1. Want to see less ads, private areas and be able to post? Register Today to receive all these benefits and more!
Dismiss Notice

Want to see less ads, post content and the ability to buy & sell Oakleys?

Register Today or Login

  1. David_Oakley

    David_Oakley Oakley Enthusiast

    Messages:
    672
    Trophy Points:
    243
    Ok, hopefully the readers of this post will understand what I am asking. I will try my best to communicate it.

    For all intents and purposes, my inquiry will pertain to Juliets and R1s.

    I have had the "RAW" finishes (x-metal, 1st gen Ti) and also the "SMOOTH" finishes (2nd Gen Ti and Plasma).

    Having said all that, I personally have noticed that the "RAW" finish frames are definitely "tighter" and more skull conforming than the "SMOOTH" finish frames. It's as if the "RAW" frames are just a tad more compact than the "SMOOTH" frames. They definitely don't all fit nor sit on my face the same.

    Even my Plasma R1s, those frames are noticeably wider than the 1st gen Ti and X-Metal frames.

    Has anyone noticed this? If so, can anyone explain this?

    I understand that there's a degree of variance between x-metal frames in general because they were individually made. But the "trend" I noticed above seems to be consistent in my experiences.

    Thanks.

    David
     
    Shade Station Oakley Sunglasses

    Register to Not see this ad
  2. kronin323

    kronin323 Font of Useless Knowledge Premium Member

    Messages:
    16,723
    Trophy Points:
    2,993
    Have you stacked the two right on top of each other to look for a variance in shape?
     
  3. CarGuy

    CarGuy Oakley Expert Premium Member Lifetime Member

    Messages:
    4,454
    Trophy Points:
    723
    The X Man has demonstrated to us that the orbital tabs on later frames is rounded and on earlier frames it is more squared. This made a lot of later frames looser from the jump- what we have come to refer to as "infinite hero" loose.
    Your 2nd gen Ti comment does not beat this out though- these I doubt would have the rounded tabs.
    X MAN?
     
  4. David_Oakley

    David_Oakley Oakley Enthusiast

    Messages:
    672
    Trophy Points:
    243
    good point....and yes if I look close and long enough, I do notice a slight variance. I mean it's not obvious but I guess I can notice it.

    I had a 2nd Gen Ti R1 frame (looks like Plasma basically) and that particular one no matter how much I tightened the upper screws, was just a bit wider than any of my other R1 frames. It wasn't warped or damaged in any way. It was just consistently constructed/molded that way it appeared.

    I've had a Plasma Juliet frame and 2 X-metal finish frames. The Plasma frame just fits a bit wider than the 2 x-metal frames. kinda strange, but I only bring this up because I've seen enough first hand for it to be a decent sample size I think.

    Have you noticed this variance in your experiences?
     
  5. David_Oakley

    David_Oakley Oakley Enthusiast

    Messages:
    672
    Trophy Points:
    243
    I meant to quote you in my reply, forgot to. But if anyone can relate.
     
  6. kronin323

    kronin323 Font of Useless Knowledge Premium Member

    Messages:
    16,723
    Trophy Points:
    2,993
    Gotcha - I've got a dozen Juliets of various gens and finishes, but the only fitting variances I've noticed have been attributed to nosebridge tightness (especially x-man tight) and t-shox size and / or manufacture (LGs seem to fit a little tighter than OEM). But perhaps I haven't been paying close enough attention...

    I only have a single R1 (1st gen) so I can't speak to that one...
     
  7. David_Oakley

    David_Oakley Oakley Enthusiast

    Messages:
    672
    Trophy Points:
    243
    Hmmm..maybe the nosebridge is a factor on my frames. I have noticed however that the 2 polished Juliet frames that I've ever had, they seemed to fit tighter than the non-hammerstem frames. go figure lol

    I thought the hammerstems were initially designed for bigger heads?
     
    dragonvoi likes this.
  8. kronin323

    kronin323 Font of Useless Knowledge Premium Member

    Messages:
    16,723
    Trophy Points:
    2,993
    You might get conflicting answers on that one but hammer juliets should fit the same as straight stems, at least from the perspective of how it grips your head. I asked about this around a year ago, before I had any polished Juliets, and pics were posted showing how the arms are in the same position / follow the same curve, once you get past the hammer dogleg.

    I think why you might get conflicting answers is because the XX, which actually was designed for bigger heads, is so Juliet-like.

    The true origin of hammerstems in general goes all the way back to the Mumbo / M-frame, with the original origin story I read having JJ bang them out for aesthetic reasons. But other have said they were created for better flex; IDK...
     
    David_Oakley likes this.
  9. discostu

    discostu Oakley Expert Premium Member

    Messages:
    1,468
    Trophy Points:
    743
    I have noticed the variance in the R1 but not with Juliets. All the 'A' suffixed plasma R1's i have owned, have been a larger fit than earlier plasma pairs and also the other 2 finishes and also required size 25 temples loading, instead of my usual size 15. I did take a look at the frames but could notice no differences between them.
     
    David_Oakley likes this.
  10. David_Oakley

    David_Oakley Oakley Enthusiast

    Messages:
    672
    Trophy Points:
    243

    Ok so it sounds like you share some of my same experiences (with the R1 at least). The 2nd Gen Ti-frame and to a lesser extent my Plasma R1 frame, they both seem a tad larger/wider than all of the X-metal and 1st Gen "bone" finish R1s I've ever owned.

    When I look from a "bird's eye" view at my R1s, the "RAW" finish ear stems do not appear to open up as widely as the Plasma. I should probably post a pic for you guys :)

    David
     
    discostu likes this.