Cascadia 16

absolutely love the brooks cascadia (16s specifically)

Boring is good if boring is what works. The 16s were my first trail shoe and still my favorite. I wish I bought 100 pairs. The 17s and 18s seem a little different and I haven’t found a good flow with them yet. Brooks fit me the best so I’m not looking to change anything up, just curious if you’ve noticed a change over the last few years.

I like my Brooks Cascadia. I don’t have the 18 but I started wearing a pair of 17’s this weekend. I have to say the last pair of Cascadias, the 16, to this pair are definitely different. For me they are better, little wider toe box, more defined heel cup and over all for me is a better shoe than the 16. I’d say it’s pretty safe going with the Cascadia. I’d worn and have other trail shoes but it’s my go to trail shoe if I’m looking or if they happen to randomly go on sale. Hope this is helpful and keep going.

I’m it from the area that your talking about but years ago I did Mount Bachelor versus the Sisters because there was a forest fire which they shut the entire area down. One huge thing I noticed was it’s all volcanic rock which is super hard on shoes and the soles of shoes, and that grey/black dust that gets into everything. When I did that area I took trail runners that were mainly made with all a soft nylon cloth and no rock protection along but once I saw those kinds of rocks and debris I went and wore all leather hiking boots and short gators after I went for a shorter hiking with the trail runners. For me this was a better option because my all leather hiking boots took the abrasive material better and the short gators kept that dusty debris out. It’s a suggestion, there’s better options now probably than there were when I did this but if I was going to go there again I believe I would look for trail runners that can take that abrasive material better without causing severe breakdown of the overall shoe material that uses some sort of rock protection around the entire shoe or especially around the front so it holds up better from that volcanic material. The newer trail runners also have added features to hook on a pair of gators to keep debris out as well. I know certain Altras do and the Brooks Cascadia do and I know the last couple Cascadia versions did have a sort of toe rock protection to them and those gator things. I would do like someone else suggested, which is go to like REI and try on some pairs and tell the sales associates what your planning on doing. For me I would be partial to the Brooks Cascadia because they are my go to and for me they normally hold up pretty well to abrasives. Hope this is helpful and keep going.

Brooks Cascadia and CEP socks. Brooks shorts, the ones with the rear pockets and rear center zipper pocket. Garmin watch, some light weight shirt, hat and camelbak vest or camelbak belt. Camelbak flasks or Hydrapak flasks.

for me its a difference. im cascadia user since their 14 series, had all of them. between 16 vs 17 there is some difference. * 16 re more softly cushioned in mid layer, 17/18 re less soft but still perfectly fine for my needs which re like 42km max! * 16 have different outsole compared to 17 / 18 but honestly they re both performs excelent, i find 16 slightly better on wet terrain specially on more muddy terrain since they don't have those mini canals in bettwen and those canals tends to collect mud easier and its get off harder but again, its really small detail, nothing to worry about! * for me 17 re looks more like running shoes while 16 fells more like hiking one but performance is around the same, again 16 were little bit too soft for me personally soo i liked 17/18 more also some warning for you. don't go into high mountains with them or on some step/challening route with some climbing or with your full backpack onto your back. while they re lightweight, they don't protect your foot anywhere near compared to proper hiking boots + on rocks don't expect them to last some serious time, ok on normal rocks its going to be fine but on some rocks where they re sharp edges or you need to climb a little bit i suspect them to not last very long. def get used on them before trying some more challening terrain, those shoes re comfortable and lightweight but it comes with a price or worse foot protection! soo again, just as a word of a caution! those trail runners re for trail running and not for hiking in mountains!

I have been wearing the Cascadias for several years and when a pair runs out, just buy the next model available. I didn't notice any significant difference going from the 16s to 17s.

Fellow Pennsylvanian here... and this struggle is real! I'm somewhat in the same boat as you as I've been trying to find shoes that are protective against the rocks and roots of our region while also being durable enough to get your money's worth out of the shoes. Here's my progression of footwear over the past 5-7 years or so along with some insights you can take as suggestions. None of these options are zero drop though except the Merrell trail gloves. Adidas Terrex - Pros: good coushion, plenty of padding and protection against rocks. Cons: not wide enough for my feet and they changed the cut of the heel stabilizer to be too high. Merrell Trail Glove - Pros: out of box comfort and very light. Cons: not at all good on rocks. Asics Gel Venture - Pros: out of box comfort and good tread. Cons: not durable, not wide enought, bad quality control. Merrell Moab Speed 1 - Pros: great durability of shoe body, available in wide sizes, and sufficient protection against rocks. Cons: tread is not durable. However, this is probably my favorite trail runner and I wish it was still in production. Its a 500 mile shoe with 300 mile tread. Brooks Cascadia 13 and 15 - Pros: quality tread and good rock protection. Cons - not as wide as I'd like in their 2E size and the heel lock fabric deteriorated quickly causing blisters on my heel. New Balance Hierro V7 - Pros: good coushion and heel support. Cons - that damn flappy thing on the heel, lack of padding in the tongue, durability. Brooks Cascadia 16 - Pros: great rock plate, awesome tread, and wider toebox in 2E size. Cons - shit quality. Regardless, I went through 3 pairs and just dropped the 3rd in the trash after hiking up Old Rag in Shennandoah a week ago. 500 mile tread on a 250 mile shoe body that is not worth the cost. Merrell Moab Speed 2 - Pros - lightweight and PA approved rock plate. Cons - durability and the redesign in general. Wore these on a 260 mile section hike and they messed up my feet and gave me blisters on top of my toes. Was fully refunded though. Merrell Nova 4 - arrives in the mail today in advance of a 120 mile AT section in central Va in a couple of weeks. Might move onto Topo Terraventures or Ultraventures next.

I despise the 18s.  After a run or hike my feet were always super sore and after a couple months I left them in the closet and bought another shoe.  I miss the feel of the cascadia 15 and 16!!  I’m hoping the 19s are back on form

seconding/thirding/fourthing/fifthing/etc everyone who said Brooks. Been on that Cascadia 16 game for my trail shoes and I love 'em.

I loved the 16s, but the foam flattened out way too soon for my liking. They still protected my feet well, though. I ran through two pairs. I have the 18s now and I love them. They seem to be holding up better. I don’t consider them fast, but I’m DEFINITELY not fast in shoes that give me blisters.

Brooks Cascadias are my favorites. They can do it all, and have always protected my feet at all distances (up to 50 mile).

I keep popping up in questions like this to recommend Brooks Cascadia. They’ve been my old reliable that I trust for any trail and any distance (farthest I’ve done is 50 mile). They have never given me foot issues. They’re admittedly not very exciting. They’re like the Toyota Prius of trail shoes (I also love my Toyota Prius).

I use brooks cascadia 16’s I believe, absolutely amazing trail shoe one of the best pieces of kit I’ve ever bought, solid, supportive, firm and not too bouncy. I would highly recommend