Wildhorn Goggles

[PeachesNCream]

With goggles getting stupid expensive these days I looked into other alternatives besides Smith/Oakley and found this company. They're $60 a pair and $24 for replacement lenses and have interchangeable magnetic lenses. They're based out of the Wasatch area and fund grants for the outdoors. They're also the US ski team official supplier. I ordered a pair and they fit great and look good. An indoor test they seemed pretty comparable to my smith IOs as far as lens quality goes. Anyone tried these googles? My main concern is how the lens will perform in low light conditions, I'm currently pretty sold on chromapop for flat light conditions and not sure how these will perform in comparison but not sure if I can justify the pricetag of Smiths

[TurxSki]

Thanks for the heads up for the brand/site
The smith I/O's seem really good at not getting all steamed up. Please give us a comparable review of the Wildhorn once you've tried them a few times.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using TGR Forums mobile app

[toast2266]

I'm an Outdoor Master kinda guy. The goggles of the proletariat. Wildhorns seem a little too bourgeoisie for my tastes.

[PeachesNCream]

I'm an Outdoor Master kinda guy. The goggles of the proletariat. Wildhorns seem a little too bourgeoisie for my tastes.

Have you used chromapop before? Once again, love the budget friendly goggles but worried about flat light conditions

[toast2266]

Haven't used chromapop, but I'm confident in saying that it's a bit better. That said, I ski in a LOT of flat light. The cheapo goggles with a high VLT lens are fine, and on par with every name brand goggle I've tried (which, admittedly, doesn't include anything with chromapop). And the cheap ones cost $19, so there's that.

[EWG]

Haven't used chromapop, but I'm confident in saying that it's a bit better. That said, I ski in a LOT of flat light. The cheapo goggles with a high VLT lens are fine, and on par with every name brand goggle I've tried (which, admittedly, doesn't include anything with chromapop). And the cheap ones cost $19, so there's that.

I have smith IO, and the low light seal popped. Smith stepped up and replaced those lenses with chromapop (good customer service.)

If it's really low light, chroma seems a little better to me, actually, but in bright light (like if the clouds part and the sun comes out) the low light chroma lenses seem a little flatter than the old style low light lens. Maybe. But on the other hand it's made for low light so critiquing it in bright lights is probably unfair, and there's a good chance my memory is wrong anyway.

I'd also say all of this is pretty susceptible to confirmation bias, as it all depends on the light, the time of day, how many shadows, what kind of snow you are on, how dark the clouds are, is it snowing, are you a little fogged up, how clean are the lenses, etc, etc, etc.

Only fair way to tell would be to stand in one place switching out lenses to compare, and even then I think we'd all be biased. I'm not sure if the differences I see are real or just me fooling myself.

[Smoova]

I picked up a couple pairs of WIldhorn goggles for my kids to try during a recent $30 sale on Amazon. Only one pair has arrived so far and it seems pretty good - on par with Outdoor Master, with one caveat: the WH goggles do not have a silicon line around the inside of the strap, so the goggles can slide off a helmet pretty easily.

[bodywhomper]

anybody have input on scott goggles? (other than crazy retail price)

[Ted Striker]

Only fair way to tell would be to stand in one place switching out lenses to compare, and even then I think we'd all be biased. I'm not sure if the differences I see are real or just me fooling myself.

Plus the negative afterimage.

I'd suggest the difference you see is somewhat exaggerated until your eyes/brain adjust to that "normal".

I like the lower vlt chromapop everyday and sun lenses, but I'm pretty meh on both of the storm lenses.

ETA: looks like those wildhorns are sold out.