![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| Sponsored Links | |||
Advertisement | |||
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Evergreen, CO
Posts: 4,540
|
Never heard of them, but they look pretty sweet.
IMHO, Oakley is overrated as fuck. Lens tech is good, but not miles ahead of everyone else like they want you to believe. Plus, I find their surround foam to be itchy as hell and just don't care for their overall fit.
__________________
"People say that marijuana smoking is going to get in the way of my career. I say to them that on the contrary, my fighting career is getting in the way of my marijuana smoking." -Nick Diaz |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: fuck boulder
Posts: 2,902
|
the lenses and frames look alright but I've still to hear any convincing arguments for either photochromatics or polarized, both of which seem to be super high dollar items *read gimmicky* that don't actually translate well to snow.
__________________
is it late october yet? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Snohomish WA
Posts: 295
|
Quote:
Doesn't look like they have many lens options that would work too well here in the PNW. If they fit your face, and meet your lighting needs though, go for it. Those are the most important factors anyway.
__________________
11/12 Days riding: 63 12/13 Days riding 51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 68
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|