The shoe features a 10mm heel-toe fall, putting it firmly within the traditional category. But, it is the most narrow shoe that we analyzed in this years inspection. Internet customer reviews complained that it was thinner and these sneakers are at least two or three millimeters narrower than their predecessors that were already long and narrow, upon lining up them sole to sole, this is really accurate. The end result of these two facts is these shoes are only average when considering stability. Not super and low stable like the Altra Superior 3.5, but not top-heavy and ankle rolling likely like the Salomon Speedcross 4. Simply average.
This shoe retails for $120, roughly the same as the majority of the shoes within this review. Considering the distress we felt within this shoe, we don’t think it is worth that kind of cash in any way, and rather point our readers to much higher acting shoes for the same cost, such as the Saucony Peregrine 7 or even the Montrail Caldorado, not to mention our award winners. If it’s within 30 days of the purchase date it is worth noting that should you have an problem and elect for those sneakers, Brooks will replace them for you.
Brooks Cascadia Camping Shoes for Women
Here at OutdoorGearLab.com we buy all the products that we test so that we are not beholden to any individual or any company to set a shiny spin on a product that we don’t like. In addition, we do our best to create comparison testimonials, so rather than testing a product in isolation, we then comparing them to each other and are testing all of the products at the exact same time. In comparison with the 13 pairs of road shoes we analyzed in 2016, and compared to the preceding four variations of the Cascadia lineup that we have worn and operate in, we simply didn’t like this particular shoe. For us, it had been oppressively uncomfortable.
The underfoot protection of the shoe is strong, one of the finest that we analyzed. The combo of BioMoGo midsole padding with the ballistic rock shield below the forefoot instead of just the midfoot and arch, makes this kind of shoe that is stiff, stiff, and exceptionally protective underfoot, which we loved. Nothing has changed about the building of this midsole or outsole for this version of this Cascadia, and so those who discovered the Cascadia 10’s to be to their liking, will also like the chassis of this shoe.
While we considered this to be the least comfortable shoe in the entire analysis, and also the least comfortable variant of the Cascadia that we’ve tested, we gave them the benefit of the doubt and given 5 points. Comfort is subjective, and others may find them to be perfect, while those shoes didn’t get the job done for our feet at all.
The Brooks Cascadia 11 was a version of this shoe. In 2016 they took a step backward that we believed was pretty good the year before, while Brooks enjoys to keep annually. Because of issue with the building of the tongue, in addition to a very low and very thin volume fit, we would not recommend them over the other high quality shoes in this particular review and found these shoes to be very uncomfortable.