What the hell's that, and WTFAW? The importance of good goggles....

A snowHead

In other recent posts on gear obsessions and focus on 'the things which really matter', some important observations on goggle quality have come up. It also has been the subject of quite a few discussions with other skiers recently, on return from claggy conditions. So, a few observations...

It's clear that goggle quality has improved dramatically in the last ten years. While my quiver of googles includes an excellent pair of now-ragged and ancient Smith OTGs, the latest Bolle and Oakley spherical goggles are a cut above the offerings of a few years' ago. Is this simply a fashion-conscious issue matter of carrying the latest gear? Not at all, in my opinion. Detail here really does count.

Two years ago, I played a role in the rehabilitation of a skier who had sustained terrible injuries in an accident - punctured lung, broken ribs and shattered pelvis. The fact that surgery in France had worsened aspects of his injuries wasn't exactly helpful. We sat down and spent a lot of time analysing the cause of the accident. In the end, we got to the root cause - his goggles were crap. His accident was the result of skiing too fast in poor conditions, with no real visual cues. We determined that the accident would almost certainly have been prevented if he could have seen better.

I now ski all year - from minus 20 to plus 10 - in goggles. I carry low light tints (yellow orientation and high transmission - models include CEBE, Smith and the excellent Bolle Aurora lens) and bright condition googles (various tints, CAT3 - Bolle Red Gun, Oakley Iridium Fire) at all times. The lens coatings are now superb (although wiping the inside of 2014 Oakley lens needs to be done with forensic care), the anti-fogging ventilation works brilliantly (nice Gore-tex vent in Bolles) and the optical distortion from well-designed spherical lens is minimal. My kids (10 and 12) have top of the range goggles too, for all the safety reasons which I wear them - shame that the anti-social mirror finish on my daughter's stops me from seeing her rolling her eyes when I say anything - or maybe that's a good thing...

I do spend a lot of time encouraging others to select googles really carefully, particularly holding up low light tints against the eyes, looking at the texture of things such as concrete walls in direct sunlight, since the extent to which shadows (and therefore detail and terrain) are enhanced by specific tints does vary from person to person. Research suggests that yellow tints do have a physiological function in highlighting contrast, although this can indeed vary from person to person, so is not an absolute assumption. Some people do get a subjective improvement with an orange cast, or just plain transparent CAT1 Lens. It's always worth looking at the full lens range (the Smith, Oakley and Bolle charts are excellent) and paying attention to transmission rates as well as CAT and tint.

Price is not always a guarantee - I had an expensive pair of photochromatics do a weird lens separation which left them useless, and the UK importer was rubbish - denied that they had received the googles, so that was a total loss. Twerps. But I have had really excellent service from Bolle Emperor OTG googles - which do not break the bank in quite the same way as the Oakley Canopys which my partner kindly bought me (...are these the ones?...yes dear...) for Christmas.

A snowHead

FIFY

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

@flangesax, I think that was implied by the rest of the sentence.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

@flangesax, ...well aware that the description included this - but we spent a lot of time analysing it (over coffee not beer) and it was the relation between speed and vision which was critical - and that relation would have changed with good quality goggles. His goggles were sufficiently rubbish that only 1mm an hour would have been the right speed for the conditions....

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

@holidayloverxx, ...I thank you...

You'll need to Register first of course.

I am not convinced my 3 year old I/Os have lenses that much better than my Scotts in 1988 had..

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Personally I think there is a lot of gear fetishism around goggles and largely can't see what the fuss is about provided you get a good tint. I know I struggle sometimes in very flat/whiteout light and accordingly was very jealous of a companion who was skiing swiftly in his Oakley Hi Yellows recently while I groped around a bit in an orange. But I just had a bit less pleasant experience for a while it wasn't a real safety issue.

The problem I see is that you buy googles in the artificial environment of an artificially lit store and therefore are about as far from real world use as you can be. So it tends to be an expensive matter of trial and error buying various goggs and lenses that work for you in extreme conditions. Even if outdoor demos were encouraged you'd obviously struggle to find whiteouts or greyouts every day.

After all it is free

I'm in favour of decent goggles, although I wasn't particularly aware that they'd got better in the last few years. I guess those changes are gradual so not noticeable if you use a lot of kit. It's often possible to pick "last season's" goggles up at 50% discount in North America at least, and slightly-less marketed brands seem to give nothing to the top-price stuff in terms of quality.

Whilst the idea that "gear" can increase safety is popular, I can't help but wonder if it would not be better to adjust one's speed based on what you can actually see.

@Dave of the Marmottes, ...that's interesting. I do think it is a safety issue.

What I have suggested to people - and use the same technique myself - is, when trying and buying, testing different goggles out by looking at a surface in BRIGHT sunlight, or even overcast, and looking out of the store windows at a textured surface - such as brick or concrete - and then seeing to what extent the tint enhances contrast between lit areas and shadow. This can be very revealing. Suddenly, with some tints, the texture just jumps out for people. This tends to be the tint to go for in low light. This can be done at any time of year.

I don't think it's gear fetishism - some of my goggles have done great service for years, having used this kind of test to select them. And it's resulted in the following conversations: friend: '...I can't see a thing...' ... Me: 'I can'.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Skiing too fast caused an accident. Then you ponder over the 'if only I' or the 'maybe' or any other excuse that would have prevented you from crashing due to skiing too fast.

If 1mm an hour was the correct speed for the conditions then it must have been dark and he was in a cave; in which case I don't suggest skiing was the most appropriate thing to do in this predicament.

Goggle lenses can improve flat and low light conditions but they all come with an expense or trade off of some kind or another.
Marcel didn't do too well when his were put on back to front this season!
There is such a vast amount of variables the the skier should be aware of and be tweaking before the necessity of goggle type. So slow down and ski within limits.

I am happy with anything that keeps the wind out of my eyes.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

@flangesax, grief that's the POINT. He WAS effectively dark and in a cave - a very small dark cave created by hopelessly steamed up and useless goggles....

snow reports

Agreed! The steaming up is a pain in the whatsit.
When this happens to my cheap rubbishy goggles it seems to be after skiing hard and getting hot then stopping.
So no airflow. I'm sure an anti-fog coating could prevent this, until I use them more and wreck the expensive lenses with a massive scratch (which I would).
I never ski with a bag unless touring so would never consider swapping lenses in the ski day (faff).
I agree that you get what you pay for. I just don't agree that you need it. However, that is only based on my personal experience.

@flangesax, ...spot on...and yes it's a right pain when (from any one of a hundred causes) a big scratch appears on expensive goggles...

...my son is really good at stopping people from throwing things on top of goggles-on-helmets in the back of the car and avoiding those divits, pocks and scratches....

I agree with the faffage of lens changes - just a quick swap from the rucksack for me...

You know it makes sense.

@flangesax, I'm inclined to agree with much of what you say.
1. I don't think goggles really contribute to safety in a significant way. If you have better goggles you can see better and ski faster - all within the same safety margin.
2. A pair of £5 single lens goggles with insufficient ventilation are clearly inferior to a pair of £50 double lens goggles with good ventilation. How much additional benefit do you get from a £150 pair? In my view very, very little.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

I have to say that I agree with your general point @valais2, I am a convert to good goggles (I have Oakley Airbrakes with Prizm lenses) and I am able to ski confidently higher speeds than before because I am able to read the snow better.

I can understand @flangesax point that the root cause of the accident was skiing too fast. Which is bad form, end of. But yes it can also be fair to say that if one had been able to see properly, they could ski at that speed without as much risk.

It's way too easy to say "I hurt myself because I was going too fast". Sometimes you are going too fast and you know it because you're not in control. But other times the speed you're doing is perfectly reasonable, even if it is fast, and yes - the speed is what makes it a serious accident, but that doesn't mean you were going too fast. If you wanted a zero risk sport, you'd ski exclusively greens at beginner pace because why not?

The fact is, that as I've said in another thread, goggles are essentially PPE for skiing. Goggles which allow you to see absolutely unhindered will protect you better than goggles which affect your vision. If you had a car windscreen which didn't let you see properly, you wouldn't think twice about replacing it for a crystal clear one... so why are people so hesitant to spend money on crystal clear goggles which let you see properly on skis? It makes no sense to me. It's my opinion that anyone who skis in places, or at speeds, which would cause you (or somebody else) to have a serious accident if you fluffed it, should buy the best goggles they can because even the most expensive pair of top of the range Oakleys or POCs will cost you less than the excess on your insurance!

A snowHead

Problem is that a lot of the price of goggles is built of brand, styling and "marketing innovation" I.e. the stuff that sounds impressive but is merely tangential to the core function. Lens tint, ventilation, double screen and a decent anti fog coating are the basics and available in most brands on the market. I don't doubt that certain tints work better than others and having the option to swap is handy although practically I find it too much faff for me personally.

I just don't really buy into optical distortion being a real thing but maybe that's because as a spectacle wearer I'm used to looking through lenses at different angles.

A snowHead

WoW £260!
That's more than my boots or my skis!

@dp, do you keep your lenses in your pockets?
My pockets have a phone, ski pass, pair of sunnies and some cash.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

I bought a pair of goggles for my first skiing holiday (1977). Hated them. They steamed up and felt claustrophobic. I've stuck with sunglasses ever since - a nice pair of Oakleys for bright days and a pair of orange wrap-arounds for poor light. And yes, I wear them with a helmet.

Is it worth giving goggles another go? I never carry a rucksack so couldn't take 2 pairs of goggles out with me. Recommendations for a good all-rounder welcomed.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

@flangesax, I keep my spare lens in a bag in the bit of net pocket inside my jacket. takes 30 secs to change

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

@flangesax, Oops, $260 (but apparently £215 in the UK...)

Mine are these ones... http://uk.oakley.com/en/mens/goggles/prizm-goggles/airbrake-snow-prizm/product/WGOO7037PZ/?skuCode=OO7037-12&categoryCode=m0308 , as you can see comes with low light lens and bright light lens, which is a good all-rounder for me... the black lens (the bright light one) is good down to medium visibility so stays in most of the time with the pink one better in flat light and whiteout conditions.

I keep the spare lens in my backpack, inside a protective case, wrapped in a lens cloth. Don't want the lens getting damaged, it's the important bit.

@telford_mike, yeah I would do... things have changed a lot in 40 years. For my first year of skiing I didn't wear goggles or a helmet because of the claustrophobia. I now wear both because it takes me about 2 minutes to adjust and then I don't even notice either. If claustrophobia is a problem, make sure you try the goggles rather than buying from the web, but most of the modern Oakley goggles have very wide, curved frames so you don't lose your peripheral vision.

You'll need to Register first of course.

I think just time for a quick note...

In the original post I said:

'...His accident was the result of skiing too fast in poor conditions, with no real visual cues...'

The phrase 'too fast' seems to have set up a mental image of someone hooning down a steep piste and stacking it. Apologies, I should have perhaps omitted this phrase and used 'inappropriate rate' - the accident occurred at a relatively slow pace, but involved a 2m fall onto a very solid piste-basher track.It occurred because the visibility was terrible and his goggles useless. He just didn't see the drop, it was one of those where the differences in level were relatively hidden, and went over it whilst scrubbing off speed sideways - a combined set of events which resulted in hitting the ground in a very nasty way. But it's my judgement - based on discussions and comparisons of conditions and terrain, that he would have seen the difference in level with a better pair of goggles.

I hope that this is more clear (grief that's a pun...).

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

@valais2,
If you'd have said that originally some kind snowhead would have FIFY'd it anyway.

After all it is free

@telford_mike, for my first or second ski trip in the late 80s I had some awful goggles, couldn't see why anyone would want them (couldn't see anything actually), and used wraparound plastic cycling shades for the next few years.

For some reason I put on some goggles again - maybe borrowed someone's to get down the mountain in a whiteout - and they were a revelation. Never wore sunnies since. Last year I replaced those fogging, scratched Carreras with a new Julbo.

@valais2, Don't worry, I think we all understood that you meant inappropriately fast.

@telford_mike, Yes, try goggles again. The biggest improvement since the 70's is the introduction of double lenses. Completely eliminates fogging.

@dp, I agree that decent lenses are important, but unlike sunglasses the flexibility of goggle lenses means they are never going to be optically close in quality. My point is that you can easily get a decent lens in goggles costing £50 and the improvement when you go up to £200 is insignificant. Following on from your argument, why not spend £1,000 on a pair of goggles? How much optically superior is a Bentley windscreen compared to a Ford windscreen? There is clearly a point beyond which optical improvements are minimal. I'd argue that the lenses in a £50 pair are indistinguishable in quality from a £200 pair. Below £50 you will begin to see some deterioration.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Another thing apart from the lens itself is peripheral vision. The lenses in my a-frames were excellent, however when I switched to iox it was a peripheral vision revelation! Cool

... and relatively speaking the a frames were pretty good compared to some Goggles which must be like wearing blinkers.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

Oh and I had cheap Goggles once - made skiing miserable- never again.

snow reports

Frankly, it's personal opinion. I wore goggles daily in the ME (I rode a motorbike, and didn't do full face helmets) so I tested things fairly extensively and found what I liked.

The simple fact is that we all have different eyes. Similar, but there is nothing to show that my eyes will perform exactly like yours. So it completely comes down to personal preference, but it is impossible for you to state that the difference, for me, or anyone else, isn't significant; and likewise it is also impossible for me to state that the difference, for you, or anyone else, is.

@valais2, thank you for a thought provoking post. I wore sunglasses for ages because googles fogged up but moved back to them maybe 4 years ago when I got a helmet. Mine are great for normal skiing but tend to fog up if I'm hot (if I'm falling down a lot or walking/climbing).

A thing I have noticed (which may not be entirely related) is that I get less migraines. Bright light has always been a trigger for my migraines, as has exertion, so I've usually had to tolerate one or two a holiday. But over the last few years I have definitely had less occurrences and one of those was due to the surprise of being hit by a snooker queue (an accident). I do wonder if the closed in nature and clearer vision has helped. However, as with most people, my migraines have reduced in both frequency and intensity over time and medicines have got better, so I need to balance it against that.

I'm a bit obsessive about vision because of the migraines so you have probably triggered a new compulsion in me to buy googles Toofy Grin

You know it makes sense.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

A snowHead

@henzerani, ...for walking, climbing etc and attenuating bright light - and thus preventing light-induced issues - I would strongly recommend these - amazingly cheap, excellent quality

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/391223587479?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2648&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Very strong, very light, and really wrap around. Of course there's research that says wearing dark glasses fools the body into NOT producing melanin - which leads to less skin protection against UV, but that's another story....

A snowHead

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

@abc, ...hope the snow was good on the East Coast this year...

It's certainly judgement, but I've messed about on hills for so long that I have accumulated a wee bit of experience, including plenty of time in conditions where the cloud is visible passing between my outstretched hand and my face. And in those conditions one becomes pretty attuned to the differences between gear.

Again, it's not a simple question of 'low visibility OR poor goggles' - it was the relation between these two things. In bright dry conditions the googles would probably have been fine, even if fogged - I had a fault on some goggles last Easter, and they fogged, but it was annoying and not dangerous due to the high external light.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

@abc, ...agreed - in 'will this clip on my gloves make me ski better...' Which I posted earlier this week, I also was critical of much obsessing about gear. Not all obsessing, but certainly some....

You'll need to Register first of course.

I ski from November to May in all conditions and have a pair of 6.99 euros Lidl goggles, they seem to do the job ok. Orange lens is pretty good in all conditions.

I would probably be wary of using anything cheaper than that.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

@davidof,

After all it is free

Smart goggs with HUD is where it's at. Oakley Airwave, etc.

@dp, @SnoodyMcFlude, thanks for that advice. I shall try the water before I maim them.

@valais2, those're now on my eBay watch list. But am I allowed sunglasses called Under 21 Pro? I can more than double that.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

@Whitegold, why? That could be close to VR. And then you don't need to actually go skiing.

Help!!

What the hell's that, and WTFAW? The importance of good goggles....

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste