Glasses

billyhead

Folks,

I would not mind a pair of Oakleys but there fairly expensive. Anyone suggest a cheaper alterative. The basic wraparound ones I was using up to this point broke.

fenris

BBB all the way for stuff that gets lost or broken a lot!

Dave11

fenris wrote: »

BBB all the way for stuff that gets lost or broken a lot!

As Fenris says....BBB all the way! Oakley look coola dn really do make a difference but for the money it's madness!!! Were not pro's unfortunately so when we break/loose them they don't just hand us another pair!! You can get 4-6 pairs of BBB for the price of Oakley! No brainer really....

Vélo

Don't mind them....get the Oakleys.

abcdggs

Vélo wrote: »

Don't mind them....get the Oakleys.

+1

IM0

I have Nike tarj I think they are called, very nice covergae and fit and styllish but understated. I have perscription polarized lenses in them they were about €180 from rxsport.co.uk.

I was looking at dhb ones from wiggle before this, about 1/2 or 1/3 price of oakleys..but I decided not to go with CL and went with prescription glasses above.

mloc123

I am waiting to buy a pair of oakleys, bought a cheap pair about 6months ago which I have not lost or broekn yet... if I pass the test I'll buy Oakleys.

Danbo!

Rather than start another thread, anyone recommend Prescription sunglasses that dont just look like darkened regular glasses?

Something similar to Oakley, wrap around style. Was quoted €600 to get lenses put into oakleys. Ouch.

Edit: just saw me@UCDs post

abcdggs

Stee wrote: »

Rather than start another thread, anyone recommend Prescription sunglasses that dont just look like darkened regular glasses?

Something similar to Oakley, wrap around style. Was quoted €600 to get lenses put into oakleys. Ouch.

Edit: just saw me@UCDs post

Lazer eye surgery?

Signal_ rabbit

Endura spectrum, really excellent glasses and cheap as chips!

DirkVoodoo

There is more to Oakleys than just being expensive. A mountain biker friend of mine warned me off cheaper glasses, in a crash or if a branch smacks you in the face, a cheap pair of glasses could end up doing serious damage.

Captain Havoc

I've a pair of blocs after going through several pairs of cheaper ones, I'd be spending a few quid alright.

Murph100

...and another thing to consider is both antifogging and watershedding ( hydrophobic ? ) abilities. My cheap Spuiks are grand in the dry but under pressure on a climb in the pouring rain you cant see sh!t.

Oakleys for me next definitely.

jwshooter

iv my oakley half jackets 6-7 years love them ,

im selling a pair of M FRAMES and a few different lens .

TinyExplosions

abcdggs wrote: »

+1

+2

teufelswerk

jwshooter wrote: »

iv my oakley half jackets 6-7 years love them ,

im selling a pair of M FRAMES and a few different lens .

+1 on the older oakleys.

Bought myself a pair of Jawbones and find them flimsy and the lenses are not great. Really should have got myself a set with vented lenses instead of the yellow tinted lenses. The polarised lense are the business though.

However, I am back wearing the race jackets that I bought 7 years ago, nothing compares to the wrap-around lense from them IMO.

IM0

Polarized lenses are the sheet.

On a dull they though they make things look is a little duller though, not a problem just a side effect of why they work in the first place :pac: well worth the extra 50-80 quid.

Michelin

forget about all these expensive glasses..5 euro lidl/aldi sports glasses are the biz! spare lens, lovely fit. buy a 2 or 3 pairs. lose them and have no worries! im not joking here, iv had oakleys in the past and they are lovely many other brands ive tried have not fit as nice until i tried the aldi ones!

abcdggs

Michelin wrote: »

forget about all these expensive glasses..5 euro lidl/aldi sports glasses are the biz! spare lens, lovely fit. buy a 2 or 3 pairs. lose them and have no worries! im not joking here, iv had oakleys in the past and they are lovely many other brands ive tried have not fit as nice until i tried the aldi ones!

I don't understand this, surely if you buy something with the idea in your head it's ok to lose them, you're much more likely to lose them. Surely when it comes down to it just buy nice glasses and don't lose them.

Joxer_S

I have a nice pair of Tifosi's, vented with photochromic lenses. $60 here in the US which I thought was great value against a pair of Oakleys, don't know where they can be got at home though

CarlosK

As stated in an earlier post, cheap glasses are likely to shatter on impact if hit in the face by a branch/stone etc.... its all fun and games until someone loses an eye!!!

buy a good pair of glasses, that way you'll look after them and you'll make sure you don't lose them. They might even save you an eye or 2.

Lumen

CarlosK wrote: »

As stated in an earlier post, cheap glasses are likely to shatter on impact if hit in the face by a branch/stone etc.... its all fun and games until someone loses an eye!!!

That's not true at all. Crap glasses can shatter on impact. Cheap glasses may be good; expensive glasses may be crap. There isn't a strong correlation.

As Tunney said about his Rudy Projects:

tunney wrote: »

I had a pair of these. I still have parts of the lenses embedded in the side of my head.

My most functional glasses are a set of interchangeable lens M:Vision Darcs that cost about thirty quid. I usually wear some custom Oakleys instead (at a few times the price), but they're flimsier and the lenses are no better.

DirkVoodoo

Lumen wrote: »

My most functional glasses are a set of interchangeable lens M:Vision Darcs that cost about thirty quid. I usually wear some custom Oakleys instead (at a few times the price), but they're flimsier and the lenses are no better.

Impact tests or GTFO. Cheaper tends to correlate better with less quality, there are I'm sure decent lenses for not crazy money, a list of these would be handy. All I know is Oakleys get the pro seal of approval which is enough for me. Yeah, the frames aren't amazing but it's the lenses that matter.

EDIT: Good enough for the marines, maybe you should try and source a pair:

Oakley Standard Issue (SI)

Oakley's SI Line (Standard Issue) is not available at retail stores, as it was designed specifically for government and military applications. The protective lenses Oakley are exceeding the US Government ANSI Z87.1 standards for impact resistance, optical clarity and UV protection. Prescription versions are available on all eyewear except the Half Wires and the goggles. The SI M Frame surpasses ANSI Industrial Standards for high-mass and high-velocity impact protection. All lenses are made of pure Plutonite, a proprietary material that offers the highest level of optical clarity available in eyewear.

DirkVoodoo

And this, just because high speed videos are cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_GL9XNjcBI

jwshooter

when the m frame came out first oakley used a shot gun to test them . i thing at 25 yards they stopped a number 7 shot .

see lance was not wearing his jaw bones on yesterdays stage ,he had his radars on

ednwireland

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Impact tests or GTFO. Cheaper tends to correlate better with less quality, there are I'm sure decent lenses for not crazy money, a list of these would be handy. All I know is Oakleys get the pro seal of approval which is enough for me. Yeah, the frames aren't amazing but it's the lenses that matter.

sold to the dirk voodo in the back row (pros wear them cos they are given them)

be you drink red bull as well

IM0

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

And this, just because high speed videos are cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_GL9XNjcBI

pfft.. they have no built in bear repellent, useless.

Russman

Maui Jim make fantastic lenses - they were recommended to me by the surgeon who lasered my eyes almost 10 years ago and I've had a few pairs since then and find them brilliant.

The styling isn't great on some models but there are a few nice frames, plus they're a lot cheaper tham the Oakleys and all Mauis are polarised IIRC.

Lumen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Impact tests or GTFO. Cheaper tends to correlate better with less quality, there are I'm sure decent lenses for not crazy money, a list of these would be handy. All I know is Oakleys get the pro seal of approval which is enough for me. Yeah, the frames aren't amazing but it's the lenses that matter.

Pro seal of approval? FFS.

"Plutonite" is basically just UV blocking polycarbonate, which you can buy in very large sheets for pennies. It's what they make greenhouses out of. Google for "polycarbonate shotgun video" and see what the completely ordinary stuff is capable of withstanding.

Shatterproof lenses have been a solved problem for a very long time. I have no idea why it's still legal to sell glasses that aren't shatterproof. I remember using shatterproof transparent rulers at school in the early 1980s, and I don't remember them costing the equivalent of €150 a pop.

I have no doubt that the more expensive lenses might have greater "optical clarity", polarisation capabilities or whatever, but you only need to see where you're going, and my Oakleys mist up worse than my cheapo glasses.

They're expensive because they're a fashion item.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hsls5ZPCUnE

DirkVoodoo

Lumen wrote: »

Pro seal of approval? FFS.

"Plutonite" is basically just UV blocking polycarbonate, which you can buy in very large sheets for pennies. It's what they make greenhouses out of. Google for "polycarbonate shotgun video" and see what the completely ordinary stuff is capable of withstanding.

Well that's an entirely simplistic view. While I don't know much about sunglass manufacturing (maybe we should take a trip to the Oakley plant?) and I'm not saying there isn't significant markup on Oakleys because of the brand name, I would have thought there is a difference between how a sunglass lens is made versus how sheets of it are produced. Of course, if you can produce a lens of similar shape, thickness and quality to an Oakley lens from a polycarbonate sheet, I will eat my hat.

EDIT: I found this pretty nifty java application that estimates the injection moulding costs for polymer products:

http://kazmer.uml.edu/Software/JavaCost/index.htm

Lumen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Well that's an entirely simplistic view. While I don't know much about sunglass manufacturing (maybe we should take a trip to the Oakley plant?) and I'm not saying there isn't significant markup on Oakleys because of the brand name, I would have thought there is a difference between how a sunglass lens is made versus how sheets of it are produced. Of course, if you can produce a lens of similar shape, thickness and quality to an Oakley lens from a polycarbonate sheet, I will eat my hat.

I'm not saying that Oakleys make bad lenses. I'm saying that it is quite possible to produce lenses of perfectly acceptable quality for a tiny fraction of the cost that Oakley charge, and that the basic materials (which impart the safety quality) are a cheap commodity not the result of some multi-billion dollar Oakley research project.

My main objection is to the safety FUD spread by Oakley-istas about cheap glasses. You absolutely do not need to spend €100+ to protect your eyes whilst cycling.

DirkVoodoo

Once again you are making it sound far more simple than it probably is. I don't think they buy PC sheet, cut out some lens shapes and snap them into the frames. What about the lens treatment and coatings? Expensive polishing maybe? I'm pretty sure they are a sandwich construction, i.e. you have several thin lenses wafered together. This would not only require a high level of dimensional accuracy but I would imagine a complex bonding process too. Again, I'm guessing, but your logic is like saying the cost of a bike is limited to the material it is made from and says nothing about the research and design that goes into it, the tooling costs, labour costs and whatever else. Yeah, there is a massive mark up, but if lots of proper cyclists (I said pro, that doesn't mean pro tour) swear by Oakleys and other reputable brands then that is good enough for me. If you are happy buying cheaper sunglasses that may or may not meet the ANSI Z87.1 standard that's fine, I'm not going to argue.

If it were as easy as you say then surely everyone would be making lenses of comparable quality.

EDIT (Again): There is a handy bit on howstuffworks about sunglasses, again nothing about how they make Oakleys unfortunately

Lumen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

If you are happy buying cheaper sunglasses that may or may not meet the ANSI Z87.1 standard that's fine, I'm not going to argue.

If it were as easy as you say then surely everyone would be making lenses of comparable quality.

They are.

First hit on Google for "ANSI Z87.1 safety glasses".

From $12 a pair.

A couple of links down is this.

Quality eye protection need not be expensive. You can find comfortable, ANSI Z87.1-certified shooting glasses for under $10.00.

Perhaps you think that cyclists have a greater need to see what they're doing than people with guns.

DirkVoodoo

Lumen wrote: »

Perhaps you think that cyclists have a greater need to see what they're doing than people with guns.

Yeah that's pretty good, the recommended glasses on "gunnersalley" are the ESS and only 50 dollars. I can't argue with that, it's cheaper than the Oakleys and they don't look awful.

As for the parting comment, yes, I think seeing that patch of oil on a descent at over 80 km/hr can be just as dangerous as going boar hunting.

DirkVoodoo

Ha! I just googled ESS and they are listed under "Oakley's portfolio". You can even get a set of ESS Crossbows that look suspiciously like Radars for 105 dollars.

Lumen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Ha! I just googled ESS and they are listed under "Oakley's portfolio". You can even get a set of ESS Crossbows that look suspiciously like Radars for 105 dollars.

Indeed, this proves your point that the $160 Radars are excellent value. :pac:

CarlosK

Christ lads... we're getting deep into it here arent we? You lost me 6 posts ago!!!

The OP only stated that he wouldnt mind a pair of Oakley's but finds them expensive, so asked for any advice on cheaper alternatives...

I say treat yourself and go with the Oakleys this time cos they're cool... you cant argue with that... science schmeince is what i say!

souter

Michelin wrote: »

forget about all these expensive glasses..5 euro lidl/aldi sports glasses are the biz! spare lens, lovely fit. buy a 2 or 3 pairs. lose them and have no worries! im not joking here, iv had oakleys in the past and they are lovely many other brands ive tried have not fit as nice until i tried the aldi ones!

Totally agree with this - gave up buying any glasses > 10e for skiing long ago, no regrets. Oakley has trademarked unobtanium for their nose grip which shows how much they are taking the piss.

xz

Its like the difference with my Skoda Octavia and my Fathers VW Jetta. They have the exact same allbeit rebadged engine and same build quality, though the Octavia came with higher spec as standard and 2 and half grand cheaper. All in all companies are exploiting their brand image and reputation and l have no doubt Oakley are doing the same. If people will pay these prices then its win win for the Company. Nike are another example.

jaqian

Michelin wrote: »

forget about all these expensive glasses..5 euro lidl/aldi sports glasses are the biz! spare lens, lovely fit. buy a 2 or 3 pairs. lose them and have no worries! im not joking here, iv had oakleys in the past and they are lovely many other brands ive tried have not fit as nice until i tried the aldi ones!

I have these and find them a great fit. I do not know if they are shatter proof or not but nearly everything has to pass some standard these days.

ALDI Sunglasses FTW

Bluefoam

I think I've lost my raybans...

... that is all

Lumen

jaqian wrote: »

I have these and find them a great fit. I do not know if they are shatter proof or not but nearly everything has to pass some standard these days.

ALDI Sunglasses FTW

If they only cost €5, I'm sure you can spare a pair for testing to destruction.

jwshooter

most of you guys ride bikes that are WAY above what your require ,why should glasses be any different .at least the oakely gives better protection , i would much rather be hit with a stone chip on my oakleys that aldis 5 euro pair.

jaqian

Lumen wrote: »

If they only cost €5, I'm sure you can spare a pair for testing to destruction.

In the interest of science I would gladly test them to destruction. But I only bought one set and I really like them so eh no

kerryscoob

Ok, can anyone recomend where and what sunglasses with prescription lens.

Please now lads don't loose me with polycarbonate discussions etc.:D

Prices! willingly to spend more than the cost of Aldi/Lidl :cool:.

BTW anyone tried the transition lens.

crashoveroid

kerryscoob wrote: »

Ok, can anyone recomend where and what sunglasses with prescription lens.

Please now lads don't loose me with polycarbonate discussions etc.:D

Prices! willingly to spend more than the cost of Aldi/Lidl :cool:.

BTW anyone tried the transition lens.

Hi

Try here they do prescription oakley sunglasses
http://www.steptoes.co.uk/prescription-sunglasses/oakley-mens-rx-search_Mens-Prescription-Sunglasses_dGFibGU9cHJlc2NyaXB0aW9uJmZpZWxkPVR5cGUmdmFsdWU9c3VuZ2xhc3Nlcw.ghtml

Hope this helps

fenris

Be careful with the prescription lens inserts as you can end up with the outside edges of the inserts being pushed by the outer lens causing distortion, headaches or just annoyingly touching your eyelashes!

Just push back firmly on the outside edges of your glasses to see what I mean!

Jawgap

Oakleys are clearly a waste of money as there are glasses out there that perform as well, if not better, for a fraction of the price. I've a M:DARCS set - they do the job......


BUT......


Would Eric Bana in Blackhawk Down or Cyclops from X-Men wear M:DARCS????



.....I think not

Which is another way of saying I'd love a pair of Juliets!!!:)

doozerie

It's not just the lenses that you have to worry about with cycling glasses. The arms can be a problem too. Metals arms used to be seen as dangerous because they could take your ear off in a crash - I suspect it didn't really happen much, maybe no more than once, but it's one of those grisly image that tends to stick in the mind. Plastic arms should be safer and seem to be standard now anyway. Having said that, I landed on my previous pair of Oakleys once, while wearing them, back in my days of mountain biking without a helmet (not to be recommended). The Oakley's built-in self-preservation mechanism kicked in and one arm detached itself from the frame. The glasses survived with barely a scratch, just had to click the arm back on, but the hinge point on the detached arm gouged my face as I slid. If safety is your main consideration, there is probably an argument for buying a pair of sunglasses with a solid frame and no detachable arms.

My current Oakley M-Frames have been going strong for over 10 years now, though one lens died a death in that time due to excessive scratches, mainly 'cos I was careless with storing them in my rucksack. The lenses mist up though in humid weather when you are sweating and stopped at traffic lights and the like. I've tried the vented lenses but they were just as bad. My face and eyebrow shape certainly play a part here but it's not necessarily something that you could predict just from trying on the glasses in a shop before buying them. The only reason that I have stuck with them is that they are so comfortable to wear and are so effective at keeping wind out of my eyes but I don't think you have to pay Oakley prices for those benefits these days. I guess there is some comfort in knowing that the lenses are quite robust and are quite resistant to being pierced, but if I were that concerned about something penetrating my eye while on the bike I think I'd wear a full-face helmet to protect my other fleshy face bits. And that protection counts for nothing of course when you have to remove the glasses on days where the misting of the lens is bad enough to make them pretty much opaque (very rare though, thankfully).