Sunglasses - can anyone justify the cost??

WithCheesePlease

So, I have a perfectly good pair of sunglasses that I got free from wiggle that retail at around €30. They come with 3 lenses and are a good, comfortable fit.

Yet I find myself wanting a new pair of Oakleys, just like everyone else. Why do people pay €200-€300+ for these? Can anyone give me any justification for the price (that make them worth the money) or is just purely marketing? And genius marketing at that, don't get me wrong!

Raam

I have Oakleys which I paid a few quid for. I prefer my Salice which were less than half the price. So I bought two different colours!

Hail 2 Da Thief

You can't put a price on looking good!!! :cool:

listermint

Meah, i have 2 cheap pairs for cycling primarily because they get thrown around and marked. My Ray Bans are for Driving because they stay in the car and arent liable for damage.

Lumen

I got two pairs of generic iridium yokes from Amazon for 30 yoyos delivered.

They're not as good as my Salices. IMO Salices occupy the sweet spot between nasty cheap and nasty expensive.

07Lapierre

WithCheesePlease wrote: »

So, I have a perfectly good pair of sunglasses that I got free from wiggle that retail at around €30. They come with 3 lenses and are a good, comfortable fit.

Yet I find myself wanting a new pair of Oakleys, just like everyone else. Why do people pay €200-€300+ for these? Can anyone give me any justification for the price (that make them worth the money) or is just purely marketing? And genius marketing at that, don't get me wrong!

Thats why people buy most things...i.e. Genius Marketing.

velomelo

Im currently suing L. Armstrong for tricking me into getting Livestrong edition of oakleys - which were supposed give me the extra boost - which was nullified by a newborn in the family. So for past 2-3 yrs Ive been wearing them occasionaly while walking with the pram.

They give you +1 to your looks at least +10 to your ability of attracting females and might even get a rare nod from passing by pros...

Worth every penny though the spare lenses are ridiculously expensive.

ednwireland

my polarized oakleys are better in changing light conditions (i.e. cloudy /sunny) not got any other brand polarized lenses to compare]

and they are oakleys

RobFowl

Lumen wrote: »

I got two pairs of generic iridium yokes from Amazon for 30 yoyos delivered.

They're not as good as my Salices. IMO Salices occupy the sweet spot between nasty cheap and nasty expensive.

Where did you get the Salices?

Lumen

RobFowl wrote: »

Where did you get the Salices?

Lordgun bicycles, and prior to that cavalieresrl.com

Raam

http://www.otticanet.com/ is where I got mine, but they don't have the ones I got in stock anymore.

Bike Hub sell em too.

Raam

My mistake, loads here...
http://www.otticanet.com/en/sunglasses/salice/salice-006-ita/

Welshkev

A lot of Oakley sunglasses have very strong lenses - some claim to be bullet proof if you believe the guff they put out there, but either way when a lorry goes flying past and a stone flies up at my eye, I hope I'm wearing my Oakleys.
By the way, you can often get them cheap enough at outlet stores - I got a pair for £60 including the hard case.

longshanks

Just out of interest, do any of you know which brands the pros are wearing? Is it all Oakleys, or do some less expensive brands get a look in?

doozerie

I have Oakleys because I find them very comfortable and the range of lenses available gives a lot of options. Also I like having glasses that won't shatter in an impact. However, they are horribly expensive, I rarely use anything except one of two lenses anyway, and shatter proof lenses are widely available at a much lower price bracket for some time now. And despite their marketing guff, I have yet to find a pair of Oakley lenses (vented or otherwise) that don't steam up while I wear them - no doubt if I restructured my face I could solve that particularly annoying issue, but given that Oakley lenses are nearly as expensive as some facial reconstruction options I was kinda hoping they'd have solved the problem for me through their supposedly marvellous research and design. The feckin' slackers! Not to mention the fact that Oakley lenses are also extremely fragile and scratch if you so much as look at them sideways.

I also have a pair of Rudy Project ImpactX photochromic glasses that offer at least as much protection as my Oakleys, are just as comfortable, cover a wide range of conditions with just one lens, are a bit better at not getting steamed up, and all that for a a little less than the price of a pair of Oakleys with a single (non-photochromic) lens. I find I reach for the Rudy Projects more often than the Oakleys (except on a sunny day with clear skies when I prefer the permanently dark lens of my Oakleys …so the Oakleys don't get used very often!). And I imagine that there are various sunglasses out there that offer those very same benefits to others but for a lot less money than my Rudy Projects, but so far these have proven the best value sunglasses that I've bought.

Lumen

Kevinleeowen wrote: »

A lot of Oakley sunglasses have very strong lenses - some claim to be bullet proof if you believe the guff they put out there, but either way when a lorry goes flying past and a stone flies up at my eye, I hope I'm wearing my Oakleys.
By the way, you can often get them cheap enough at outlet stores - I got a pair for £60 including the hard case.

If you actually needed bulletproof lenses then you'd also need a bulletproof full face helmet and neck guard, or else a stray stone chip would penetrate your neck and blow away your spine, jugular or carotid.

What you actually need is shatterproof lenses. Since it costs almost nothing to produce a shatterproof lens there is no excuse for not having them, but fortunately very few lenses are not shatterproof (e.g. Rudy Project non-ImpactX, if they still sell them).

Cheap industrial safety glasses will offer much better protection than your Oakleys. The fact that you instead wear Oakleys is evidence that you're really buying fashion and retrospectively justifying it with a veneer of pseudo-safety waffle.

...with the greatest of respect. :pac:

Welshkev

Lumen wrote: »

If you actually needed bulletproof lenses then you'd also need a bulletproof full face helmet and neck guard, or else a stray stone chip would penetrate your neck and blow away your spine, jugular or carotid.

What you actually need is shatterproof lenses. Since it costs almost nothing to produce a shatterproof lens there is no excuse for not having them, but fortunately very few lenses are not shatterproof (e.g. Rudy Project non-ImpactX, if they still sell them).

Cheap industrial safety glasses will offer much better protection than your Oakleys. The fact that you instead wear Oakleys is evidence that you're really buying fashion and retrospectively justifying it with a veneer of pseudo-safety waffle.

...with the greatest of respect. :pac:

I'm not sure I actually said that a stone would travel at the speed of a bullet? ...with the greatest of respect

Lumen

Kevinleeowen wrote: »

I'm not sure I actually said that a stone would travel at the speed of a bullet?

Then why are you bringing up Oakley's claims of bulletproofing?

Welshkev

Lumen wrote: »

Then why are you bringing up Oakley's claims of bulletproofing?

I'm merely pointing out their claim that their lenses, whether bulletproof or not, should be fairly strong. That's all.

Brian?

I have rather fetching Oakleys I wear in situations they aren't likely to be broken. So not cycling, I have worn them cycling and they're great but I really don't fancy replacing them.

I recently bought 4 pairs of glasses from Aldi, they'll do nicely.

NeedMoreGears

http://www.cycling-inform.com/cyclists-code-of-conduct/482-the-official-rules-of-the-eurocyclist

#12

Darkstrike

I'd love to get a set of Oakleys prescriptions, but with a couple of sets of lenses, I'd hesitate to imagine the price. Dealers who provide prescriptions seem to be rare too.

Most other glasses seem to have them prescription inserts, don't much like the look of them.

EDIT: I'm using regular prescription sunglasses(polarized) at the moment, but they seem to actually funnel the wind right into my eyes.

happytramp

Darkstrike wrote: »

Most other glasses seem to have them prescription inserts, don't much like the look of them.

On beasty's recommendation I got a pair from these guys. Have to say I love them, really good quality and work a treat. Thinking of getting another pair with different lenses.

Rew

Oakley's aren't bulletproof (not that they ever claimed they were) but they do have varying degrees of ballistic protection from impacts. Your face will recover better from shrapnel impacts then your eyes will. ESS in particular collect customer testimonials from soldiers who (claim) their eyes were saved by them.

You can scale that down to an impact from a stone thrown up by a car impacting a naked eye, a cheap pair of glasses or a pair thats rated for impacts and I know which I prefer!!

I use Oakleys for years for lots of sports and Im very happy with them. A mate of mine took a blow to the face skiing that burst blood vessels in his eye, left him concussed and cracked the lens of his Oakley goggles but his sight is fine. If the lens had shattered he could have been in real trouble.

Here is Oakley's propaganda/marketing on it:

http://ie.oakley.com/innovation/optical-superiority/impact-protection

Darkstrike

happytramp wrote: »

On beasty's recommendation I got a pair from these guys. Have to say I love them, really good quality and work a treat. Thinking of getting another pair with different lenses.

What guys mate?

Lumen

Rew wrote: »

You can scale that down to an impact from a stone thrown up by a car impacting a naked eye, a cheap pair of glasses or a pair thats rated for impacts and I know which I prefer!! ..Here is Oakley's propaganda/marketing on it:

http://ie.oakley.com/innovation/optical-superiority/impact-protection

Oakley make lenses from "Plutonite". This is their proprietary name for polycarbonate.

These are a version of the cheap €15 Rayzor glasses I'm currently using:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Professional-Lightweight-Cricket-Sunglasses-Anti-Glare/dp/B008XMFBDI/ref=sr_1_3?s=sports&ie=UTF8&qid=1368556030&sr=1-3&keywords=rayzor

These use polycarbonate lenses.

Polycarbonate is polycarbonate is polycarbonate. It's the stuff riot shields are made of. Very ordinary.

Notice that the Oakley impact videos compare "Plutonite" with CR39 lenses. Of course the Plutonite ones are better, because they're polycarbonate.

Wikipedia says:

"Polycarbonate plastic lenses are the lightest, and are also almost shatterproof, making them good for impact protection. CR-39 is the most common plastic lens, due to low weight, high scratch resistance, and low transparency for ultraviolet and infrared radiation"

So Oakley has compared their rebranded polycarbonate with a material that no one in their right mind would use for sports glasses.

Look, pay whatever you want for your glasses but don't be fooled that they're protecting you more than sensibly chosen alternatives for a tenth of the price.

longshanks

Lumen wrote: »

Oakley make lenses from "Plutonite". This is their proprietary name for polycarbonate.

These are a version of the cheap €15 Rayzor glasses I'm currently using:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Professional-Lightweight-Cricket-Sunglasses-Anti-Glare/dp/B008XMFBDI/ref=sr_1_3?s=sports&ie=UTF8&qid=1368556030&sr=1-3&keywords=rayzor

These use polycarbonate lenses.

Polycarbonate is polycarbonate is polycarbonate. It's the stuff riot shields are made of. Very ordinary.

I have a pair of those. The lenses aren't great, and are hard on the eyes after a while.
On the lookout for something better, but don't fancy paying a couple of hundred euro for Oakleys.

AmberGold

Having always felt Oakleys were an indulgence the wife bought me a set of Radar lock last year for my birthday. I have used all sorts of cheaper glasses because I alway scratch, break or lose them
I started using the Oakley just last week, they are excellent and never fog up. Despite the high price I recommend them highly. All the pros can't be wrong.

Fatbiker

velomelo wrote: »

They give you +1 to your looks at least +10 to your ability of attracting females and might even get a rare nod from passing by pros...

Pro cyclists or Prostitutes? Just askin...:o

mistermatthew

Lumen wrote: »

Oakley make lenses from "Plutonite". This is their proprietary name for polycarbonate.

These are a version of the cheap €15 Rayzor glasses I'm currently using:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Professional-Lightweight-Cricket-Sunglasses-Anti-Glare/dp/B008XMFBDI/ref=sr_1_3?s=sports&ie=UTF8&qid=1368556030&sr=1-3&keywords=rayzor

These use polycarbonate lenses.

Polycarbonate is polycarbonate is polycarbonate. It's the stuff riot shields are made of. Very ordinary.

Notice that the Oakley impact videos compare "Plutonite" with CR39 lenses. Of course the Plutonite ones are better, because they're polycarbonate.

Wikipedia says:

"Polycarbonate plastic lenses are the lightest, and are also almost shatterproof, making them good for impact protection. CR-39 is the most common plastic lens, due to low weight, high scratch resistance, and low transparency for ultraviolet and infrared radiation"

So Oakley has compared their rebranded polycarbonate with a material that no one in their right mind would use for sports glasses.

Look, pay whatever you want for your glasses but don't be fooled that they're protecting you more than sensibly chosen alternatives for a tenth of the price.

I dunno if this is the time to declare it but I love lumen.
The crusher of all factual innacuracies

happytramp

Darkstrike wrote: »

What guys mate?

Ah, yes. I can see how that piece of information might be useful

http://www.optilabs.com/site/prods.php?pfid=0,8,11,17

sy

mistermatthew wrote: »

I dunno if this is the time to declare it but I love lumen.
The crusher of all factual innacuracies

Before Lumen rushes in and crushes your crush! it's spelled inaccuracies (sorry)

Darkstrike

happytramp wrote: »

Ah, yes. I can see how that piece of information might be useful

http://www.optilabs.com/site/prods.php?pfid=0,8,11,17

Some of them look absolutely fantastic.

gowley

i bought a pair of RayBeri s in portugal last year for 3e and still have em

shaka

Few lads in club have oakleys. Think they look terrible , have a couple of pairs of cheap ish glasses bbb and endura which are good for the bike.

Have police and ray bans for car, drive for living so have them on most of time.

doozerie

Lumen wrote:

Polycarbonate is polycarbonate is polycarbonate. It's the stuff riot shields are made of.

My selective significantly-out-of-pocket-for-having-bought-Oakleys -inspired reading of this is that my Oakleys will protect me in a riot. Awesome, Oakleys rock. In your eyes/face lesser non-Oakley branded (and non-polycarbonate) glasses, in your eyes/face.

Lumen

doozerie wrote: »

My selective significantly-out-of-pocket-for-having-bought-Oakleys -inspired reading of this is that my Oakleys will protect me in a riot. Awesome, Oakleys rock. In your eyes/face lesser non-Oakley branded (and non-polycarbonate) glasses, in your eyes/face.

I also own Oakleys.

doozerie

Lumen wrote:

I also own Oakleys.

You should attend my local chapter of Oakley Users Anonymous. Our next meeting is entitled "Vented lenses - effective me arse!".

Getting off the topic of Oakleys for a moment, I saw someone (Degenkolp maybe?) win a race/stage recently while wearing the latest Assos glasses. For glasses that look downright fugly in the marketing blurb (think Nana Mouskouri, but worse) they looked surprisingly okay on him. Whatever about Oakleys, the Assos ones are glasses whose price tag makes the eyes water.

Chips Lovell

It was Paolini wearing Assos glasses. They're ridiculously expensive.

Another vote for Salice. Much more stylish than Oakleys and reasonably priced.

transylman

You do know that the entire sunglasses industry is one giant racket? Every major brand is owned by the same company, Luxottica. They set the prices not based on how well they work (since it is tinted glass or plastic basically) but on the target market for the particular brand. It's marketing 101 and if you fall for it you are a mug.

oflahero

The Giro looked like one big Salice fest today. They must all have been reading this thread.

WithCheesePlease

transylman wrote: »

You do know that the entire sunglasses industry is one giant racket? Every major brand is owned by the same company, Luxottica. They set the prices not based on how well they work (since it is tinted glass or plastic basically) but on the target market for the particular brand. It's marketing 101 and if you fall for it you are a mug.

Is that you Jim Corr??

:P

smacl

If you don't get why sunglasses cost what they do, just ask Ron White.

Darkstrike

What about the Adidas glasses, anyone try them?

mirv

Are they made from sport?

Advertising appears to work on my puny suggestable human mind.

Raam wrote: »

I have Oakleys which I paid a few quid for. I prefer my Salice which were less than half the price. So I bought two different colours!

Brian?

Lumen wrote: »

Oakley make lenses from "Plutonite". This is their proprietary name for polycarbonate.

These are a version of the cheap €15 Rayzor glasses I'm currently using:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Professional-Lightweight-Cricket-Sunglasses-Anti-Glare/dp/B008XMFBDI/ref=sr_1_3?s=sports&ie=UTF8&qid=1368556030&sr=1-3&keywords=rayzor

These use polycarbonate lenses.

Polycarbonate is polycarbonate is polycarbonate. It's the stuff riot shields are made of. Very ordinary.

Notice that the Oakley impact videos compare "Plutonite" with CR39 lenses. Of course the Plutonite ones are better, because they're polycarbonate.

Wikipedia says:

"Polycarbonate plastic lenses are the lightest, and are also almost shatterproof, making them good for impact protection. CR-39 is the most common plastic lens, due to low weight, high scratch resistance, and low transparency for ultraviolet and infrared radiation"

So Oakley has compared their rebranded polycarbonate with a material that no one in their right mind would use for sports glasses.

Look, pay whatever you want for your glasses but don't be fooled that they're protecting you more than sensibly chosen alternatives for a tenth of the price.

That's actually incorrect. Oakley have patented Plutonite as a polycarbonate blend. In order to patent a new material it must be distinctly different on new, otherwise the patent office is obliged to reject the patent.

Does this make it any better than polycarbonate or? Possibly, I don't know. Does it make it worth buying Oakley sunglasses to cycle in? IMO no.

Surveyor11

I was doing some reading up on sunglasses recently (I know, sad) and I came across an article about Bollé sunglasses. Basically, the industrial version, something like http://www.caulfieldindustrial.com/bolle-contour-safety-spectacles--polarized-lens/p-g22538pd.html uses the same lens as the 'sports' version - http://www.sunglasses.ie/Bolle-Sunglasses-11418-Helix--Shiny-Black-Polarized-Smoke-Trivex.html.

personally, I use the Tifosi Tyrant glasses (cost about €60) and can't fault them - 3 sets of interchangeable lenses for everything the Irish sun can throw at it. Have tried these against my brother's Oakley's, and can't see any difference, certainly not enough to justify the x 3 price difference.

manafana

I bought my oakleys in buy 1 get one free, stii bit pricey at that, love my main pair, they fit well, and had not seen any sports gunglasses in the red and black i wanted.

Next time i buy thou id be very open to a mid price brand

mirv

Don't confuse trademarking with patenting. Just because I can make a soft drink which tastes exactly like Coca-Cola doesn't mean I can call it Coca-Cola.

They're just polycarbonate with a specific level of UV-protection.

Brian? wrote: »

That's actually incorrect. Oakley have patented Plutonite as a polycarbonate blend. In order to patent a new material it must be distinctly different on new, otherwise the patent office is obliged to reject the patent.

Does this make it any better than polycarbonate or? Possibly, I don't know. Does it make it worth buying Oakley sunglasses to cycle in? IMO no.

Raam

Has anyone here bought new sunglasses since we started this?

Lumen

Brian? wrote: »

That's actually incorrect. Oakley have patented Plutonite as a polycarbonate blend. In order to patent a new material it must be distinctly different on new, otherwise the patent office is obliged to reject the patent.

Does this make it any better than polycarbonate or? Possibly, I don't know. Does it make it worth buying Oakley sunglasses to cycle in? IMO no.

Would you happen to know which of these 174 patents covers Plutonite?

I'd be genuinely interested to read the patent application.

Regarding patent office obligations, I don't think anybody with exposure to the patent system would claim that the USPTO issuing a patent is any guarantee of novelty.