Expensive Shades

izza

3Pears raised a valid query for VFM sunglasses in thread at http://www.bikeradar.com/road/forums/vi ... t=12728926. Many of the guys there are recommending Oakleys.

I didn't want to hijack his thread however given my Rudy Project Sportsmasks are held together with copious amounts of superglue, he has got me thinking about the whole issue.

I like the fact that when using the Sportsmask shades, there is no frame protruding into my line of sight. Plus I have a large bridge on my nose which often raises wrap-around lenses up high on my face allowing excess light/wind in from below. I am therefore tempted to stick with the Rudy Projects but am also consideringy the Oakley Radars.

IF I am willing to spend serious money (i.e £100+) on shades Could owners please advise on some specific points:

- If the Radar's sit high is that compensated by having Radar Range lens rather than Path or Pitch or is the difference minimal?
- Is it worth getting XL's for Sportive (i.e. non TT) riding?
- If someone has owned both, is the lens noticeably better than Sportsmask's?
- How sturdy do people find them? - Sportsmask's fitment of lenses in side arms is frankly pitiful and lasted a matter of weeks.
- When and where do people find the best deals?

nferrar

I have Radars and use Range and Path lens, usually Range off-road for a bit more coverage and Path on-road, not tried a Pitch lens as don't think the shape would offer anything different to the others (for my needs).

Not tried the RP Sportmask but I do have RP Rydon ImpactX Photochromics as well (I wanted a transitions lens but Oakley don't sell them separately for Radars), they're almost as good as the Radars but would prefer a slightly deeper lens and the arm fit isn't as good (although I don't notice them when out on the bike).

Be careful about looking for amazing deals on Oakleys, there's a lot of fakes on eBay. I got mine from the Oakley web-site as I wanted a custom colour scheme however this place is worth checking out for a bargain http://www.eyewearoutlet.co.uk/oakley-c ... econds-c14 limited choice as they're factory seconds but from what people have bought from there have said they can't see any obvious reason why they're seconds. Thread here about them http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/t ... ry-seconds

proto

£100+ on a pair of sunglasses? If ever proof was needed that (gullible) people have too much money, then this is it.

Take a look at the recent C+ magazine sunglasses review, plenty of excellent 'eye protection' at a fraction of the price of Oakleys and others.

sundog

proto wrote:

£100+ on a pair of sunglasses? If ever proof was needed that (gullible) people have too much money, then this is it.

Take a look at the recent C+ magazine sunglasses review, plenty of excellent 'eye protection' at a fraction of the price of Oakleys and others.

Link??

celbianchi

I love my shades - I have about 14 pairs (mainly Rudy).
I bought some Salice 006 last week (this pair)

http://www.sunglassesforsport.com/store ... tegoryId=3

Next day delivery, fantastic service.

nferrar

Whilst I'd agree Oakleys are a bit of a rip-off and they aren't 5x better than a basic cycling glasses they are definitely better IME (I also have a couple of sets of cheaper glasses like DHB ones) and they fog much easier and the lens aren't as good quality + there's much less variety of after market lens available. Whether it's worth paying another £100 to get something that's maybe only 10% better is down to personal choice and whether you can justify it, personally I can but I'd disagree I'm gullible (I started off with cheaper glasses and moved up until I was satisfied).

bendertherobot

proto wrote:

£100+ on a pair of sunglasses? If ever proof was needed that (gullible) people have too much money, then this is it.

Take a look at the recent C+ magazine sunglasses review, plenty of excellent 'eye protection' at a fraction of the price of Oakleys and others.

did they run a warranty claim test?

soveda

Go oldschool and get M-frames. With a heater lense they are the perfect riding glasses (for people with my face shape) and are a bit cheaper than Radars.
No good for casual wear though!

ETA:

http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=Oakl ... hl=en&aq=f

Bar Shaker

I have had plenty of sports glasses and goggles over the years and now only buy Oakley. Others can come close on performance but Oakley's customer care and warranty is the best on any product/brand I have ever owned.

For that reason alone, they get all of my eye wear business.

keef66

I spent £7 on a pair of Bolle Contours via Ebay. They are safety specs so should be strong enough to protect my eyes from flying stones, bumblebees. bats etc, filter 100% of UV light, and have just the right amount of tint for use in daylight and at night. I think they look pretty cool as cycling glasses as well.

So for those of us on more modest budgets, there is an alternative to the apparently mandatory Oakleys.

Bar Shaker

I get Bolles and Uvex free at work so have clear and amber lens ones. I occasionally wear these when on my mtb but they steam up where my Oakleys won't.

They are excellent value and are throw away at that price if they get damaged. That said, they do get damaged easily but I would rate them highly for protecting your eye from an impact, eg a tree branch in the face. Being work glasses, so intended for near or very near vision, they aren't made to the optical standard of Oakleys but are certainly fine when in forests on a mtb.

The Bolles with the angle adjustable arms are the best.

keef66

Mine only seem to steam up when I stop; there's clearly sufficient airflow to keep them clear when I'm moving. Obviousy the shape of the specs vs shape of your face will affect this one way or the other.

Perhaps I was lucky.

izza

soveda wrote:

Go oldschool and get M-frames. With a heater lense they are the perfect riding glasses (for people with my face shape) and are a bit cheaper than Radars.
No good for casual wear though!

ETA:

http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=Oakl ... hl=en&aq=f

I thought the M frames were for those people with prescription lenses behind.

Brommers76

I have used cheap glasses <£20 but I went through three pairs in 1 year, either lenses scratch easily, fogging, snapped frames, poor lenses that effectively blind you when going from sunlight to shade or a combination of all of these. So I thought I would spend more £100 ish and found that the Oakley Half Jacket XLJ fitted my face, I liked the look of them so I took the plunge.

They ARE worth the money as they are two years old, look like new, lenses still perfect, after 7 hours using them to drive in when in France I didn't know I had them on - same on the bike. So my annual spend on glasses is currently running at £50 per year and if other posters are to be believed I should get 10 years out of them. I make that £10 per year spend.
I have SAVED money. The same may be true of other 'expensive' glasses but I have no experience so I can't say.

Find ones that fit you and you can't go wrong.

Brommers76

Plus, if you wear prescription glasses you will understand that £100 odd is not a massive amount of money to spend on glasses.

schweiz

Brommers76 wrote:

Plus, if you wear prescription glasses you will understand that £100 odd is not a massive amount of money to spend on glasses.

+1

I have Jawbones with prescription lenses in. I had tried other glasses with inserts but found that I got some crazy reflections especially at dusk/night from oncoming headlights.

kitsunegari

I've got lots of glasses and all prescription, but then I'm lucky to get whichever ones I want for free. Currently loving Maui Jim Sport, they're so lightweight you can't feel that you're wearing them, and they offer full coverage without any where for the wind to get it.

Same for my Transitions, which I'll be switching too when it starts to get a bit darker. I've never bought Oakleys because I've never liked the lenses, a bit too green for my liking (though nowhere near as bad as specsavers!).

proto wrote:

£100+ on a pair of sunglasses? If ever proof was needed that (gullible) people have too much money, then this is it.

Take a look at the recent C+ magazine sunglasses review, plenty of excellent 'eye protection' at a fraction of the price of Oakleys and others.

£100 is nothing, especially when you're looking at prescription.

And did C+ magazine's review take into consideration glazings, polarisation, coatings, or lens quality? I doubt it. How scientific, exactly, was their review?

nickwill

With regard to cheap sunglasses. I have a pair of Rudy Project Ekynox glasses which I suppose fall into the mid priced sector. When riding in the Cevennes this Summer on a bright morning, my friends and i descended a long hill where some sections were bright and others were in shade. I got to the foot of the hill a good couple of minutes ahead of the others. I was raving about the descent when we met up at the bottom. In contrast, they were bemoaning the fact that they had poor visibility in the dark areas. If anything I had darker lenses than them. The difference came down to the fact that they were wearing cheap £20 sunglasses that just didn't have the optical clarity of the more expensive Rudy's.
To me, it was a graphic illustration of the fact that you get what you pay for!

izza

One more question - I am closing on on a deal for some Oakleys. Do people have recommendations for the lens colours for contrast/perception when riding in this country's barmy summers (I have some other transitions for inclement days)?

gethmetal

izza wrote:

One more question - I am closing on on a deal for some Oakleys. Do people have recommendations for the lens colours for contrast/perception when riding in this country's barmy summers (I have some other transitions for inclement days)?

I use 9% transmission Black Iridium in Radars for most of my riding. Contrast is always good, and it needs to be proper dark before they become a hindrance.

For casual use I have Half Jackets in Titanium Iridium (12% transmission, I think) and this is a much less versatile shade in my opinion, as were the Gold Iridium I have used in the past.

I ride mainly in woodland/coastal paths.

Hope this helps - but I doubt it. Eyesight is such a personal thing

kitsunegari

gethmetal wrote:

Hope this helps - but I doubt it. Eyesight is such a personal thing

Afraid this is pretty much the only relevant point in the thread. Get your advice from your optician, who can tell you which lenses are best for your eyes.