|
Post by r0b1et on Mar 1, 2016 11:47:39 GMT
Happy to agree that some of the prices asked for by high end brands are outrageuos but that's market forces for you. If you feel confident that a piece of gravel kicked up by a passing vehicle with sufficient force to crack a car windscreen is going to bounce off your fashionable shades then that's your choice. Plenty of other ways that poorly designed glasses can spoil your day too. My point is that eyes damage is a real risk for cyclists and needs to be take seriously. Look for the EN numbers I have absolutely no faith my 97p glasses would not shatter. I have exactly the same amount of doubt on £200 Oakleys.
|
|
|
Post by Radchenister on Mar 1, 2016 13:54:11 GMT
Wind up post surely? ... or if not, this is heading into the same territory as the helmet debate, to quote one of elder statesmen, "helmets not even in top 10 of things that keep cycling safe" - surely this is even more tenuous; once again we're being told that in the highly unlikely event we get stones pinged at us by a passing vehicle, we need to wrap ourselves up in further body armour (ignoring how this stone is going to gain sufficient relative inertia and the speeds involved in passing cyclists like that).
|
|
|
Post by jondxxx on Mar 1, 2016 15:16:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by chas on Mar 1, 2016 15:41:07 GMT
I agree stones can be thrown up by cars (and even bikes) at high speed and the consequences of getting one directly in your eye would be catastrophic. The likelihood of a direct hit that would shatter a cheap pair of glasses I would argue is very low. Flies and bugs however are much more common and I'd say a cheap pair is much better than none. If protection vs price is important you can get safety sunglasses cheaply from screwfix etc or dare I say it Decathlon do a range...
|
|
|
Post by Radchenister on Mar 1, 2016 15:46:49 GMT
Have you actually laid hands on these eye destroying copies jondxxx? ... and 'reliable protection' - how do you define that? I've got four perfectly good sets of cheapo sunglasses here, the other two UK sourced ones we bought before those lie in a drawer broken, so the cheapo stuff has proven to be better than the CE marked variants; there's no discernible difference from the quality of ski glasses I've had in the past; admittedly, I've not laid hands on real JawBones to be able to see the 'extra quality' they offer and we all know the copies are knocked out in a plastic factory in China on the cheap. You could pay 15 times the money and get a similar spec'd product if you like, off loading your hard earned funds to a branded company, they all need big profits I guess, got to pay middle men, share holders etc. Many of these branded companies probably buy wholesale from the same place, or the factory next door - I'm happy with the ethics of buying flimsy sunnies straight from the source with what's practically a throw away item, if they're a bit naff then so be it; the ones I have here have lasted a year of use so far, if the kids wreck them, then who cares at the price. Oakleys are supposed to be made in the USA I believe (are we sure), not sure about other brands? If we flip this the other way, how do we know a real set when we see them? Once we've sussed they're real - how do we know they're offering 10 - 15 times the level of protection that comes with the price tag? Edit: Turns out even the collectors are a bit flummoxed by the off shore production issue and the extent of 'USA' ownership / manufacturing; one guy who spent hundreds of dollars, only to have faulty 'genuine' sunglasses, appears a tad miffed. www.oakleyforum.com/threads/oakley-made-in-china.34259/page-6
|
|
|
Post by jondxxx on Mar 1, 2016 21:19:10 GMT
For reliability I would expect any eye protection to be marked with the relevant EN and CE marks which mostly refer to the lenses not the frames. If someone is happy to turn out fake branded glasses then they are hardly going to worry about false standard marks which brings me back to the point about using a reputable retailer. No matter how identical the lenses may look you can't be sure of their transmission properties without proper measuring gear. Mechanical strength is also an unknown without testing to destruction. If the glasses don't have CE marks at all then I would treat them with great suspicion. Unfortunately problems associated with excessive UV exposure won't show up for a few years and you may only find out the real strength of a lens when there are bits of it stuck in your eyeball. I was looking at some so called sports glasses in Halfords and the lenses had nice sharp edges specially for slicing cheeks open.
It would be interesting if a consumer programme like Fake Britain or one of the magazines could send a few samples of these Chinese copies for proper testing.
|
|
|
Post by Radchenister on Mar 1, 2016 21:22:03 GMT
You're empowering the kite mark with more powers than it actually has.
|
|
|
Post by Radchenister on Mar 1, 2016 22:15:24 GMT
... bottom line, if they're dark they'll work, as for smash testing, unless they're specific impact resistant safety glasses, IME they all will.
|
|
|
Post by r0b1et on Mar 2, 2016 0:27:23 GMT
Unfortunately problems associated with excessive UV exposure won't show up for a few years As said earlier, UV filtering is inherent in almost all plastic (it's fairly basic effect from physics) - its harder to find one that isn't, and definitely more costly, so they won't be scrimping there. Seen perfectly in Rad's video. As for What does the kite mark mean? : Robustness To comply with standard EN166, the eyewear must be strong enough to withstand every day risks that might damage or affect the eye protector. The symbol guarantees the minimum strength that corresponds to a 22 mm ball, 43 g, falling from a height of 1.30 m (12m/sec.). 12m/s! only 27mph... so that's pointless then - as if it's flicked back, and I'm doing a sensible speed, its doing way more than 12m/s. I'll add that I was surprised to see no mention of safety in the Oakley website.
|
|
|
Post by jondxxx on Mar 2, 2016 10:11:01 GMT
The video is typical internet pseudo-scientific claptrap testing at only one wavelength, 400 nm while the spectrum stretches from 100 nm to 400 nm. "if they're dark they'll work" No. Lens tinting is irrrelevant to UV transmission and dark glasses will make the pupils dilate allowing more of any unfiltered harmful rays to reach the retina. Agreed most plastics have some inherent UV protection. Is some enough?? EN166 The 12 M/Sec refers to the lowest standard for the frame. The figure for the lens is 45 M/Sec. Also the test is measuring the ability of the lens to absorb the kinetic energy of the test ball so a lighter piece of debris could be travelling faster and still fall within the parameters. Oakley TechnologylinkThis debate coould go round in ever decreasing circles forever so I think we may just have to agree to differ and move on Perhaps attending too many laser safety courses has made me overcautious. If people are happy to trust their eyes to protection that is only probably okay that's up to them. Now about helmets ..............
|
|
|
Post by r0b1et on Mar 2, 2016 10:51:35 GMT
Now about helmets .............. How's the hovding in warm weather when on it? If I was risk averse - I'd be in bed.
|
|
|
Post by jondxxx on Mar 2, 2016 11:19:33 GMT
Now about helmets .............. How's the hovding in warm weather when on it? If I was risk averse - I'd be in bed. hovdings? You're not safe in bed
|
|
|
Post by Radchenister on Mar 2, 2016 11:23:28 GMT
... so a guy who appears to have no other motive than to investigate the effectiveness of cheap glasses v rip off ones clearly demonstrates that a variety of cheap dark lenses work just as well as expensive ones but you now want lab conditions, and a redefinition of my words to cater for mininiscule percentage variations across tones and different wavelengths. We're in the northern hemisphere here, not suggesting using them for a two week dessert expo, or thin air harsh atmospheric Everest summiting etc. We've never claimed the Chinese ones are great, just not as bad as some people like to make out and probably no worse than many more expensive CE marked options. We also suggested that cycling glasses generally aren't great on impact resistance, whether they're CE marked or not but using some is better than none. Would be interested to see what you do trust and are using yourself? Then we can lay this to rest.
|
|
|
Post by Rocket on Mar 2, 2016 12:00:30 GMT
UV filtering.... In this country? You guys are surely having a laugh! If I wear cycling glasses they are almost always clear lenses. They are to protect me from insects mainly or spray from the wheel in front.
Do you wear UV filtering lenses at all other times even when not cycling?
|
|
|
Post by sodafarl on Mar 2, 2016 12:37:57 GMT
UV filtering.... In this country? You guys are surely having a laugh! If I wear cycling glasses they are almost always clear lenses. They are to protect me from insects mainly or spray from the wheel in front. Do you wear UV filtering lenses at all other times even when not cycling? Haha Rocket I'm glad you said that. I have various glasses and the darker the lens the less use they get
|
|