Brooks Cascadia 17 Review Australia
Specifications & Fit
Shoe Specs
| Weight | Men's: 11.3 oz (size 9) | Women's: 9.7 oz (size 8) |
| Stack Height | 33 mm (Heel), 25 mm (Forefoot) | 8 mm Heel-Toe Offset |
| Terrain | Trail |
| Stability | Neutral |
| Sizing | True to Size |
Individual Thoughts
I was impressed by how well the Cascadia 17 handled the trails throughout the testing period. It is not the softest shoe, the lightest, or even the most exciting, but it is a workhorse that fits great and keeps you locked onto the trails. The Cascadia 17 offers enough protection and stability underfoot to take on extra-long runs, and this shoe handles steep, technical climbs and loose fire roads with ease.
The heel and midfoot fit was very secure, and I did not experience any slippage or blisters while wearing the Brooks Cascadia 17. Furthermore, there was just enough padding around the heel collar and tongue to add comfort for long days on the trail. Additionally, the forefoot allowed for toe splay while the sleek toe bumper protected from any accidental impacts into rocks or roots.
The Cascadia's TrailTack Green Rubber outsole also deserves a shoutout. I have tested many shoes that opt out of using a Vibram rubber outsole, and they end up lacking in grip or prematurely wearing out, but the TrailTack outsole is a win for the Brooks team. It felt sticky and secure on our loose and rocky local trails, and after around 40 miles, there were no noticeable signs of wear. Overall, I enjoyed this shoe and will continue to bring it out on days I want added security and protection. Furthermore, I would recommend it to the runner who is looking for a tough shoe that can confidently withstand the rigors of the trail.
This was my first time testing the Cascadia, and overall, I liked it, but I did not love it. That said, the Cascadia 17 is a solid daily trainer for the trails that will be comfortable and dependable for your long and easy miles. The secure lockdown, inherent stability, and grip were excellent throughout testing, and I could definitely see the Cascadia being someone's go-to workhorse.
I like to feel connected to the trail, and the Cascadia made me feel very grounded and in control regardless of what type of trail I was running on, which combined well with the shoe's protective midsole to deliver an enjoyable and reliable ride. If the midsole was a bit softer and lighter, then the Cascadia 17 would definitely find its way into my weekly shoe rotation, but other runners who enjoy a firmer midsole will love having the Brooks Cascadia at their disposal.
Our In-Depth Look
Upper
David: "Typical of Brooks shoes, the Cascadia 17's fit is really dialled in. The upper utilises an adaptable fabric around the forefoot for comfort while the fit remains secure throughout the heel and midfoot. Also, I appreciated the extra protection around the toe bumper when accidentally knocking my foot on rocks and roots."
Risa: "I had no real issues with the upper of the Cascadia 17. I did not experience any rubbing or discomfort and easily found a secure lockdown, which is not always the case as I have narrower feet. The only critique I had for the upper is that it ran a little hot."
Midsole
David: "The foam was much firmer than other shoes I have been running in lately. I wish the midsole was a tad softer to deliver a more comfortable ride, but overall, I did not mind the firmer feel, as it contributed to the Cascadia's level of underfoot protection, stability, and responsiveness. The Cascadia really excelled in toughness and security, and the midsole plays a big part in that experience."
Risa: "The midsole is comfortable, although a little firmer than I would like as a soft shoe lover. Also, if a shoe is on the firmer side, I expect it to be more responsive, and unfortunately, the Cascadia 17 is not a shoe I would wear when trying to pick up the pace. At 9.7 ounces, the Cascadia is also not the lightest trail shoe. Overall, it is a comfortable, protective shoe ideal for racking up trail mileage."
Outsole
David: "I was very impressed with the grip and durability of the outsole. This shoe felt glued to steep technical trails and loose fire roads, and the Cascadia inspired extra confidence when pushing the pace. I have also put roughly 60 kilometres on these shoes and have not noticed any signs of premature wearing."
Risa: "I did not get a chance to test the shoe on wet, muddy trails, but the outsole performed well on a variety of trail terrain, from highly technical trails to well-groomed fire roads and everything in between. Throughout testing, I always felt connected to the trail and secure, which contributed to the shoe's highly protective ride."
Comparable Models
Brooks Cascadia 17 vs. Saucony Peregrine 13
David: "The Cascadia 17 is reminiscent of the Saucony Peregrine, as both shoes deliver a connected-to-the-ground feel that translates to a lot of agility on the trail. That said, the Cascadia excels in its durability and is more protective than the Peregrine 13, as well."
Risa: "Both the Cascadia and Peregrine are very versatile trail offerings, but I lean towards the Peregrine, as it is nearly 2 ounces lighter than the Cascadia. If you want a trail shoe that is a little more agile and better at handling pace, then I would recommend the Peregrine. If you prefer a more protective shoe for slower, longer trail runs, then the Cascadia is a great option."
Brooks Cascadia 17 vs. HOKA Torrent 3
David: "Another similar shoe to the Cascadia is the HOKA Torrent 3, and again, both are good options for daily trail mileage and offer a versatile ride. I lean towards the Cascadia, as it feels more comfortable underfoot, and its highly protective midsole design is tough to beat."
