bigv69er
Well-Known Member
Nice.. Yeah i signed up for that too.. Its awesome lol
HalloweenCostumes.com "Back to the Future 2 Light Up Shoes"
- Thread starter stprime
- Start date
airair
Sr Member
you won't learn much from dissecting these to be honest.
they just have a slightly better battery encased in the plastic and the LED board is a bit better. other than that, everything else is the same as the unlicensed fakes except a bit worse..
Well, then I guess it'll just have to be for fun then.
...there's something cathartic about taking something that someone else has constructed apart in a careful way.
I'm planning some serious mods to mine, so learning the intricacies of their construction will definitely educate me on how far I can push things and how to actually do them. (For instance, I'd love to see if it's possible to swap the elastic for thinner elastic...did I mention I'm basically planning on rebuilding these things while leaving some of the main structure intact haha)
-Nick
cavx
Master Member
Well one thing I can tell right up is that they are NOT constructed in the same way as the V1.
I so wish that they had used the same upper as the V2 and just left it unbranded.
DragonGalvy
Sr Member
the more i hear about the HC version, the more I'm deciding to not buy them. I'll hold out for a few pairs of Mr Glow or Mr Fusion or whatever 
cavx
Master Member
@DragonGalvy Given you already own V2s, I do have to question why you would even consider a pair HCs. But don't let my comment above put you off as the V2s are not constructed that well either.
You could basically rip the upper off a pair V1s and still wear them because their construction was solid. You do that to a pair V2s or these HCs and all you have is a shell of the upper. Having said that, they do seem pretty well made ffor what they are and mine have not fallen apart yet regardless how rough I am with them.
You could basically rip the upper off a pair V1s and still wear them because their construction was solid. You do that to a pair V2s or these HCs and all you have is a shell of the upper. Having said that, they do seem pretty well made ffor what they are and mine have not fallen apart yet regardless how rough I am with them.
I'm sure Universal wanted it at a $100 price point so it would "feel" right to the general public. So they had to cheapen all of their processes. I'm sure that in volume, even the shortening of the ears builds up to a nice savings.
I'm fine with them as donor shoes. I'll leave parts intact, but I tend not to leave things like this anywhere near mint, so I might as well start with something cheaper.
-Nick
TheNickFox you should make MAGs that are just shoes with the collar low.
Last edited by a moderator:
cavx
Master Member
Materials seem to be the same on the HC as the V2. So a saving might me made by shortening the collar, but an increase in cost is made by adding more padding on the laces.
If time is money, does it "cost more" to do that extra, very unnecessary and ugly, extra stitching?
The V2 could and should have been sold around the $100USD. The Chinese were just being greedy knowing the demand for MAGs would be high after the 2011 launch of the genuine NIKE MAG. One thing the Chinese have learned after the 2008 Games is that the western world will pay a premium for product in demand.
The exposed stitching would actually speed things up significantly by allowing them to use just one type of sewing machine, assembling the uppers from the bottom up, rather from the top down in the case of the V2s.
And considering they are both in production at the same time, there may be two teams in the same factory churning the different models out. Which could be enough to account for the differences in lace bulge...which might just be a thicker foam they got a better/cheaper deal on. It could also explain why the V2's splatter still looks splattery and the HC shoes are now dotty.
I'm anxious for some stuff to come in so I can start testing some mods to these. First on my list is an ear extension.
-Nick
cavx
Master Member
They were doing a server change a few hours ago.
I don't know. These shoes are stitched right around first, then turned inside out to hide the seam. This extra stitching seems to be just cosmetic as I don't think it would even make the shoes more robust for a general mass release. It just uglifies them. And if that is not a word, it is now.
They still have to sew them to the insole/ugly pink thing. If you assemble it the way you assemble the V2s you have to find a way to machine sew INSIDE the shoe after the uppers have been sewn and flipped. (Sewing top down) Having exposed seams allows you to sew onto the insole first, then more easily finished with a top/edge stitch to close it off. (Sewing bottom up)
If they even save 10 seconds a shoe, in volume that becomes significant and can cut costs. Again, I think Universal gave them the mandate to make it close, but much more cheaply, giving them their price point. In an attempt to maximize their profits they made all of their processes as simple, speedy, and cheap as possible.
On a different HC shoe note: the tongue is set in them VERY oddly. They actually form a little sock inside the shoe, extending down on either side and connecting to the insole along with the uppers. Are the V2s like that as well?
-Nick
airair
Sr Member
Universal studios have got nothing to do with this shoe's manufacture or its look.
Simply Fun.com / halloween costumes.com, the company has asked and paid Universal a licence to use Back to the future branding on this product and its packaging.
Universal just said, pay us some money and you can slap the brand name on the product, but you can't use Nike branding, keep it nike free.
Fun.com simply have gone to china (and since a lot of their products are made in china anyway such as costumes,etc) and found the factory who have reused the moulds of the fakes and slightly changed the uppers.
Universal have had nothing to do with the look of the shoe. At most, they have told fun.com that they aren't allowed any nike branding on it.
Other than that, nothing else specified.
The factories themselves decide on how to cheapen costs and manufacturing processes.
Its one of the reasons they can't do the triangular pull holes correctly. They are simply aren't competent enough to do it on a mass scale.
cavx
Master Member
cavx
Master Member
It is not an exposed seam though. It is extra (unneeded and very much unwanted) stitching that gives it a slightly different look to the V2. The actual seam itself is still the same as the V2.
Yes the tongue in the HC and V2 are identical. And this only enforces my comment that they are assembled the same way.
airair
Sr Member
LOL, Oh that's harsh
Lol! honestly, i was told the triangle has to be stitched and they can't do the unstitched way.
cavx
Master Member
Yeah I can see the email now - "Sorry friend. We can not make this." Which is total BS given there has been DIYers on this forum that have done the folded and glued method and got it right.
pandatrooper
Well-Known Member
Airair, when I worked at a big studio we contracted a big manufacturer in China on soft goods, they sent me samples of my designs and a few parts were glued and heat bonded. They needed metal dies to cut and stamp out the pieces and a separate set to bond them. They couldnt do it in their facility so they outsourced it to another company. It was quite involved and costly so we went with machine stitched.
I know its no consolation but they are likely just saying "they can't do it" to avoid the cost and trouble. It can be done, we have seen it done on other products.
Similar threads
