Which glasses please?!

cjcp

Don't know about the models you mentioned, but, in case it helps, the Rudy Project Rydon Impact X received 9/10 in C+ this month. £140 mind.

I've got some cheapy Uvex glasses. The orange tint is great for those rides as dusk approaches.

keyser_soze

I love my livestrong half jacket oakleys - I carry around a few lenses of different shades and darkness from clear tothe other extreme. You can also change lens shape with these so 1 frame does it all and they are easy to change from lens to lens - bit pricy but excellent and some of the money goes to the LAF.

m0scs

I started with some spec transition lenses but they got scratched and I couldnt get them replaced. Not good.

I then got a cheap pair of glasses which came with 3interchangable lenses, about £30 I think and there are pretty good for the money. I don't worry if they get damaged and take a couple of lens types with me if the weather is changable. The only problem is they ain't cool and scratched quite easily. So not that good in the end.

So last year I bought a pair of Oakley Flackjackets
with mirrored iridium lenses. I since got 2 others lens types for all occasions. Clear and red tints.

These are the dogs, too good just for cycling and I wear them loads. The polarised lenses are fab and they don't seem to steam up like some others.
..


I Oakley Radar use the same type of lenses and are very popular as well.
.

symo

I use the £24 dhb triple lens glasses with the blue lenses. They are cheap, replaceable and they work. Losing faith in expensive sunglasses as they are magically attracted to being as far away from me as is possible.

Christophe3967

I have some Spesh San Remo adaptalite glasses and they really do work very well. When the lens got too scratched I was able to replace them for about £40. Sadly I have to get some prescription glasses before the onset of winter so I'm going to be researching as well - probably either G66's RPs or Oakley radars if they come with similar lens.

DonDaddyD

I have the DHB triple lens glasses.

They are shockingly bad and are a true testament to "you get what you pay for" as oppose to "value for money".

I remember wiggle talking up the blue tint lens. It doesn't enhance light in the dark and in the light it just makes everything look darker. All they do is cover everything with an odd shade of blue. As for the guality of the lens itself,my word do they steam up. You may as well carry the lens around in your mouth for all the good its worth.

They do come with a clear lens and they're decent enough...

However, I have these: http://www.cycle-clothing.co.uk/Product ... enses.aspx

Brilliant glasses, the yellow tint lens is fanstic. As the day shifts into night the yellow lens brightens things marginally. In sunlight it stops the glare of the sun without making everything else too dark. And the lens simply will not fog up. They are unfazed by wind sending it around your eyes and the rubber arms and nose pads stick well without getting icky due to sweat.

For £20, complete and utter value for money. (But then most if not all my bike gear is from this site).

jedster

Topical question this one.

I have been using cheapo glasses with clear lenses (DHB, M-vision(?)) and to be honest they are fine under most conditions that I ride in (morning and evening). But in the summer months I often need something with tinted lenses. I tried using frames with interchangeable lenses but found changing the lenses really irritating (when I leave home/office for my commute I want to get going with minimum faff). I ended up carrying a second pair of glasses (a pair of oakleys that I use for skiing/sailing etc). THat is annoying too. Particularly when you lose the fairly expensive spare oakleys...

So (getting to the point) I decided to invest in some photochromic glasses. After reading reviews I found some rudy project rydons with clear/grey light senstive lenses for £110 on the interweb. It's a chunk of cash but I used them for the first time this morning and they seem to be excellent - comfortable, light, stay put and very quick to adjust to the light conditions. Recommended.

here's a link - don't be fooled by the reference to golf in the text - rydon is the cycling model ( :roll: )

http://www.sunglasses-shop.co.uk/uk-sunglasses/Rudy-Project-Sunglasses/Rudy-Project-Rydon-Carbon-Impact-X-Photochromic-Matte-Black/10789.htm
J

UndercoverElephant

Bunch of tarts!

I personally question the wisdom of spending a lot of money when my lenses get a lot of scratches anyway. May I recommend:

http://www.screwfix.com/cats/A331065/Workwear-PPE/Protective-Clothing/Eye-Protection

Surf-Matt

These are utterly brilliant:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Bolle-Contour-ESP ... 1|294%3A50

Made by Bolle, £7.40 delivered. Me, wife and my dad have a pair as do a few friends of ours. The lenses are better than my £85 Bolle sunglasses!!

DonDaddyD

I'm inclined to agree with the whole notion of being drawn into spending large amounts of galsses when the lenses are prone to getting scratched is uncessary.

Law of diminishing returns also applies surely? How much more benefit am I going to get from £100 yellow tint anti fog glasses compared to my £20 anti fog glasses if all I do is commute?

Then there is practicality as well: sweat, debris from the road will chip away at the lens and any coating it may have eventually, simply from robust use, the glasses will need to be replaced, I'd wager that a £20 frame that looks just as nice will last as long if not longer than a £100 pair.

UndercoverElephant

Surf-Matt wrote:

These are utterly brilliant:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Bolle-Contour-ESP ... 1|294%3A50

Made by Bolle, £7.40 delivered. Me, wife and my dad have a pair as do a few friends of ours. The lenses are better than my £85 Bolle sunglasses!!

Agreed, they are excellent (£6.89 from your local Screwfix). Safety glasses these days really don't have to look ugly.

lost_in_thought

If anyone would like to buy some Rudy Project Ekynox SX cheap, I have a pair I'm about to put on Ebay - bought them from Ebay and just plain don't like 'em.

jedster

I'm inclined to agree with the whole notion of being drawn into spending large amounts of galsses when the lenses are prone to getting scratched is uncessary.

Law of diminishing returns also applies surely? How much more benefit am I going to get from £100 yellow tint anti fog glasses compared to my £20 anti fog glasses if all I do is commute?

At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious most of the stuff we buy for cycling is "unneccesary"! Certainly none of us "needs" a carbon frame!

Law of diminishing returns? You bet. That certainly applies to frames and groupsets at least as much as glasses.

I spent the money I did to get the convenience of photchromic lenses. Simple as. Yellow lenses are rubbish in bright sunlight and not much fun against xenon headlights either. SO you need multiple glasses or lenses and I find that a pain in the ass.

I totally agree that the additional "benefits" of the frames on 100 quid versus 20 quid glasses are minimal.

BTW the Rudy Project ImpactX lenses are supposed to be really tough (cue marketing guff about the material being developed for the military, bullet proof etc.) Now I bet that they scratch as much as other lenses but time will tell...

J

il_principe

I've long be a proponent of Oakley, originally for skiing and now for cycling. I treated myself to a new pair of Flak Jackets earlier this year complete with Transition lenses. They're fab, the lenses work v well, frame is light and comfy and the lenses seem very scratch proof. I've never had an issue with oakley lenses scratching and have a pair of 5's I use for skiing, 5 years old and still in perfect nick. Yeah you pay your money but if they last that long and are tough then they're well worth it.

jedster

If anyone would like to buy some Rudy Project Ekynox SX cheap, I have a pair I'm about to put on Ebay - bought them from Ebay and just plain don't like 'em.

BTW, I'd definitely go for rimless glasses for cycling. Rims that are fine for other sports just get in the way when you are in a cycling position.

J

lost_in_thought

jedster wrote:

If anyone would like to buy some Rudy Project Ekynox SX cheap, I have a pair I'm about to put on Ebay - bought them from Ebay and just plain don't like 'em.

BTW, I'd definitely go for rimless glasses for cycling. Rims that are fine for other sports just get in the way when you are in a cycling position.

J

Yeah, I currently use some I bought from H&M... The RPs are excellent glasses, but I don't like the look of them. However, agreed on the rimless. Either that or massive posh-spice-esque ones, which is the look I'm rocking ATM!

cjcp

jedster wrote:

If anyone would like to buy some Rudy Project Ekynox SX cheap, I have a pair I'm about to put on Ebay - bought them from Ebay and just plain don't like 'em.

BTW, I'd definitely go for rimless glasses for cycling. Rims that are fine for other sports just get in the way when you are in a cycling position.

J

Indeed. I avoid glasses which have rims along the bottom of the lense otherwise the sweat gathers and runs back and forth along the rim.

DonDaddyD

jedster wrote:

I'm inclined to agree with the whole notion of being drawn into spending large amounts of galsses when the lenses are prone to getting scratched is uncessary.

Law of diminishing returns also applies surely? How much more benefit am I going to get from £100 yellow tint anti fog glasses compared to my £20 anti fog glasses if all I do is commute?

At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious most of the stuff we buy for cycling is "unneccesary"! Certainly none of us "needs" a carbon frame!

I'm sorry but this isn't really a point at all.

On Saturday, I bought a water bottle. It cost £6, I sure as well needed it. I think your point is moot.

There is a clear distinction between needs and wants. Needs are something that enables you to do something that yo couldn't. I.e. "I need a pair of wheels to replace my broken ones so that I can ride my bike." This is very much a need. A want is something desired but isn't crucial to my riding a bike. Within that there are levels to needs and wants.

The OP needs a pair of glasses to protect his eyes when cycling, a very plausible need. he made not need to buy a £200 pair of glasses but he may want them. He still needs a pair of glasses to protect his eyes.

So yes most of the stuff 'we' cyclists buy is very much needed. If not, then stop buying innertubes.

Law of diminishing returns? You bet. That certainly applies to frames and groupsets at least as much as glasses.

Yes, but I'm not sure what your point is? The law of dimishing returns applys to many things. Stating that, doesn't make the point anymore valid. Seriously, what is your point?

I spent the money I did to get the convenience of photchromic lenses. Simple as. Yellow lenses are rubbish in bright sunlight and not much fun against xenon headlights either. SO you need multiple glasses or lenses and I find that a pain in the ass.

I disagree, I use yellow lenses all year road and have found them to be no trouble at all, keep in mind there are different shades of yellow. To be honest I don't think any lens is fun against xenon headlights aimed directly at the pupil.

BTW the Rudy Project ImpactX lenses are supposed to be really tough (cue marketing guff about the material being developed for the military, bullet proof etc.) Now I bet that they scratch as much as other lenses but time will tell...

J

In my experience having spent £400 on perscription glasses with the best lenses in the shop, they scratch and wear away just as easily as any with the same anti scratch coating, after all the coating will bio-degrade and sweat can speed this process up - you sweat a lot in cycling so this becomes more poignant.

Finbar Saunders

I've always been a Rudy fan, especially since my previous club got us a significant discount from them. I typically use their racing red lenses for mixed conditions. But cheap glasses often work just as well. As a student almost 20 years ago I got a free pair of UVEX specs from a rep selling safety glasses to the lab I was working with and I still have them somewhere in the bottom of a box.

But having recently taken up mountain biking I think I would like to give transition lenses a try. It gets difficult to pick a lense shade that works under heavy cover as well as out in the bright sunlight. How fast is the transition?

DonDaddyD

In an effort to get back on topic.

Rimless at the bottom of the frame is a must. I've had framed glasses that have gone green from sweat at the bottom of the rim.....

I think you need to have a rim at the top as it helps keep the wind from flowing into the eye's. Which is why the lenses also 'wrap around' - I think

Edit: Just want to make it clear I'm not trying to shoot down transition lenses. Just that personally I wouldn't get them.

I like the lens to be quite light, even in bright light and I fear that transitions go too dark in bright light.

Also, for me, they seem very expensive for commuting.

But in terms of quality, I'm told they're fantastic.

m0scs

I just need and want to look cool!

Like so many type specific products,they are overpriced but it doesn't stop any of us spending huge sums of money on our gear.

I consider cycling a hobby, something I enjoy and have an interest in and hence the desire to buy lots of nice stuff I don't actually require.

Others may cycle purely for convenience and to save money. If they have no other interest in cycling then why spend any more money than absolutely necessary.

I bet there are not too many of the latter on here.

jedster

like the lens to be quite light, even in bright light and I fear that transitions go too dark in bright light.

I was a bit worried about this. They do a range of photochromics mine start at totally clear and go grey. Others start with some kind of tint. When I tried them on I was worried about the opposite - are these actually going to go dark enough in really bright light - they seem a good balance for me - not as dark as my (ex) Oakley irridiums but dark enough.

J

Stuey01

In answer to the original question:

I have a pair of spesh adaptalite - I got the MTB ones (the tint is different) because that is what I intended to use them for. I now use them to commute everyday, road and MTB riding.
They are pretty good. And whilst I did use them all winter in the dark I don't think they are best suited for this purpose, I used them to protect my eyes from cold wind, but completely clear lenses would have been better in these circumstances.
I don't treat them very well, generally just chuck them into my helmet after a ride, no scratches yet.
They fog up a lot in cold weather when stationary, but clear instantly when you get moving.
They look a bit gimpy, so I wouldn't wear them off the bike.

All in all, I like them, I like that I can just grab them whatever the conditions and they are good to go. No faffing with lenses, no worries if it gets dark whilst I am out etc etc.

Expensive, yes, but I use them a lot and think they are ok value for money.

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

In an effort to get back on topic.



Edit: Just want to make it clear I'm not trying to shoot down transition lenses. Just that personally I wouldn't get them.

Have you ever tried them?

DonDaddyD wrote:

I like the lens to be quite light, even in bright light and I fear that transitions go too dark in bright light.

They don't. Great for dappled light of the kind you often get in country lanes in the summer, it can be blinding witching between shade and bright sunlight, transition lenses cope with this brilliantly.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Also, for me, they seem very expensive for commuting.

Why have a pair specifically for commuting? I use mine at weekends and during the week for any riding I do.

DonDaddyD wrote:

But in terms of quality, I'm told they're fantastic.

Yep, they are!

mattfaulkner

jedster wrote:

BTW, I'd definitely go for rimless glasses for cycling. Rims that are fine for other sports just get in the way when you are in a cycling position.

J

I find that during races the sweat trickles down the lenses if you don't have a rim. The rim is effective in diverting sweat around the lenses and doesn't really get in the way, unless you have beefy sunglasses that are not designed for cycling. Most of the pros seem happy with a rim on their glasses so they are probably good enough for us :roll: 8)

DonDaddyD

Il Principe wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

In an effort to get back on topic.

Edit: Just want to make it clear I'm not trying to shoot down transition lenses. Just that personally I wouldn't get them.

Have you ever tried them?

Only in perscription glasses/lens form. Didn't like them.

But technology could have moved on since then and the fact that theyre different lens material.

Surf-Matt

Just try the link I posted. The lenses are top quality, very hardwearing and durable and everyone I know who has got some (on my recommendation) can't thank me enough.

Stop all this ponsey Oakley merde - they are marketing over substance and put you in the "chav with cash" category much like Timberland or other brands. Try something different - the lenses are superb quality, give you all the protection you need and will not break - even when a stone smacks them flung from a commercial grade petrol strimmer...

jedster

find that during races the sweat trickles down the lenses if you don't have a rim. The rim is effective in diverting sweat around the lenses and doesn't really get in the way, unless you have beefy sunglasses that are not designed for cycling. Most of the pros seem happy with a rim on their glasses so they are probably good enough for us

think we have our wires crossed - by rimless I mean rimless AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LENSES. Not sure that I've seen cycling glasses that are totally rimless. Certainly the ones I mentioned as using have rims at the top. It's rims at the bottom that get in the way in a heads-down cycling position. I'm pretty sure that most pros use glasses without rims at the bottom.

J

Roastie

symo wrote:

I use the £24 dhb triple lens glasses with the blue lenses. They are cheap, replaceable and they work. Losing faith in expensive sunglasses as they are magically attracted to being as far away from me as is possible.

+1 on expensive glasses.

Also on the dhbs. I tried them, they work well, but I have issues with them in that they mist up as soon as I stop.

Aidy

I have some of the Specialized ones - awesome for riding in, especially off-road (I have both road and mtb types). Had them for a few years now, and although they do scratch, there's nothing that bothers me or obscures vision, and the colour changing characteristic is impregnated into the lens in any case, not a coating.

I do find Oakleys more comfortable, however. Nearly always ride in the Specializeds, though.

R_T_A

Surf-Matt wrote:

Just try the link I posted. The lenses are top quality, very hardwearing and durable and everyone I know who has got some (on my recommendation) can't thank me enough.

Cheers for the recommendation - I've been looking at these anyway, and was trying to figure out if they were going to be a 5 minute wonder or not.

How tinted are they?