 Poster: A snowHead
|
My OH bought some new goggles yesterday. They’ve been used for one day but we’re considering taking them back because they were useless for half the day today. They’re Scott goggles with a double glazed lens. Between the two lenses there’s a thin layer of foam just separating them. Today was a pretty wet day out - raining at the bottom, pretty wet snow at the top. She kept the goggles over her face all morning and removed them from her helmet completely at lunch time.
When she got sorted after lunch she complained that they were fogged up. We got a lens cloth out and dabbed the inside but it made no difference. When we looked closely we could see that some moisture had managed to get in between the lenses and the fog was in between. We removed the lens from the goggles and she tried to use a hand drier to get some of the moisture out but it was useless. We’ve left them on a radiator since, but there’s still water inside.
Now it’s possible that we did some thing wrong, but I can’t see what. Any ideas? Or are they just a bit rubbish and need returning?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| hammerite wrote: |
| Now it’s possible that we did some thing wrong, but I can’t see what. |
Don't ski in the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
I've skied in the rain for a few hours with my Oakley's without issue.
Personally I would take them back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| rjs wrote: |
| hammerite wrote: |
| Now it’s possible that we did some thing wrong, but I can’t see what. |
Don't ski in the rain. |
The rain was pretty light and only 100m. We were in snow most of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Layne wrote: |
I've skied in the rain for a few hours with my Oakley's without issue.
Personally I would take them back. |
Thanks.
I had no issue at all with mine. Single Smith lens, no kind of double glazing system. To be honest we didn’t even realise there were two lenses until we saw took them out of the frame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@hammerite, Most dual lens goggles that I have seen have foam between the layers. I guess the frame of some brands could do a better job of sealing the edge of the lens so that water can't get in than others, don't know of any though.
I have had water in Oakley lenses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While dual layer lenses are very good at not fogging up while in use, if they get really drenched, then going from cold to warm, anything will fog. Give them a chance to properly dry out and clear, make sure the goggle vents are clear too and try again. If they keep fogging it could be a problem with either the foam layer or the lens themselves, but it sounds like they just got too wet.
I fear taking them back and complaining about fogging in those conditions will be met with the infamous Gallic shrug.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Richard_Sideways wrote: |
While dual layer lenses are very good at not fogging up while in use, if they get really drenched, then going from cold to warm, anything will fog. Give them a chance to properly dry out and clear, make sure the goggle vents are clear too and try again. If they keep fogging it could be a problem with either the foam layer or the lens themselves, but it sounds like they just got too wet.
I fear taking them back and complaining about fogging in those conditions will be met with the infamous Gallic shrug. |
This is my experience too. Significantly wet in use then tranfer to warmer environment and they'll be affected in this way. Also if you put them up on your head (no helmet) in lift que they can fog. It does seem odd but just circumstances in where the water had reached.
You've really got to eat lunch in them 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@hammerite, i had a lens for my Smith IO goggles that filled with water once when skiing in very wet, heavy snow. It turned out that there was a small hole in the front lens (to equalise pressure, i think) which should have a filter in it to stop water getting in. The filter had come out somehow. It was very disconcerting, as I effectively had a spirit level in front of my eyes. Even when it dried out (several days later) the lens was ruined because of the dirt left behind. I got a new one on warranty.
I'd be returning the goggles - water between the lenses is bad news.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| mgrolf wrote: |
| . It was very disconcerting, as I effectively had a spirit level in front of my eyes. |
I've skied in some conditions where I wasn't sure where was up or down. That feature would have been quite useful
Fogging on the inside in rain (or just heavy/wet snow) I'd say was often normal/acceptable. I try to ski with a hood up, so the peak prevents damp getting between the helmet/goggles and into the foam vents in those conditions.
I think damp ingress between the lens layers isn't normal and possibly a fault so I'd be tempted to return. Even if you dry them out there'll be some residue left behind affecting vision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Had a similar experience with my Oakleys that have a similar lens configuration. Damp day, went inside for lunch and then they got foggy and some moisture in between the lenses. Also thought there was some kind of fault and they were done. However, once I'd got them home and dried out they were completely fine and have not had the same problem since. I think it's just a case of it can happen in the wrong conditions, and unfortunately once they get fogged up not a lot you can do until you get home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
I think all goggles can get moisture penetration between lenses in the wrong combination of wet/ humidity etc. However no harm in taking them back if the problem remains demonstrable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had a Salomon helmet visor do this. No way to remove the condension between the lenses, returned them and was given a new lense, these ones have been fine so far. So could be you had friday night googles
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
We thought we’d give them another go in dry conditions. They fogged up again this morning before they’d been used so they went back in the box.
Took them back to the shop. They said it must be a fault because it shouldn’t happen. Despite leaving them to dry, there was still water droplets between the two lenses that the guys in the shop were surprised with. No refund or exchange though. They’re sending them back to Scott to be looked at. I’m local and they’re a good shop so it should get dealt with eventually. The OH has other goggles to use in the meantime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@hammerite, Personally, given how new they are, I would have expected that the very least they could do, is replace them there and then.
They sold you Goggles that are faulty (which they have witnessed for themselves) - and your OH should not have to dig out some old ones as a result. Presumably the shop doesn't know whether she is being left without goggles or not.
Was a replacement asked for? If so, did they refuse?
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Thu 5-01-23 10:58; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@Old Fartbag, that's the difference in France and a lot of other countries, they don't seem to have to do anything that they don't want to
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@CEM, it's something you get used to 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
I have just bought a new pair of Oakleys which also have the 2 layers are separated by a foam insert, if that gets wet it takes a long time to dry.
Pop the lense out of the frame and leave over, but not in contact with, a radiator overnight. Then replace, making sure the frame is fully in place all round, and if you ski in the wet again keep the top of the goggles protected under the helmet to help prevent the same thing happening.
I think most goggles use the same foam spacer so need to be looked after in the rain.
Enjoy your skiing 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| hammerite wrote: |
| No refund or exchange though. They’re sending them back to Scott to be looked at. I’m local and they’re a good shop so it should get dealt with eventually. |
I had a similar experience with a pair of Smith goggles many years ago….bought from S&R! The soft internal part of the lens scratched when I’d attempted do wipe dry them. Evidently, I’d not used the provided cloth nor followed the instructions. So I pointed out that neither the cloth nor instructions were inside the original box packaging, I then took one of the assistants over to the goggle display area where, strewn all over the floor were various contents that had clearly all fallen out of the packaging when customers trundled along to try the goggle on. As we stood there, it happened again!
They took my details and said they’d send the damaged goggles to Smith….still no refund or exchange!
So imagine my surprise, about a week later, when a new pair of gogs arrived from S&R! Which was nothing compared to the surprise when another pair turned up direct from Smiths. Well worth the wait
Anyway, none of this is overly relevant, suffice to say that, good though the (fairly expensive) goggles were, the light foam surround between the rubber (face seal) and the plastic frame routinely absorbed enough moisture in damp snow or sweat to fog up the ‘anti-fogging’ soft lens in bubble lifts/telecabins etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Amazes me that after all these years it seems many goggles are still rubbish at one of the most fundamental parts of their job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Fog between lenses = manufacturing fault.
If a shop in france tries to be uncoaprative - stand firm, ask to see more senior person, 2nd person record on video (or at least make it look like they are). They don't want the hastle and carn't be arsed - I am currently building a house and there is a lot of shoddy crap, in a bad week I'm returning stuff twice a week - some counter staff are just say no, but they are ALWAYS beeten by persistance - in another country, it would be no question and normaly an apology also
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gotta love the French... and I genuinely do btw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Easy answer, don't wear a helmet and Goggle's, just a good beanie and pair of sunnies.
(Ducks and runs for cover)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ansta1 wrote: |
Easy answer, don't wear a helmet and Goggle's, just a good beanie and pair of sunnies.
(Ducks and runs for cover) |
If you've got a decent flannel shirt you don't need the beanie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
This may be controversial but "fit for purpose" is always an interesting discussion point when trying to reject goods.
Most consumers will take the perspective that the purpose is for what they bought them for.
Whereas legally the purpose is for what the manufacturer stated the purpose was.
The two may be very different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I can't wear goggles, or least find a pair I can wear
|
Now I just assume that @ansta1 has a really oddly shaped head... like a massive cube or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Richard_Sideways wrote: |
| Quote: |
I can't wear goggles, or least find a pair I can wear
|
Now I just assume that @ansta1 has a really oddly shaped head... like a massive cube or something. |
Well yes as @layne will remember, but the main reason is they restrict my already restricted nasal passages and I end having to ski with my mouth open to breath properly.
I have however in recent years moved to 'helmet avec visor".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| marcellus wrote: |
This may be controversial but "fit for purpose" is always an interesting discussion point when trying to reject goods.
Most consumers will take the perspective that the purpose is for what they bought them for.
Whereas legally the purpose is for what the manufacturer stated the purpose was.
The two may be very different. |
Amen to that, people love to try and quote that fit for purpose line normally as someone on an online forum told them to or they saw it used on the telly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@CEM, indeed.
I purchased a set of race ski's and boots, why can I not keep up with the other racers? I want my money back please......
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| marcellus wrote: |
This may be controversial but "fit for purpose" is always an interesting discussion point when trying to reject goods.
Most consumers will take the perspective that the purpose is for what they bought them for.
Whereas legally the purpose is for what the manufacturer stated the purpose was.
The two may be very different. |
Weirdly enough, after we had the problem I read through the provided documentation. It seems that they’re goggles for use for snowsports. There are further instructions on what to do if they fog up (even though they say they’re anti fog), get wet or need cleaning (they only mention the two accessible lens surfaces). I’d imagine that would cover Scott saying that we can use them to ski in when it might be raining or snowing and they should be usable.
As for the shop’s response. I’m quite chilled about it. We didn’t need to dig out some old goggles. She has two others that she’d been using on previous days. She just wanted nicer looking, better fitting goggles. The others had seemed to leave a gap between the goggles and her helmet when they hadn’t previously! I use the shop (not that particular store) quite often. They’re reputable and trustworthy. I did ask if we can choose some replacement goggles and they were very apologetic but said no. I didn’t see the point in kicking off when they’re just shop staff following their systems. Oh and whilst it may seem like a French response to things, we’re not in France!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| hammerite wrote: |
As for the shop’s response. I’m quite chilled about it. We didn’t need to dig out some old goggles. She has two others that she’d been using on previous days. She just wanted nicer looking, better fitting goggles. The others had seemed to leave a gap between the goggles and her helmet when they hadn’t previously! I use the shop (not that particular store) quite often. They’re reputable and trustworthy. I did ask if we can choose some replacement goggles and they were very apologetic but said no. I didn’t see the point in kicking off when they’re just shop staff following their systems. Oh and whilst it may seem like a French response to things, we’re not in France! |
Your reaction is a very decent one...and it is of course your right to deal with the situation however you see fit.
Unless the shop knows your Wife's Goggle situation, they won't know that she has decent goggles to fall back on. I have little doubt that it will be satisfactorily sorted in the end - It's just I find it strange, from a customer satisfaction/loyalty pov, that they didn't immediately replace the goggles that failed within 24 hours and then sort it out with the supplier.
Do let us know how it all pans out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Old Fartbag, if she had no other goggles, I’d maybe have been a bit more forceful, but in this case I didn’t feel the need to.
I also have a little embarrassment in that I live here, but I was asking them to communicate in English because my Catalan is non existent and my Spanish is pretty basic too! Things like this are generally pretty relaxed here so I prefer to be reasonable rather than unreasonable. Out of tourist season it’s a pretty small community!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Each to their own, and I can see the "local community" thing, but I still think that's a poor show.
Obviously it depends on the circumstances, but one tactic I've used is to feign ignorance of my legal rights. "Oh, I really don't want to wait around whilst the manufacturer decides if these faulty goggles are faulty or not. We can see they're faulty already, so perhaps it would be easier to just issue a chargeback and then I can buy some new ones right here and now. If you don't have them, the store down the road probably does".
I don't think that's rude (or particularly forceful), but if they're smart they'll provide replacements immediately, as that's likely cheaper for them than being stiffed with a chargeback and the returned goods nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| hammerite wrote: |
Weirdly enough, after we had the problem I read through the provided documentation. It seems that they’re goggles for use for snowsports. There are further instructions on what to do if they fog up (even though they say they’re anti fog), get wet or need cleaning (they only mention the two accessible lens surfaces). I’d imagine that would cover Scott saying that we can use them to ski in when it might be raining or snowing and they should be usable.
As for the shop’s response. I’m quite chilled about it. We didn’t need to dig out some old goggles. She has two others that she’d been using on previous days. She just wanted nicer looking, better fitting goggles. The others had seemed to leave a gap between the goggles and her helmet when they hadn’t previously! I use the shop (not that particular store) quite often. They’re reputable and trustworthy. I did ask if we can choose some replacement goggles and they were very apologetic but said no. I didn’t see the point in kicking off when they’re just shop staff following their systems. Oh and whilst it may seem like a French response to things, we’re not in France! |
I’d be surprised if Scott had left themselves as open as simply defining the purpose as “Snowsports”.
It may be that they don’t fully publish their definition which may give you leverage for a goodwill replacement.
Many moons ago I used to buy workwear and the specification for the simplest of items was quite a hefty tome, for the goggles I’d expect to be seeing somewhere specs for duration of use, humidity, temperature range, wind strength, altitude…..they may even have gone as far to define for how long they will withstand a defined water pressure.
All of these will have a direct impact on how they design their goggles which will lead to how much they cost to manufacture and the retail price… to make a pair of goggles “fit for all purposes anyone may encounter undertaking any snow sport anywhere in the world” would be quite expensive which would possibly make them unaffordable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All my dual lenses have all at some point misted up between the lens all from good brands Oakley, Anon etc. Personally I think they are a waste of time.
I currently have a pair of Anon M2’s which I have had for a good few years now, but at the time they cost me over £250. Both lenses (the sunny mirror lens and the yellow low light lens) have misted up at some point and still regularly do to this day. I find it mainly happens when you go from skiing to going indoors at a restaurant etc. They always clear fast when I go back outside, but both lenses now have a what I can best describe as freeze look marks etched/trapped between the two lenses.
There is no way you can get rid of these marks, it’s you just have to put up with them or buy new lenses. And at £80-120 per replacement lens I have and will continue to put up with the trapped marks however annoying they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@hammerite, principle and Law….your contract is with the shop and the goods are faulty. They should replace or refund.
I have MANY pairs of googles for skiing and climbing. Moisture between lens is a problem and usually a fault in the lens.
Upmarket Bolle have a small Goretex valve to deal with any induced moisture.
Scott…..we don’t buy them any more. We had exactly this problem with a pair. I contacted the retailer - online retailer. They were useless. Contacted Scott UK distributor. They said ‘send them back to us’. I did. No response for a month. Contacted them again. They then denied all knowledge of having received the goggles. Useless. No more Scott goggles for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a thought; is there a technical/scientific difference between lenses "fogging up" and "condensation forming between" lenses?
Might Scott say something like.... "yes our Goggles are anti fog, but what you have there Mr Customer is condensation forming between the lenses which is a whole different kettle of fish".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
