In Praise of Better Shades

meanredspider

For the last few years I've been using Oakley shades on the bike (bought cheaply, I should add, as seconds). Recently I've wondered about the cost of these so I've tried several pairs of more budget shades from a variety of sources. Out on a long, hilly ride yesterday, the thought struck me that I was looking for opportunities to take the shades off on the long climbs. I then realised I've never had this thought with the Oakleys. I then started thinking about the other differences:
- I noticed that shoulder-checking, I kept thinking there was a car there, but it turns out it was something about the edge of the lens
- they steam up a lot more
- they simply aren't as comfortable in lots of different ways.

These are all shades in the £10-£30 range. It's made me realise how good the Oakleys are in lots of subtle ways. Not saying that the RRP is justified but that there's more to a pair of shades than I'd realised.

EKE_38BPM

Agreed.

Very expensive, but good.

iPete

+ some more.

Having to use Bolle for winter, as my Oakleys won't fit with a thick winter hat on. They work but they are compromised (in the same way the Oakleys are compromised in not fitting ). The lenses aren't as clear, they sit on the face in the wrong place for aggressive riding or riding on the drops.

rubertoe

You never go back once you use oakleys/ Like most top end products they never quite justify their RRP..but you do generally get what you pay for.

apreading

Fit depends on the shape/size of your head. Someone else could find these other shades fit them better or that the Oakleys dont fit. That has nothing to do with cost, although some cheap shades may have little effort put into making sure contact points are rounded or covered in softer materials but that is because they are 'bad' cheap shades, not simply because they are cheap.

Similarly, some of the aspects that affect fogging are coatings, which the cheaper models wont have but also frame design/lens shape. Just because they are cheap, does not mean that the manufacurer hasnt picked a good frame/lens shape.

So Oakleys will offer more accurate lens manufacture giving better clarity, better lens coatings, stonger or more flexible frames and style (although I dont like the Oakley styling personally). But shape & size has nothing to do with price.

meanredspider

apreading wrote:

But shape & size has nothing to do with price.

I understand the point you want to make but I don't think I can agree. I'll start with an analogy, though I don't think it's necessary. The reason why expensive clothes (suits, dresses, even jeans) look great is because they fit well. They fit well because the designers understand the human form, the materials and design. There maybe nothing in the materials that Tesco use to make jeans than those used by For All Mankind but it's possible to spot the difference a mile off. The same goes for shades - Oakley (and others) understand heads (ears, eyes, noses, cheeks etc) and design shades that fit and work. They understand ventilation, peripheral vision and other ergonomic aspects - I've no doubt they've thoroughly researched them and tested them and spent the money on R&D. You can't sum up the value of a product in its parts but the knowledge it has taken to produce it.

apreading

Yes, but you can luck into a good shape or copy someone elses - with very little R&D cost.

I am not saying that Oakley dont spend lots of money on useful research and put more effort into increasing their chances of success but that doesnt guarantee compatibility with an infinately variable item like the human body.

Expensive, fitted clothes may be too tight for an overweight person and so not look as good ON THEM as something from a cheaper manufacturer that does design for their body shape. I wear jeans from M&S at the moment because they perfectly fit me. Before finding them I had years of desparately trying all sorts of jeans at all sorts of different prices and none of them worked for me.

meanredspider

Of course you can luck in. I could buy 10 different pairs of £20 shades to figure out which ones fit and don't steam up and don't have odd reflections/refractions in the corners of the lenses etc Or I could pick up a pair of Oakleys for £70-90 and be confident they are just going to work - that's my point.

Actually, with the clothes thing, the less conventionally attractive your figure is, the more the expensive clothes flatter you compared to the cheap stuff - but we're getting a little OT. It's great that M&S jeans fit you though it does make me wonder what it is about them that makes them fit. I struggle a little with getting a waist that is small enough whilst the thighs are large enough - funnily enough, Rapha Sprinter jeans are spot on. Anyhow, we've headed way OT.

dav1

I have some cheaper bloc shades, which are decent and super cheap ones can be perfectly usable but I always know they are there and it is good to get them off at the end of the ride. My Oakleys on the other hand are so comfortable and the optics are so good I can easily forget I am wearing them.

EKE_38BPM

I wear them pretty much all the time when I'm working, partly for the UV protection, partly so that the trainees can't see my eyes and don't know where I'm looking.
I often forget I'm wearing my Oakleys and find myself wondering why its so dark when I go indoors.

Oakley (and other high-end manufacturers) spend a lot of time and money on R&D making tiny improvements to lots of things which individually may not make much of a difference but add up to a big change in quality. Lower end products might copy a good design but if the materials used are inferior or the design is changed to lower manufacturing costs (corners being cut) then the cheaper product might not be as good.

I used to really rate Bolle Viper smoked lens safety glasses, but they are not a patch on my Oakley FastJackets.

bigmat

I guess like most "top end" products, you end up paying extra for a combination of R&D, better quality and brand prestige. With sunglasses the main benefit is probably in the lenses - the frame design can be more or less copied. Can't sat I'm fussed about the brand prestige either.

The main reason I don't ride in Oakleys (I have a regular pair of Oakley sunnies though) is my propensity to sit on, drop, break, lose, crash damage etc my cycling sunnies. To the extent that I consider them a disposable item pretty much. Having said that, my current Decathlon photochromics have lasted a couple of years, and over a year since I face planted in them. They have been a bit scuffed since then, recently been taking them off if its dark and wet as lights tend to refract a bit too much for good visibility. Would Oakleys have fared better? I doubt it.

walkingbootweather

I've tried posh eyewear in the past but to be honest have found some of the Bolle safety glasses to perform better and at £10 or less a pair I tend to buy 2 or 3 pairs at a time with different lenses. Screw-fix do them so I don't even need to get them posted.

apreading

meanredspider wrote:

Of course you can luck in. I could buy 10 different pairs of £20 shades to figure out which ones fit and don't steam up and don't have odd reflections/refractions in the corners of the lenses etc Or I could pick up a pair of Oakleys for £70-90 and be confident they are just going to work - that's my point.

But with reviews and user recommendations, you dont need to try 10 pairs. And if you dont have the right shape face for oakleys they wont work for you.

meanredspider wrote:

Actually, with the clothes thing, the less conventionally attractive your figure is, the more the expensive clothes flatter you compared to the cheap stuff - but we're getting a little OT. It's great that M&S jeans fit you though it does make me wonder what it is about them that makes them fit. I struggle a little with getting a waist that is small enough whilst the thighs are large enough - funnily enough, Rapha Sprinter jeans are spot on. Anyhow, we've headed way OT.

With the propensity of hipsters and low waistlines at the moment not helping, I struggle to find jeans for a variety of reasons:

Thighs too small
Legs too short (I have longish legs)
Not enough 'depth' in the top area causing constriction under the groin or waist not coming up high enough
Too large or too small bum for the correct waist size

There are a long list of different types of jeans that I have tried. I never tried Rapha but they must be one of the few I didnt...

veronese68

I'm going to try some M&S jeans.

walkingbootweather

Veronese68 wrote:

I'm going to try some S&M jeans.

ftfy

walkingbootweather

Talking of fashion, corduroy - what is that all about?

Colinthecop

I keep thinking I must update my M frames... I've had them years and they are starting to feel a bit retro. :oops:

What is the Oakley eyewear of choice for the discerning cyclist...?

pblakeney

Colinthecop wrote:

I keep thinking I must update my M frames... I've had them years and they are starting to feel a bit retro. :oops:

What is the Oakley eyewear of choice for the discerning cyclist...?

M frames.
The rest are for style aficionados. Are you a style aficionado?

daniel_b

Couldn't agree more. I always assumed they could never justify their price tag, but was bought a pair about 6 years ago and the quality of the frame and the lenses is as clear as day (or the lenses if you will)

6 years on, and a further 5 pairs (including some prescription ones for driving) I am a very happy customer.

There are bargains to be had, checkout eyewearoutlet where I bought some bottlecaps for £40, and from the br classifieds I nabbed some transition split jackets which are superb glasses.

Colinthecop

PBlakeney wrote:

M frames.
The rest are for style aficionados. Are you a style aficionado?

Looks like the M frames are staying. 8)

meanredspider

I have M-frames - they look crap on me but they work brilliantly

First.Aspect

I've gone down the £100 sunglasses route (Oakleys and Killer Loops) and come back again. There are plenty of £30-£50 shades from Bolle, Bloc, Ryders etc. that do a perfectly good job. They all get beaten up in regular use, even expensive ones. I can see through all of them (honestly I can't tell the difference - but then HDTV looks the same as normal to me too). Yes the lenses scratch a bit easier, but the expensive ones don't last three times as long.

And as a rower, I can assure you that expensive shades don't float either. :?

Don't believe the hype.

meanredspider

As I say, I came to this via the loop - I actually started out with some cheap PBK shades but they failed when the hinge rusted through. I then bought the Oakleys. It's only because the Oakleys live in NL, I thought I'd try some cheap ones. And it's taken a bit of time for me to come to the conclusion which I think I've done so in an objective manner. I don't lose or damage shades - I've had mine 4 years and they're still going strong.

First.Aspect

meanredspider wrote:

As I say, I came to this via the loop - I actually started out with some cheap PBK shades but they failed when the hinge rusted through. I then bought the Oakleys. It's only because the Oakleys live in NL, I thought I'd try some cheap ones. And it's taken a bit of time for me to come to the conclusion which I think I've done so in an objective manner. I don't lose or damage shades - I've had mine 4 years and they're still going strong.

Well there's cheap and then there's cheap.

pblakeney

meanredspider wrote:

I've had mine 4 years and they're still going strong.

I had mine for about 4 years before the hinge gave way.
Oakley do a frame replacement for £25 no questions.
My current pair are 2 years old so that is 6 years out of one purchase +£25.

meanredspider

First Aspect wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

As I say, I came to this via the loop - I actually started out with some cheap PBK shades but they failed when the hinge rusted through. I then bought the Oakleys. It's only because the Oakleys live in NL, I thought I'd try some cheap ones. And it's taken a bit of time for me to come to the conclusion which I think I've done so in an objective manner. I don't lose or damage shades - I've had mine 4 years and they're still going strong.

Well there's cheap and then there's cheap.

Of course - as I said, the ones I've tried are in the £10-£30 range. To my mind, there's little point in trying "cheap" more expensive than that as the Oakleys were only about £65

elbowloh

I tried riding in shades (various kinds), but didn't like them.

I then decided it was because I'm short sighted, I really should get some prescription shades. bought some nike ones (they were relatively cheap compared to other sports prescription shades) and didn't like them either.

I then just rode with no glasses at all and found I prefer that, never found that I got dirt in my eyes or eyes watering.

Then I broke my regulr specs and in a 2for1 offer bought news ones, one pair of Oakley specs (clear lens, not shades), plus one other normal pair. I've ridden once with the oakleys so far and they're ok to ride in. Will carry on and see how I get on.

Lefthook

Not really on topic, but the only time I could afford Oakleys was when I was a student! Student loans are good for something! Still have that pair of M frames 14 years later as my main riding glasses! Lens are now a bit ropey. Anyone know if you can buy replacements for older style frames?

pblakeney

Lefthook wrote:

Not really on topic, but the only time I could afford Oakleys was when I was a student! Student loans are good for something! Still have that pair of M frames 14 years later as my main riding glasses! Lens are now a bit ropey. Anyone know if you can buy replacements for older style frames?

I suspect that the new lines may fit in the old frames.
Do you know anyone with the new ones for a trial fit?

EKE_38BPM

I need new glasses and I'm torn between going for prescription lenses for my Oakleys, which will cost mucho dinero and getting prescription lenses for some other cycling sunglasses I've seen which will work out much cheaper. I'll also be getting some non-sporty glasses too.

The Oakleys are already expensive so getting new lenses for them will mean I'll be truly gutted if I lose them/sit on them/have them stolen etc.

apreading

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I need new glasses and I'm torn between going for prescription lenses for my Oakleys, which will cost mucho dinero and getting prescription lenses for some other cycling sunglasses I've seen which will work out much cheaper. I'll also be getting some non-sporty glasses too.

The Oakleys are already expensive so getting new lenses for them will mean I'll be truly gutted if I lose them/sit on them/have them stolen etc.

Do you need prescription glasses on the bike? If so then the Oakleys will be useless to you unless you get new lenses in them. If not then why the question?