Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
Brooks Cascadia 4 vs. Montrail Highlanders
Display Avatars Sort By:
Eugene Smith
(Eugeneius) - MLife

Locale: Nuevo Mexico
Brooks Cascadia 4 vs. Montrail Highlanders on 05/31/2009 09:22:29 MDT Print View

I'm due for some new trail runners soon, mine have about 250-300 miles or so on them and I've been looking at some Montrail Highlanders, primarily because they are on sale @ 6pm.com. They seem neutral in their design and simple, I mostly run on desert single track and loose rock, so breathability and durability are important. Does anyone have experience with these? They are almost like racing flats, with the cleated sole, would be good solely for running off road for sure which is ok. Just a note, I'm a flat foot with a medium volume foot.

The other more expensive alternative that I'm looking at is the Brooks Cascadia 4, these seem similar to the Montrail Highlanders. I've read great things about this model, a good all around shoe that is great on and off trail. Anyone have experience with these?

I trail run 3 times a week averaging about 4-6 miles, short and fast, and I run treadmill 3 times a week during my strength building workouts, so I'm not looking right now for a shoe geared toward the distance runner, stability isn't really an issue with me either. I don't plan on using these shoes on backpacking trips as well. Thanks for the help.

Edited by Eugeneius on 05/31/2009 09:27:03 MDT.

Courtney Waal
(d0rqums) - F
Re: Brooks Cascadia 4 vs. Montrail Highlanders on 06/03/2009 21:00:17 MDT Print View

I'm a longtime Cascadia (all versions) user. It works well for a neutral gait - I don't know what you meant by flat foot but don't look to this for major arch support. I haven't tried that specific Montrail but I have feet that work superbly in just about any Brooks but I have yet to find Montrails that I can run in at all.

My big issue is that Montrail uses a ridiculously high arch support placed way back towards the heel, and after buying a pair of Hardrocks and giving myself the largest set of matching arch blisters ever, I tried on another few Montrail models and realized that the arch feels the same between all of them. YMMV. The fit is so different between the two brands that you really have to try them on.

Eugene Smith
(Eugeneius) - MLife

Locale: Nuevo Mexico
Brooks Cascadia 4 vs. Montrail Highlander on 06/04/2009 05:47:12 MDT Print View

Sorry, bad terminology, I have a moderate arch, it is slightly low. I tend to roll outward a little when running, however I'm working on my foot strike of course that is difficult to change as it is a natural process. For the most part I have a neutral foot strike, I find high arch shoes to be uncomfortable.

Christopher Chupka
(FatTexan) - M

Locale: NTX
Cascadias on 06/04/2009 14:18:38 MDT Print View

The Montrail shoes seem a little "slappy" when I run in them. The Cascadias seem to allow a more natural gait. I have tried a couple versions of the Montrails for running and the Brooks seem the better to me.

Brian Lindahl
(lindahlb) - MLife

Locale: Colorado Rockies
Brooks Cascadia vs. Montrails on 08/07/2009 20:07:34 MDT Print View

A little late for a comment, but I found the Brooks Cascadia's to be horrible for rock grippiness. Not a good shoe for rocky terrain. It would be better for hard flat-packed and well-maintained trails. I found vibram to perform much better, and Montrail's gryptonite to be even better. This may not matter where you are, but, here, in the CO Rockies, it makes a huge difference.