Brooks - Cascadia 17

I just took my new Brooks Cascadia 19 out for their maiden voyage and I really enjoyed them. I had a pair of the 17s that I did not enjoy at all— too stiff, too clunky, no energy return— but the 19s are a huge improvement. They fit my feet well, have a moderate drop (6mm; 6-8mm is ideal for me), the uppers are super comfy, and they are so, so stable. I have ankle tendon issues (yes, I am diligently working on them with strength and balance training) so stability is super important for me, especially on trails.

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’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.

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.

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.

I sized up with my 17s and they're perfect... I'd have destroyed my toenails for sure if I bought my actual number

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!

Im using them for quite few years already, from 14th edition on, bassically my goto shoes which i always buy new pair alongside other pair from some other brand, bassically cascadia is my goto shoe while idk dynafit, asics, addidas, etc. Re my secondary shoe. As of grip, no complains. It works good/great but does not works like flawless, like i would not go into some heavy mud with them. Soo overwall im felling comfortable taking them into wet conditions. Dry land, works flawless and also outsole is quite durable if youn dont take them into mountains onto sharper rocks or really rocky area all the time. My 17 outsole last around 400km of mixed terrain and i ve could still take them onto some dry surfaces. Soo overwall brooks cascadia re having really good outsole grip imo.

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.

I can’t speak for the 16s but I’ve had several pairs of the 17s and I rate them highly. With that said I didn’t see any benefit in getting 18s because the 17s work and are cheaper. By that logic I’d say you probably wouldn’t notice the difference between the 16s and 17s other than the price.

I exclusively use trail runners. They allow my ankles to contribute a bit more instead of forcing my knees to do all of the work. Flip side is you have to strengthen your ankles a bit if you've only ever hiked in boots before doing multi-day stuff with elevation, but it's not too hard to work up to with day hikes throughout the year I have a lot of experience with Brooks Cascadia 17, I like them a lot. I also have the Altra Torin 8, they have a much smaller drop from heel to toe which works with my custom orthotics a bit better, and a wider toe box which fits my foot better.

I also have weak ankles, and also have used Hokas when hiking. I've had great success with Brooks Cascadia shoes as well, that's what I'm currently rocking on trails when it's wet because they breathe and let water out a bit better. I wear Altas too for their wide toe box.

Brookes Cascadia 17’s my beloved

This a thousand times this! A guy at REI taught me how to, and it helps reduce downhill pain. Alongside trail runners that fit my feet very well (Brooks Cascadia 17s), and Injinji Toe Socks. Reducing the moving and the rubbing is the goal. 

Not sure if you’ll be able to find them now but my beige colored Brooks Cascadia 17’s fit most of those points!

I have the cascadia 17 (now retired from my rotation) and the Gel 13 (bought to replace the cascadia’s). I can’t really comment on fit other than to say I went half a size up in both, but I should have gone for my usual size in the Gel13’s as they’re slightly too big. The cascadia is a better shoe. the Gel13 has really terrible grip in the mud. I only use it for dry / non-muddy runs. It’s a fairly average shoe. doesn’t really sparkle. not plush. not sure where it excels, if at all. I prefer my HOKA’s overall (Mafate 5, Mafate X and Challenger 8) but none grip in the wet/mud like the cascadia’s did. The Mafate’s are SUPREMELY comfortable though. its a shame as the Gel 13’s look really really good.