Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 90
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Bottom feeding
    Posts
    6,098

    Chinese Goggles on Amazon

    GCN did an Oakley tour where they went into the QC labs and it looks like Oakley does a lot of testing that the Chinese knock offís might not. Nonetheless other than brushing against a branch now and then, Iím not sure it matters.
    I forgot if they mentioned the UV testing stuff.
    Well maybe I'm the faggot America
    I'm not a part of a redneck agenda

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,275
    Yeah I buy several various generic type things, some things I prefer the good stuff. I bought some cheapy sunglasses when I was on the road and forgot mine. I was really impressed with them for the first two weeks then they were suddenly scratched beyond oblivion for no apparently reason. I'd be worried about the UV as well. Impact resistance not as much, as you can buy $10 ansi approved safety glasses.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by El Chupacabra View Post
    Is there a reason to be concerned about UV protection with cheap ebay/ Amazon goggles? The name brand sunglass makers always hype that when promoting their expensive products. Just hype or legit?
    The goggles in the OP's link are advertised as 100% UV400 protection, which would mean full spectrum UVA and UVB... but I guess it wouldn't be the first time I saw false advertising.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Rideski View Post
    I'd be worried about the UV as well. Impact resistance not as much, as you can buy $10 ansi approved safety glasses.
    UV was what I was thinking too, but by the same token as your comment, most $15 sunglasses at the gas station say UVA/UVB anymore, who knows if that's accurate. With cheap goggles, I'd probably be at least careful on bluebird days at high elevation, when the UV factor is screaming high.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Squaw valley
    Posts
    2,150
    Unlikely that they wouldn't be uv resistant.

    All these companies want to sell their stuff in Europe or us, so they meet all sorts of standards

    Sent from my moto g(6) using TGR Forums mobile app

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    58
    Also, these are polycarbonate lenses (according to the description) and PC is inherently a good blocker of UV light. It is really good at allowing visible spectrum through, but plain PC blocks almost all UV (which starts about 400nm and goes down). Here's a graph of PC light transmission. SO even if it isn't coated well with anything, the lenses should give good UV protection.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,275
    What if they are coated with something that is supposed to be part of the light transmission reduction, and then scratched? I have a pair of Anon goggles that got a scratch in the worst spot right in front of the pupil and I don't even wear them anymore. Not sure if the UV is the same (it might be) but certainly more light coming through.

    But yeah for clarity (that's a pun) I'd probably give these a whirl for $20. But I have had some luck getting nice goggles on SAC for cheap.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Basel
    Posts
    281
    I picked up a few pairs of 'wolf' broand goggles for $20 each - polarized no less. great for the kids and wife. she can't make it to the lift with out scratching the shit out of new lenses. Totally worth it. anyting over $100 for goggles is bullshit in my opinion. 250+ is a worse crim than a lift tix at vail. I have been going on a year with mine and they are more than decent. more beer money for me.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,784
    Quote Originally Posted by XavierD View Post
    It would be Interesting to see how optics and clarity compare to Oakley and other high end goggles. Not sure Iíd want to trust the Chinese versions for impact protection.
    I'd be concerned about UV protection. Having spent time in China and visiting various factories, I can say that the quality of the source materials is generally different, i.e. of lower quality for off brand or no name brand products. They also aren't normally mfg. on the same quality equipment and to the higher standards set by name brand companies. And as others have astutely pointed out, the markup is indeed insanely high for the name brand products. A large part of what you are paying for is the marketing and the overhead for all those marketing folks, and their ad and sponsorship dollars to get you to pay way more than it costs to mfg, and retail their consumer goods.
    "We don't beat the reaper by living longer, we beat the reaper by living well and living fully." - Randy Pausch

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Rideski View Post
    What if they are coated with something that is supposed to be part of the light transmission reduction, and then scratched? I have a pair of Anon goggles that got a scratch in the worst spot right in front of the pupil and I don't even wear them anymore. Not sure if the UV is the same (it might be) but certainly more light coming through.

    But yeah for clarity (that's a pun) I'd probably give these a whirl for $20. But I have had some luck getting nice goggles on SAC for cheap.
    If the lenses are actually polycarbonate, it shouldn't matter if they get scratched, or have crap coatings, etc. as far as UV protection goes. That's why I posted the graph... it is for plain, untreated polycarbonate. As far as blinding visible light coming through a scratch, that's another story. Also, I wouldn't be shocked if they used some lower grade plastic for the lenses, too.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using TGR Forums mobile app

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    384
    Regarding the high price of eye wear, the following 60 Minutes story is worth watching. Itís about glasses and sunglasses but Iím sure itís the same for goggles.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gDdq2rIqAlM

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    8,892
    Hurry and buy before Trump slaps a tariff on them.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    19,519
    I'm not terribly concerned with UV protection since I ski in the fog a lot, but it makes sense about the actual material absorbing UV. Pretty sure basically any PC lens will be shatter/UV resistant. Seems like they all say they are, anyway. Someone or something would have tested that by now; a news org or Consumer Reports, etc.
    I'll provide initial feedback when they show up, allegedly, tomorrow. Hopefully, they fit my face and helmet. They look like they should.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Behind the Potato Curtain
    Posts
    3,199
    I worked for a guy for a while who came from Smith, said a high end pair of glasses cost them 12.50$ on average to have made.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by snapt View Post
    I worked for a guy for a while who came from Smith, said a high end pair of glasses cost them 12.50$ on average to have made.
    Hahaha... so we are still overpaying for $20 Chinese knockoffs.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using TGR Forums mobile app

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,275
    Yeah Rob, I think I missed that graph posting same time. Good to see, not sure what they would use besides polycarbonate, but makes me wonder why anyone bothers to say their UV protection is better. Here at 11,000 ft above sea level, prime concern.

    And speaking of prime, new level of oppression in social media tracking, an Amzn ad just popped up (on a different site) for knockoff goggles, even though I had not clicked any of the above links.

    We are now assimilated.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Rideski View Post

    And speaking of prime, new level of oppression in social media tracking, an Amzn ad just popped up (on a different site) for knockoff goggles, even though I had not clicked any of the above links.

    We are now assimilated.
    ^^^^^
    This. Me too.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    402
    I bought two as gifts, one for mrs. and one for me circa fall 2016. Probably ~$20/each back then on Amazon.

    No problems, no concerns, not worried about them. Probably made in the same factory as $250 brand name googles with marginally inferior components.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    316
    So, just a quick follow-up. I think the "deal" is over, so they're not $20 any more. But I got these a 2 or 3 years ago. That was before there was any real feedback on them. But since it was Amazon, I figured I could always return them - which isn't so easy with stuff from Ebay and shipped from China/Hong Kong/Malaysia etc.

    I've been using them exclusively for goggles since. Probably 80+ days on them.
    Nothing to complain about.

    Had a lens with a failed seal and it fogged internally - they replaced it quickly and without hassle.
    Foam has been good. Fit and finish are fine. Mag lenses stay put even in the worst bails I've done. And they swap easily when desired.

    IMO, the best combo would be something like 20 VLT, 60% VLT and 80-100 VLT. [I got another pair of these, for the addl lenses and sharing etc.] But I've used a 65% orange-ish and 80% green lenses for low light conditions. The 65 lens is pretty good even on fairly bright days. It probably helps that I'm getting old and my eyes simply want/need more light. I'd rather squint a bit when it's a little too bright, and still have the light when I need it, vs using too dark a lens.

    Nothing really cuts it when you're totally vertiginous in the fog. But I don't think these lenses are any worse or better than any others when it's marginally better either.

    TLDR version;
    These are just solid goggles. And at the special price seemed like an obvious choice.
    [Well, unless paying a lot to sport an Anon or Oakley logo on your head is a priority.]

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    the Can-Utardia / LMCC VT
    Posts
    10,783
    I still get $25 (1/2 price) back on the goggles but no discount on lenses.

    Makes more sense to buy a couple goggles and a single lens to round out the quiver
    Last edited by My Pet Powder Goat; 12-03-2018 at 06:30 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hohes View Post
    I couldn't give a fuck, but today I am procrastinating so TGR is my filler.
    Quote Originally Posted by skifishbum View Post
    faceshots are a powerful currency
    get paid

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    58
    I got my pair in just now. Seem like fine goggles. Went with the green 18% VLT lens. I'm comparing them to my Bolle goggles I got on clearance a couple years ago and my wife's new Smith Chromapop lenses. The Bolle I have are a much lighter tint, but as far as I can tell, the optics are similar. Chromapop is similar VLT (25% Everyday Red) but is definitely a little nicer overall, although the Outdoormaster has a little better peripheral vision (subtle... I could be making it up. And the Smith's are a cylindrical lens, btw). One bummer about the Outdoor Master lens I have is that there is a very slight imperfection in the central vision that make a tiny blurry spot. If I wasn't trying to compare them with other goggles and write a little review, I may not have noticed.
    Otherwise, the clarity is on par with the other goggles. They fit well and are comfortable - decent foam. It does press on the bridge of my nose a little more than I would like, but not a deal breaker. Seem to integrate well with my Giro Zone. Look good. Strap has a silicone bead to help it grip the helmet.
    One thing that seems a little concerning. In the instructions they say not to wipe out the insides of the lens if it gets wet because it will damage the anti-fog coating. Instead, they want you to let it air dry while skiing. You can blot it a bit with the included bag/cleaning cloth. I know I'm gonna have to wipe these things out eventually to be able to see well enough to get going and air them out.
    I'll ski them this weekend and see how they do. If they work, I'll probably order a lighter lens for overcast/stormy days (or order another pair of goggles for cheaper!). Not sure if the blurry spot is irritating enough to try to get them exchanged.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by gregorys View Post
    So, just a quick follow-up. I think the "deal" is over, so they're not $20 any more.
    I think you need to use the coupon code GOGGLESPRO at checkout for half off.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    7,684
    Just confirmed, GOGGLESPRO still works. Enter it at checkout.

    Picked up the light green, 80% vlt lenses. Hoping they're decent in our perpetual fog. For $20, it's a pretty low risk investment.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    6,207

    Chinese Goggles on Amazon

    Anyone compare the fit to smith IO/7?
    It also says they are glasses compatible. Donít wear glasses so concerned they will stick out a ton further than Smithís. Anyone care to measure them?

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    north aspect
    Posts
    39,790
    probably leave a goggle gap on your noggin
    bF
    Alpental Indigenous

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •