We’ve been reporting on this model for a few months now because we’re excited. A successor to loved and hated Fat Tire, the UA Speedtire Ascent Low is now official here.
The Fat Tire was an excellent concept and a performance beast but just a bit too bulky for some — and its looks don’t help. This latest iteration of the concept slims everything down and adds new tech. It is launching alongside its bigger brother, the Fat Tire Ascent Mid.
A flexible soft-shell upper, finished with a rubberized print, should provide lightweight durability. The traditional tongue construction of the original Fat Tire has been ditched for a burrito style closure. The rather large and protruding Fat Tire tooling underfoot has been slimmed down, and the Charged Cushioning midsole used on the original has been replaced with a full-length Micro G midsole. A removable Charged Cushioning sockliner is included, and it should mold to the wearer’s foot shape after some wear. Finally, the Speedtire Ascent Low retains the Michelin Wild Gripper outsole rubber compound and aggressive traction lugs designed for running trails.
Additionally, the Speedtire Ascent Low weighs in at 9.45 oz., a full 3.5 oz less than the original Fat Tire Low. That is a significant weight savings.
The original Fat Tire Low retailed for $150. The updated and slimmed down Under Armour Speedtire Ascent Low is priced at $115 and available in two colorways — Phoenix Fire and Rhino Gray — at UA.com.
Do you think this is a worthy successor to the Fat Tire? Let us know in the comments.
Source: UA
These look like a significant upgrade from the Fat Tire line. Really excited to pickup a pair of these at some point. Thought I wouldn’t be opposed to some different colorways in the future.
Has anyone tried these? I was wondering how the cushioning feels since it’s so much lower.
Hey there,
I got a pair of the orange ones yesterday, they actually look like a legitimate contender for a nice and nimble allround trail runner. I got my usual 12.5 and they run a tad long with a decent toebox width, so I am exchanging them for a 12, hence no run testing at this time. The insole seems rather thick and I might replace it with a Hoka one to customize the fit. The upper is firm but should mold to the foot rather quickly without tearing. The outsole looks sticky and has an aggressive profile, albeit with short lugs, cushioning feels comfortable, this could well be a shoe that is usable for ultra trail marathons.
So much for first impressions, cant wait to actually run in them.
Thank you for all the info!!
anyone know the cushioning specs on these? All I can find is that they have a 4.5mm drop…thx.
Please read the article before commenting next time. Thanks.
From the third paragraph:
“The rather large and protruding Fat Tire tooling underfoot has been slimmed down, and the Charged Cushioning midsole used on the original has been replaced with a full-length Micro G midsole. A removable Charged Cushioning sockliner is included…”
indeed I did read the article, including the third paragraph. To clarify my question: asking the cushioning in mm for heel/forefoot….i.e. 21.5/17, 25.5/21 etc. This is important info when comparing one trail shoe to another.
thanks.
That’s offset. If you head over to UA.com every shoe’s offset is included in its product description. I will try and include it more often.