ERs: Oakley Rx, Sweat Band

[scurry]

I finally got sick of my scratched up glasses and got a new prescription
a few month ago. Since I hate switching between regular and sunglasses
with different prescriptions I figured it was time for a change there too.
Oakley talks up there wrap-around prescription shades as having better
peripheral vision, and better optical quality. This sounded good
compared to the other options out there (flat lenses), so I did some web
research about them. The big difference between the sunglasses I've had
and the Oakleys is that Oakley uses some allegedly sophisticated (could
be dirt simple FAIK) computer calculated optical figuring to allow the
lens to wrap around the side of the eye giving corrected peripheral
vision as well as the better protection afforded by a wrap around lens.
OK, sounds good. Off to the bike shop to find out how
way-too-expensive they'll be. Under $300? OK I'll bite. This may
sound outrageously expensive to those of you who pick up a $9 pair of
shades from Wally World when the dog chews up the previous pair, but I
need corrected vision for riding/driving/flying, live in a sunny place
and Can Not wear contacts, Lord knows I tried.
I ordered a pair of Minutes (about their cheapest frame) 18% gray tint,
no Iridium or other profit adding features $275.
They work. Nice clear, undistorted vision for about 160 degrees vs 110
degrees with my old Rx shades (yes, I measured). When I did my
checking, some people whined that they felt like they were standing in a
hole with Oakley Rx. I was concerned, but these comments were about 5
years old. If it was a problem either its been fixed or isn't a problem
for me.
My biggest concern about performance was while flying. Misjudging where
the runway is by two feet will mean no style points for a landing.
Misjudge by 4-5 feet and it'll ruin your whole day. A lot like guaging
where rocks and bumps are while riding the bike. Also in the glider,
while thermalling you're banked 30-45 degrees most of the time. I've
always found the sun coming in the side of my glasses to be a major
distraction. Those of you who commute south to work and north home
(where we drive on the right side of the road/driver in the left front
seat-opposite in England-when they actually see the sun.) may know what
I mean. The wrap to the sides takes care of this really well.
Also, I was concerned about the straight temple pieces not holding the
glasses on during riding. Not a problem.
Considering my last pair of shades were nearly $300 too, I think I did
well. My biggest concern is keeping them scratch free. Previous
Oakleys (while still struggling with contacts) scratched pretty easily.
I'm being careful.

Also for you hair challenged guys (girls too, I suppose), I've been
really annoyed with sweat dripping on my glasses, spotting them up, and
washing sunscreen into my eyes. I picked up a "Dowrap" brand coolmax
head band. No more spots before my eyes (other than the usual hypoxia
induced ones), and the thing doesn't even get that damp. That means all
that sweat that used to pour off my head into my eyes is now
evaporating, keeping me cooler. Sounds good to me.

Shawn

 

[Carla A-G]

"scurry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I ordered a pair of Minutes (about their cheapest frame) 18% gray tint,
> no Iridium or other profit adding features $275.

I've been using a pair of Oakley Minutes (the regular non-RX version) for a
few years now . They have been the most comfortable and have had the best
optics, out of any glasses that I have ever owned. I recently bought a a
pair of Rudy's but the optics are not as good as the Oakleys, IMO.

- CA-G

Can-Am Girls Kick Ass!

 

[pas]

Carla A-G wrote:
> "scurry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I ordered a pair of Minutes (about their cheapest frame) 18% gray
>> tint, no Iridium or other profit adding features $275.
>
> I've been using a pair of Oakley Minutes (the regular non-RX version)
> for a few years now . They have been the most comfortable and have
> had the best optics, out of any glasses that I have ever owned. I
> recently bought a a pair of Rudy's but the optics are not as good as
> the Oakleys, IMO.
>
> - CA-G
>
> Can-Am Girls Kick Ass!

and how does that official AMB-ID wicking sweatband work? ;-)

penny

 

[Carla A-G]

"pas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Carla A-G wrote:
> > "scurry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> I ordered a pair of Minutes (about their cheapest frame) 18% gray
> >> tint, no Iridium or other profit adding features $275.
> >
> > I've been using a pair of Oakley Minutes (the regular non-RX version)
> > for a few years now . They have been the most comfortable and have
> > had the best optics, out of any glasses that I have ever owned. I
> > recently bought a a pair of Rudy's but the optics are not as good as
> > the Oakleys, IMO.
> >
> > - CA-G
> >
> > Can-Am Girls Kick Ass!
>
> and how does that official AMB-ID wicking sweatband work? ;-)
>
> penny

I've only used it in ID, it worked great! Injuries and sickness have
prevented us from riding since we came back home so I haven't had a chance
to use it here... :-(

- CA-G

Can-Am Girls Kick Ass!

 

[Gman]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:54:06 -0600, scurry <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>

> OK, sounds good. Off to the bike shop to find out how
> way-too-expensive they'll be. Under $300? OK I'll bite. This may
> sound outrageously expensive to those of you who pick up a $9 pair of
> shades from Wally World when the dog chews up the previous pair, but I
> need corrected vision for riding/driving/flying, live in a sunny place
> and Can Not wear contacts, Lord knows I tried.
> I ordered a pair of Minutes (about their cheapest frame) 18% gray tint,
> no Iridium or other profit adding features $275.

<snip>


Wow, this is *exactly* what I've been pursuing for the last
month or two.

I'm just tired of carrying 2 or 3 pair of glasses around.

What is your prescription?

I actually see pretty well without glasses, but the kicker
is I've got 5 diopeters of astigmatism in each eye.
Otherwise my script is very light.

Investigated LASIK, not really a good option, plus not crazy
about folks cutting my eyes.

Almost did CRT (Corneal Refractive Therapy where u wear
contacts at night, they reshape your eyes, and you take them
out for good day vision with nothing) but didn't find the
$1700 cost a good value.

I've tried Toric RGP contacts, but couldn't get used to them.

I actually like my glasses-provided vision better than
anything, so I've finally decided on trying to find one pair
of specs that I can wear all the time that have
transitioning lenses.

Unfortunately Oakley won't try to put my script into their
lenses with my astigmatism, plus not sure they will do
transitions, but I've been working closely with a lab here
in town that is willing to try.

The catch is the wrap. They say if I wrap my script too
much I'll get distortion, but I'm going to give it a try
regardless.

Oakley has so many cool looking "wires" that would work for
me, and maybe even some that sit close enough to my face
that I wouldn't need a wrap frame, but I have trouble
finding places to try them on.
http://oakley.com/catalog/search/?search=prescription eyewear&category=prescription/eyewear&flag=1

I am also considering the Bolle Heatseakers and like wire
frames.
http://www.opticsplanet.net/bole-sg-mtlheats.html

As far as the sweat, Penny's AMB ID headband has kept my
glasses clear every time I've ridden with it!

G

 

[pas]

Gman wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:54:06 -0600, scurry
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> OK, sounds good. Off to the bike shop to find out how
>> way-too-expensive they'll be. Under $300? OK I'll bite. This may
>> sound outrageously expensive to those of you who pick up a $9 pair of
>> shades from Wally World when the dog chews up the previous pair, but
>> I need corrected vision for riding/driving/flying, live in a sunny
>> place and Can Not wear contacts, Lord knows I tried.
>> I ordered a pair of Minutes (about their cheapest frame) 18% gray
>> tint, no Iridium or other profit adding features $275.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> Wow, this is *exactly* what I've been pursuing for the last
> month or two.
>
> I'm just tired of carrying 2 or 3 pair of glasses around.
>
> What is your prescription?
>
> I actually see pretty well without glasses, but the kicker
> is I've got 5 diopeters of astigmatism in each eye.
> Otherwise my script is very light.
>
> Investigated LASIK, not really a good option, plus not crazy
> about folks cutting my eyes.
>
> Almost did CRT (Corneal Refractive Therapy where u wear
> contacts at night, they reshape your eyes, and you take them
> out for good day vision with nothing) but didn't find the
> $1700 cost a good value.
>
> I've tried Toric RGP contacts, but couldn't get used to them.
>
> I actually like my glasses-provided vision better than
> anything, so I've finally decided on trying to find one pair
> of specs that I can wear all the time that have
> transitioning lenses.
>
> Unfortunately Oakley won't try to put my script into their
> lenses with my astigmatism, plus not sure they will do
> transitions, but I've been working closely with a lab here
> in town that is willing to try.
>
> The catch is the wrap. They say if I wrap my script too
> much I'll get distortion, but I'm going to give it a try
> regardless.
>
> Oakley has so many cool looking "wires" that would work for
> me, and maybe even some that sit close enough to my face
> that I wouldn't need a wrap frame, but I have trouble
> finding places to try them on.
>
http://oakley.com/catalog/search/?search=prescription eyewear&category=prescription/eyewear&flag=1
>
> I am also considering the Bolle Heatseakers and like wire
> frames.
> http://www.opticsplanet.net/bole-sg-mtlheats.html
>
> As far as the sweat, Penny's AMB ID headband has kept my
> glasses clear every time I've ridden with it!
>
> G

How do you know it's not one of Gab's ? ;-) ( group effort, you know...)

P.

 

[scurry]

Gman wrote:

snip

> Wow, this is *exactly* what I've been pursuing for the last
> month or two.
>
> I'm just tired of carrying 2 or 3 pair of glasses around.
>
> What is your prescription?

About -3 near sighted, with about 1.5 astigmatism in each eye. Not too
bad, but I don't even try to read without glasses. Can't imagine what
you're seeing without the glasses.
The 18% neutral tint isn't too dark to get good results when its partly
cloudy out, but still cuts out a lot of glare in direct sun. I'll try
to follow up with an on snow report once ski season starts.
>
> I actually see pretty well without glasses, but the kicker
> is I've got 5 diopeters of astigmatism in each eye.
> Otherwise my script is very light.
>
> Investigated LASIK, not really a good option, plus not crazy
> about folks cutting my eyes.

Susie had LASIK about five years ago. She's had great results. Her
prescription was -9 or so for myopia (counting fingers at 10 inches),
but her asigmatism wasn't bad.
>
> Almost did CRT (Corneal Refractive Therapy where u wear
> contacts at night, they reshape your eyes, and you take them
> out for good day vision with nothing) but didn't find the
> $1700 cost a good value.
>
> I've tried Toric RGP contacts, but couldn't get used to them.
>
> I actually like my glasses-provided vision better than
> anything, so I've finally decided on trying to find one pair
> of specs that I can wear all the time that have
> transitioning lenses.
>
> Unfortunately Oakley won't try to put my script into their
> lenses with my astigmatism, plus not sure they will do
> transitions, but I've been working closely with a lab here
> in town that is willing to try.
>
> The catch is the wrap. They say if I wrap my script too
> much I'll get distortion, but I'm going to give it a try
> regardless.
>
> Oakley has so many cool looking "wires" that would work for
> me, and maybe even some that sit close enough to my face
> that I wouldn't need a wrap frame, but I have trouble
> finding places to try them on.
> http://oakley.com/catalog/search/?search=prescription eyewear&category=prescription/eyewear&flag=1

The owner of the LBS where I got my shades has a pair of no-tint wires.
He swears by them. They don't have much/any wrap so you might look
into them. About as spendy as the sunglasses though, so I went for the
Costco special (pick 'em up tomorrow AaMoF).

> I am also considering the Bolle Heatseakers and like wire
> frames.
> http://www.opticsplanet.net/bole-sg-mtlheats.html
>
> As far as the sweat, Penny's AMB ID headband has kept my
> glasses clear every time I've ridden with it!

Of all the simple solutions I struggled without for years. While
climbing (do a lot of that here, especially with how slow I climb) I
would stop often to drain the front pads in my helmet. I don't have to
stop for *that* any more.

Shawn

 

[Gman]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:02:20 -0600, scurry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The owner of the LBS where I got my shades has a pair of no-tint wires.
> He swears by them. They don't have much/any wrap so you might look
> into them. About as spendy as the sunglasses though, so I went for the
> Costco special (pick 'em up tomorrow AaMoF).

Yeah, I saw Stuart Scott (ESPN SportsCenter) wears a pair of
those. Probably something like the Chop Tops. I am trying
to find a shop in town that *has* a few Oakleys that I might
try on.

It's looking like the RayBan Highstreet Sleeks fit my head,
provide decent coverage and would likely accept my script
reasonably well (they are only a Base 6 curve):
http://www.ultimateshades.com/rayban/highstreet/Sleek.htm

We'll see what I end up with. Might still be Costco frames
that transition for everyday with some secondary sunglasses
for sports...I'm really hoping to avoid this tho.

G

 

[Monique Y. Mudama]

On 2004-08-28, scurry penned:
>
> Susie had LASIK about five years ago. She's had great results. Her
> prescription was -9 or so for myopia (counting fingers at 10 inches), but
> her asigmatism wasn't bad.

I had a similar prescription and also had lasik about five years ago. I'm
thrilled with it. It doesn't stop your eyes from changes they were going to
make anyway, so I do wear glasses for reading and computer work, but not for
sports. My large pupils do make it harder for me to see well in dim lighting
or at night -- I definitely need glasses then; in bright light I generally
don't. I think my official eyesight now is 20/100, but then, they always
measure it in a dim room.

--
monique

"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live."
-- Mark Twain