tried and tested speed laces which I'm not a fan of, but they have improved the system so they come out of the top now, unlike the old design where the laces trapped the pocket when you tension them.

The heel area is tidy - lacking superfluous padding and low on the Achilles. Excellent.

The tongue is held in place laterally by the classic Salomon gusset thingy. Only downsides of this is that you can get grit trapped between that internal gusset and the exterior of the shoe, but this has never been a major issue for me provided that I clean it out once in a while.

Midsole

21mm forefoot and 25mm heel stack with a 4mm drop. From what I can tell the midsole is about 16mm in the forefoot and 20 at the heel.

Flexibility is not barefoot flexible, but softer than say the Nike Terra Kiger, and the combination of flexibility and cushion feels good on sections of tarmac or harder surfaces to me, while still being firm enough to deal well with softer surfaces. I'd say that it strikes a pretty good sweet spot for me where I could use this shoe on hard or soft surfaces from 5k to 50k comfortably. There is a significant amount more cushion than the S-Lab 6 SG which for me starts to feel very harsh on tarmac or harder surfaces for more than 5k-10k. Oh yes and it has 'Opti-vibe' or some such nonsense.

Outsole

The lugs on the outsole are 5mm deep and well spaced to avoid picking up mud.  I have found them to be a good pattern for everyday use here in the UK where we are most often running on damp or wet ground.  It is not a fell shoe so don't expect miracles in mud, but then it is pretty accomplished on harder ground as well so it is a great door to trail option. The rubber seems to grip well in the wet as well which is not something that can be said for many of it's rivals.

Aesthetics

Classic Salomon - simple. I generally like the aesthetic, although I don't personally see why anyone would pick white for the heel.

What I'd change

Honestly not much. This is a bloody brilliant shoe which I will use from 5k races to 50k (or even mile?) slogs. If it were me, I would probably use a closer mesh (ripstop nylon?) for the upper to prevent dirt ingress and this would make me more comfortable using the shoe for longer distances or in wetter conditions. I'm also not the biggest fan of the speed lace - I find them fiddly and hard to get the tension right. I also sometimes lace my normal laces in different patterns to get more or less tension where I want it through the upper.

Alternatives

Hoka Torrent - Similar midsole and feel, albeit that the Pro 4 has a more 'precise' feel whereas the Torrent feels a bit more like you can slap it down anywhere. The upper in much more refined on the Pro 4 with less excess padding, better heel and midfoot hold, lower ankle collar and a less cramped toebox. IIRC the Torrent is a touch lighter. Unless you have a very high volume midfoot and heel then the Salomon wins.

Nike Terra Kiger - Wider, looser fit in the forefoot that again feels less 'precise' than the Pro 4. The tread on the Kigers is not as aggressive and I have found the rubber to have poor grip in the wet. This may be in part due to the fact that the Kiger's lugs are chevron shaped so there is very little contact surface area. This also means that I have found the Kiger's tread to wear out very quickly. If you have a wider forefoot (or prefer the loser feel because you run less technical trails) then go for the Kigers. Otherwise the Pro 4 wins out.

Inov-8 Trailroc 285 - There are a lot of similarities here in the precise feel. The Salomon has a touch more cushion, but a touch less protection underfoot. I found the rock plate in the Trailroc's to be a bit firm, making the shoe a little less stable in rocky ground than the Salomons. The Trailrocs also have an 8mm drop which I didn't enjoy and seemed to contribute to some instability in the heel. If you prefer an 8mm drop or want more protection then go Trailrocs, but overall the Salomon is a more refined shoe with better comfort and stability.

Final thoughts

I've said it already but this is a bloody brilliant shoe which can be used across a wide range of disctances and terrains. It's light enough to race short distances, but has enough cushion to run longer. It is comfortable, but the upper is precice fitting so that it will run well in technical terrain. I can see this replacing many of my existing shoes from my Inov-8 Trail Talons and S-Lab Sense 6 SGs through to some of my longer distance shoes such as my Terra Kigers, Torrents, and Terraultras. I'd love to see Salomon put out a slightly more robust version of this positioned squarely as an ultra distance shoe with  more robust upper and perhaps a smidgen more protection / cushion in the sole, but keeping the 4mm drop.

Hoka One One Evo Mafate

This is an interesting one.
I tend to have a bias towards more minimal footware and part of this is probably because I'm relatively light, so a shoe that may feel minimal to a heavier runner could still feel like it has plenty of cushion to me. Regardless, I had signed up to my biggest race challenge yet; Les Traces des Duc de Savoie (TDS) and I decided to listen to the common advice from my more experienced ultra running friends and go maximal.  The Hoka Evo Mafate was the shoe that I settled on.

Stoat Rating: 7/10
Weight: 300g in UK 8.5
Sizing: True to size

Overview
This is the first maximal shoe that I have really enjoyed.  The midsole is snappy and responsive without any of that mushyness that a lot of Hokas other maximal shoes that I have tried have. However, I had issues with blisters when running anything further than ~marathon distance. These seemed to be due to the 'bucket seat' shape of the midsole where the 'sides' of the midsole bucket rubbed on the side of my feet where they curve up to create a 'wall'. This was particularly noticeable on the inside of my big toe due to the taper of the toebox which doesn't match the geometry of my my feet (or any normal feet as far as I can see).  Ultimately this means that the shoe isn't great for ultra distances for me at least, which is a shame as I loved the general feel of the midsole.   

Upper

The shoe is a narrow fit at the front with a pronounced taper on both the inside and outside of the toebox; this widens to a moderate fit at the heel. There is a little more room than the Hoka Speedgoat2, but the shoe is not very tolerant to different foot shapes due to the upper being very inelastic and the midsole having the 'bucket seat'. This means that if you fit the mould then they are probably great, but if you don't, then they won't conform much to your foot shape.

Midsole

A huge slab of foam which surprised me by providing an elastic / springy toe off without the mushyness that I have hated in past Hokas (notably the speedgoat2 which I ran in quite a bit). As someone who generally prefers more minimal shoes I have a hard time in admitting that I loved the midsole, and in spite of having fit problems that make this shoe painful for ultra distances, I have used it quite a bit on shorter trail races where they do well on a mix of terrain from hardpacked / rocky to quite soft.

My only significant complaint on the midsole is that I think that the bucket seat shape was the cause of blisters on the sides of my toes and heel. I think that this was also accentuated by the complex shaping of the midsole where the outer edge seems to be hinged such that it could lever up and pinch the foot. This seemed to be an intentional design feature which I guess is intended to provide a more secure foot grip, but I'm not sure how much of a benefit this is in practice and it certainly seemed to worsen the blisters for me. I also found that the arch was a little high and caused me some irritation - this was solved by putting in some Nike insoles which taper at the edges and counteracted the high arch. The photo below you can see my big toe distorting the upper inward outside of the outsole.

Outsole
The lugs were quite pronounced when new and provided good traction on the muddy terrain of TDS, but also ran well on the road. The only downside was that they have lost height over time as there are relatively few lugs overall and limited contact surface area.  As a consequence, I assumed that the outsole would not last long, but in practice I have put 300km on them and so far they are holding up OK with about 25% of the height lost.

Aesthetics
I like them.  I tend to prefer a simple colour scheme and I think that they deliver.  There is a second colour with an orangy red at the front of the shoe if you want something a bit brighter.

What I'd change
The shape of the toebox doesn't work for me, and to be honest the taper on the inside is simply not the shape of a normal human foot. If this were straighter then I think the shoes would fit much better and, for me, would be superb for long ultras in difficult terrain. I would probably also personally loose 5mm of stack height as I think that I would benefit from the tradeoff of cushion for stability, however, for heavier runners I suspect the tradeoff is about right.
All of this makes me want to try the Challenger ATR5 which looks to fix all these problems, but the outsole looks a bit more limited to tamer terrain.

Final thoughts
Nearly amazing - I love the feel of the midsole which combines a springy feel with ample protection for the long haul. The outsole is great on a range of surfaces albeit it that it won't be the most long lasting. The shoe is ultimately let down by it's fit, and given the in-elasticity of the upper and the bucket seat midsole, it is not tolerant of different foot shapes.

The 'Ladybird Guide' to running

I have bought many mighty scientific tomes on running technique, but they all fail in summarising succinctly what you need to do in order to train / improve.  They also rarely cover the reality of other life constraints such as having a job, children and so forth.

So here is my brief guide to running, targeted at anything from half marathons to 50 milers.

Training

Using your heartrate

Training above and below your aerobic threshold trains different mechanisms in your body. For most of us, if you are running half marathon or longer then you need to train both, and in order to do this effectively you need to find your maximum heartrate so that you know how hard you are pushing. Calculating your maximum from age is likely to be very inaccurate - you need to go out and run a session to try to find it.  There are plenty of suggestions about how to do this on the web - most involve running a few hill reps and then going all out on the final one.

Your weekly plan

You should aim to always do one long run and one speed session to train your faster per week. These are your most valuable sessions and if life gets in the way then try to rearrange them.

The long run should ramp up from whatever distance you are regularly running to about 40k max. It should be run slow - (keep it in zone 2 which should be roughly 60%-60% HRmax). If you push too hard on this run (which is common) then you are not training your endurance and are risking injury through putting greater (unessary) stress on your body.

The best speed session should focus on trying to get to 4 x 8 minute reps at 90% HR, but anything structured that gets you running fast is good. This session is focussed in increasing your aerobic threshold limit and improving your technique when running at pace. A treadmill is great for this sort of thing as you can set a pace and try to hold it (while keeping an eye on your heartrate). I also quite like going to a club track night as it provides a bit of competition and structure, but they tend towards shorter intervals and a higher number of reps than I believe is ideal for endurance distances.

Fill in the rest of the week with whatever fits in with life – 10-15kms here and there. If you are training for a long ultra then you might benefit from longer distances and if you are elite then you might benefit from a second speed session. Decide what you are focussing on though and either keep it fast or slow - don't get stuck in the middle. If you can't complete any of these 'filler' runs then don't worry so much about it. If you can easily rearrange it great, if not move on.

Most plans would have you running 5 or even 6 times per week for long ultras. If you are elite then this might be sensible, but based on personal experience I think that most amateurs might find the sweet spot to be closer to 4 times a week which allows for a greater amount of recovery.

Always have a rest day after the long run or the speed session.

Your rest day is important - this is where the body's overcompensation in response to the training is making your fitter. Eat and sleep well.

Tempo runs - these are typically~45mins at or around your aerobic threshold. Many training plans include these and my club promotes them as a good training tool, however, I haven't come across any scientific literature showing any benefit and my conclusion is to stay away from this kind of training, you get more benefit to your aerobic training from a proper speed session and more benefit to your endurance training at a lower level.

Longer term planning

You want to try to build your mileage over time to the point where you are running your target number of km's /week for a few weeks before you taper. Overlaid on this you want to be cyclical in your training load - divide your training up into 4 week blocks with 3 weeks ramping up your mileage and then a week stepping things back by about 30% for recovery. This is really hard to accomplish without the use of a plan that you try to stick to - once you have some visibility of your races for the year I reccomend mapping out your intended mileage week by week, even if you don't have a day by day plan. Once written down it's much easier to follow.

Gym

If you don't do any cross training (and even if you do) then some gym work is probably beneficial. I'm pretty ill informed about this, but I aim to do a couple of gym sessions per week where I work mostly on core strength and flexibility. I also keep a regular focus on my glutes and use a range of physio excercises to develop glute and specifically glute med strength - side steps back and forth with a slight squat (Space invaders). There is loads of infomation on the web about gym sessions for runners - I'm not up to speed enough to reccomend any one approach.

Technique

A minefield of opinion, but one of the key things to focus on is cadence. Most people run with too slow a cadence so they don’t recover any of the energy from their achilles, and this means that you run inefficiently. Most guidance suggests that you need to aim for around 180bpm, but I'd imagine that if you are short and light the optimum could be higher and heavy and tall would be a bit lower.  Try running with a metronome app on your phone to start getting a feel for this cadence. At first it may feel ridiculously fast, but over time it should lead you to shorten your stride which is generally a good thing. 

From there you should think in terms of having your feet land under you and then kicking out behind driving from your hips, through the glutes and then hamstrings. If you ‘reach out’ with your feet in front of you then you are slowing yourself down and also loading your quad while extending it which is very tiring (that’s what makes downhill such a killer on your quads). Critically, your knee joint should be opening as it hits the ground, not closing (on the flat at least). 

You may find with these changes that you naturally develop more of a forefoot strike rather than a heel strike, but focus on cadence first and the rest should follow.  In other words I (personally) think that a lot of the forefoot / heelstrike debate is misguided in that the footstrike is more of a symptom than a cause. The odd bit of barefoot running is no bad thing from time to time if you have a nice bit of grass to run on, but don’t take it to heart. 

One area of trail running where you have the biggest opportunity to make significant gains (particularly in longer races) is the downhill. A lot of people 'put the brakes on' coming downhills, leaning back and using lots of energy in the quads. Learning to run downhill well takes practice, but the prinicples of it are to try to keep perpendicular to the slope (lean forward) and let your feet fall under you and roll down the hill putting no energy in through your legs. You will find that you can go much faster with much less effort in this manner until the point where the slope gets too steep and your speed is uncomfortably fast - and therein lies the key clue to running downhill - it's mostly about having the confidence to let go and accept the speed that gravity is gifting you!

Eating

You can store about 1.5-2hrs of glycogen in the muscles after which you need to burn fat.  The body only produces the enzymes that break down fats into somthing that the rest of your system can benefit from if your blood sugar goes into deficit, so if you do all your training while cramming sugars into your system then you are going to struggle a bit on race day.  All the different forms of intermittent fasting are basically trying to kick the body into producing those enzymes.  

I haven't tried enough different approaches to endorse any one system over another but during training I try to limit sugar/carb intake and about one month before a big race I normally do a few fasted runs – ideally do an afternoon / evening workout then skip supper and breakfast and then go out for a run in the morning.  You’ll feel bloody awful the first time but it gets easier and on the plus side the enzymes tend to have a relatively long half life (at least a month) in the body, so you don't need to be doing this every week.

On race day it is so easy to forget to eat.  If you are doing races for longer than 2hrs then make sure that you keep eating or you’ll crash.

There you go – everything that I know about running... It hasn't made me any faster 😊

All the above comes from reading a many training sites over the summer and combining with personal experience. I have not got a handy list of references for all of the points above, but I may go back and update with links to some of the key articles or papers that I found when I get a chance. There are also a couple of point of personal opinion which I have tried to highlight as such in the text.

Inov-8 Terraultra G260 - Updated summer 2019

Inov-8 Terraultra G260 - Updated

Stoat Rating: 9/10

(-1 for squishy insole and a lack of protection from the cutaway outsole)
Weight: 266g in UK 8.5
Sizing: Runs large - you may want to size down half a size if you are on the boarderline

I originally posed some 'out of the box' thoughts on the G260 laster year, but decided not to keep them as the upper felt too roomy and overly stiff and clunky. They were also heavier than the 'advertised' weight. This summer, somewhat under the radar, Inov-8 has revised the design of the upper, which is now much closer to the non graphene version of the shoe and this transforms the shoe in my opinion - improving the fit, comfort and weight of the shoe significantly. This is now my goto shoe for the majority of my trail runs.

The OG version of the G260 with stiff kevlar overlays

The newer 2019 version of the G260

Weight

Generally, according to my (uncalibrated) scales, Inov-8 is spot on with weights in my size (UK8.5).  The OG version of the G260 I measured at 288g, nearly 30g heavier than the published weight, but the newer shoe is coming in at 266g - much closer to advertised and making it a light shoe - particularly given the intended use.

Trailroc 250 - 246g in a UK8.5

OG Terraultra 260 - 288g in a UK8.5

Fit and Upper

This is an area where the revised 2019 version has seen some changes. The original version had a stiff uncompromising upper that felt volumous and didn't seem to wrap around the foot the way Inov-8s normally do.  The revised version changes all this. The shoe still fits wide in the toes and slightly longer than some of my other Inov-8's of the same size, but it wraps snugly around the midfoot and heel giving a 10/10 locked down feeling.
Overall the shoes fit long -somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 sizes bigger and if you were on the fence with sizing, or you went up in size to get more width or toe room in other Inov-8's then you might not need to in these.  That said, it somehow feels like this additional length is 'by design' given the intended long distance use. Most of the extra room seems to be in the toebox and although overall longer, I stuck with my normal shoe size as the heel and midfoot were so well locked in.
I found the toe room to be wide but not excessive and the last doesn't seem as 'banana shaped' as some of their other shoes which often leave me with acres of room on the inside for my big toe, but cramping my little toes together. I were to liken the fit to any of the shoes in my quiver then it would be closest to the Nike Terra Kiger 4's, but with a bit more height in the toebox (which is welcome) and a bit more support in the upper.
I haven't used the shoes long enough to gauge upper life, but it is worth noting that the OG version used the kevlar overlays claiming that they were there to make a bomproof upper that would last as long as the graphene sole. The new version has a much more conventional upper, so will this (and midsole) limit the lifetime of the shoe to the point where there is no benefit to the graphene sole?

Midsole

Most of Inov-8's recent shoes have a fairly firm midsole, and then a thicker than normal insole to create a softness for the foot.  This shoe is no different and provides a nice level of comfort that makes a great compromise between groundfeel and stability for the softer conditions and isolation from harder surfaces. The midsole has no rockplate so you can get a bit of rock poke through, but out of the box and at my weight there is plenty of protection - I might consider a stonegaurd for a long rocky ultra though.  In case you didn't notice, they are zero drop and feel like it.  The combination of zero drop, relatively low stack / firm midsole means that if you are the kind of runner that loves a Hoka or a heavy heel striker then I suspect you may find them too minimal for longer distances.

The shoe overall feels very flexible both longditudanly and torsionally and I think that this enhances the ground feel.

Inov-8 continues to use the 6mm sponge insole which absorbs water and squelches horribly. I have posted about this already and is not the end of the world - just replace them - but it does add to the cost of the package. I'd love to know why Inov-8 uses them - particularly when most of their shoes are targeted at wet conditions.

Outsole

The outsole on the G260 has a decent tread which will cope with a bit of mud, but has enough surace area to run well on harder surfaces as well. It is certainly a bit better in soft conditions than your average trail shoe, but don't try them in full on fell conditions. The outsole has small areas of exposed midsole which would seem to be there primarily for flexibility, which it seems to achieve, but this does come at the expense of a chance of some rocks poking through if they catch the wrong spot.

'50% Stronger, 50% More Elastic and 50% Harder wearing' say Inov-8. I don't have the wherewithal to confirm or deny this, however they seem to make no claims about the grip! I'm a bit of a synic when it comes to marketing claims, but I have found the grip to be similar to the non graphene version so if the sole lasts longer for the same grip then I guess that this is an improvement. I'll post back on the lifetime of the shoe when I have past the 500km mark.

The thing that I can't really understand though is that it is rarely the outsole that stops me using a shoe most often it is the upper that goes first, or the midsole becomes too packed out for long distance runs, so if the outsole is not the 'weak link' then I can't see how the lifetime of the shoe will be improved?

Conclusion

Now that I have run in these I think that Inov-8 has designed a really great shoe for long distance running.  If you have ever wanted an Altra Superior but wished it had a bit more protection and tighter heel hold, or a Nike Terra Kiger but found the toebox too shallow and the sole a bit unstable then this could be the shoe for you.  Plenty of room for the toes, solid midfoot and heel hold and a firm responsive midsole look like a great mix to me.  They are zero drop, which I think is a bold move for a long distance shoe (personally I find ~4mmdrop to be my sweetspot), but I'd rather that than 8mm or more.
The outsole?  I don't see how it will improve the lifetime of the shoe and given that the non graphene version of the shoe is almost identical I might be inclined to save a few £'s in the future and stick to their traditional componds, but I'll see how it pans out over time.
Overall for me, these are a winner and seem to have taken up the number one spot for long and short distance trail runs, giving way to proper fell shoes only in really muddy conditions.

Linux Setup

A bit off-piste here, but with plenty of time, a job search on and in need of a PC I decided to explore the option of installing a version of linux on an old laptop that was unusably slow.

I started with the default version of Ubuntu 18.04. It was easy to download and make a self-installing USB.  On booting from the USB you even have a choice to run the OS without installing it to get a feel for it.  I jumped right in, and installed it as my existing Windows system was unusable.
Installation was straightforward, and I liked the operating system, but unfortunately, I found it a bit laggy and slow.  Not entirely surprising given that my PC was below the recommended minimum spec.

I then explored options for lighter weight distributions and settled on Xubuntu.  This is basically Ubuntu, but comes with a much lighter weight desktop called Xfce.  As shipped, Xfce looks a bit bland and has none of the slick animations that you get with more modern desktops.  However, you get lots of options for setting it up, and I feel that I have got a layout that works well, looks good and doesn't have the heavy overhead of Gnome etc...  You may or may not agree :)  Basically I have two panels, one at the top which gives all my information and open widows, and one at the bottom which just has launcher icons for my commonly used applications.  Both of these panels 'Intelligently autohide'; this means that they autohide when you have widows covering them, but not when they don't.

My Xfce desktop

In looking at different options I couldn't get a clear take on whether Xfce or Mate was the lighter desktop.  Different sites say different things.  MATE looks like it might have a slightly more modern default setup, but I actually prefer the setup that I achieved (2 panels) on Xfce.  Similarly, I also looked a bit at Mint rather than Ubuntu, but didn't get much of a steer on which I'd prefer - most sites suggested that Mint might be a touch easier to get into, but I suspect that was more related to the use of the Cinnamon desktop which is its default.  I might try an install of Mint with the MATE on another old laptop and compare to what I have.

UPDATE: I did install Mint with Xfce.  The default installation comes with some better applications by default (picture viewer and Impress) however, I prefer the Ubuntu setup overall and it is not hard to add these extra applications.

Anyway, my take is that linux has come a long way from when I played with it last. I'm just going to list the things that I did to get my system setup.... mostly for my own record in future.  I'm not going to list all the detail - there is so much help available on the web for each of these steps.

1) Installation:  Simple.  Go to the Xubuntu site and download the installer here:https://xubuntu.org/download/  Here you can download a bootable iso image or get a file that will make a bootable USB key.  Boot your computer from the USB key and you will get an option to run linux from the key or install it onto your computer.  For the install procedure, there are a limited number of options, but you will need to think of a computer name, username and password.

2) Setup of Xfce: I wanted a panel at the bottom of the screen to launch applications... to do this right click on the top panel and go to panel preferences, you should be able to create a new panel and position it at the bottom.  I made this panel a bit deeper than the top 'title bar'.  I have set both panels to have a translucent grey background and they become more opaque as the mouse hovers over them.  I also use the 'intelligently hide' option for both which allows the applications to use the full screen and then the panels appear if you move the mouse over them.  I then added all the applications that I use regularly to the bottom panel.

3) Printers: Totally straightforward - got to the settings - it worked out of the box for my Samsung USB printer.

4) Other applications to install:
The following can all be installed from the software manager - it should be completely straightforward:
Spotify
Skype
KeepassXC (Latest version via Snap or a slightly older version from Ubuntu)
Dropbox
Impress (Powerpoint for Libre Office)
Mailspring (I'm still flicking back and forth between using Gmail through ICE or Mailspring.  Mailspring provides some interesting functionality including being able to see when people read emails etc...)
KeepassXC-Browser (enables you to auto populate passwords from KeepassXC to Firefox.

note: Historically I have used Chrome on my windows machine. You can download Chrome for Ubuntu or install Chromium which is basically the same thing less Flash support. However, I found Chrome and Chromium to be very resource heavy on Ubuntu, and seemed to end up getting heavily bogged down using the swapfile.  Because of this I switched back to Firefox which is a bit slower but I'm happy with it.

5) Less Straightforward:
Viewnior - install this to replace the existing picture viewer.  Much more intuitive and can rotate a pic.
I used ICE to create launchers for Gmail, Google Calendar and Google Drive.  A .deb installer for ICE can be found here:https://launchpad.net/~peppermintos/+archive/ubuntu/p8-release/+files/ice_5.2.8_all.deb

Still looking for:
A good Google Drive and Onedrive client.  There are a few but none seem quite robust apart from commercial ones which cost £'s. Rclone works well but it is command line driven and doesn't sync automatically when you edit something.

Training Hickup

Well, I had three weeks following my training plan to the letter, and I was starting to feel a little fitter.  This weekend was not meant to be too much training - 22k on Saturday and 10 on Sunday, so I headed down to Dartmoor to get some miles in with Joe. We mapped out a loop from his house up onto Cosden and then heading north to Sticklepath and then tracing a loop round west to circle Cosden and back home. Sunny skys and an easy pace - what could be better.

Our route

Joe on top of Cosden

Me on Cosden - feeling good

Unfortunately, the running gods were not with me and on the decent my foot rolled off a grass tussock, and I landed with it over to one side and the toes tucked under.  The crack didn't sound good and an X-ray confirmed that I had fractured my foot.  Specifically an avulsion fracture off the side of the calcaneus.

I maneuvered to a small stream to cool it in an attempt to prevent swelling while Joe and I decided what to do next.  The map showed that we were only a few km from a road, so after some tentative steps with my poles, I figured that I could make it down without assistance and Joe would run home to get a car to pick me up.  I stuck my buddy beacon on in viewranger (great safety feature - if you are not aware of it then it basically traces your movement on a map so that friends can see where you are / have been) and headed down.

Yum

I met up with Joe in Sticklepath having failed to buy a cream tea because Joe's emergency £10 was an old note that is no longer legal tender!  Then on to Exeter A&E to sit out the rest of the afternoon.

So what next? It's a real disappointment as the one positive about finishing up my job last month was that at least I had the opportunity to take my training for TDS seriously.  It's frustrating how all that can evaporate in a moment's lack of concentration.  That said, I'm trying to be sanguine about it: I don't think that running TDS is out of the question at this stage.  I have 12 weeks until the race and should be back running lightly in six, so that gives me an opportunity to get a three-week training block in before tapering. If I can work on some strength and fitness between now and then it is possibly worth starting TDS, even if I have to scale back my ambitions. The only thing that might change this is if there is any risk of the TDS impacting my long-term recovery - there will be more races, and my #1 priority has to be long-term recovery.

I have pulled out of my training race (Ham and Lyme 100k) which was in 5 weeks time - the race director kindly let me defer my entry until next year - many thanks.

So now to think about what training I can do over the next six weeks with my foot in a boot!  I'm hoping that after a couple of weeks I may be able to do some swimming, cycling and start on a mega program of squats!