The point was if Oakley lenses are so great why would you promote "aftermarket providers, with lenses that seem to me to be as good as the originals"
Why not just buy those in the first place. It was you that suggested it, not me.
Err, I never made any point about Oakley lenses being good. And I was talking about suppliers of lenses made specifically to fit in the designed-for-interchageable-lenses Oakley frames, not other makes of sunglasses. IME the replacement lenses have been just as high a quality as the originals were, a a fraction of the price.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
+1 for Screwfix safety specs, the only downside is that a darker tint would be good at times.
They are designed to stop foreign bodies entering the eye, so they are alsovery good at stopping wind.
Superlightweight
Zero restrictions on peripheral vision
I've used these in the past & found them very good
Those look pretty good pfret. How dark are they? I can't see any specs on the Amazon page.
I usually wear Bolle Contour, but they are rated shade/category 2.5 and aren't dark enough. The Screwfix JSP STEALTH SMOKE LENS are also 2.5. The de Walt Fire (available from Screwfix) are cat 3.1, as are the Bolle Contour Polarised models.
The Decathlon model posted higher up in the thread is category 4. Any other good cat 4 glasses recommended which are between safety specs and Oakley price range?
I've got these Julbos, they came with 2 sets of replaceable lenses: photocromatic, polarised 1-3, and also dark lenses, cat 4. The arms are removable and replaceable with an elastic band, goggles - style:
Very wind - proof, as they're primarily intended for base jumpers. Sadly, they are discontinued. No idea why, as they're absolutely awesome. I regret not having got another pair at the time.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@snowglider, Can you still buy new replacement lenses for them?
After all it is free
After all it is free
@Chaletbeauroc, not sure. I've not tried (not needed to - still got the originals). Can look into it. There might be a chance that Julbo France still sells parts/lenses for them, at least in France.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
@snowglider, Was just curious. You must either wear them very little or be ultra careful with them to not need replacements. Mine are always getting scratched, especially the mirror-finish lenses, despite manufacturer's claims of them being ultra resistant. I just accept it as normal wear and tear, but it's why the replaceability is so important to me.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@Chaletbeauroc, they came with some very soft, microfibre pouches for the spare lenses, I always carry them in it when I have them with me. Generally, I do look after my equipment pretty well. But, it's a valid point, I'll certainly try to find out.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
tangowaggon wrote:
+1 for Screwfix safety specs, the only downside is that a darker tint would be good at times.
They are designed to stop foreign bodies entering the eye, so they are alsovery good at stopping wind.
Superlightweight
Zero restrictions on peripheral vision
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
snowdave wrote:
tangowaggon wrote:
+1 for Screwfix safety specs, the only downside is that a darker tint would be good at times.
They are designed to stop foreign bodies entering the eye, so they are alsovery good at stopping wind.
Superlightweight
Zero restrictions on peripheral vision
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
@tangowaggon,
If you’re properly made of money, for a tenner you can get bolle ones.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Sorry to hijack the thread… but linked request… I invested in some Smith 4D Mag goggles a few years back and they are ace.
They came with blue sky day and low light lenses. However the VLT on the low light flash storm is 50% and I’ve been looking at the storm yellow flash lense which has VLT 65%.
Question… is it worth investing another £100 in the yellow flash lense which is specd at 65% VLT versus my current 50% storm lens?
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Moorzee10 wrote:
Sorry to hijack the thread… but linked request… I invested in some Smith 4D Mag goggles a few years back and they are ace.
They came with blue sky day and low light lenses. However the VLT on the low light flash storm is 50% and I’ve been looking at the storm yellow flash lense which has VLT 65%.
Question… is it worth investing another £100 in the yellow flash lense which is specd at 65% VLT versus my current 50% storm lens?
How often do you ski?....and how often have you skied when you felt that your current low light lens was too dark?
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Ski 3 to 4 times a season.
I am happy to invest but just trying to gauge the difference/benefit from folks that know more than I do.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Moorzee10 wrote:
Ski 3 to 4 times a season.
I am happy to invest but just trying to gauge the difference/benefit from folks that know more than I do.
It's a difficult one, as it will be quite subjective.
I have an original Oakley Persimmon with a 62 VLT and a Prizm Rose with a 26 VLT....and I prefer the latter in flat light.
If I had to guess, I would say that you would get a small improvement, which could be worth getting given how often you ski....but in totally flat light, there is no contrast to see.
Hopefully, someone who owns both can help more.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
sean1967 wrote:
I'm also a devout sunglass sporter on the slopes. Only in the snowiest of conditions will I stick on the goggles. If the weather is good, the slopes good and quiet, sunglasses and no helmet is brilliant.
What does the slopes being empty have to do with wearing a helmet or not? Do you have some magical data to suggest that head injuries are less likely? You do realize that Natasha Richardson fell while stationary on a nursery slope?
I'm also a devout sunglass sporter on the slopes. Only in the snowiest of conditions will I stick on the goggles. If the weather is good, the slopes good and quiet, sunglasses and no helmet is brilliant.
What does the slopes being empty have to do with wearing a helmet or not? Do you have some magical data to suggest that head injuries are less likely? You do realize that Natasha Richardson fell while stationary on a nursery slope?
Truly remarkable
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
snowdave wrote:
tangowaggon wrote:
+1 for Screwfix safety specs, the only downside is that a darker tint would be good at times.
They are designed to stop foreign bodies entering the eye, so they are alsovery good at stopping wind.
Superlightweight
Zero restrictions on peripheral vision
I have a pair of those too. The "fire mirror" surface does scratch fairly easily, but at under £6, it's not a big deal. They are rated cat 3.1, so darker than the usual cat 2.5 sunglasses.
Bolle do some cat 4 "Pathfinder" glasses, but the price shoots up to £80... are there are cat 4 safety specs anywhere?
What does the slopes being empty have to do with wearing a helmet or not? Do you have some magical data to suggest that head injuries are less likely? You do realize that Natasha Richardson fell while stationary on a nursery slope?
The data suggest that people can do whatever they want as long as they don't break the law. I'm a huge advocate for wearing protective gear but I do adjust it depending on what I do, e.g. I don't drive a car in full protective suit even though data would definitely support it. I'm sure vast majority of us do something what data wouldn't support but we could discuss it in a different thread.
Back to the topic. I have a pair of Salomon aksium photo (cat 1-3) and after bad experience during flat light I bought oakley pink prizm. Someone said to me that if the weather is sh*t then it's sh*t nonmatter what goggles I wear, and I can't tell if it made any difference to me swapping from one to the other, even though I tried both during the same conditions .
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
What about sunglasses for people with a narrow face (Once described as having a "slender head" by my niece) ?
After all it is free
After all it is free
snowdave wrote:
tangowaggon wrote:
+1 for Screwfix safety specs, the only downside is that a darker tint would be good at times.
They are designed to stop foreign bodies entering the eye, so they are alsovery good at stopping wind.
Superlightweight
Zero restrictions on peripheral vision
Plus another one. I use the fire mirror lenses on sunny days and they do a slightly tinted mirror lens called an indoor/outdoor lens which I use when it’s overcast. I usually take a spare pair of each. They do the job and I’m not worried about them getting lost, damaged or nicked
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
