Brooks Cascadia 7 Review

[Check out the most recent Cascadia in our review of the Brooks Cascasdia 15 and Cascadia 15 GTX.]

It’s been a long, hard year for me. I received the Brooks Cascadia 6 last autumn, logged many a late winter and spring trail mile in them, but couldn’t favorably review them. Why not, if I managed to run so many miles in them? Because they didn’t live up to the trail shoe perfection I’d previously found in the Cascadia 4. How relieved was I went it only took one run in the Brooks Cascadia 7 for me to know that the Cascadia was back and better than ever

Seriously, it’d be a crime to call this a hybrid shoe. It’s all all-purpose running shoe. I logged my first run in the Cascadia 7s in the toughest circumstance I could – I hadn’t had a descent run in over two weeks. I threw these on and easily climbed the snow-covered trail behind my house. A minute later I was cruising the half mile of pavement to singletrack and loving it. When you run in any Cascadia, you know you’re running in a shoe made by a company that’s sold tens of millions of running shoes. The roll and feel of the Cascadia 7 is best tested on pavement and these masterpieces roll more beautifully than a 16 pound ball in a Big Lebowski dream sequence.

On the trails, the Cascadia 7 are even more in their element. These are the kind of shoes for the 99%… of trail runners (or at least those trail runners who still like substantial shoes). I remember running the Leadville 100 in 2009 in the Cascadia 4 and never having to worry about the finer points of foot placement. Heading out in the Cascadia 7, I felt the very same way. These are shoes you can put on and forget about as well as forget about the trail at the same time. Let’s get to the how.

Midsole
First off, there’s plenty of protection here. While not bombproof like the Montrail Hardrocks of yore, you can run moderately rocky trails not having to worry a bit about rocks other than avoiding tripping. Maybe you’d want a more significant rockplate for a day of running the rock gardens of the Massanutten 100, but these will do the trick for nearly everything else.

The same applies when bringing  the Cascadia 7 onto smooth-faced hard surfaces such as slickrock… as well as pavement and concrete. The cushioning in the form of BioMoGo EVA is plush, but never too much. It’s the bowl of porridge you want to eat seconds of because it’s just right. I don’t know or care what exactly BioMoGo is so long as it’s comfy on both road and trail, which it is.

Outsole
The outsole is a generalist outsole that’s plenty smooth on the roads and offers sufficient traction for a non-mud-specific trail shoe. In my own testing, it gave plenty of traction on mud alongside recent snow melt as well as on packed sugary snow up to a couple inches deep. It didn’t provide much traction in the occasional mountain bike wallows with inch deep mud. In my mind that’s acceptable, as no shoe outside the realm of specialists shoes like the Salomon Speedcross, La Sportiva Crosslite, or Inov-8’s grippier models would have done any better.

This result is an improvement. There were two major design changes that had negative repercussions going from the Cascadia 5 to the 6. The first was the change from the shoe’s traditional triangular-lugged outsoles to a circular saw lugs in the central forefoot and heel-strike areas. Aside from reduced traction, others complained of reduced useful lifespan of these lugs. Well, Brooks has reversed course and returned triangular lugs to the core of its outsole.

Upper
I mentioned that, in my opinion, Brooks made two backward steps between the Cascadia 5 and 6, the second of which was creating what some described as a “sloppy” or “loosey goosey” upper. I felt that issue immediately, but it took me a few runs to figure out the cause – the second and third uppermost medial (instep-side) eyelets were “floating,” meaning that they were attached to the rest of the upper with an elastic band. This was a well-intended change meant to reduce discomfort atop the foot during runs with a ton of descent. It did that, but at the cost of feeling insecure when making steep or technical descents. The upper on the Cascadia 6 was great otherwise, which is why I ran in it a ton.

Onward to the Cascadia 7 and the glorious removal of the floating eyelets! Seriously, I see many dozens of trail shoes a year and there’s never been such a small year-over-year modification to a trail model that’s made me happier. We are back to a secure, breathable, and all-around wonderful Cascadia upper.

While the Brooks design team was at it, they made a few improvements… and they’re actually improvements this time. To begin, they doubled the extent of the mid-foot overlay, moving it back to the middle of the ankle and forward to nearly the ball of the foot. This further enhances the Cascadia 7’s improved midfoot lockdown.

There’s also a nice asymmetric lacing (right) that should help reduce the top-of-foot pain the previous model’s floating eyelets were supposed to address.

Next, it seems to me that the microfiber overlay material is slightly thinner and, therefore, slightly less rigid in the 7 as opposed to the 6, which should slightly reduce the possibility of localized irritation at the edge of those overlays

Finally, Brooks has moved the superfluous heel pull. Does anyone every use those and, if not, can trail shoemakers keep sending them the way of the dinosaur?

Conclusion

This is great all-around shoe for trail runners. It is not a minimalist shoe nor does it try to be one. My US men’s 9 weighed in a hair under 12 ounces (11.93 oz/338 g) just like the Cascadia 6 (11.97 oz/339 g) and there’s a standard heel-to-drop. You know what, that suits me just fine! Sure, I’d prefer the Cascadia to weigh in at 10 or 11 ounces, but this is a shoe that does everything I want it to do right out of the box. It’s shoe that I could wear for every single run until they meet their end the better part of a 1,000 miles down the trail (and/or road). You can head out in your own pair of Brooks Cascadia 7 ($110) starting February 1, 2012.

Ps. The only change I’d like to see in the Cascadia at this point is a slightly wider toebox. With Drymax Max Pro socks (my socks of choice), it’s a bit snug.

Call for Comments

  • Are you a Cascadia fan and, if so, which was your first version of the Cascadia?
  • Anyone else excited about a shoe that can meet so many runnerly needs?
  • Any features that you’re psyched to see in the Cascadia 7?
Bryon Powell: is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of iRunFar.com. Having spent nearly 20 years as an ultrarunner and three decades as a trail runner, he's also written Relentless Forward Progress: A Guide to Running Ultramarathons and co-wrote Where the Road Ends: A Guide to Trail Running. He calls Silverton, Colorado and Moab, Utah home.

View Comments (88)

  • I'm happy and excited to see a broader market being served in the running community, whether I'm in it or not. While the whole minimalist thing has caught on with me, there are those for whom the transition would be too arduous, and perhaps, not even beneficial. I also think it's important to keep our options open, as runners, to different tools for different jobs. And while this isn't a tool I can see myself wanting for, you never know. One blown achilles, and I'll be back with this or a Bajada.

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

  • Love the 5's, skipped the 6's because of all the neg. reviews. MUST have the 7's! My question is I am running in the Pure Grit now which has a 4mm drop. Going back and forth from a 4 to standard(10?) drop is that good or bad or indifferent?

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

    • Ha, same here, still wear my 5s now but they are more a casual everything shoe, while the Grit are my new go-to trail shoe and sometimes even road shoe, they feel that good. Haven't noticed going from one to the other in terms of the heel drop but possibly because the 5s are not getting much run time now.

      Cancel reply

      Leave a Reply

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

      • Plus, if you've worn them a ton, it's quite likely that the drop is lessened as the EVA has (reasonably) crushed out with time.

        Cancel reply

        Leave a Reply

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

    • Also still run most long or technical runs (and races over 50k) in 5s (didn't like the 6s either), but alternate on regular runs with the Grits which I have also loved. Although I do notice the heel drop differential, I don't find any trouble alternating. I also put in some miles in the Trail Minimus routinely. I think rotating among different shoes with different heel-toe drop, cushioning, etc., at least for me, has been great for strengthening the feet and lower legs. And it also feels great to throw on the Grits the day after a long run in the Cascadias -- by comparison you feel light as a feather and like your feet are flying!

      Cancel reply

      Leave a Reply

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

  • When you say "standard heel-to-toe drop" do you mean 10mm? That's not too bad, I run some in the Montrail Rogue Racer which has 10mm drop. The only detractor I'd have with the Cascadia, besides the weight, is the flexibility. For various reasons I've become accustomed to having a shoe that is somewhat flexible in the mid-fore foot. How flexible is the 7? I too have no problem having a bit more shoe around for the long ultras, remember the Montrail Vitesse? That was my weapon of choice until I couldn't find it anymore... :( I even rotated that shoe into my training even after transitioning to more minimal trail shoes. Why? Because I know I needed more shoe when I was going to do a mountain 100; the minimal stuff just wouldn't cut it for me! I think it's good to have a lot of options. There are shoes that are good to train in, to build up strength in our legs and then there are shoes that are better equipped to race in; quite often these are two radically different types of shoes!

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

  • Rob, I loved the Vitesse and although I've been doing most of my running in La Sportiva Crosslites the past few years, I'm going to take a closer look at these for Hardrock. I think many of us over the years have been looking for a Vitesse replacement with no luck. They should bring those back!

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

    • Let's start a "Bring back the Vitesse" movement! That and the Wasatch. I'd be so happy.

      Cancel reply

      Leave a Reply

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

    • Yes, bring back the Vitesse. Either as it was or perhaps a bit modernized to make it a bit lighter and less clunky and perhaps drop the heel-to-toe height a touch to around ~4mm. There is your perfect mountain 100 mile shoe!

      Until then I'm still searching. Right now I really like my new Altra Lone Peak trail shoes. Zero drop, plenty of toe room and with a rock plate and just beefy enough to handle the long rocky run. They are reasonably light, low profile and still fairly flexible. I'm thinking this is the way to go for me. The retro look is pretty cool as well. I just hope Altra doesn't get bought out and their whole look and feel and mission doesn't change! *cough* *cough* *Montrail* *cough* *cough*

      Cancel reply

      Leave a Reply

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

      • Rob, Altra was bought by ICON Health & Fitness in March 2011. So far the feel and mission don't seem to have changed a bit.

        Cancel reply

        Leave a Reply

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

  • The 5 was my first trail shoe. Loved it. I felt the sloppy upper on the 6 immediately, but have continued to wear it all this year. Looking forward to getting the 7 in the spring. I wear a very thin sock (Balega Pro Pacer?), so the toe box on the 5 and 6 have been wide enough for me (although narrower than my road shoes). I would like a little more cushion (clydesdale), so hopefully that will be an improvement I can detect/enjoy in the 7. I'd like to try another shoe brand/model, but the 5 and 6 have never given me an issue (not even a single blister). So, I guess if it ain't broke...

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

  • I loved the Cascadia 5 and ran my pair into the ground. They were my go-to trail race shoe. I eagerly bought the 6 and they sit in a drawer at work after 35 miles of use. They feel over-built and slippery even on light trails. The shoe feels too tight on my foot with Drymax Socks on and I probably won't wear them again. It doesn't sound like the 7 is that much different other than the lugs. I've moved more toward minimalist shoes (Merrell Trail Gloves) and absolutely love a wide toe box so your report of a narrow toe box for the Cascadia 7 is helpful. Maybe the clown shoes (Green Silence) would be more to my liking. I'm hopeful that the MT110 has a wider toe box than the MT101 does (IMHO, that was the only flaw in the otherwise fantastic MT101).

    I also partially disagree with you about the heel loop. I agree that they're unnecessary for standard / built up shoes like the Cascadia with all of that cushion around the heel cup that I can hold onto with my hand when I push my heel into the shoe. With super minimalist shoes (Trail Gloves) it's harder to grab the back of the shoe and wrangle my heel in. The back of the shoe just collapses in my hand. I like having the heel loop for some extra leverage in that case.

    Great review per usual, thanks for the information.

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

  • I ran in the Cascadia for several straight years and loved them, and then did not like the 6 at all (I went out and bought 3 more pairs of the 5 to stock up!), so I'm glad to see they backtracked on some things.

    Main problem was I didn't like the sole changes in the 6 (DNA gel pods feel harsh + sole felt too concave), and judging from the DNA logo on the sole, it doesn't sound like they went back to flat foam.

    Oddly enough I liked the circular lugs better ON SNOW but I usually use Microspikes if necessary on snow anyway.

    One positive point you may not be able to tell from photos is the Cascadia is very stable left to right and is good if you have a wider foot. In years of technical trail use, I've only had a couple of minor ankle rolls. By comparison, a lot of other brands feel unstable to me. It’s good not to break your ankle!

    I too have moved to more minimal shoes with a wide toe box, mainly because my mechanics and legs need remedial work.

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

  • Hi Bryon,

    It sounds like you didn't review the 6s, because you didn't like them. Wouldn't it give more credibility to your reviews if you also reviewed items you didn't think were good?

    -Dave

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

    • Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm comfortable publishing only reviews of shoes I or my reviewers like or find intriguing. It's been that way since iRunFar's outset. We write about what gets us excited. :-)

      Re the Cascadia 6, I liked them well enough to run a few 100 miles in them despite having dozens of other pairs of shoes in my office. All around, it was a well above average shoe... with one hole in its skill set. It was great for nearly all the singlet rack I run and well suited to any double track or pavement.

      Cheers,
      Bryon

      Cancel reply

      Leave a Reply

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

      • Hi Bryon,

        Thanks for the response and clarification.

        Sorry to stay on this but if you're "comfortable publishing only reviews of shoes I or my reviewers like or find intriguing", then shouldn't these be called "product recommendations" rather than "reviews"? I find the term "review" misleading if critical ones never get published.

        Btw, I *love* everything else you guys do. This is just some feedback.

        Cancel reply

        Leave a Reply

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

        • Dave,
          I'm listening and hearing you, but there are two issues here.

          First, we do review some "intriguing" shoes that we'd not "recommend." I won't call them out in here, but they're on iRunFar from time to time.

          Second, "review" is the standard term folks use to find in-depth analysis of products. It's generic. I frequent plenty of websites and blogs that only "review" products they can recommend. There are plenty of bad, mediocre, fine, or merely good products in every industry, and plenty of outlets with focused expertise only cover those products they'd "recommend" to their audiences. They still call these reviews and they are still critical of these products where they have failings. :-)

          Cancel reply

          Leave a Reply

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

    • BTW, you're completely right in the abstract. However, I think folks understand iRunFar's style and respect its credibility because while we're almost always positive in reviews... that's genuine.

      Also, we talk about lots of other shoes in comments, on iRF's Facebook page, and in the iRunFar forum. :-)

      Cancel reply

      Leave a Reply

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

  • I am soooo excited to hear this. I absolutely loved the 5's, but have been very disappointed with the 6's. I got through over 2500 miles of the PCT in just two pairs of 5's...but my 6's are falling apart after just a few hundred miles. I have been seriously considering trying out new styles and brands, but I think i will hold out till February and give the 7's a try.

    Thanks for the review and as always, keep the great posts coming Bryon.

    -John

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

    • Thanks, John!

      Cancel reply

      Leave a Reply

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

  • Bryon, thanks for the Cascadia review. Do you still think you will do most of your training in the 7s and race in the Bajada's.

    If there is one major difference between the two what would it be excluding weight?

    Thanks in advance!

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

  • Bryon,

    Another great review; however, I like the 'superfluous' heel pull. Is it really that bad? Aside from being useful when putting on the shoe, it's other purpose is served aesthetically. What do your readers think?

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

  • The Cascadia 6 is my main shoe, it sounds like I'm the only one that actually likes it. Running for 10-15 miles per day on a few consecutive days in a minimal shoe, for me, is not healthy for my feet and legs. Even if it means a few more ounces, I find the added protection to be more valuable than the weight advantage. An additional perspective on shoe weight; my own body weight fluxuates more on a day to day basis more than the weight differential of the shoe I'm wearing on that day. A general comparison of the Cascadia 12oz - Minimus 8.5oz, even water intake on an hour to hour basis will be a greater weight flux than the difference between these shoes.

    The '6' has been great to bomb around in on trails, pavement, and gravel roads, from the door to the countryside. They have held up well for 500 miles, showing little signs of wear except for the outsole. Oh well, it will soon be extinct, just like the T-Rex that designed the colors for next year's model.

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

    • I really like the 6 too, BUT they simply didn't match up to the sweetness of previous models. I think a lot of the negative comments about the 6 simply reflect the disappointment that they didn't wow everyone like the 3, 4, and 5's did.

      Cancel reply

      Leave a Reply

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

      • I concur!

        Cancel reply

        Leave a Reply

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

  • What great timing for Cascadia 7 review! I have been wrestling with the idea of trying Hoka Mafate shoes for the cushioning. Now, all you minimalist people, don't freak out - I have vibram five fingers as well. I had some nagging leg and foot pain after Vulture Bait 50km and nothing would help. I busted out a pair of new shoes from the closet (I buy in bulk!!) and immediately noticed no pain. I was able to run. This got me thinking that maybe my body needs more cushioning in a shoe (yes, I probably need to adjust my running form as well). So, I have been toying with the idea of trying the Hokas - a bit nervous about the height of the shoe for ankle rollovers though. This Cascadia 7 seems like a shoe that I will wait for. I did try on a pair of Cascadia 6's but, did not like the "flat" feel of them. After all of they hype for the 6's I was really quite disappointed. Your review of the Cascadia 7 makes it sound like the shoe for me. Thanks, can't wait to try them.

    Off topic but, what do you think about the Hokas?

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

    • I can answer this one: The Cascadias do look sweet, and the cushioning will definately help with leg and foot pain. Thing is, about the Hoka, the number one question is just what you mentioned. It's high off the ground, won't I roll my ankle easily? With a wider sole, it compensates for the higher off the ground look, also your foot sits deeper in the Hoka than you might expect. You won't roll you ankle any more in the Hoka, than any other shoe.

      Cancel reply

      Leave a Reply

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

      • Thanks for the information. Now hoping for Christmas money to get both shoes!

        Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

        Cancel reply

        Leave a Reply

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

      • True about the Hoka's now rolling over; however, I do find myself clipping more rocks, curbs and other obstacles because I'm not use to the extra clearance needed. It's not a big deal but there small learning curve.

        Having said that, going forward I will alway have a pair of Hoka's in my rotation. They've allowed me to increase my weekly mileage by 25%. I can't wait for the new Evo's!

        Cancel reply

        Leave a Reply

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

        • David, I just ran in the Stinson Evo's again today. Loving 'em... enough that you might just see them for sale on a certain trail running website next year. ;-)

          Cancel reply

          Leave a Reply

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

  • Thanks Bryon. Look forward to giving the 7's a run. I am a big fan of the 6, but I am not prejudiced by having worn earlier models. I would also like a wider toe-box.

    Hey Steve, I think Larry Hall still has a few pairs of Vitesse in boxes under his bed!

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

    • Andy,
      Overall, I really enjoyed the 6, too... but my prejudice from the Cascadia 4 definitely colored my view of that model. Previous Cascadia use or not, the 7 is a fantastic shoe!

      Cancel reply

      Leave a Reply

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

  • I also loved the 5s and held pairs in back-stock after trying on the 6-I couldn't take the small toe box. Will be good to try the 7s. Anybody else thinking that shoe pricing is getting (has become) insane? Especially crazy are the minimalist shoes (with the exception of NB?).

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

  • Is the sizing the same? I've heard they've corrected some of the sizing issues and now run true to size.

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

    • I'd say yes. I found previous Hoka's to run a bit small, but my Stinson Evo's fit in line all the rest of my 9s.

      Cancel reply

      Leave a Reply

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

    • Is the sizing issue ironed out for all models? I also heard that the Hokas ran 1/2 size too small. When ordering from Canada it is a bit tricky to send back for another size! Having hard time finding a store that carries Hokas. Currently working with a store in California to send some up.

      Cancel reply

      Leave a Reply

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

  • Very timely review, as I ran what is my 12th, and sadly last, run in my 6's this morning; cursing them and finally giving up. I began my ultra running career and remember flying down trail in shoes that fit like a glove and gave me support and stability for several 50 mile races in version 2, 3, and 4. I was disappointed with the pairs of 5's I went through but couldn't quite pinpoint the problem I as I was recovering from countless injuries and had trouble getting back to a normal stride on my end of things; but truth be told they never felt right. I've been a Brooks runner for years and bought the 6's without a second thought when I had worn through my old ones. But it's been a horrible year on them. I felt wishy washy constantly, bobbling all over the place on trail that I can generally bomb through; this year brought a few badly sprained, and one likely broken, ankles on them, and I couldn't figure out if it was me or the shoes. After the past month of running in various parts of Utah on them and comparing them to a run in a 6 year old, beat to hell, pair of Salomon XA comps and the Pure Grits, I realized that the 6's were only a trail running shoes for a perfect trail: dry, no slick rock, no dust, nicely groomed, no mud, no snow, no off camber bits... which even if it did exist, I wouldn't want to run on. This morning, with new snow, they pretty much turned to skis, even on the flats. I have had road shoes with better traction.

    That being said, I miss the Cascadias that made me fall in love with trail running and your review has renewed my faith (and confirmed that I wasn't imagining my troubles with the previous two versions). I am excited to see the 7's and will hold off on switching tough shoes until I can give them a go. I, would also love to see a wider toe box; that feature is one of the reasons I started running in Brooks to begin with, it gives the foot somewhere to go, helps allow a natural stride with those of us who have arches that need to splay a bit. I'm currently running in the Pure Grit, which I love, but isn't really a winter shoe, nor a 100 mile shoe.

    Thanks for the review!

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

  • I agree with Karl. No more likely to roll an ankle in the hokas than in any other shoe. I've run everything from technical mountain trails to 6" of powder snow and fund them suitable for all of it. I have a tendency to roll ankle too due to my mechanics and have actually had LESS of a problem due to the cushioning and stability of the hokas.

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

  • Do these still have the gusseted tongue that introduced on the 6?

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

    • Check. Tongue still gusseted.

      Cancel reply

      Leave a Reply

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

      • You may take our stretchy panels, but you'll never take... our tongue gussets!

        Thanks, Bryon.

        Cancel reply

        Leave a Reply

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

  • I've been running in the Cascadia's since #4 and can say that I have fallen out of love with them. I couldn't figure out why until I read this review and the follow-up comments. Hopefully the 7's will renew my love for them. Now if only they could design the shoes to look cool. I mean, they really are some ugly ugly shoes. I know it doesn't matter when they are covered in mud but it sure would make them more appealing. Perhaps I'm alone with this thought process but geez, just about every other trail shoe looks better than the Cascadia's. Maybe Brooks could hire Salomon's Design team...they'd make these shoes look incredible!

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

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

    • Let me clarify...it's not so much the design but the awful color schemes that they choose year after year.

      Cancel reply

      Leave a Reply

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

Leave a Reply

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