It's my day off, mostly dedicated to errands, and of course getting my pair. So...inevitable long post by me. Just hope this isn't too pic heavy. Of course there's a tl;dr listing pros and cons at the end of the post. Updates/Edits: 4/4: outlined jaw closure procedure; addressed necessary step to have the clip/hook clear the lens when opening jaw (section 1.4) 4/5: some rewording to merge/condense the earlier edits into the post. Got a better picture in section 1.3. Contents (Ctrl+F the number to skip to that section) 1.1-Visibility 1.2-Prizm Road lenses 1.3-Fit 1.4-Features/Adjustments/Swapping 1.5-Final thoughts Now (4/1) I know I've only had this for like....8-9 hours, and took it for just one ride, but every pair I have within such a time frame pretty much leaves a lasting/constant impression long-term. In short, I really like them, but there are some things that can improve too. A lot of my judgments are relative to the Radarlock, being another shield pair and namely my go-to almost since it was introduced 1.1 Visibility There's more viewing range than the Radar Path cut for sure. It only really trumps the Pitch in upper visibility. Not quite as big as I perceived from pictures. Peripheral range really isn't that much better, if even. Nonetheless, in the interest of cycling this is a general step up from the Radar/Radarlock in this aspect. Against an XL, however,maybe not. I'm pretty sure the only way the Jawbreaker is bigger is because of the jaw added. Because these are new, and the other lenses are special to me, I really didn't want to place them on top of each other, so I hope this gets the point across. If the noses were lined up, it'd be like I said: the Jawbreaker mainly has more visibility up top than the Pitch. The reality of lower "jaw" is if your eyes are looking that low, they're looking too low (especially if you're cycling) to the point you're looking at the exposed daylight in other lenses. It's hardly in the way. The center link to the nose piece is notably less obtrusive than before. It's a thinner piece, and while the one in the Radar/Radarlock isn't a problem, I think the difference is apparent when looking left/right and it generally attributes to the "shield" profile. Of course the M pairs do away with a center piece entirely, but such is life with a different swap mechanism. 1.2 Prizm Road lenses Don't mean to get sidetracked, but again in respect to cycling I would like to put out they're pretty nice over the neutral options (Jade, Ice, +Red), Unfortunately, I've been spoiled by the Ruby/VR50 photochromic lenses (pictured) I got recently. Between the two I find the "Echelon" lenses are more neutral yet seem to be equally as favorable as spotting details, whereas the Prizm Road lenses have a rose tint* that never goes away (via eyes adjusting) during use; and that just makes it come short in regards to true color perception. Then again, I'm aware the "Echelon" is suspect to ghosting to some users, and quite frankly such a lens is a bit of an unfair reference because it's hardly available. *look at the Road example here (click the option) Oakley Inc. | Official Oakley Site Don't mean to be a bummer, but it seriously doesn't look like that to me. The rose influence is pretty prominent. There's even an example on this forum showing such. Prizm Road really is a great lens, though. I would actually take it over pretty much everything else right now. No fatigue on my ride despite being rated at a supposedly higher transmission rating (20%) than the neutral lenses I usually use. Wore these things from the O-Store going home, and they can flex as a daily use lens. Probably ideal over most for low-light conditions. One point of exception over the Echelon lens is that these don't need photochromic properties to handle changing environments. The vent design worked out nicely imo. Compared to the Jawbone and Radar/Radarlock, they are a bit more inward, and of course there's now two added to the center like the XL. Wind was not a problem, and when riding with a mask, neither was fogging. The airflow was noticeably better for me. I had no eye irritation, but I could really feel the flow in cold weather — enough to make me consider something else in such conditions. When we first saw the Jawbreaker on Cav, it actually had no vents, so who knows if the option will come up down the line. Visually, the vents are less apparent. I mean it's not the biggest deal, but if I glance in the upper outer corners, I can totally see the vents in older pairs. With the Jawbreakers, not really unless I straight up tried to find them. 1.3 Fit In essence I find it's like the Jawbone but with longer stems. I run the setup on full length going for the tightest hold possible, which make the stems almost just as long as the Radarlock. Hold is really dictated by pressure than the minimal segments of unobtanium, which I like. I HATED how the M2 was the opposite. On the note of stems, Oakley gave attention to detail in flaring out the tips to help slide the pair on, even at the longest setting. More detail is highlighted in how the lower jaw was sculpted strategically. Photo below captures how the profile slims near the vent, possibly meant to follow facial contours better and to aid airflow, and how the outer edge is also tapered. The nose piece is a major highlight in this regard. It's "bridged" like the other shield pairs but the bridge is wide and a bit supported (so it doesn't move) to actually offer more effective grip on the face, especially when periods of looking down on the bike. Don't know if that was the actual idea, as it could just be designed in such a way to bend with the Switchlock mech. Oakley actually did away with the slits and flares, and made the pads solid. They're also deeper than the ones found on the Radar/Radarlock. Also love that the mounting surface is more...whole, over the little pins of the Radarlock. It is a bit of a tug/push like working on earsocks, though, and I legit hope I don't break anything down the road in swapping nose pads. I kinda wish there was more of a hammer profile to clear helmet straps, but I can live with this no problem. I can go over the helmet straps with the Asian Fit pad, otherwise I would go under with a regular pad. Going back to how the jaw is sculpted, I have high cheek bones and I'm very surprised I can use the regular pads. On the M2 (see posts below) and Jawbone I need the Asian Fit pads. I can go either way on a Radarlock (even better than the Jawbreaker) but considering Jawbreaker still has extra material below the lens, I still find the fit impressive. Gonna put out that I do have a 59cm head (so usually a Large with helmets). My nose is pretty narrow and like I said I do have high cheek bones. Like with any pair, I wouldn't be too sure if this is a one-size fits all, even with adjustable stems. To me it does seem a bit more accommodating than some of the other sport pairs I mentioned. 1.4 Features/Adjustments/Swapping: There's some things I like, but majority of the lows I have on the Jawbreaker are in these regards. To start, the lens interface design is great imo. Oakley found a away to do without the typical "hooks" and all, in a locked-in setup (well, Switchlock as we know it). To be honest, however, it's still a bit of a fiddly process imo — namely in terms of closing the jaw. It's a pretty flimsy component standalone and there was a post here citing that it's very easy to remove. It doesn't help that the upper rim is isn't so rigid standalone as well. Maybe it's just my pair, but there's no way that jaw just goes right on without some careful aligning and fiddling. edit: I found days later there's actually a very easy way to do this, though. Took me a while to figure this out, and I thought I had a process set (previously posted), but there's an even easier way to do it: Bring the jaw up to the lens, then simply close with your fingers behind the outer portions of the jaw with a slight bit of forward pressure while making your way towards the center if necessary. Like the Radarlock it's something to learn, but it can become very quick once you get it down. I originally found the process for that pair a bit tedious as well. In all, swapping Jawbreaker lenses can take under 20 seconds, so it's not horrible by any practical stretch. Just not Jawbone-smooth of a process like I thought it'd be. Another issue I have is how close the metal clip can get to the lens. As long as you're careful, there is no real problem in possibly scratching the lenses, but it gets really close. This is when the mech is fully folded for release, and the jaw is being opened. edit (4/4): There is a way to make this a non-issue. Above text is is faint now because it's misleading, albeit something to still be aware of. Sorry about that. In the instances (multiple, so I can't single anyone out) I've seen the swap demonstrated, everyone skipped a step, and that's what I went on. To Oakley's credit, the instructions (I ignored) are clear on it. What is this step? Simply closing the nose piece again with the metal hook folded back before opening the jaw. Gives so much more clearance than shown above. Derp. Stem adjustment is cool because it may lend to the Jawbreaker's ability to fit multiple heads and helmets alike. My own gripe, though, is that I feel very uneasy opening and closing the latch. It's a thin piece to start, but requires more pressure than say, the Jawbone/NRJ nose piece latch. I really feel like the interfaces are getting worn fast and don't know if this can take frequent changes. Gonna also point out that the hinges for stem adjustment are pins, not screws...so replacing the latch itself is a real question mark. My best take on opening the latch is avoid pulling at the end, and instead closer to the pin/hinge. This should lessen the likelihood of bending and breaking. Still, this all adds up to potential degrees of delicacy that shouldn't come with a sports pair. There are supposedly 27 pieces that go into the Jawbreaker according to BikeRadar's report. Between this and the jaw closure, I won't say things were half-assed. I really just hoped/expected the lens swap would perfectly smooth and the latches were an easier action. On the Cavendish pair, the pins and metal center link/clip are painted green. My pair actually has some wear on one pin. My fault because the store associate let me inspect before buying, but I was overexcited (literally the first buyer). I'm not really trippin', but it's something to consider during OCP, etc. Last details are the stems lock like sport pairs should, and you'll find those same rubber pads in the lens interface as you do with the Jawbone/NRJ. The Jawbreaker supposedly weighs more than a Radarlock XL, but it really doesn't feel heavier than a regular Radarlock imo. And finally, one perk to this pair is that the lower jaw just makes it more friendly to handle. You can set it down knowing the lenses isn't sitting directly on a table. Removing and shifting the pair on your face is also comes with knowing you're less prone to smudging the lenses. 1.5 Final thoughts I'll admit I'm not the most complete Oakley fan and mainly look out for sports pairs. When the hint was dropped to keep an eye out at the start of last year's TDF, I've been hyped ever since. The M2 was a letdown imo (as well as to others), and generally Oakley lately has been looking like it's starting to ride on gimmicks. While I do have concerns over the robustness (and need) in the Jawbreaker's mechanisms, the pair in its set and ready-to-wear form is great for me. Didn't quite blow my mind, but had some steady improvements and exercised some cool ideas. From the input by other posters, the new Flak and Radar EV seem promising too. It'll be some time until we all know how worthwhile some of the complexities of this pair are. Once I got the lens swap down, my gripes with the process and execution lightened up. Just wish it could be as simple as the Jawbone. I'm on the fence about the adjustable stem length. I feel like it only effectively caters to how tight the fit is. The profiles are flat so I can't imagine the feature being a huge difference maker for helmets. To be honest, if Oakley would just make anything resembling a Range or M2 lens for the Radarlock, that'd pretty much be everything I could look for in a cycling pair....and that could actually could be what the Radar EV is. Hell, maybe we can argue the original M is/was an end-all pair for function. But as things are, the Jawbreaker is a cool piece to change things up. If Oakley only wanted to hash out something that got the job done on simple terms, this wouldn't exist...Oakley wouldn't exist. Will re-iterate that this is an imperfect pair, but I undeniably like it. Gonna admit to being guilty of favoring the sense of excess and vanity that comes with the Jawbreaker. tl;dr +lens shape/visibility +lower rim is nice to have for general handling +fit options +/- lens swapping process -questionably sophisticated -some parts feel fiddly and/or delicate -looks like the small parts (stem latches and pins) aren't meant to be replaced if broken Verdict: Some improvements over existing shield designs, but against the Radar EV you're probably only looking at this for an alternative fit and sake of vanity.