Published on July 26, 2024

Brooks Cascadia 18 Review: Comfort For (Almost) All Terrain

Written by
Alex Filitti Meta Circle
Alex Filitti
Andy
Andy Wright
Josh corporate picture
Josh Burton
Esther
Ivan
Ivan Corda
Maisie Ogier
Silke Lehrmann
Theo Lothode
Tim
Tim Alvado-Brette
Lysanne Wilkens
SPECS

Brooks Cascadia 18 introduction:

Esther: If you’re at all into trail running, chances are, you’ve heard of the Brooks Cascadia. This popular trail shoe seems to have been around since the dawn of trail running. Or at least since trail legend Scott Jurek helped design the Cascadia as his ideal trail shoe over 20 years ago now. 

Whether the Cascadia was your first trail shoe, you’ve heard about its durability, or you’ve avoided it due to its past clunky design, this review is for you. Let’s dive into the latest iteration: the Cascadia 18.

In this review, we’re looking at the July 2024 release of the Cascadia 18 with fresh eyes. We put this shoe to the test on a variety of terrains and distances and asked who would benefit most from this latest iteration. Do the Cascadia 18 have their place in a highly competitive trail shoe market? Can Brooks’ proprietary outsole TrailTack rubber truly stand up to third party rubber like Vibram in the sticky department? And was it worth coming out with a new version of the Cascadia less than a year after the previous iteration?

Theo: Much like Esther, I know of the Cascadia due to Scott Jurek. My first exposure to the shoe came from reading his book “Eat and Run”. Brooks developed the shoe to help Jurek win The Western States Endurance Run. As it is such an iconic shoe in trail running, I was excited to test it and due to its pedigree, I had high expectations!

Brooks Cascadia 18 upper:

Esther: Don’t judge a book by its cover! Despite my initial skepticism about its retro design and ugly grey accents in my colourway, the upper fit of the Cascadia 18 is exceptional.

The semi gusseted tongue laid perfectly on my foot without a pesky flopping tongue sticking out (ASICS Trabuco 10, I’m looking at you!). Coming from Salomon, the toe box gives enough splay to dry a new pedicure. The fit appears true to size, but if hesitating between sizes, I’d go a half size down.

No need for a lace garage that takes an hour to stuff: the flat laces are kept simple and secure, thanks to a little elastic holder on the upper to avoid catching on brambles. And because I can’t be the only one who hates long laces, these laces are perfect:  just long enough to weave through the extra lace lock to keep the ankle secure. 

The mesh on the Cascadia 18 is a little too plush in my opinion but to its credit, it is made fairly breathable thanks to micro-perforations. High wear areas are reinforced with semi-rigid toe bumpers and sealing overlays on the forefoot. 

I’m not sure how many people actually use gaiters on daily trail shoes, but the heel tab doubles as a gaiter attachment for muddy runs on the trail. The heel counter seems more stout and plush than necessary but let’s imagine some engineer really trying to make sure you don’t get blisters and it’s all okay.  

One of the Best

Theo: I am in full agreement with Esther about the upper of the Cascadia 18. For my feet, the fit is close to perfect. As mentioned above, the fit is true to size and I found them very welcoming on my initial step in. Another strong point, as Esther mentioned, is the laces. Quite simply, they work perfectly. At all times, they gave me excellent lockdown without any undue pressure on the foot despite my penchant for very tightly laced shoes. 

Whilst I may not be drying a pedicure, I know that my toes will be well protected by the bumpers Brooks have fitted. However, this robustness may not be present in the mesh. While Esther found it plush, I found it to be a little fragile. Brooks have gone for comfort over weight and durability and I think the softness has overridden the durability. 

Overall, if you are looking for a shoe with a comfortable upper and excellent lockdown, don’t go any further than the Cascadia 18.

Brooks Cascadia 18 midsole:

Esther: The Cascadia 18 handled a variety of trails with ease, from smooth paths to forest roots and rocky terrain. Unlike its older sibling, the foot sits deep into the footbed of the Cascadia 18. This gives the runner more precision through more ground contact feel but also more stability. The DNA Loft v2 midsole is definitively on the firmer side, yet provides decent shock absorption on rugged terrain. Overall, a ride reminiscent of the HOKA Torrent lineup, with an added feel as if your foot sank into memory foam.

I can’t say I noticed the medial rockplate underfoot, but together with a slightly oversized outsole, it is said to contribute to the overall stability of the shoe, which is going to be a big selling point to all runners who have rolled an ankle on rugged terrain. 

As a midfoot striker, the toe rocker was helpful, particularly when up on your toes through uphill sections. That and the 8mm drop somewhat compensated for the heavier shoe through the footstrike. 

The main struggle was felt on mud, as well as steep, technical downhills, where you may not want to use a shoe with such a high drop anyway. I found myself avoiding the toe rocker, trying to brake, leading to some toe friction.

Where some runners complained about the drag on uphill sections due to the weight of the shoe, it didn’t bother me too much for your average daily outing. Clearly this shoe was designed for those easy days, where you aren’t seeking out a PR.

The Cascadia 18 is Large, Stable and Trustworthy

Theo: Like Esther, I found that the Cascadia 18 was pleasantly stable, even on trickier terrain. Whilst not as thick as the Caldera, it does have a much larger midsole than nearly everything else on the trail market. On the other hand, the width of the midsole did cause me some discomfort  during my runs when my malleolus rubbed against the flared rear of the opposing midsole. This was amplified if I wore lower socks. 

However, unlike Esther, I found that the weight of the shoe was a bit of a downside for me. When running a tempo session, I missed a dynamic feel from the midsole which was exacerbated by the weight. While Esther found the rocker compensating for this, I did not have the same feel. That said, the weight is biased towards the heel, if you strike there, this might be a better shoe for you. 

Overall, I would not reccomend this shoe if you want to run shorter, faster sessions with intense acceleration. Here, the weight and foam combination hampers progress. On the other hand, the comfort and cushion of the shoes was excellent. In fact, they reminded me somewhat of the Asics Trabucco 12.

Brooks Cascadia 18 outsole:

Esther: The outsole of the Cascadia 18 closely resembles its predecessor, featuring multidirectional lugs for secure traction on ascents and descents, and a decoupled groove designed to mimic the hoof of a mountain goat.

Of course, the Cascadia 18 also boasts its proprietary TrailTack sticky rubber covering the outsole. While trimming some outsole rubber might have reduced the shoe’s weight, it would have compromised durability. You can’t have it all!

Personally, I think the latest Vibram sticky rubber seems to cling to wet rocks a smidge better, but the TrailTack does pretty darn well keeping your foot secure in all sorts of terrain.

As a bonus, this version is said to be made of 25% recycled materials to make you feel a little less guilty for picking up yet another pair of shoes.

Good Traction But Low Durability?

Theo: On the underside of the shoe, the lugs are similar to the Caldera 7 and I agree with Esther that the grip of these shoes is pretty amazing. I see it as like the wheel of a tractor. The width means that it doesn’t sink too deeply into the mud despite the lower lug height. This width combined with the softness of the foam means that the Cascadia 18 adapts to the shape of the terrain which adds to their stability especially through technical terrain. 

On the other hand, when the rains came and I was running on some exposed rock, the grip was compromised. Perhaps this was due to a lack of spacing between the lugs. Furthermore, despite only about 15 hours of use, I did find some wear on the outsole which does not bode well for long term durability.

Brooks Cascadia 18 conclusion:

Esther: Brooks has come a long way since the original Cascadia. While the Cascadia 18 is still slightly heavier than some trail shoes (16gr heavier than my normal trail shoes in my size), its stability and control are nearly unmatched, thanks to an oversized outsole and sunken footbed. By making this change, this model is likely to appeal to a number of intermediate trail runners that wouldn’t naturally have turned to Brooks otherwise. To widen the appeal further, Brooks would be smart to consider a rebranding campaign to refresh logos, look and colorway. 

For me, the Cascadia 18 is a decent option for daily outings up to about 30km. Beyond that, I’d probably switch to a lighter, more cushioned shoe.

All in all, at the price point of €150 and thanks to remarkable versatility, the Cascadia 18s are a solid try for a durable and reliable shoe for all of us midpack trail runners. Apart from Theo, that’s almost all of us, so why not give it a try and see if you agree with me! Theo will just have to hope that Brooks can manage to drop some weight come v19.

A Fine Shoe But Not For Me

Theo: For me, this is a great shoe if you have some technical trails to run around your home and want to enjoy the day of running. However, it would not be my first pick and it may not be yours either. If you prefer a light, dynamic shoe then stay away from the Cascadia.

Overall, I think that this is a good shoe but with some caveats. The weight of the shoe combined with its greater suitability for a heel striker means that this isn’t the best model for me. Whilst the comfort is excellent, the weight and my concerns about the durability would make me hesitant to purchase.

AUTHORS
Alex Filitti Meta Circle
Alex Filitti
30 years old
Marathon
2:49:25
Andy
Andy Wright
46 years old
Marathon
2:44:06
Josh corporate picture
Josh Burton
21 years old
10km
31:20
Esther
43 years old
Ivan
Ivan Corda
48 years old
Marathon
31:20
Lysanne Wilkens
48 years old
10K
33:48
Silke Lehrmann
50 years old
Marathon
4:04
Maisie Ogier
33 years old
Marathon
3:30:13
Theo Lothode
30 years old
Marathon
2:34
Tim
Tim Alvado-Brette
30 years old
Marathon
2:34

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related articles