Customer Reviews Brooks Cascadia 16

I have been wearing Brooks footwear on and off since the 70's, back when the Vantage were the go to shoes. My purchases the past 8 years ( Size 10) have been Ghost series 12-14, Adrenaline 21 and Caldera 5 & 6 and the Cascadia 16. The Cascadia 16 & the Adrenaline 21 both felt as though a 9.5 would have been a better fit. A heavier sock helps. Had I not took the Cascadia 16 on vacation and wore them daily for 2 weeks would have returned for the smaller size.

I wasn't overall happy with this shoe. I absolutely love my Glycerin GTS 20's and so I thought I was going to really like these. I needed a shoe that was better for off road terrain. I am a walker/hiker but around where I live, hikes are mostly on paths, not up mountains. So I just needed something with better grip and more ankle support. I really liked the rock guard as well. And while I understand shoes take a while to wear in, they never really got there. I had them for just under 2 months, put about 75 miles on them all on off road terrain and my feet would be killing me when I got back to my truck each time. I was more than happy to take them off and put on something else. I thought that that's just what trail running shoes are so I should just shake it off. And I am a big guy at 6'4" and I was over 375 pounds at the time. But hike after hike my feet would hurt for a day or two afterwards. I went and tried on the Hoka speedgoat 5 and was kind of floored at how much better they felt on my feet. So in the end, I returned the Cascadia 16 and bought the Hoka's. I have more than 100 miles on them now and I really love them. It's weird. I love the Glycerin GTS 20 but hated the Hoka Clifton 9's. I love the Speedgoats but don't really like the Cascadia 16's. So, I am just not sure on this one. I will say that I really liked the ankle support and the rock shield. What I didn't like was the tongue. First time I tried it on, I could hear the elastic gusset that holds the tongue in place rip. I didn't even really pull too hard on it and you could hear that familiar sound of fabric tearing JUST A LITTLE BIT, but enough where you're like "did that just rip?" So, that wasn't a great first impression. And it just never really got better from there. And I am giving it 3 stars, not 1 because honestly, some of the features were great. The build quality was very good (minus the tongue issue) and the colors were okay. Not terrible. When you have a 14 Wide shoe size, color options can be a problem. But all in all, I would go with the Speedgoats. Now I know they just came out with the new Cascadia 17's, which I am actually eager to try out. But they are expensive (for someone on a limited budget) and I am kind of in love with my Speedgoats. Might be hard to sway me over...

I wasn't overall happy with this shoe. I absolutely love my Glycerin GTS 20's and so I thought I was going to really like these. I needed a shoe that was better for off road terrain. I am a walker/hiker but around where I live, hikes are mostly on paths, not up mountains. So I just needed something with better grip and more ankle support. I really liked the rock guard as well. And while I understand shoes take a while to wear in, they never really got there. I had them for just under 2 months, put about 75 miles on them all on off road terrain and my feet would be killing me when I got back to my truck each time. I was more than happy to take them off and put on something else. I thought that that's just what trail running shoes are so I should just shake it off. And I am a big guy at 6'4" and I was over 375 pounds at the time. But hike after hike my feet would hurt for a day or two afterwards. I went and tried on the Hoka speedgoat 5 and was kind of floored at how much better they felt on my feet. So in the end, I returned the Cascadia 16 and bought the Hoka's. I have more than 100 miles on them now and I really love them. It's weird. I love the Glycerin GTS 20 but hated the Hoka Clifton 9's. I love the Speedgoats but don't really like the Cascadia 16's. So, I am just not sure on this one. I will say that I really liked the ankle support and the rock shield. What I didn't like was the tongue. First time I tried it on, I could hear the elastic gusset that holds the tongue in place rip. I didn't even really pull too hard on it and you could hear that familiar sound of fabric tearing JUST A LITTLE BIT, but enough where you're like "did that just rip?" So, that wasn't a great first impression. And it just never really got better from there. And I am giving it 3 stars, not 1 because honestly, some of the features were great. The build quality was very good (minus the tongue issue) and the colors were okay. Not terrible. When you have a 14 Wide shoe size, color options can be a problem. But all in all, I would go with the Speedgoats. Now I know they just came out with the new Cascadia 17's, which I am actually eager to try out. But they are expensive (for someone on a limited budget) and I am kind of in love with my Speedgoats. Might be hard to sway me over...

I finally wore out my Cascadia 14 GTX's (my favorite all-time shoe) & purchased the Cascadia 16 - both in non-gortex and gtx versions. Shoe not as stable of platform that previous was - materials lighter weight & it feels that way. Tongue of shoe too thin & no matter how laced to get shoe snug, still hurts top of foot if I go beyond 3 miles....and have to wait a few days to wear until 'hurts goes away. Not the tough & ready shoe previous version 14 gtx was - feels more like running shoe (exclusively) vs. running & light hiking shoes.

I wasn't to impressed with these ones, kind of rough.

Great trail running shoe but runs small and does not accommodate an orthotic well. Good support. Comfortable upper.

They look great and they're durable, but a little uncomfortable for everyday wear

A good shoe with nice traction. The fit is good, but almost too good/tight, which can pinch the side of your foot at the toe-bend of the shoe. Great for trail runs. Works well on gravel roads, but not enough cushion for the random large rocks you may step on. Overall, a good shoe for trail running.

I really wanted to like these and still think I might. But, after about a month I've worn a fair amount of tread and my Plantar fasciitis may be returning. They do appear to have given me a better foot placement than my prior shoes, are very stable and excellent traction on difficult terrain allowing me to not have to shuffle step when ground gives way or I misread things. The heal is also quite wide for me and I've added a filler blister protector. Though even out of the box no blisters or hot spots occurred which was impressive. Going to stay in them for awhile longer. Shoes have about 140 miles.

they are okay.................................................

I'm used to wearing the Brooks adrenaline extra wide (they are awesome) the Cascadia 16 are to narrow and not a comfortable fit..

I switched from another brand of walking shoes approximately 15 months, or ~4 pairs ago. I walk ~ 20-45 miles a week depending on the season and what event I'm training for. My walking is split between dirt trails, roads and rail-trails/cinders. I found these shoes fit perfectly right out of the box. The tread is grippy and I have not had any trouble with slipping on muddy trails. While the tread durability of this shoe is better than other brands I have worn, the fabric on the heel cup typically begins to tear at around 100-150 miles. I recently bought a pair of the Brooks Ghost and am happy to report the heel is much more durable in those.

Great looking shoe. Not comfortable to run in. I get that they are trail shoes, should be build to withstand harsh elements, mostly rocks and resist slipping, but I don't feel that comfort should be spared. No cushion at all, very stiff and for me they hit the ground hard. They feel heavy. They are not really that much heavier than many of my other running shoes. But they feel that way. I would wear casually or maybe to hike in. Not to run in. I actually wore them to my last trail run and switched shoes before the run, I just couldn't do it Maybe they need more break-in time or I could try new inserts. ??????

I switched from another brand of walking shoes approximately 15 months, or ~4 pairs ago. I walk ~ 20-45 miles a week depending on the season and what event I?m training for. My walking is split between dirt trails, roads and rail-trails/cinders. I found these shoes fit perfectly right out of the box. The tread is grippy and I have not had any trouble with slipping on muddy trails. While the tread durability of this shoe is better than other brands I have worn, the fabric on the heel cup typically begins to tear at around 100-150 miles. I recently bought a pair of the Brooks Ghost and am happy to report the heel is much more durable in those.

Great looking shoe. Not comfortable to run in. I get that they are trail shoes, should be build to withstand harsh elements, mostly rocks and resist slipping, but I don?t feel that comfort should be spared. No cushion at all, very stiff and for me they hit the ground hard. They feel heavy?. They are not really that much heavier than many of my other running shoes. But they feel that way. I would wear casually or maybe to hike in. Not to run in. I actually wore them to my last trail run and switched shoes before the run, I just couldn?t do it?? Maybe they need more break-in time or I could try new inserts. ??????

Another great shoe from brooks. Awesome grip and fit. Just too hard for me. Hurt my ankles. If you prefer a harder shoe, this one is for you.

I've never owned a pair of trail shoes before so decided to gives these a try. I ordered the same size that I wear in Ghosts (12.5). Although I do have a narrow foot, there was way too much room in the toe box, and when I pushed off, the shoe pressed into the top of my toes/foot. I love the way these looked and was going to try a 12, but since those were sold out I decided to go with the Catamount instead.

Was hoping to relive the same experience as the cascadia 14. Those are more solid but dont feel as light as the 14.

I originally started running in Cascadias with version 7 and fell in love with those early versions and the Brooks brand in that period. The version 8 I consider to be my favorite trail of all time, hands down. Version 7's upper material was too stretchy and didn't offer enough lateral support and version 9 and 10s uppers felt very narrow while Brooks stopped offering 2E widths leading to the material splitting after just 100 miles of use. But all of the versions from 7 thru 10 offered lowers (midsole and outer sole) that were what I consider to be the hayday for the Cascadia. Then, what I consider to be the dark middle years for the shoe, version 11 thru to 15. these versions went way way too far towards offering a lower that was overly responsive, i.e. offered little cushioning and was inflexible. The toebox was to narrow as well, but the important takeaway for me was that the lowers were like running with a plate of metal strapped to the bottom of my feet. I stopped wearing Cascadias during this time and Brooks lost my purchases of two to three pairs of shoes a year during this time and I was left broken hearted. Then version 16 peeked my interest again, from what I read of them and had gleaned from experimenting with them only in showrooms, I was excited to try to return to my previously favorite model. Right out of the box the shoe's appearance looks great. I was happy to be able to purchase the 2E width again, so the toebox felt spacious on my foot that has widened to a size between D and 2E from all the miles of pounding. The overlays and material seem light in weight, but yet likely to hold up for an expected 300 miles of use. The midfoot, heel cup and ankle collar felt great too, something that I've come to expect from Brooks. And the lowers immediately felt better than previous year's offerings, but again this was in a showroom. Once taken to a trail, the first mile or so of each of the training run that I tried in the Cascadia felt good too. Gone was the overly responsive midsole from version 11 thru 15, the cushioning felt a lot better. However....... the shoe still has some way to go before it gets back to becoming that all-around shoe that I can train or race in during 5ks up to 50ks on a trail. After a few miles I became aware that lowers were still too stiff, there was very little flex in the lowers. During occasional landings on my heels I'd feel the shoe throw my foot's rotation unforgivingly forward to fast and the 'feel' of the trail was not present. The stiffness was an asset in climbing, sure, but on level or downhill sections of a trail they are overly unyielding.Where improvements are needed - In my opinion the midsole material seems fine. Maybe the foam could be a tad bit more plush or another 1 to 2 millimeters of the current material could be added. The rockplate needs to be toned down to a moderate degree offering a little bit more flex throughout the shoe. The outer Vibram sole also needs to be toned down, ie, reduced in thickness by 1 to 2 millimeters or of a less stiff material. The outer sole possibly needs to be segmented in a few places too. Also with the outer soul, the size of the lugs could be reduced just a bit to reduce weight and the material made a bit more flexible. Lastly, the width of the shoe in the arch/mid foot might need to be reduced by a few millimeters.

Great construction and felt very grippy. Unfortunately much too snug on the top of the foot compared to other Brooks shoes of the same size. I?d suggest thinking of going up a half size from your usual

Brooks running shoes have worked great for me for 20 years, including trail shoes for 10 years. I was disappointed in the Cascadias, in that they rubbed my big toes more too much, perhaps being too wide for my feet. The construction and tread are good for trails.

Brooks running shoes have worked great for me for 20 years, including trail shoes for 10 years. I was disappointed in the Cascadias, in that they rubbed my big toes more too much, perhaps being too wide for my feet. The construction and tread are good for trails.

The upper is very stiff and caused a bunion for me.

I am really disappointed in these. I love everything about them...the fell, fit, look. But the inside liner started to come apart after very little use. After about 4 months and not many miles holes started to wear in the inner lining. Holes by the ankle, heel and in between. Shoes should hold up better than this.