Talk about changing up the silouette 

Last year’s model was very Anatomix Spawn like, this year’s is Clutchfit Drive/Torch like. 

  

I saw these at Dicks and bought these to look at and compare. 

Quality

You get what you pay for I guess ?

Not sure if it was just the pair I bought but looks like UA made these on “take your kid to work day” and let the kids get their hands dirty. The sloppiness of the build was the first thing I noticed with these.

  

Stay inside the lines kids

 

Lots of excess glue. 

Weight

 

For reference, measured on my baby scale, all size 11

Curry One: 15 oz

Clutchfit Drive 1: 14 oz

Clutchfit Drive 2: 15.5 oz

Prodigy: 14.5 oz 

Easily the lightest of the recent UA shoes.

Traction

  

Same set up as the Clutchfit Drive 1 which is a good thing.

Cushioning 

 

Same set up as the CFD 1 except they replaced the Micro G insole with an EVA insole which is firmer. On foot it feels the same though which is awesome.

 I had a hard time telling the difference between the Torch and Lightning looking at online pics and this pic doesn’t help much.  

Fit

These fit almost exactly the same as the Clutchfit Drive 1. Nice overall fit thanks to mesh and synthetic upper. No deadspace at the forefoot like I experienced with the Torch probably because the tooling (sole and cushioning set up) is the same as the Clutchfit Drive not the Torch.

Nicely padded collar and tongue

 

 
Similar shape as CFD 1  

 

Most of the shoe is a cheaper synthetic and mesh which contributes to the lighter weight. There are a few panels of Clutchfit on both sides of the shoes. Actually it seems like there is as much Clutchfit on the Lightning as on the Clutchfit Drive 2 . 

  
Support and stability

Since the Lightning shares the same tooling as the Clutchfit Drive 1, you  have the same stable platform. The only difference in support would be the smaller heel counter but that isn’t even a big difference since the fit is excellent already.
 

It doesn’t look like it but the ankle collars are the same height.
Containment 

I did not play in these but containment should be decent since it has a stiffer synthetic upper at the forefoot and a footstay just like the CFD 1.

   

Conclusion  

Pretty much a Clutchfit Drive Lite simple as that. Lighter, cheaper materials for $30 bucks less. If I wasn’t stocked up on Clutchfits and Currys I wouldn’t hesitate to play in these.  However with last year’s Clutchfit Drive on sale and discount for under $90 I don’t really see the point of getting the Lightning to save a whole half ounce of weight? In my opinion, UA really mailed in their effort on this one; poor construction quality, cheap materials and another rehash of the Clutchfit Drive. It’s funny that the Torch 4, which is priced exactly the same, had zero quality issues and used better synthetics. I have no doubt that these will perform on court but I’d rather spend my money on a pair that looks like it went through some better quality control. 

  

  

One Comment on “Under Armour Clutchfit Lightning Comparison Review

  1. Pingback: All Look Same: A Guide to Under Armour’s Confusing Mashup of Shoes | schwollo.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: