Brooks Cascadia 17 Men's BLUE/NAVY/FIRECRACKER

Unlike the previous two iterations of Cascadia, version 17 is comfortable from the moment I put them on, and all day afterwards. Even though the sole and purpose of Ghosts and Glycerin are built differently and for different purposes, I expect my hiking shoes to achieve the same level of comfort; the ease and joy to wear. If Ghost is a 10 in comfort, Cascadia 17 is an 8.5-9.0. Being a hiking shoe, Cascadia 17’s shank makes if far sturdier, and evidently putting the shank in the middle of the sole really helps with the comfort too. Now, if Brooks could just make their width of shoes more normal size, I’d be happier. My Ghost 11’s are an 8D, as are my Aisics, Merrills and Nikes. Only since Ghost 13, has Brooks been the only brand that require me to get “wide” so as ... MoreUnlike the previous two iterations of Cascadia, version 17 is comfortable from the moment I put them on, and all day afterwards. Even though the sole and purpose of Ghosts and Glycerin are built differently and for different purposes, I expect my hiking shoes to achieve the same level of comfort; the ease and joy to wear. If Ghost is a 10 in comfort, Cascadia 17 is an 8.5-9.0. Being a hiking shoe, Cascadia 17’s shank makes if far sturdier, and evidently putting the shank in the middle of the sole really helps with the comfort too. Now, if Brooks could just make their width of shoes more normal size, I’d be happier. My Ghost 11’s are an 8D, as are my Aisics, Merrills and Nikes. Only since Ghost 13, has Brooks been the only brand that require me to get “wide” so as not to squeeze my feet. But, be it Ghost 11’s D or Ghost 15 E, no other brand feels as comfy for long-term, easy wear.

6-month review

I decided to give the Brooks Cascadia another chance. The Cascadia 14's were a great shoe for me. I tried on the 16's in a store and they were a bit too tight for me to want to make the purchase.For the Cascadia 17's: Initial fit: snug, but not too tight. Lacing: while I don't have a problem locking down my foot, I could see others having a potential issue. Usage: After the first few runs, I knew that I had better shoe options for a long trail run. These shoes took the role of easy/recovery miles. They have gotten a couple of interval trail runs with speed, but again, I generally have better options for a longer trail tempo run. Pricing vs. Durability/value: Seeing as these have been on sale twice in the past 6 months, I wish I would have held off on buying these ... MoreI decided to give the Brooks Cascadia another chance. The Cascadia 14's were a great shoe for me. I tried on the 16's in a store and they were a bit too tight for me to want to make the purchase.For the Cascadia 17's: Initial fit: snug, but not too tight. Lacing: while I don't have a problem locking down my foot, I could see others having a potential issue. Usage: After the first few runs, I knew that I had better shoe options for a long trail run. These shoes took the role of easy/recovery miles. They have gotten a couple of interval trail runs with speed, but again, I generally have better options for a longer trail tempo run. Pricing vs. Durability/value: Seeing as these have been on sale twice in the past 6 months, I wish I would have held off on buying these at $130. While I wish I would have bought these at a sale price, I do feel that I will be able to get the mileage in these shoes to justify the purchase price. I won't be surprised if I end up getting 400+ miles in these shoes. At a $70 sale price, well....Summary: The Brooks Cascadia 17 is a stable shoe that is well-constructed. Mine got more comfortable as they widened out a little from use. The shoes may not excite you when you put them on your feet, but they will get the job done.

Close but a miss...

This would be a five star shoe except for a couple changes to the upper from the Cascadia 16.First, some background...I've been running trails for over 35 years. I loved the first Cascadia, and probably went through more than a dozen pairs. Then Brooks lost their way; the Cascadia drifted from the trail shoe I loved. I moved to other brands.Enter the Cascadia 16...boom, a great revamp!! Brooks seemed to go back to their original roots with a great update, and I reunited with Brooks.Then after a very brief period, Brooks introduced the Cascadia 17. And I'm bummed again. Yes, the new Trail Adapt System is definitely an upgrade. But for goodness sake, why add volume to the forefoot? It makes the shoe unstable on technical trails. And what's up with those silly ... MoreThis would be a five star shoe except for a couple changes to the upper from the Cascadia 16.First, some background...I've been running trails for over 35 years. I loved the first Cascadia, and probably went through more than a dozen pairs. Then Brooks lost their way; the Cascadia drifted from the trail shoe I loved. I moved to other brands.Enter the Cascadia 16...boom, a great revamp!! Brooks seemed to go back to their original roots with a great update, and I reunited with Brooks.Then after a very brief period, Brooks introduced the Cascadia 17. And I'm bummed again. Yes, the new Trail Adapt System is definitely an upgrade. But for goodness sake, why add volume to the forefoot? It makes the shoe unstable on technical trails. And what's up with those silly lace loops? You can't get a good fit/lockdown. Just stick with the simple eyelets in the rubberized overlay, as with the 16's; don't overthink or listen to some marketing wonk.I've seen pictures of the Cascadia 18 and, sadly, it's got MORE of those silly lace loops. So I suspect it'll be a pass too.Make the Cascadia the great shoe that it should be. Use the sole/Trail Adapt System and add the forefoot volume and the simple lacing system found on the Catamount 2 and BOOM...you've got a five star (or more) long-distance trail shoe!And PLEASE don't mess with the Catamount; 2 and 3 are essentially the same. It's an INCREDIBLE trail shoe for technical trails and racing.

First time Buyer - IMPRESSED

I'm no runner, but I am a sneakerhead, though I've never bought a pair of Brooks shoes before. Then I saw the Shade Camo limited edition Cascadia 17's that were presented to me in an ad somewhere online this holiday season and I decided I must have them for my collection based on looks alone.I rarely leave reviews, because well - I'm super busy. So unless a company goes above and beyond and blows my mind (or really screws up my order), I won't spend the time typically.Well I'm here to report that my order from Brooks was perfection from start to finish. The shoes were delivered in an undamaged outer box that was very nice and stated Brooks in a few spots. Like an oversized shoebox itself, kind of.The inner box (actual shoe box) was pristine. I've ordered ... MoreI'm no runner, but I am a sneakerhead, though I've never bought a pair of Brooks shoes before. Then I saw the Shade Camo limited edition Cascadia 17's that were presented to me in an ad somewhere online this holiday season and I decided I must have them for my collection based on looks alone.I rarely leave reviews, because well - I'm super busy. So unless a company goes above and beyond and blows my mind (or really screws up my order), I won't spend the time typically.Well I'm here to report that my order from Brooks was perfection from start to finish. The shoes were delivered in an undamaged outer box that was very nice and stated Brooks in a few spots. Like an oversized shoebox itself, kind of.The inner box (actual shoe box) was pristine. I've ordered hundreds of pairs of shoes over the years and I've never seen such a neat/clean presentation/delivery of any that even compared to the way Brooks did it. I was literally blown away by the CARE that went into getting me the pair of shoes I ordered in absolute perfect condition.It was very clear that this company CARES about the products it sells and it was exemplified in every little detail.Thank you SO much for taking PRIDE in what you do. I will happily and without hesitation recommend Brooks to anyone who might be in the market for a pair of running shoes.- Nizo

Great for trail walks, rock hopping...and cricket

Bought a pair of Cascadia 17s in 2E width ahead of a holiday that would involve daily walks in the nature; trails of unknown roughness - in the end it was lots of dirt, a little sand, plenty of rock hopping. They coped excellently; I felt secure at all times and my feet felt protected. But they were filthy when I got home; I soaked them in cold water for a day and then rinsed and most of the Kimberleys came out...but now they feel a little odd around the front - almost...clammy - not something I'd noticed before.The fit is very good - it's a very generous toe box; I really appreciated being able to get a 2E width; they feel very similar to my Adrenalines.Anyway, the traction is great; they're now perfect for outdoor bootcamps, and are working well as my cricket ... MoreBought a pair of Cascadia 17s in 2E width ahead of a holiday that would involve daily walks in the nature; trails of unknown roughness - in the end it was lots of dirt, a little sand, plenty of rock hopping. They coped excellently; I felt secure at all times and my feet felt protected. But they were filthy when I got home; I soaked them in cold water for a day and then rinsed and most of the Kimberleys came out...but now they feel a little odd around the front - almost...clammy - not something I'd noticed before.The fit is very good - it's a very generous toe box; I really appreciated being able to get a 2E width; they feel very similar to my Adrenalines.Anyway, the traction is great; they're now perfect for outdoor bootcamps, and are working well as my cricket shoe for this season (concrete pitches with astroturf, and council-managed grass of varied quantity and quality - no spikes).

Great grip in a firmer trail shoe

I previously ran the Cascadia 16 as my trail shoe. This shoe is similar, with maybe a hair more cushioning. I'd still really like a trail runner for over pronation. Maybe an Adrenaline / Cascadia hybrid. Roughly 2/3 of my trail runs are flat cinder / dirt / gravel former rail beds. The large lugs are fantastic on these surfaces, especially when muddy. The shoe fits generally well. With just under 70 miles on the shoe, I haven't really pushed the extremes on it yet, ie completely submerged puddles, deep mud, snow & ice, etc. When your road shoe is the Adrenaline, a few days in a row in this shoe can leave you a little foot sore.

Great shoe!

This shoe is an improved version of the old Cascadia 12 that i loved years ago when i first started wearing Brooks. Over time, I’ve worn the versions in between with limited satisfaction - some had not enough padding in the tongue with problematic lacing patterns, others had not enough cushion on the inner soles, and still others ran too wide (for me), As others have stated, the shoe runs a little narrow - which is what i need, as my foot is narrow to start with. The cushioning in the heel area is noticeably better, comfortably firm, and the overall cushioning keeps me from feeling every rock on the trail. I also really like the grippy sole, as is seems to ‘grab’ the trail surface, giving me a secure grip. I liked the shoe enough to buy a second pair as a backup for ... MoreThis shoe is an improved version of the old Cascadia 12 that i loved years ago when i first started wearing Brooks. Over time, I’ve worn the versions in between with limited satisfaction - some had not enough padding in the tongue with problematic lacing patterns, others had not enough cushion on the inner soles, and still others ran too wide (for me), As others have stated, the shoe runs a little narrow - which is what i need, as my foot is narrow to start with. The cushioning in the heel area is noticeably better, comfortably firm, and the overall cushioning keeps me from feeling every rock on the trail. I also really like the grippy sole, as is seems to ‘grab’ the trail surface, giving me a secure grip. I liked the shoe enough to buy a second pair as a backup for when the first pair wears out. Very satisfied!

Mixed thoughts - Not water proof, too large but very comfortable

I was excited to use these as an alternative to my walking boots. Lots of YTers have recommended them and say they've used them for long distance through hikes. I tried them for the 1st time yesterday and they have 2 major problems: 1) They are not water proof at all. In a 1 hour walk in the rain, my feet got damp. After a day walk, they would have been soaked. I can walk 10 hours in my boots through wet grass and the rain and my feet remain bone dry. 2) The Brooks web site recommend 1/2 size larger than your usual foot size. I should have stuck to my actual size as they are too big. My heels rub against the back of the shoe and I imagine after a 10+ mile hike, I'll have a blister. That said: a) apart from the size issue, the shoes are very comfortable. I can lift ... MoreI was excited to use these as an alternative to my walking boots. Lots of YTers have recommended them and say they've used them for long distance through hikes. I tried them for the 1st time yesterday and they have 2 major problems: 1) They are not water proof at all. In a 1 hour walk in the rain, my feet got damp. After a day walk, they would have been soaked. I can walk 10 hours in my boots through wet grass and the rain and my feet remain bone dry. 2) The Brooks web site recommend 1/2 size larger than your usual foot size. I should have stuck to my actual size as they are too big. My heels rub against the back of the shoe and I imagine after a 10+ mile hike, I'll have a blister. That said: a) apart from the size issue, the shoes are very comfortable. I can lift my feet much easier as my ankle is free to move about, unlike in boots. b) They are lighter than my boots c) Grip, so far, is good, not had any slips or trips. In summary, I'll probably use them for shorter walks & use my waterproof socks and shoe ankle gaiters.

Solid Option for Ultralight Backpacking

I just used the Cascadia 17's on a 95 mile section hike of the Long Trail in Vermont. Last year I used the 16 over a similar distance on the Appalachian Trail in Georgia and North Carolina, and I consider the newer model to be a big improvement. The section of the Long Trail I completed was extremely rocky, steep and muddy, but the 17's protected my feet well and I didn't experience any foot pain the entire time. This is in contrast to the 16's which left my feet aching and bruised at the end of day, despite the terrain being considerably less rugged. I can't actually explain this discrepancy, since I don't believe Brooks has updated the midsole, but I also felt the 17s were more stable underfoot than the 16s, despite the increase in stack height. I was also ... MoreI just used the Cascadia 17's on a 95 mile section hike of the Long Trail in Vermont. Last year I used the 16 over a similar distance on the Appalachian Trail in Georgia and North Carolina, and I consider the newer model to be a big improvement. The section of the Long Trail I completed was extremely rocky, steep and muddy, but the 17's protected my feet well and I didn't experience any foot pain the entire time. This is in contrast to the 16's which left my feet aching and bruised at the end of day, despite the terrain being considerably less rugged. I can't actually explain this discrepancy, since I don't believe Brooks has updated the midsole, but I also felt the 17s were more stable underfoot than the 16s, despite the increase in stack height. I was also impressed by the 17s management of moisture, which was constant in Vermont. They drained well, and dried out quickly. I only suffered one blister over 95 miles, on a day when the rain and mud made it inevitable that my feet would stay wet. I'm still somewhat skeptical of the conventional wisdom that trail runners trump boots for backpacking. There were certainly times going over some of the higher peaks where I missed my Salmon Quest 4ds and their rigid soles as I hopped from pointy rocky to pointy rocky, but I do consider the Cascadia's to be vastly superior to both the Hoka Speed Goats and and Altra Lone Peaks, both of which I have hiked in as well. I went up half a size with these Cascadia's to accommodate foot swelling and to avoid bruised toe nails, but the lockdown remained superb; I never felt like my foot was sliding around like it does in Altras. By the look of this shoe, it seems that Brooks has taken at least some design cues from Hoka, but whereas Hokas's marshmallow midsoles have always felt too tall and unstable to me, I thought these Cascadia's struck a great balance between protection, comfort and stability. I'm still not convinced that trail runners make sense for backpacking, but I would definitely recommend these over either the Lone Peaks or the Speed Goats. I recognize personal preference and physiology make a huge difference here, but for me these Cascadia's were pretty ideal.

The stability is unmatched for a low profile hiking shoe

I owned and operated a volume tennis shop for 35 years. During the summer we would sell over 40 pairs of shoes in-store and another 100 pairs online. We never "sold" a shoe but rather we would educate the consumer to make the correct decision for their needs. No matter the product it's near an absolute but rather a compromise. Tennis, running/racing, and hiking all require their individual essentials. As a runner, I can understand the need for ultimate cushioning. But there are downsides to "too much" cushioning in terms of rebound and stability. I'm a hiker who hikes technical terrain on trails that are found in the Sierras, rocky, uneven, and water crossings. I want a shoe that puts an importance on stability which means staying away from a super cushioned shoe. ... MoreI owned and operated a volume tennis shop for 35 years. During the summer we would sell over 40 pairs of shoes in-store and another 100 pairs online. We never "sold" a shoe but rather we would educate the consumer to make the correct decision for their needs. No matter the product it's near an absolute but rather a compromise. Tennis, running/racing, and hiking all require their individual essentials. As a runner, I can understand the need for ultimate cushioning. But there are downsides to "too much" cushioning in terms of rebound and stability. I'm a hiker who hikes technical terrain on trails that are found in the Sierras, rocky, uneven, and water crossings. I want a shoe that puts an importance on stability which means staying away from a super cushioned shoe. In the bigger picture, a moderate cushion shoe that emphasizes stability helps reduce foot fatigue. Your typical ultra cushion running shoe bends effortlessly in the forefoot. The problem is the disconnect from the back of the shoe. When an athletic shoe uses an outsole to tie the front to the back of the shoe it helps recruit the entire foot (muscles on the bottom) to work together. A firmer outsole is helpful during stepping up or hiking inclines. The Cascadia 17 for my needs is the perfect 3-15 mile shoe on any condition. The stability aspect of the shoe is undeniable... it's a 10 out of 10. Very supportive on uneven conditions preventing my feet from fatiguing. It has moderate cushioning that still makes it comfortable just not plush. I used to use the Hoka One Speed Goat 5. A super cushioned shoe and works well on even surface hikes. A total nightmare on uneven surfaces, the lack of stability was unnerving especially if have 5-30 lb pack on your back (top heavy). Another important part of the shoe is the "upper" in how it's designed and fits. The last of the Cascadia 17 provides a wide-toe box with an integrated upper that fits my foot like a glove. The "glove" or tailored type fit (volume) around the mid-foot back into a heel is a must to lock your foot onto the sole of the shoe...!! The fit will add stability and well as support. Keeps the foot from sliding forward (toe jams) on descents. Keep in mind the best shoe in the world is the worst shoe in the world if it doesn't fit your foot. Everything starts with fit!