I think there's more than enough reviews about the Flak 2.0 out already, all which are trending towards the positive. This is another one in the pile as I picked one up recently (finally). As a foreword I'm just gonna put out that my transaction with @saltparrot went very smoothly to land a pair. Very prompt in getting these out after payment and packed nicely. Never really planned on getting these, but...since when does that happen with like half our pairs? There's been over a year of input on these from many wearers, and it's pretty much common knowledge that it's a certified win of a pair. Review here is just stuff I'm noting personally. Some people do ask about the Radar EV in comparison, so I do mention it as well as the Jawbone, which is (was?) my daily beater. Assembly: Jumping right into my dislikes off the bat. I'm not a fan of the lens or nose pad swapping procedures. The lens setup is what many are familiar with if they owned the original Flak and generally along the lines of any half-frame design. I personally find that it is a bit fussy and tight. Have a minor scrape already where the lens feeds towards the nose bridge since it's sharp. Part of the situation is probably because the pair is still fresh and new, but another part seems to be by design. I thought the same way with my Radar EV. Seems to command a more careful feed and manipulation vs popping straight in/out. I get it, though — better lens retention, and the Flak 2.0 probably isn't really meant for (overly) frequent lens changes. The nose pads hook on like the Radar series, and on that note, the Radar nose pads are not compatible. Those do hook on, but it's sloppy because they're meant for larger base. And on that note, I found the smaller mounting points of the Flak 2.0's nose and the smaller pads made the swap more of a chore than usual. Such small pieces to grip and there's not really a safe place to secure the frame with your off hand. Smudges seem inevitable. Nonethless this is an easy pair to clean since it's a half frame. I assume Oakley didn't reuse the "plug-in" setup from the XX and PB2 because the rubber layer is pretty thin, therefore feeling a bit hard. On the other hand, I like the earsock design. Using that hole as a locking point is very practical and user-friendly. Once that's popped off, they slide off easy. In this department the Flak 2.0 is better than the Radar EV by a long shot, which is two clipping points per side via tiny nubs and then a wrestling match to get the earsocks off (in my experience). Hopefully the locking point and larger volume of the earsocks does something about the stretch and sliding tendencies of the past pairs that used simple and short shapes (Jawbreaker, Split, Radarlock, etc). Fit: The ends and orbital section of the Flak 2.0 close in narrower than a Jawbone, but over the pair doesn't feel as tight. This is probably due to the frame design at the nose. The Jawbone had a more solid "beak" sculpted in whereas the Flak 2.0 is a bit narrow and has a bit of a relief point to allow more flex.. By no means is the hold actually loose. The stems are pretty rigid with their box-section profiles and ribs, and the pair feels remarkably light. Sorry for lack of scales to prove it, but I'm pretty sure it's lighter than the Radar EV, and that wouldn't be a surprise give that runs thicker rim sections and a heavier nose piece. Another thing I noticed is that the Flak 2.0's stems tilt slightly inward. This probably only applies to people with high cheek bones, but it's nice because it sits a bit more flush with the transition from temple to cheek. For me, the Jawbone in comparison has noticeable space when I run my fingers along the top of the stems. This isn't going to necessarily improve performance of any sort, but nice attention to detail. In all, the Flak 2.0 has a pretty versatile fit that runs secure but light. I could see why people think the Jawbreaker is front-heavy if pairs like this and the M-Frames were their baselines. Coverage: More or less what you expect from any non-EV pair. I see gaps in the usual places (edges), but head-on and in all practical visual zones, it's proper. It seems to sit closer to the face and therefore make the temple are of the frames less noticable. Wind deflection is sufficient for cycling, even if I think I'm more suited to XL lenses as opposed to the standard cuts equipped. Would've liked somewhat more of an extension on the sides (Radar Range or EV style), but I guess Oakley found that the possible interference with lens swapping, and production costs weren't so worth it. Aesthetic: Standalone in product pics, I thought the Flak 2.0's looked small and simple compared to other pairs. I never took a close look in stores, but in my hand I like the subtle details that add up. The very slight flares in the nose, shaping of the orbitals to follow the eye socket, the sculpted temples and transitions, the ribs in the stems I mentioned before as well as on the earsocks — and all these features are functional towards rigidity, weight cutting, and handing convenience. Sure enough, one doesn't need to be so meticulous with design to make a perfectly functional pair, but Oakley went that extra mile. It's weird as most find the brand to becoming stale, but I've found the recent sport pairs to incorporate "more than enough" in proper Oakley fashion. It's just more...calculated this time. There's art in this kind of execution Mind you, take a look again at the Carbon Shift's temple/logo area and transition to the orbital; there are apparent, shared cues and details. Having that kind of aesthetic that presumably lends to casual fashion appeal, yet being capable for sport use is a major plus for me. Oakley really could've gone the Jawbone/Racing Jacket route with more dramatic cuts and slashes since this is supposed to be a sports pair foremost — and that would've been cool — but I really like the end product anyway. Overall: The Flak 2.0 establishes itself as the main "general" sports pair with the Straight and Half Jackets pending successors. Favorite word to use here is "execution" because despite my dislikes regarding the lens and pad swaps, it is easy to clean, and it's probably not the pair to do frequent swaps anyway. It's meant to come ready when you take it off your shelf or table, and perhaps never sees the Vault all that much. It can function in just about anywhere, and while that is the same case for the Jawbone and Jawbreaker, the Flak 2.0 is a little bit more friendly to smaller faces and a little more fitting in casual settings if you got the right colors. The aforementioned pairs do trump in being able to take more of a beating since the lower edge of the lenses are covered, but the Flak 2.0 comes up as the lighter alternative. Against the Radar EV, it stands as pair that could be more comfortable since it doesn't run as tight. Right now it's one of my favorable "driving pairs" along with my Zero EV for when I know I'm not going to be removing and putting back on my sunglasses too much. If I was golfing or played baseball, this would also be the pair. The Flak 2.0 generally becomes more favorable for activities that don't involve too much, constant rapid movement. It'll hold regardless, but when you're in still moments waiting in say the outfield or scoping the green, the lighter fit just sounds much better to go with in my opinion. Not to beat a dead horse, but the R2 2015 release is probably as solid as Oakley has been lately in my opinion, so maybe it was inevitable that I'd end up with this pair in order to have all the pieces of the sports collection. I can't wait for the next major refresh (among all the misses they have with releases), but I'm also looking to try out the reintroduced Windjacket when it hits F&F or if I find a deal sooner than later.