New Balance CT520

shredj · Post by **shredj** » 08 Aug 2004 20:48

MODIFYING
I recently picked up a pair of CT520's because my size 14 lavers were too small on me and Adidas does not make sizes larger than that. So, I decided to go with size 15 CT520s. I heard they were shreddable right out of the box, which they are, but not for me. The clippers were a bit too rolly for me to play with so I decided to modify the shoe. I did similar mods that you would do to Lavers. First mod is to add a clipper rail. There is a rather large 'hole' on the instep which can make clippers roll off easier. After experiencing rolly clippers, I decided to make the rail. Heres now. You take Shoe Goo (found at common department/hardware stores for $5 a tube) and lay a thick bead of it along the deep hole on the instep. You wait a few minutes for it to settle, then add another thick layer on top of that. Then, after 10 minutes it shoulnd't stick to your fingers when you touch it, so now you can mold it into place however you like. I added about 4 layers to even it off, and it took overnight to fully dry. The next mod I did was to remove the inner layers on the instep. The instep material is pretty thick, so removing this is a huge benefit. Basically you trim around the inside like you would mod canvas out of lavers...its pretty easy to come off so you just pull all the layers off with your hand. There will be a little bit of thin foamy stuff that might remain but that isnt to worry about, just pick it off. Next you will need to remove the "N". This is quite difficult and tedious, but is worth it. There is a canvas N on the outside of the instep and a canvas N stitched onto the inside of the instep. Basically you want to just cut the stitching along with sides of the N and slowly pry it off. There is tooooons of tightly packed string and the N 's are glued down so this will take a while but should come off easily if you do it right. You do the same thing underneath the toe box except its 10x easier. Just cut along underneath and pull it out. Takes about 1 minute for both sides. After that you will want to cut the stitches holding the toe rails down just like on lavers. Just lace them up like you would with lavers (lacing method on HoodsHouse works best). This opens up the toe box even more, however it is not necessary. The main reason I cut the stitches and laced them up differently is to straighten out the instep...this makes the instep noticeably flatter and easier to shred on. That pretty much does it as for the mods I did. The stock insole is good enough for me but you can remove that and insert your own insole (obviously) just like Lavers. That pretty much does it on my part..Im sure there are other mods but these are what I did. The best modding utencils to be used while modding these are pliars, tweezers, and a razor blade.

SHOE INFO/PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

Though I have only kicked in these shoes fully modded for a few hours, I can definitely say I prefer them over Lavers. The following is my personal opinion on the shoe. First off, I like the toe box much better for setting because it is so open and free (there isnt walls around it like Lavers). Secondly, I definitely like the instep because it also sets the bag nicely with little effort and it is almost as thin but grippier than mesh Lavers. Lastly, I really like the overall shoe quality and support. These actually feel like REAL. Solid. Shoes. They don't give that cheap feel that Lavers do. They are very comfortable and fit very nicely. The support is noticeably better for me because usually after my shred in Lavers, I have sore knees and an achy back..well after my shred in CT520s I didnt experience any of those pains, or at least not as strong.
I would definitely recommend these to anyone who is seeking stronger support and shoe quality. These make a fine footbag shoe and I will probably won't be wearing Lavers anymore.
I bought these shoes from www.NBWebExpress.com for $44.99 and the shipping was blazing fast (3 days). There is also a 30-day warranty, so if you don't like the shoe you can send them back for a full refund. Once again, Lavers are a great footbag shoe, and so are these.. I just like these better

Here are some pictures of the fully modded CT520.

Phew, these make a huge "mod mess"

Here is a small footbag video of my first real shred in these babys
http://www.footbag.org/gallery/show/2962

Peace

EDIT* Photobucket is down atm. I dont know when it will be back up for the pictures to show

mosher · Post by **mosher** » 08 Aug 2004 21:01

Awesome looking shoes man!

I am intruiged!

I think that perhaps I may venture into new balance territory, I have sore-ass everythings from my lavers.

And I watched the video, it is clear you have been schooling, good work man.

Shaun · Post by **Shaun** » 08 Aug 2004 21:03

They sound nice,I just got lavers and I will see if I have any problems with them. I might end up switching just cause even in the shoes I would use before I sometimes got back problems.

LameR · Post by **LameR** » 08 Aug 2004 21:10

Which is a lighter weight shoe?

shredj · Post by **shredj** » 08 Aug 2004 21:30

Sorry, I forget to mention that they feel about the same weight

LinksYs · Post by **LinksYs** » 08 Aug 2004 22:29

rele there the same weight? Thats pretty good
those look rele good but the inside pic was kinda bad can you take another one? I'll have to go to footlocker this week and check them out. Also are they expensive?

Maraxus · Post by **Maraxus** » 08 Aug 2004 22:42

He posted the price he bought them for. If your tight on cash try surfing a little bit, I can bet you will find it cheaper somewhere but you will most likely be sacrificing either size or color.

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 08 Aug 2004 23:40

Thanks for mentioning my help, damn...

(kidding)

I also play in 520's as of recently, and I suppose I'll write up my review of them here, as it differs somewhat.

First of all, to list the mods --
- I cut the seams extensively and resewed to alter the wall to include the pointy bit right under the wall (pretty vague, I know, I'll try and post a picture). This allows the toe box to act as more of a toe box on a 300. By lacing differently and starting on the second eyelet, the toe box isn't obscenely large.
- I removed the inner layer, but more extensively than Jim (this entails removing multiple layers of fabric, the breathing eyelets, and the dreaded N).
- I removed the layer of fabric and the like under the toe.
- I removed all of the foam in the tongue, as well as cut into the instep side of the tongue, as to not interfere with feeling the bag.
- I cut away some of the insole next to instep to help feel the bag better and let the instep lay flat (as opposed to having the insole push it out slightly).
- I brocka'd the shoes as to allow flexibility. These shoes have much more padding than Lavers, and a brocka mod is understandable.
- I removed all of the shoes' eyelets to increase flexibility.

Notes about the mods:
I don't feel that the clipper rail is necessairy (the same applies to the 300's). The instep has been flat enough in my experiences with these shoes. As for the rest of the mods, some people may think I over-did it, but I find that with these mods, the shoes really come alive. They are flexible not broken in, and after a while, I imagine they will really start to shine.

Also, taking out the N... Is one of the most daunting things I've ever done. The N (the logo on each side of the shoes), consists of two pieces of N-shaped canvas, one of which is buried in the inside, that are sewn down to the shoe by lots and lots of thread. Taking these out involves taking a seam ripper and a pair of tweazers and just going to town. It takes a while.

As for the outside of the shoe, I'm not sure if I'll bother or not. On my pair of 300's, I did, but I didn't notice any performance improvements. There were no dramatic decreases in weight either. Perhaps for the sake of a quick break-in, but aside from that... I don't exactly see the point. Maybe to remove the N and fight those corporate pig-dogs and their logos!

Performance Review:

These things rule. There's simply no other way to put it. I've kicked in Lavers, Milleniums, and 300's, and these are the best so far.

1) As Richard Abshire said, they don't have to moon boot feel of the 300's. They're more tapered off like Lavers.
2) They're very light. These are probably just about as light as Lavers, if not a little lighter (it seems, anyway). Definitely lighter than Milleniums and 300's.
3) These shoes are sturdy. Judging from the modification process, they're tougher shoes. The design had more thought put into it, and it shows. The sole seems tough yet flexible, and the canvas has a nice combination between feel and durable.
4) The support is great, as well. There's no need for a change of insoles. The heel is larger, etc. All around a supportive shoe.

All I know is that after two sessions my game feels like it's blowing up. It would be interesting to hear from other players who now use these shoes as to their experiences so far in these.

Peace

(A quick word about price -- I scrounged around a bit and found these anywhere from $35 to $55)

richardabshire · Post by **richardabshire** » 09 Aug 2004 09:08

The era of the 520 is at hand. This is the next shoe for our sport. Anyone who has these shoes will back me up and say they are the best thing out there right now. Three cheers for New Balance. For all of you who don't believe, don't worry, someday soon you will find out. Richie

By the way, good job on the honest and solid reviews guys.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 09 Aug 2004 09:31

I vandalized the insides and toe boxes of mine with a razor blade to get the canvas to break in quicker. The material seems a lot stiffer on these than the ct300.

ericksonj · Post by **ericksonj** » 09 Aug 2004 15:47

yeah you forgot to mention my help too

Anyway, may as well post that the CT 520s have continued to impress me as I have shredded in them. I like to use them as my regular shoe too, because they are so damn comfortable. I don't know about pulling off the 'N', but whatever, I'm sure it is a good modification anyway. I doubt I will spend the hours it takes to get it off though.

My clipper rails are starting to peel off already though... the shoe is so flexible that it wears on the bond. You can simply re-apply some shoe goo to the area to rebond the rail though... make sure to clean the area first!

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 09 Aug 2004 16:13

I don't feel the huge difference between the 520s and the 300 everyones talkin about. Granted I like both shoes better than lavers.
I did a crazy modification one inebriated night. Instead of removing a layer from the instep, I removed the instep! Now there is a big hole where I catch my clipper. I like it too. It helps me tell the difference between a well caught clipper and a clipper saved by the shoe goo rail. I'm not having a trouble with the bag getting caught, but I have a feeling a light sandman might. More after a few sessions

jon · Post by **jon** » 09 Aug 2004 16:51

it seems like 90 % of people shoe goo the rail of these shoes, does that seem about right? and have the people who have done it found that it was really needed?

I think I will pick up a pair of these soon but I am not all about adding rails and things, something just seems wierd adding stuff to a shoe, taking away as much as possible is fine but once we start adding stuff where will it stop? maybe i am just stupid and should abandon this thinking :p

ShredStylez · Post by **ShredStylez** » 09 Aug 2004 17:04

richardabshire wrote:The era of the 520 is at hand. This is the next shoe for our sport. Anyone who has these shoes will back me up and say they are the best thing out there right now. Three cheers for New Balance. For all of you who don't believe, don't worry, someday soon you will find out. Richie

By the way, good job on the honest and solid reviews guys.

i have to dissagree i love 300's and play in them with only the toe box modded. I dont like the idea of building this shoe. Tooo many mods in my opinion. Especially the rail on the instep. Just sounds and looks sooo cheap, couldn't u do that to any shoe? I believe the 300's were better in the fact that they didnt need 48 mods to make them a good shoe, especially that rail, ugh

pill · Post by **pill** » 09 Aug 2004 17:22

shreddaily wrote:I don't feel the huge difference between the 520s and the 300 everyones talkin about. Granted I like both shoes better than lavers.
I did a crazy modification one inebriated night. Instead of removing a layer from the instep, I removed the instep! Now there is a big hole where I catch my clipper. I like it too. It helps me tell the difference between a well caught clipper and a clipper saved by the shoe goo rail. I'm not having a trouble with the bag getting caught, but I have a feeling a light sandman might. More after a few sessions

a guy up in these parts(seattle) named ben seems to enjoy that mod a lot.

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 09 Aug 2004 18:06

ShredStylez wrote:
richardabshire wrote:The era of the 520 is at hand. This is the next shoe for our sport. Anyone who has these shoes will back me up and say they are the best thing out there right now. Three cheers for New Balance. For all of you who don't believe, don't worry, someday soon you will find out. Richie

By the way, good job on the honest and solid reviews guys.
i have to dissagree i love 300's and play in them with only the toe box modded. I dont like the idea of building this shoe. Tooo many mods in my opinion. Especially the rail on the instep. Just sounds and looks sooo cheap, couldn't u do that to any shoe? I believe the 300's were better in the fact that they didnt need 48 mods to make them a good shoe, especially that rail, ugh

I did the exact same mods to my 300's, and I find the 520's to play better. I did not add a clipper rail to my 520's, nor do I think it is at all necessary. The purpose of modding the instep so extensively is to evade the need for a clipper rail made of shoe goo. I agree, adding to a shoe seems excessive. However, you don't really know too much about this shoe, it seems. The 300 and 520 are essentially the same shoe with several structural differences. The 520 is like a lighter, more up to date 300. The 300 is now discontinued and becoming increasingly harder to get ahold of. Why would you stop the hype of this shoe? It just slows the sport down.

As an aside, not everyone has modded these as much as I have (and I must reiterate on the fact that none of my mods have 'added' anything to the shoe), I have simply chosen to mod these out to their fullest. I remember Allan Haggett saying that he plays in these unmodified.

And Nate:
Ben Schmaltz from Seattle did the same thing to his shoes.

He ended up sewing a loose, elastic white mesh over the instep hole since he said he had a problem with the bag getting stuck.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 09 Aug 2004 18:28

my initial impressions of this shoe

OOOOOOHHH SWEET !

*drop* kick *drop* Stall Stall *drop*

huh, the ct300 plays great out of the box for me. I think the fabric is just a lot stiffer on the 520 because of all the extra padding. I'm sure that they will break in eventually, and can be used without any mods . . . but I needed shoes yesterday. I went ahead and ripped out the foams, and made the toe box. I added a clipper rail, which isn't really that big of a deal, because that isn't where the stall spot is anyway . . . but it feels cheap and looks tacky. With all the mods, they play fine out of the box too . . . but all the mods isn't exactly out of the box, is it.

I have new ct300s, and new ct520s, and I'm not completely sure I want to embrace the 520 until i have too. I was hoping for a drop in replacement, but like alan said in a previous posting, 'it's a different shoe'. I do like the tread pattern and the toe box better, but i can't get over how friggin stiff the canvas is on these compared to the ct300. They should have one hell of a sweet spot once they break in. Each session, these become better.

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 09 Aug 2004 18:50

-Alot of my hackin friends think the clipper rail is cheating.
I tell them it's like using a pick on a guitar or using a "donut" before you take you're at bat in baseball.
Maybe I'm making excuses, it does save the bag, especialy when its momentum is outward, and they ARE playable without the gue...hmmmm anyone wanna start an "ethics of the rail" thread?

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 09 Aug 2004 19:15

It's not that think they're not ethical or anything, I just don't really see the point. It's not like the difference between lacing for a toe box and otherwise, but I've never had a problem without a clipper rail. I guess I'd have to play with one to understand.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 09 Aug 2004 19:23

Honestly, catching the bag is a very minimal part of the trick at the pro level.

I don't see any problem with the clipper rails . . . I just look at my feet at think *tacky*, and the kids notice them too. I don't want people to think the only reason i can hit a trick is because I have a two inch piece of wax on my shoe. It's just one more thing to have to explain.