noodle soup

Okay. Believe whatever you want.

radroad

Hello my friends. I used to work at NASA. They make thingamajiggies that go to Mars. And Uranus.
I'm here to tell you that the moon is made of bleu cheese. No, really! How do I know? Because...reasons!

OK, have a nice day.

noodle soup

noodle soup

Think about it for a moment. Do you really believe that Oakley has two different metthods of manufacturing lenses, and one method is used for only a handful of styles?

It's simply not cost effective.

noodle soup

...

Sy Reene

Makes sense.. and supposedly their glasses are all made with Plutonite. But then why are some models 3x the cost of other models -- all in the frame?

noodle soup

yes.

Sheild lenses cost more to manufacture, but frames are the primary difference in price.

colnago62

colnago62

radroad

I am a former NASA employee.

And you are wrong. All oakleys are actually made from unobtainium. The only way they were able to obtain unobtainium was by cultivating a mutually beneficial trade agreement with the Na'vi on Pandora. Rumor is we traded tobacco, alcohol but now they want first access to Air Jordans in exchange for for exclusive mining rights. This deal was secretly forged in the 15th century when the 'sky people' traveled to planet earth to forge a secret deal with Christopher Columbus shortly after he landed in the New World.

Instead of taking 20 years by conventional space travel, the trade in Air Jordans for unobtainium takes mere seconds as the commerce travels through special wormhole portals engineered by the 'sky people' in conjunction with the most accomplished American scientist of all time, Pauly Shore.

This is all true because I said so.

teutoned

cyclintom

Oakley's are state of the art. There isn't a hell of a lot to sunglasses so you can get away with some Nashbar specials. But if you want something that will filter out the worst of the Sun's rays for your eyes, protect your eyesight almost as good as a bullet proof vest and fit your head in such a manner that they don't fog up or have the sweat from your helmet dripping across your sight-line you buy Oakley's. That said I haven't been able to afford a pair in a long time.

cyclintom

You can say that until a passing truck kicks up a stone that goes right through a cheap set of sunglasses. Suddenly Oakley's don't seem all that expensive.

radroad

This is absolutely, completely 100% wrong.

cyclintom

With explanations like yours who could possibly argue with you?


Some moron tested Oakley's by shooting them with a .22 long rifle bullet which has about 100 times the energy of a rock as Oakley tests with and proclaimed Oakley a fake as you appear to be doing. I suppose the question is: why are you doing so?

As I said, most sunglasses work in most conditions but I have dozens of times had rocks hit me in the sunglasses. I cannot afford Oakley's but they ARE constructed of better materials and are tested to withstand harder strikes.

I have to throw away sunglasses regularly that have scratches on them from either bug strikes or cleaning. Oakley's are designed not to scratch easily.

So tell us what you think is wrong about this and why you would say something patently wrong?

Ogsarg

No comment on the value of expensive sunglasses but happened to see Woot has some deals on them for anyone interested

https://www.woot.com/plus/oakley-sun...t_gw_dly_wobtn

tagaproject6

ksryder

BF: The place where Angry Dads yell at each that *isn't* a fox news comment section.

beermode

I just don't want to give any more of my money to Luxottica.

radroad

Read your own post again. Read what I bolded in YOUR post. You state that

a) you want something that will filter out the worst of the Sun's rays for your eyes

Guess what. ALL polycarbs filter 100% of UVA and UVB. Including the $10 cheapos I bought at Walgreens and Costco and Amazon.

b) protect your eyesight almost as good as a bullet proof vest

This claim is completely ludicrous. 102 mph is a tiny fraction of the speed that a bullet travels at, which is 1,800 mph, or twice the speed of sound. Your claim that oakleys actually offer the same protection as a bulletproof vest is totally delusional. I am more than happy to prove it to you. I'll give you a pair of oakleys. I'll fire a gun into the lens while you wear them. Feel free to record the results.

c) fit your head in such a manner that they don't fog up or have the sweat from your helmet dripping across your sight-line you buy Oakley's

I bought many pair of sunglasses from a reputable brand. I don't like to shill for products so I won't bother to list the brand. Most of the pair have vented lenses. They don't fog up. If you think cutting a small vent in a lens is somehow advanced tech you are out of touch with reality.

Some of the pair also have sweat absorption at the top of the lens so no problems with sweat dripping across my "sight line."

These are not magical sunglasses. They are made of plastic. They get the job done but so does every reputable brand now.

Like others, you offer only hype and delusion and no facts.

radroad

Notice that very few are vented, even some of the sports style glasses aren't vented.

Notice that all of the pair are very ugly and garish.

Notice that they are all still extremely expensive for what you get, which is a plastic frame and plastic lenses.

cyclintom

Firstly, I don't know where you're getting your information but polycarbonates have ALL SORTS of band passes depending upon make-up and thickness. Saying "polycarbonate" is like saying "plastic". There are ALL sorts of plastics.

Secondly, obviously anyone of sound mind would know that they wouldn't be bulletproof. That is what is known as an "exaggeration for effect". But since all you want to do is argue that is something you can focus on. By the way - That speed that you quoted is for military grade rifles and not for handguns which run about half of that. There are also subsonic military sniper rounds designed so that you cannot tell where they were shot from. Where did you get your education in weapons?

Thirdly, your eyes do a good job of filtering out UVA and UVB the way it is. Oakley actually engineered the bandpass of visible light so that the intensity of light is evened out over the times of the day. Not to mention that a large part of their sales is ski goggles and shadows on snow are very difficult to resolve simply by wearing tints.

As I've shown, your only purpose is to argue since I started my answer in this string by saying that for most people any sunglasses will work as well as they need. Why don't you tell your boyfriend that your sunglasses work for you so they will fit his head properly and work as well for him. The FIT of the sunglasses determines if they have the proper tilt and side clearance and if they will fog up under conditions such as heavy sweat on a hard climb or from actual outside fog wetting the inside surfaces. In the last week I've had them all. But then I ride bicycles. What do you do?

cyclintom

Most cheap sunglasses have very small lenses. They also use the cheapest sort of tint available and if you are riding into the morning sun as I often do you cannot use them without a hat to shade the lenses. I HATE wearing a hat under my helmet. I have ridden 2 miles in the morning shading my sunglasses with a hand. Let's hope I miss all the potholes.

Polaroid glass are very good for this. They tend remove reflections. Whoever it was that was talking about that was incorrect. You can see anything through them. You just cannot see light of anything other than a single polarization of waves. He was sort of right that this could block reflections that might allow you to notice broken glass earlier in some conditions, overall I can't tell any difference.

I have tried most of the major brands of eyewear at one time or another. I still use a pair of Bolle that I got when the previous pair broke. The second pair was NOTHING like the first. The lenses were far smaller, it doesn't really block the sunlight properly and they are exactly at the proper angle to have the sweat from my brow drip mud on them from hard climbs. And they had the same model name.

lyrictenor1

I've tried cheap sunglasses, but the lens distortion on all the pairs I had was enough to give me a slight headache while wearing them. Oakleys tended to mitigate most of the distortion issues, even with the wrap-around lenses, so I ponied up the money for them. Trust me, I wanted to like the cheaper glasses, but I just was very uncomfortable with them.

logical

Just to throw a little more fuel to the fire on this debate..

You both may be right in this case. I went down to the Oakley store to pick up a pair of Radar EV Paths because I was getting tired of my Nike polarized sunglasses. Anyway I went with the cheapest version of the frame(because I wasnt going to use the lens that came with it. I got these frames (EV Path Standard Issue) and picked up these lenses(Fire Iridium Polarized) cause I want a polarized set. Neither the frames nor the replacement lenses say anything about being ANSI Z certified on Oakleys website. However, in the box of the Fire Iridium lenses this little note fell out:



I can safely say that this pair of replacement polarized lenses from Oakley do in fact meet the the standard. Whether or not its actually certified may be a different thing. I would assume that the standard lenses that comes with the frame that I bought and the EV Radar frame itself does not meet the ANSI Z 87.1 standard. I'll take the lense meeting the standard though to protect my eyes. If Oakley sees fit to put a note in the box of the replacement lenses that says they meet the standard I'm inclined to believe they meet the standard.

BTW, great pair of sunglasses and way better than the Nike polarized set I had mostly because they are cycling specific. But the clarity of lenses are VERY nice.