Customer Reviews Brooks Cascadia 16

I bought these for my son. He hates them because they hurt his feet but likes the way they look so won't let me return them.

I bought these for my son. He hates them because they hurt his feet but likes the way they look so won?t let me return them.

Unfortunately the shoes were too narrow, but great return policy

The sole is good, and the contruction is good. The only exception to that, is the toe-forefoot depth on the shoe seems very thin (top to bottom), as the tops of my toes are rubbing against the material. Also, the shoe was much longer than advertised.

can feel plastic flap on instep with each footstrike. not painful but distracting. otherwise fit and feel as expected.

Jury's still out. The sizing is WAY different from the adrenaline -- I wear 12 in adrenaline, and the 11.5 Cascadia is still almost too long. I had a little separation of the outsole that I fixed with some shoe goo adhesive, only after running a few times.

I am a devoted Brooks fan. I used Brooks shoes to complete the Appalachian Trail a few years ago and I wear them almost daily. Cascadias are my go-to shoes. I wish that Brooks would be more like Toyota though. Incremental improvement (dropping what doesn't work and retaining what does) is the key. Instead, Brooks seems intent on completely reinventing the Cascadia year to year. I'm getting a little tired of that. Please just give me some predictability and reliability. My Cascadia 16's, while excellent shoes in many ways, have a fatal flaw. The dark grey, thin synthetic fabric that surrounds the heel and ankle padding is simply not up to the task. They have worn through on the heel and on the ankle side, despite the fact that the sole has at least 50% of its life left. I never had that happen with Cascadias before, and I've worn many versions, beginning with the Cascadia 8's I believe. Despite that, I ordered another pair since they fit so well and are generally up to any task I ask of them. I am hoping that the liner wear was because burrs or whatever got into my shoes and prematurely wore them out. That's probably wishful thinking though; I would have felt that. Please, be more like Toyota! Don't change if it works and thoroughly test any changes before production and marketing. I don't need or want annual changes. Be more thoughtful and thorough. Thanks.

Purchased during winter sale. First trail shoe. Okay if uninspiring. Much prefer the catamount. Typically a road size 11, Cascadia size 11 feels a bit large. more toe box than catamount 11.

Very comfortable for hikes (gone 17 miles with 3000 ft gain). Rock shielding for the bottom is good. Rock shielding from top is as expected for mesh (poor). ISSUE: Durability. Brand new purchased mid-Oct of last year and as of today, the tread is worn down near to base level.

First off, the cascadia is my favorite shoe, and I buy two to three pairs every series. The fit is usually very consistent for me in a size 9 year after year and are always comfortable. However, durability of the shoe seems to be in decline. The 6-8 models were beefy, and held up incredibly well. Since then, it seems like the shoes are plagued one way or another, but typically seems to have issues with the fabric on the forefoot that tears or splits near toe crease. Another consistent issue is the heel cup, which seems to break down rather quickly. My blue/green 16s only have about 125 miles, and while the rest of the shoe is still great, the heel is falling apart. Sometimes it is the tread. Amazingly, I have never had any delaminate from midsole, but I have had a couple of pairs that chunked out. To be fair to Brooks, they have honored their commitment to outstanding customer service, and have replaced two pairs I've sent back, which were the absolute worst offenders. Over the last 5 or so seasons, I've had a pair or two annoy me about durability in the uppers, which breaks down well before the mid or outsoles, and I feel like it should be the other way around. Of course, I can't and won't send every pair back that has these issues. Also, not the only person I know having these issues. The issue doesn't appear to be manufacturing quality, but rather material selection. I understand that Brooks may be trying to compete with others to have a slipper-like shoe that is comparably light, but most of us might actually prefer a rugged shoe that lasts, even if it carries a weight penalty of 30-40 grams, as we are out their to get exercise and have fun, not set records. All said, I probably won't switch anytime soon (just ordered three pairs for myself, one for my daughter, and one for my dad) as they are great in so many ways, except that each series feels less robust than the pair before at same or elevated price point. Brooks- Why not explore the return of using of slightly higher denier fabric in your shoe uppers? You set the standard with the Cascadia as a durable and bomber trail runner, no need to compete against others in a race to lightest, as not everybody needs or wants that. Overall, wonderful shoe.

First off, the cascadia is my favorite shoe, and I buy two to three pairs every series. The fit is usually very consistent for me in a size 9 year after year and are always comfortable. However, durability of the shoe seems to be in decline. The 6-8 models were beefy, and held up incredibly well. Since then, it seems like the shoes are plagued one way or another, but typically seems to have issues with the fabric on the forefoot that tears or splits near toe crease. Another consistent issue is the heel cup, which seems to break down rather quickly. My blue/green 16s only have about 125 miles, and while the rest of the shoe is still great, the heel is falling apart. Sometimes it is the tread. Amazingly, I have never had any delaminate from midsole, but I have had a couple of pairs that chunked out. To be fair to Brooks, they have honored their commitment to outstanding customer service, and have replaced two pairs I?ve sent back, which were the absolute worst offenders. Over the last 5 or so seasons, I?ve had a pair or two annoy me about durability in the uppers, which breaks down well before the mid or outsoles, and I feel like it should be the other way around. Of course, I can?t and won?t send every pair back that has these issues. Also, not the only person I know having these issues. The issue doesn?t appear to be manufacturing quality, but rather material selection. I understand that Brooks may be trying to compete with others to have a slipper-like shoe that is comparably light, but most of us might actually prefer a rugged shoe that lasts, even if it carries a weight penalty of 30-40 grams, as we are out their to get exercise and have fun, not set records. All said, I probably won?t switch anytime soon (just ordered three pairs for myself, one for my daughter, and one for my dad) as they are great in so many ways, except that each series feels less robust than the pair before at same or elevated price point. Brooks- Why not explore the return of using of slightly higher denier fabric in your shoe uppers? You set the standard with the Cascadia as a durable and bomber trail runner, no need to compete against others in a race to lightest, as not everybody needs or wants that. Overall, wonderful shoe.

Very narrow despite saying medium width. Tore up the sides of my feet and pinky toe. Decent shoe other than that, but all 3 pairs I bought are going to goodwill. Bummer.

I bought these shoes because of my great experience wearing Ghosts for may years. Needed a pair of trail shoes and sticking with Brooks seemed to me to be a good start. The Cascadia were a great disappointment. The shoes were not comfortable. The forefoot is very wide. The "ride" is very hard and the shoe seems to have very little cushioning. The heel cup is kind of loose. Adding an insert helped with the fit but not to the point where I look forward to wearing them. One positive attribute is that the shoe has good traction. I've worn may other brands of trail shoes and these are close to the worse. I do not recommend them.

I bought these shoes because of my great experience wearing Ghosts for may years. Needed a pair of trail shoes and sticking with Brooks seemed to me to be a good start. The Cascadia were a great disappointment. The shoes were not comfortable. The forefoot is very wide. The "ride" is very hard and the shoe seems to have very little cushioning. The heel cup is kind of loose. Adding an insert helped with the fit but not to the point where I look forward to wearing them. One positive attribute is that the shoe has good traction. I've worn may other brands of trail shoes and these are close to the worse. I do not recommend them.

This is a very high quality shoe but it is very narrow in my size, I typically don't wear a wide shoe. My Ghost 15 size 8.5 medium fit very well, unfortunately I sent them back for a refund because they did not have a color I liked in 8.5 wide, its still a very nice shoe just to narrow for me.

This is a very high quality shoe but it is very narrow in my size, I typically don't wear a wide shoe. My Ghost 15 size 8.5 medium fit very well, unfortunately I sent them back for a refund because they did not have a color I liked in 8.5 wide, its still a very nice shoe just to narrow for me.

I bought wide because I own a couple pairs of Ghost 15 wide but these are much narrower. Size up I guess !

I love the Caldera 6 trail shoe. These were on sale so I thought I'd give them a try. The sole is stiffer and not as much cushion in the foot bed. I can us them for walking, but not running.

Shoe is constantly rubbing on my little toe due to an exaggerated crease in the hard outer shell. Also, after 2 runs the upper stared to separate from the sole on both shoes. Overall, stability and grip are good, but I expected more longevity and better quality build as I have experienced from prior cascadia models.

Fit is tight compared to other Brooks I own, Thought they would "loosen" up a bit, but havnt yet.

This is a sturdy shoe that seems very well constructed. The materials seem to be of high quality and, while the shoe heavier than most sneakers, it seems like it would be a great light-weight hiker. Unfortunately (and as some other reviewers have noted), the shoe is just a bit too narrow -- and I say this as someone who has pretty narrow feet! The narrowness of the inner, combined with the high instep, results in instep contact that gets uncomfortable within a few steps. No way I'd want to wear them on a long hike. Disappointed that they didn't work for me, but think it's a shoe others might want to consider.

True "D" width shoe. If you have a narrow foot "B" width, don't believe their sizing chart. I wanted these shoes to work, everything else about the shoes were great but too wide for my skinny feet. Had to return them.

True ?D? width shoe. If you have a narrow foot ?B? width, don?t believe their sizing chart. I wanted these shoes to work, everything else about the shoes were great but too wide for my skinny feet. Had to return them.