Oakley Radarlock with Iridium Photochromic

nibby

Anyone used or has experience with Oakley Iridium Photochromic lenses?

I'm thinking of a pair of Radarlocks and from what I can see the lenses will go clear when dark and dark when sunny etc.

Do they really work?

Ideally don't want to have to change lenses and would be useful to me on the Mtb for when in the trees etc.

Cheers

glasgowbhoy

All I've needed in the last year in the UK and even on a trip to Spain. Perfect lenses

nibby

mmmmnnnn......was afraid someone might say that going to cost me now

Cheers

glasgowbhoy

nibby wrote:

mmmmnnnn......was afraid someone might say that going to cost me now

Cheers

no probs, I've worn them nearly everyday for 14 months. At £140 the cost is diminishing with every ride

cougie

You can save £100 by getting the Walleva Photochromic lens - but you won't get as funky a colour on the outside of the lens. Not that you'll notice from your side of the glasses. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/New-Walleva-P ... 1017548436

Oops - sorry didnt spot you wanted the whole glasses system and not just the lens.

nibby

Glasgowbhoy wrote:

nibby wrote:

mmmmnnnn......was afraid someone might say that going to cost me now

Cheers

no probs, I've worn them nearly everyday for 14 months. At £140 the cost is diminishing with every ride

They are £146 currently on Wiggle, struggling to pay that but as you say if they get worn then it's easier to justify to yourself

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/oakley-radarlock-path-photochromic-sunglasses/#tabCustReviews

Gaz777

I'm touchy about protection for my eyes after an eye op in the past. I use radarlocks with these lenses and wouldn't consider anything else. I use them on all rides, from night winter rides round to sunny middle of the day rides in summer. The quality is excellent and the optics are fantastic with no distortion even at the limits of vision.

They're initially expensive, but worth it, and you won't need to buy anything else. As a side note, I've had things bounce up and hit the lenses, and they've always remained unmarked. Well recommended!

Anonymous

They are fantastic and I would highly recommend them.
They have a very wide range going from almost clear to very dark.
They darken very fast but take longer to lighten, so not sure how this will work if going from blazing sun into heavy tree cover on an MTB, but you will be fine coming out the other side ;-)

Would not think those (unvented) Walleva lenses will have the same wide range, reaction time, impact protection, UV protection or (and maybe most importantly) optical clarity, but I could be wrong.

AFAIK
Oakleys are tested way beyond the ball bearing test and the lenses and frames act together in an object strike (so you need both to be Oakley ideally).
Oakley lenses are made out of a UV protective material, not a coating on the lens that can scratch or wear off.
Oakley lenses are pretty much optically perfect (have a look at the Oakley videos if you do not know what that means).

They are not cheap, but offer great VFM IMO.
I think you will feel its money well spent when you have them

If they could only make a photochromic polarised lens (which went as dark), that would really be something special.

Grahamsjz

Glasgowbhoy wrote:

All I've needed in the last year in the UK and even on a trip to Spain. Perfect lenses

100% agree. Add to that they weigh nothing and fit well and you forget they are on irrespective of how bright the sun is (or isn't).

Really good purchase.

Graham

cougie

Carbonator - I believe all harmful UV rays are blocked by any polycarbonate lenses and the Walleva standards exceed the FDA rules - for impact and UV - so you'll be safe with them.

nibby

Good to see positive reviews, cheers.

Keep thinking I should hold out to see if they will be reduced further but doubt it so going to get a pair ordered later.

Anonymous

cougie wrote:

Carbonator - I believe all harmful UV rays are blocked by any polycarbonate lenses and the Walleva standards exceed the FDA rules - for impact and UV - so you'll be safe with them.

Safe or as safe?
I don't want to slag them off but just pointing out areas where the saving may be unwise.

You came in off topic (the op was not asking for alternatives) so I feel possible (I did say I might be wrong on all the points being relevant) differences in the lenses should be pointed out.

UV protection was something I felt the Walleva ones would probably be fine on.
Impact protection is probably not going to be as good IMO.

Two things you did not challenge were range from light to dark/time taken to change, and optical correctness.
The first would be a big thing in a photochromic lens IMO, and optical correctness is a massive consideration in any glasses surely?

They also look very different. Apart from lens colour and possibly not going as light/dark, they are unvented and are 'Pitch' shape, not 'Path'.

They might be great and people can make their own minds up once they know the possible differences.

Interestingly it says they are polarised photochromic lenses. Pretty sure the Oakleys are not polarised so either they are better in that respect, or its just not true.
Oakley polarised lenses are not very dark (thats why you get a standard black iridium lens with them) so guessing a polarised photochromic lens would not have as big a range if it could be made.

mrushton

My wife uses the grey transitions in prescription format which go 16-96% The Black Iridium go 10 - 96% I think. I have a pair which I use regularly altho' I had a mid-brown pair on the other as the light was a bit 'dull'. The 10-96 are good as an all round pair and any more lenses are just fine tuning (or too much money!). She used rxsport for hers - really good advice/service

cougie

Hi Carbonator

I'm as big a fanboy of Oakley as anyone - I've been wearing them almost exclusively since the Pilots. They're excellent glasses and just never wear out. Unless you swap the lenses over - I've known a few people to have needed replacements as the tabs break. So they're great - but not infallible.

I tried the Walleva Polarised lens over the summer when I was doing riding in the South of France by the Med - and the lenses seemed as good as the Oakleys.

From the Walleva site :

Light Transmission 12%-40%
Activation Time 25 Seconds
50% Return Time 85 Seconds

The Oakley Transition review I saw gave theirs as :
Claimed transmission range is 10-66 percent (black iridium) - so they will be lighter.

I can't see any more data on the Oakley ones - but I can't imagine they'd be much faster than the Wallevas.

I've ordered a pair anyway so I'll see for myself. Mate has a pair of the oakleys so I can compare the two.

Anonymous

Completely agree that trying things is the best thing to do.

I read 12-40% v 10-66% as being that the Oakleys are only slightly lighter, but way darker. A lot darker.
Even if it were the other way around its still a massive difference in the main point of the glasses isn't it?

You are still avoiding the question of optical clarity too

cougie

Well to be honest - I didnt notice any difference in optical quality - maybe its there - I cant tell.

I did notice that using Bolle - the lens did distort at the edge of it. I don't think this happens on the walleva - and when you're actually wearing them - its impossible to see properly out of the edge - so I think the optical clarity thing might be a bit of marketing flim-flam...

Check out the Walleva clips on youtube - it shows you their manufacturing process - all seems quite hi tech to me.

I think the transition lenses are about £110 ! Its worth a punt on £40 even if they aren't quite as light - if its dark I'll not be wearing photochromic.

lostboysaint

I use them and they are brilliant. ("Ordinary Radar as opposed to Radarlock") Great on dawn or dusk road rides, excellent for mountain bike rides in and out of wooded areas etc. Optics are the usual excellent Oakley and, as someone up the thread said, a really good "one lens fits all" solution for most riding. (although I still have clear and other tints!)

Anonymous

cougie wrote:

Well to be honest - I didnt notice any difference in optical quality - maybe its there - I cant tell.

I did notice that using Bolle - the lens did distort at the edge of it. I don't think this happens on the walleva - and when you're actually wearing them - its impossible to see properly out of the edge - so I think the optical clarity thing might be a bit of marketing flim-flam...

Check out the Walleva clips on youtube - it shows you their manufacturing process - all seems quite hi tech to me.

I think the transition lenses are about £110 ! Its worth a punt on £40 even if they aren't quite as light - if its dark I'll not be wearing photochromic.

I do not think the optical clarity thing is BS.
Its not something you can see (if it is true) because your brain compensates for the differences, and I think its much better that your brain does not have to do that.

So do you think that the Walleva's go nearly as dark but not as light?
I think its the other way around. I don't think they go very dark.
The 12-40 and 10-66 figure is the % of light they block (rather than let through) isn't it?
I do not think any cycling glasses would block 90% of light. Only mig welders goggles would block that kind of percentage.

If I have that right and the figures you quoted are correct, that makes the Oakleys 65% darker, or the Walleva's 40% less dark, depending on how you prefer to look at it.
I am not sure they would be dark enough for most people to use as a single solution a lot of the time, even in the UK.

Although the Oakley photochromic's are very nearly a one pair for all rides glasses, the 'lock' part of Radarlock is fantastic too if you do ever want to pop a set of polarised lenses in for those days when the vision is more important than changing light conditions or high percentage shading.

flasher

The Walleva's don't go anywhere near as dark, as my normal photochromic Radarlocks, I bought some to try in my Racing Jackets, they seem very good quality otherwise, would possibly buy some normal sunglass lenses from them, if I needed anymore!

Slo Mo Jones

Carbonator wrote:

I do not think the optical clarity thing is BS.
Its not something you can see

brilliant

Anonymous

Slo Mo Jones wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

I do not think the optical clarity thing is BS.
Its not something you can see

brilliant

How would you see optical incorrectness in non Oakley lenses (unless they were really really bad) if your brain compensates for any errors in the lens?

You might feel it when you get a headache after wearing them all day though ;-)

Your eyes, your brain, your money, your choice.

cougie

In my company there are places where you need to wear safety glasses, so you could be in them for a minimum of 8 hours. These glasses cost a couple of quid - and I've not heard of anyone having problems. I'd think thats a lot longer than most bike rides and day on day. Week on week. Year on year.

Maybe Oakley Optical clarity is the best - but maybe human eyes can't tell ?

Anonymous

Maybe its not a big deal, maybe it is.
I would have the Oakley's anyway so its a nice bonus at the very least.

nibby

Now ordered, got them for £140 from Evans, should be here next week.

Showed a picture to the wife asking what she thought, said I was a poser!! MMMNNNNN.....

Thanks again for help..