Chinese Goggles on Amazon

[tgapp]

Took my OutdoorMaster's out for the first time yesterday (60% VLT Blue lens), and they were really fantastic. I left them on in the skinner when lapping because I'm a lazy piece of shit, and I dealt with absolutely zero condensation. Pretty superb. Goggles looked great, performed well, and were comfortable too. All of this talk of their optics being somehow worse is horseshit as far as I can tell; these seem to do just fine. Would gladly trust my eyesight to them on a bluebird day.

[Rideski]

I’d like to hear more about that. What other material might be people be using in cheap sunglasses and why bother, would it be that much cheaper? Easier to obtain/work with?

Pretty sure any polycarbonate lens blocks the UV spectrum. All of the cheap Amazon goggles I've seen are polycarbonate lenses.

I'm 99% sure the cheap Amazon goggles are identical to some brand name goggles, minus the branding and quality control (which means sometimes there's optical defects in the lens, but it won't make any difference for protecting your eyes).

It's worth noting that that's different than the cheap, generic sunglasses that have plastic (not polycarbonate) lenses that don't necessarily block UV light.

[toast2266]

I’d like to hear more about that. What other material might be people be using in cheap sunglasses and why bother, would it be that much cheaper? Easier to obtain/work with?

I don't know specifics. But I'm pretty sure those $5 gas station sunglasses aren't polycarbonate lenses. It's some other plastic that may or may not block UV radiation.

[Rideski]

That’s part of what I was expressing several pages ago, that knowingly or not (some) of the cheap goggle manufacturers might be doing the same and or might have the product mis-labeled knowingly or not. When I buy a chinese mousetrap I don’t care if there’s some typos in the materials. For goggles I would. I am tempted to try though, and think it would be evident if they block UV or not, because if I go outside with no shades I generally see tinges of pink on white surfaces when I come back inside. Not completely conclusive and still a little scary. If I spent an extra $2000 on googles over the next 30 years to retain eyesight it’s worth it but that’s also a lot of burritos. Also cheaper goggles mean trading out way sooner and not rolling with scratches for a year.

[stuckathuntermtn]

If I skied 5 times a year I'd take the risk and use cheap Chinese goggles. If I skied 25 times a year I'd pay for quality eye protection. Cataracts and night or flat light skiing suck.

The stuff is literally coming out of the same production line with a different brand on it. It's like buying store brand corn flakes.
Now, they don't have that nice high contrast tech, just a normal tint, and that may make a difference, but I'm 35 and if my vision got worse at all in the last few years, it would be down to 20/20.
YMMV, but not buy THAT much.

[toast2266]

That’s part of what I was expressing several pages ago, that knowingly or not (some) of the cheap goggle manufacturers might be doing the same and or might have the product mis-labeled knowingly or not. When I buy a chinese mousetrap I don’t care if there’s some typos in the materials. For goggles I would. I am tempted to try though, and think it would be evident if they block UV or not, because if I go outside with no shades I generally see tinges of pink on white surfaces when I come back inside. Not completely conclusive and still a little scary. If I spent an extra $2000 on googles over the next 30 years to retain eyesight it’s worth it but that’s also a lot of burritos. Also cheaper goggles mean trading out way sooner and not rolling with scratches for a year.

While it's certainly possible that some of the cheap goggles aren't polycarbonate lenses, I think it's unlikely that any of the ones being discussed here use a different lens material. For one, I don't think I've ever seen a non-polycarbonate lens that has the curved shape to it that's not super brittle. And just going off of my experience, super cheap sunglass lenses kinda fog over after some time in the sun. It's like the plastic glazes over. I haven't had that with any of the cheap amazon lenses that I have. And at the end of the day, I'm 99% sure that my Outdoormaster goggles are essentially Anon M2's. I'd bet a shiny nickle that they come from the same factory, out of the same molds, and use the same materials. I'd guess that there's some inherent variability in the manufacturing process, and the generic Amazon goggles probably allow more of the minor defects to pass QC, but ultimately, they're essentially identical to a brand name goggle.

[Rideski]

Sounds good. I’ll be checking around for the next promo code and give a whirl.

[chaka]

I was blown away by the packaging one of my three pair came in. made me think it's probably the exact same packaging design from some high end brand they are sharing a manu line with... Hope to try ours out soon and report back

[wooley12]

The stuff is literally coming out of the same production line with a different brand on it. It's like buying store brand corn flakes.
Now, they don't have that nice high contrast tech, just a normal tint, and that may make a difference, but I'm 35 and if my vision got worse at all in the last few years, it would be down to 20/20.
YMMV, but not buy THAT much.

We all are risk takers here. We each decide our tolerance for risk. The cheap sunglasses are bigger risk than brand names. Less quality control. Period. Take the risk you want. 20/20 at 35 is not the the same as 20/20 at 70 with cataracts from years of sun exposure. Try wearing dark glasses when you drive at night to see what your future might be like. Nightskiing? Not fun. Downright dangerous for me. Can't do that anymore. Would I wear cheap goggles? I do when I need goggles. 3-4 times a year. Over the Glasses sunglasses from Bartell's Drug store are my daily drivers on the other 50 days . Cataract surgery scheduled for next month.

[wooley12]

"Blown away buy the packaging ". I did a bit of sales for a few Chinese companies and I've done marketing and product development. This made me chuckle. Good packaging is a plus though. Do they sell knockoff bindings on Amazon too? I'd ski them, but I just ski with an advanced pizza french fry technique on blues so it would work for me.

[Boissal]

I've been using a pair with their darkest lenses since early last season (VLT 7.5% black). No complaints whatsoever regarding eye strain on bright days. Caveat: I spend 95% of my time skinning up with super dark sunglasses so even on a bluebird day I may not notice if my google lenses were shitty. The lenses seem to be less scratch-prone than my polarized Smith which have new gouges every time I take them out of their case...

I just got a pair of the VTL15% colourful lens and that one is a bit of a miss. There's an abrupt color transition between the blue-ish upper and red-ish-lower section of the lens. The periphery is also pink-shifted which is a bit weird, feels like a EDM concert when you look around. The lens also does something hilarious to skin color, everyone I saw on Sat looked liked Roger from American Dad. Dead gray faces everywhere.

[stuckathuntermtn]

I have also had 0 problems with cheap sun glasses.
And I've never been a huge fan of night skiing.
Again, the particular model(s) of goggles we're referencing are literally rebadged Anons. Just no fancy coatings.

You ever buy store brand ibuprofen? It's the same shit, isn't it?

[wooley12]

Well then your good. FWIW, dark lenses make your pupils open and let more invisible rays bounce of the back of your eyeball.


if you do it too much you'll go blind. Like your mom told you.

[toast2266]

We all are risk takers here. We each decide our tolerance for risk. The cheap sunglasses are bigger risk than brand names. Less quality control. Period.

I have no doubt that cataracts are terrible, and it sucks that you're dealing with them, but quality control has nothing to do with it. Cataracts are caused by all kind of things, with UVB light being one contributor. Polycarbonate lenses (even clear ones) block 100% of UV rays. A shitty polycarbonate lens that comes on cheap goggles might have some distortion in it, but there's no QC measures that are going to affect the protection of your eyes against the UV rays that will cause cataracts.

[gregorys]

I see there's another code again.

Unless you feel so bad that Anon/Giro et al. are missing out on their boat payments [in that case, close this thread right now] - or unless you worry that magic rays are going to burn your retinas out and you'll for-sure die - well you might be interested in a pair of these at sub $20.

Again, I care not at all if you buy or not. I just know that I've rocked these for at least three years, perhaps four. The pair I got that first year is still very good. [I just got my first day in this year, and I had them jammed in my gear a bit odd, and so the foam on one corner is a bit jacked. Still work totally fine, though. But it's that kind of thing that would really bum me out, if I was handing $200 to Anon, or something silly. It would be a stupid $200 mistake! But that foam jackage is totally my issue - not the goggles. In this case, it's an "Oh well. Guess that happens. I can live with an $18.80 screw-up."]

Anyway - OM has some other stuff on sale too [boot bags, OTG goggles] - I have no opinion on any of the other stuff. It may be good, or it might be junk. I just don't know.

I'll post the slickdeals "deal" here direct - it's too much detail to post up.

So, if you missed the last one, here's another.
I'll repeat - buy all you'll want the first go [or use another Amazon account]. The coupon appears to only be good for a single use/account.

https://slickdeals.net/f/13639897-ou...?src=frontpage

-Greg

[rod9301]

I have no doubt that cataracts are terrible, and it sucks that you're dealing with them, but quality control has nothing to do with it. Cataracts are caused by all kind of things, with UVB light being one contributor. Polycarbonate lenses (even clear ones) block 100% of UV rays. A shitty polycarbonate lens that comes on cheap goggles might have some distortion in it, but there's no QC measures that are going to affect the protection of your eyes against the UV rays that will cause cataracts.

What's the downside of wearing high light transmission goggles on sunny days?

Sent from my Armor_3 using Tapatalk

[toast2266]

What's the downside of wearing high light transmission goggles on sunny days?

Sent from my Armor_3 using Tapatalk

You have to squint more.

But a quick Google search says exposure to bright light on the visible spectrum can lead to premature aging of your eyes; retinal damage and macular degeneration.

[chaka]

"Blown away buy the packaging ". I did a bit of sales for a few Chinese companies and I've done marketing and product development. This made me chuckle. Good packaging is a plus though. Do they sell knockoff bindings on Amazon too? I'd ski them, but I just ski with an advanced pizza french fry technique on blues so it would work for me.

I re-read what I typed and also chuckled. sorry. wasn't trying to say "the packaging is rad so the product must be!" more like the high quality thoughtful packaging supports the notion for me that these are the exact same as some high end brand/model and are from the same manu line....

[gregorys]

You have to squint more.
But a quick Google search says exposure to bright light on the visible spectrum can lead to premature aging of your eyes; retinal damage and macular degeneration.

+1

I'm certainly no expert in the field, but some pubmed searches don't turn up a lot - especially if we're already controlling for UV exposure. [i.e. We're just talking bright light, without UV exposure.]

Squinting and your natural eye changes are designed to block too much light. But as we all know, there are limits to how effective pupil size and squinting can be at limiting too many photons.

As a rule of thumb, I'd probably summarize like this;
If you're mildly squinting, then I wouldn't worry about it - especially if it's only part of the time.
If you are pretty dazzled by the brightness then, probably, dropping a darker lens in would be good.

The hard part is that conditions are not static.
For example, on Sunday, the clouds were mid-mountain for a substantial part of the day. At the top, you'd be in full blue-bird conditions. But mid-way down [or up, obviously] you'd transition from full sun to pretty dense fog.

My choice was to go with a 80% VLT green lens.
I'd been skiing with a ~25% VLT - but it just didn't cut it in the fog. And as the cloud layer moved up the mountain, one was spending more time in the fog and way less in the sun.

You can always squint a bit more, and your pupils will adjust a lot too.
But you can't replace photons removed by too dark of a lens.

My general choice is to ski with a lighter lens than I might, if conditions are variable.
For me personally, I use a 25% VLT and 80-90% VLT most - probably better than 80% of the time. Partly sunny or foggy/night, respectively.
Occasionally I'll use a 8-10% VLT - but only on pure sun days.
I have a ~60% VLT lens too, and it sees very occasional use.

Going back to the harm of a "not dark enough lens..."
I think the quantifiable harm is very difficult to pin down, and there's not a lot of great answers. So, I think the "it seems pretty bright, I'll pop on some sunglasses/darker lenses" is probably the only sensible rule of thumb. You won't go blind or die if you don't, and you might not even suffer any ill effects, even long term. But shielding your eyes is more comfortable, and _probably_ safer - even if there's little hard evidence on practical levels of ambient light and eye damage.

[stuckathuntermtn]

You'll definitely get a headache

[Soups]

I see there's another code again.

Unless you feel so bad that Anon/Giro et al. are missing out on their boat payments [in that case, close this thread right now] - or unless you worry that magic rays are going to burn your retinas out and you'll for-sure die - well you might be interested in a pair of these at sub $20.

Again, I care not at all if you buy or not. I just know that I've rocked these for at least three years, perhaps four. The pair I got that first year is still very good. [I just got my first day in this year, and I had them jammed in my gear a bit odd, and so the foam on one corner is a bit jacked. Still work totally fine, though. But it's that kind of thing that would really bum me out, if I was handing $200 to Anon, or something silly. It would be a stupid $200 mistake! But that foam jackage is totally my issue - not the goggles. In this case, it's an "Oh well. Guess that happens. I can live with an $18.80 screw-up."]

Anyway - OM has some other stuff on sale too [boot bags, OTG goggles] - I have no opinion on any of the other stuff. It may be good, or it might be junk. I just don't know.

I'll post the slickdeals "deal" here direct - it's too much detail to post up.

So, if you missed the last one, here's another.
I'll repeat - buy all you'll want the first go [or use another Amazon account]. The coupon appears to only be good for a single use/account.

https://slickdeals.net/f/13639897-ou...?src=frontpage

-Greg

Thank you sir!

Also, the code appears to work for all lenses and not just the ones listed on that page. Currently have the VLT 80% green and 18% grey in the cart and my total is coming to $48.87/shipped for both.

I hope I don't go blind or die!

[PNWbrit]

You have to squint more.

In the Chinese goggles thread.... really?

[Skidog]

In the Chinese goggles thread.... really?

I know. Seemed racist and very stereotyped..

Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app

[Rideski]

I hope I don't go blind or die!

My poison goggles are on the way too...

[PNWbrit]

I hope I don't go blind or die!

Don't drive in them and you should be fine.