Smart Glasses (don't laugh)
- Thread starter Wiltshire Warrior
- Start date
steve_sordy
Wedding Crasher
What every roadie wants!
(I assume, 'cos I sure don't)
(I assume, 'cos I sure don't)
All Mountain Coaching
E*POWAH Elite
Different that's for sure.
What? No crosshairs? 
Smart Glasses for SmartAsses?
Smart Glasses for SmartAsses?
dirt huffer
E*POWAH Master
I actually like that on sports cars where GM calls it HUD (Heads Up Display) as it appears on the windshield of the car.
The heat rate might be nice for zone training on a road bike.
The heat rate might be nice for zone training on a road bike.
ULEWZ
Active member
My Vette has the hud and I love it.
Oakley have done snowboard goggles with hud for a while, I expect they'll do cycling glasses eventually
steve_sordy
Wedding Crasher
Nope!
You could buy 2 pairs of Oakleys for that!
I didn't see a price for the specs, but I assumed that they would be costly.
I use prescription Oakleys and they are extremely good (they sure ought to be for the money!). Despite all my involuntary dismounts, OTBs at speed, and straight-up crashes - they never came off or even close. Those unobtainium arm sleeves and the nose bridge are proper magic material and the sweatier I get the harder they grip.
Judging by the scratches on the lenses, I know they have saved my eye area from damage on many occasions. There are loads of brambles and thin branches whipping across the face when riding in the forest. I stood on them once and thought I had broken them beyond repair. I heard and felt the crunch and saw several pieces on the ground. But the arms just clicked back onto the frame and they were good to go!
It is entirely possible cheaper frames that can be fitted with prescription lenses are available, but after my 100% positive experience I am reluctant to experiment. And they look so cool!
Wow! a living breathing marketing executives wet dream!
steve_sordy
Wedding Crasher
I'm sure Oakley are investing your CREDITs wisely
FACT CHECK: Does Luxottica Own 80% of the Eyeglass Industry?
Luxottica - Wikipedia
TL : DR ? Most of the sunglass industry is owned by ONE company. Sunglass prices are intentionally inflated and played against each other. Their actual manufacturing value (and quality) is similar to a lot unbranded products (and for that matter many chinese knock-offs). By purchasing (and singing the praises of) any of their brands you are simply adding to their wealth and marketing power.
FACT CHECK: Does Luxottica Own 80% of the Eyeglass Industry?
Luxottica - Wikipedia
TL : DR ? Most of the sunglass industry is owned by ONE company. Sunglass prices are intentionally inflated and played against each other. Their actual manufacturing value (and quality) is similar to a lot unbranded products (and for that matter many chinese knock-offs). By purchasing (and singing the praises of) any of their brands you are simply adding to their wealth and marketing power.
steve_sordy
Wedding Crasher
@Gary I don't want to spend ages on this, but it sure doesn't look as bad as your brief statement makes out. My first question was "where?". ie 80% of which country, the USA or the world? The Fact Check link makes it clear that they have a bigger grip in the USA, but nothing like 80%, and even less elsewhere.
USA: "According to VisionWatch, almost 50% of eyeglasses in the U.S. are sold by independent optometrists and opticians. The other half is made up of chain retailers that include Costco, Walmart, Solstice and other non-Luxottica entities".
Global: "According to Euromonitor International, the world’s leading independent provider of strategic market research, 954 million frames were sold worldwide last year. Only 93 million of those were produced by Luxottica — less than 10%."
Briefly I had something to do with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the UK. These guys investigate potential monopolies. Their definition of a monopoly was that the company has 25% or more of the market and is the largest competitor." Their sole aim is to investigate whether the company that has the monopoly is acting against the interests of the market and the to make recommendations to fix any imbalance. The company I worked for had over 60% of the UK market and was thoroughly investigated by the M&MC. They gave a clean bill of health! The company did not have to sell off any brands, close down any factories, pay any fines, or indeed incur any penalties of any kind. In fact quite the opposite, the report said that the company was acting positively in the interests of the market by driving prices down and fostering innovation. I'm sure you may say that was a one off, and it may be. But being a monopoly doesn't always mean that it's a bad thing, it may just mean that you are the best at what you do.
Anyway, all that aside; back to the Oakley specs. I see nothing wrong in reporting back my experience for others to read and decide whether they believe the price they are paying is worth it or not. That's for them to decide. It is the same as test reviews in bike magazines, except that I cannot be accused of bias towards the product by the by the issue of free specs.
USA: "According to VisionWatch, almost 50% of eyeglasses in the U.S. are sold by independent optometrists and opticians. The other half is made up of chain retailers that include Costco, Walmart, Solstice and other non-Luxottica entities".
Global: "According to Euromonitor International, the world’s leading independent provider of strategic market research, 954 million frames were sold worldwide last year. Only 93 million of those were produced by Luxottica — less than 10%."
Briefly I had something to do with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the UK. These guys investigate potential monopolies. Their definition of a monopoly was that the company has 25% or more of the market and is the largest competitor." Their sole aim is to investigate whether the company that has the monopoly is acting against the interests of the market and the to make recommendations to fix any imbalance. The company I worked for had over 60% of the UK market and was thoroughly investigated by the M&MC. They gave a clean bill of health! The company did not have to sell off any brands, close down any factories, pay any fines, or indeed incur any penalties of any kind. In fact quite the opposite, the report said that the company was acting positively in the interests of the market by driving prices down and fostering innovation. I'm sure you may say that was a one off, and it may be. But being a monopoly doesn't always mean that it's a bad thing, it may just mean that you are the best at what you do.
Anyway, all that aside; back to the Oakley specs. I see nothing wrong in reporting back my experience for others to read and decide whether they believe the price they are paying is worth it or not. That's for them to decide. It is the same as test reviews in bike magazines, except that I cannot be accused of bias towards the product by the by the issue of free specs.
Doesn't really matter "where"
My point was Oakley among other (Luxottica ownd) sunglasses brands sell their products at artificially inflated prices. Whether you want to admit that or not and whether you want to pay those prices is as you say entirely the consumers choice. As is sharing your love for your Oalkeys. It's what you're meant to do and how marketing works.
They're all just moulded pieces of plastic with metal fastenings and rubber accessories.
Any loyalty you hold to the product you own is purely fashion/image led.
No one looks "cool" because they bought a pair of [insert brand] sunglasses.
They either looked "cool" anyway (most folk don't) or they're percieved to look "cool" by others who have also fallen for the same image led marketing ploy/lifestyle/look scam.
FWIW I have owned lots of pairs of grenuine Oakley sunglasses. All were poor quality and had poor durability. (but this was almost 20 years back). customer service and warranty was second to none though. (Why I stuck with them for so long) I now don't ever pay more than a tenner for a pair of sunglasses and choose unbranded models that are comfortable and suit my face shape. I'm already pretty cool though.
Don't take any of this personally. It's simply how brand loyalty works.
steve_sordy
Wedding Crasher
The point of having a "brand" is so that the consumer knows what they are getting. It doesn't matter whether the brand is high quality (Rolls Royce?) or just cheap and nasty (RyanAir?). As long as they hold true to their brand values, the consumer can rely on getting what they are paying for.
The problem is when the brand does not hold true to its values and then people have a right to feel ripped off (VW emissions?). The reaction can be extreme because the brand image backfires and people can say "anything except (insert name here)". Does anyone remember when Perrier's water was contaminated with Benzene (cause of cancer)? Overnight the entire stock in the supply chain was held and then physically removed from sale. Every single bottle was replaced and it was a full-on "hands up" approach. Yes it cost money, but the public was reassured by their response and Perrier is still a big business - because they stuck to their brand values. A different response would have destroyed them.
Another issue that I hadn't previously considered was those consumers that are "anti-brand". Unless they are just cynics that believe that all big business is lying to them, then I guess they have had a bad experience somewhere that formed their view. It seems to come from the same place that assumes all magazine reviews are bought and paid for, and bear no relation to the truth and therefore must be ignored.
I may have led a sheltered life, but I have only knowingly met one confirmed anti-brand person. He was an unhappy man and could be relied upon to be angry at pretty much any opinion that didn't fit his world view. He later had a nervous breakdown and after his recovery has been a different man, well at least not angry any more.
I have never been a brand manager or worked in marketing. But I have worked for an honourable company that is global in scale. It had then and still has lots of big brands and it uses marketing techniques. This enabled me to see the positive side.
The problem is when the brand does not hold true to its values and then people have a right to feel ripped off (VW emissions?). The reaction can be extreme because the brand image backfires and people can say "anything except (insert name here)". Does anyone remember when Perrier's water was contaminated with Benzene (cause of cancer)? Overnight the entire stock in the supply chain was held and then physically removed from sale. Every single bottle was replaced and it was a full-on "hands up" approach. Yes it cost money, but the public was reassured by their response and Perrier is still a big business - because they stuck to their brand values. A different response would have destroyed them.
Another issue that I hadn't previously considered was those consumers that are "anti-brand". Unless they are just cynics that believe that all big business is lying to them, then I guess they have had a bad experience somewhere that formed their view. It seems to come from the same place that assumes all magazine reviews are bought and paid for, and bear no relation to the truth and therefore must be ignored.
I may have led a sheltered life, but I have only knowingly met one confirmed anti-brand person. He was an unhappy man and could be relied upon to be angry at pretty much any opinion that didn't fit his world view. He later had a nervous breakdown and after his recovery has been a different man, well at least not angry any more.
I have never been a brand manager or worked in marketing. But I have worked for an honourable company that is global in scale. It had then and still has lots of big brands and it uses marketing techniques. This enabled me to see the positive side.
I understand the concept of a brand name.
I'm not anti-brand. That doesn't mean I'd blindly expect every single product from the same "brand" to be equally good quality, value for money or even relevant to me.
I'm not cynical either... But I am most certainly skeptical of any company (Oakley) that sells plastic sunglasses for £150 wherre the frames go brittle and crack from exposure to UV. [True story]
as for Mag reviews. Don't be so naive as to assume they're all as valid oor invalid as each other. Their validity and honesty depends on many factors.
I'm never angry either. Especially online. Life's too short for being angry.
Can't comment on the above, tldr, but my cycling Oakleys have been excellent. They go from clear to dark depending on the lighting, so I never worry about having the right glasses for the conditions, or wearing sunglasses in the woods (probably not an issue in Scotland).
Think they were £100 in about 2012 and been worn on most rides since. Someone tried the cheap version on here, you can probably find the review
Think they were £100 in about 2012 and been worn on most rides since. Someone tried the cheap version on here, you can probably find the review
steve_sordy
Wedding Crasher
The only reservation that I had with Oakleys was with my first pair. I had opted for transition lenses (like all my eye wear), but made the mistake of also going for tinted lenses. That combination made the transition from dark to light take too long when going from bright sunlight into dark woods. I had to dislodge the frames slightly so I could see over the top before I hit anything! For my second pair I did without the tint and I no longer have that problem. It still takes time of course to change, but the speed of it is no longer a problem.
Why did I buy a second pair? Nothing wrong with the first pair, but I use the prescription version and I didn't want to cancel riding whilst the first pair were being re-glazed. The cost difference between new frames and re-glazing was not that big either.
billwarwick
E*POWAH Elite
why is there only one Monopolies Commission?
I get most of my sunglasses from Decathlon now, infact I am a bit of a Decathlon addict, my current riding jacket is their most expensive waterproof hiking jacket, which is 30,000 waterproof/breathability, is proper 3L and has kept me dry thought out the winter, all for 80 quid, and has all the bells and whistles of expensive rivals.
Having said that I was given a pair of these Oakley Sutro's for my Birthday, with the Prism road lenses, and they really are the best glasses I have used for riding in, field of view is pretty much uninterrupted by the frame and the clarity is something else. The definitely Chanel an 80's vibe though!
https://www.oakley.com/en-gb/product/W0OO9406?variant=888392404770
In my alternate life as an obsessive Snowboard Gear Whore, and at the last count owning over 20 pairs go goggles, I always found that Smith, on a technical level, made the best lenses/product in terms of pure fit and function - never tried their sunglasses though.
Having said that I was given a pair of these Oakley Sutro's for my Birthday, with the Prism road lenses, and they really are the best glasses I have used for riding in, field of view is pretty much uninterrupted by the frame and the clarity is something else. The definitely Chanel an 80's vibe though!
https://www.oakley.com/en-gb/product/W0OO9406?variant=888392404770
In my alternate life as an obsessive Snowboard Gear Whore, and at the last count owning over 20 pairs go goggles, I always found that Smith, on a technical level, made the best lenses/product in terms of pure fit and function - never tried their sunglasses though.
xcentric
New Member
£700 for a pair of the raptors. They are ok, but I'd have designed the layout of info differently
motmcd
Active member
Ummm, why spoil the view?
EMTB Forums
Latest articles
-
The lightweight Canyon Neuron:ONfly CF is here!
Finally, Canyon is out with their first mid-assist, lightweight emtb...- Knut Nes
- 6 min read
- Views: 1K
- Reaction score: 5
- Comments: 4
-
New Sight VLT and Range VLT joins the 2024 Norco lineup
How many full-power emtbs have been launched this year? Yeah, Merida...- Knut Nes
- 2 min read
- Views: 4K
- Reaction score: 2
- Comments: 2