OTT Lens orientation

[supersharp]

Because nobody wants to sleep in the wet spot.

That may be matter of opinion. Lol.

 

[CarGuy]

I noticed the bump on the OTT lenses too but decided it didn't matter. Also I think as Chris has discovered, the BT is just a little too short to cut directly into an OTT.
It's just two or three mm as I recall and you can minimize it a little more if you cut the donor off center. But I think- at least for machine cutters- that you will always have that flat spot. The OTT is both wide and tall and that's too much for the BT.
Due to the elliptical shape of the lens and the lens orbital tray being shaped similarly allows for a little slight of hand. If the lens height is supposed to be 61mm (arbitrary number) but the best you can get out of the BT is 58 (arbitrary) that leaves 3mm (yup) that you definately want to split top and bottom for 2 smaller flat spots.
When installed the flat spots will disappear if you rotate them so that the flat spots are at the 4 o'clock and 11 o'clock positions instead of 6 and 12.

 

[Sun & Sand]

[...] When installed the flat spots will disappear if you rotate them so that the flat spots are at the 4 o'clock and 11 o'clock positions instead of 6 and 12.

Thanks for the detailed description!
I'm not understanding why the orientation of the flat spots matters. Looking at the frame, it seems like the depth of the groove in the orbital (for the lens) is the same all the way around, and it seems like the frame extends past the groove by the same distance all the way around the perimeter of the lens. So, it seems like the same amount of the flat spot would show, no matter where the flat spots are. I must be overlooking something ...

 

[CarGuy]

Thanks for the detailed description!
I'm not understanding why the orientation of the flat spots matters. Looking at the frame, it seems like the depth of the groove in the orbital (for the lens) is the same all the way around, and it seems like the frame extends past the groove by the same distance all the way around the perimeter of the lens. So, it seems like the same amount of the flat spot would show, no matter where the flat spots are. I must be overlooking something ...

Oh I agree 100% with everything you said. It makes perfect sense. But it might be that those areas of the optical tray are actually closer from center than center is from top or bottom. Then why doesn't it leave a gap somewhere? I guess less of the lens is hidden in the orbital tray in that spot.

 

[Chris A Hardaway]

@CarGuy You nailed it. I put the flat spot at 4 o'clock on the right, 8 o clock on the left. Left i was able to split perfectly and round off. Right has a small flat spot on bottom, only noticable from close. The wearer wouldn't see it, and an observer wouldn't see it unless it was pointed out under intense scrutiny.

 

[CarGuy]

Glad that worked out!

 

[rzurzel]

Hey guys. Sorry for being late on this but I had a chill mode weekend and was cut from the net and all. I was digging through that topic and had tacos in hand and there's no way they would do the thing perfectly. I've measured them and the vertical dimension is just a bit too short. @CarGuy said that you can eliminate the flatness by rotating the lens inside the orbital but that still didn't convince me since it was hard to imagine that elliptic lens has any room to rotate in. I've got back to the cutting sheet and tried to ask about plaintiffs, @Kuztomized made some plaintiff measurements for me, thank you again. I've compared plaintiffs and OTTs dimensions and it seems that plaintiffs would be a great donor. I've got dimensions of tacos, OTTs and plaintiffs photographed but it seems that those pics are on a camera not my phone so I can't post them now since it's morning here and I'm starting with working. I'll post them later if I still have them. Additionally I've received a photo of plaintiffs on top of OTTs so here it is:

The lens' bumps are oriented to nasal top corner if I remember correctly. Last time I switched those lenses back in 2008 or 2009 so quite some time ago. Again sorry @Chris A Hardaway and @Kuztomized for being late with this. I only now see that you've both mentioned me by name.

 

[Chris A Hardaway]

Perfect! So next attempt I do will be plaintiff! Thanks brother! Funny three people saying three different orientations on bump/notch. Weird!

 

[rzurzel]

Next attempt? What happened with that statement here-------> "but I'm really not interested in doing more. Sorry guys!" ? hehehehehhe Hey I'm not sure about the bump it's been 7-8 years when I last took out the lenses <damn I'm old :/ > There is a bump for sure since OEM lenses were in may hands few weeks ago. I'll take a pic of the orientation when I'll be removing lenses once the donors arrive. IT would be really funny if Oakley had switched bumps with different OTT generation or something.
I'm wondering if that bump matters in any way aside of being the orientation point and left/right distinguisher.

 

[rzurzel]

In my OTTs, the lenses were installed with the small bump on the lens facing the upper, outer (ear) side of the orbital, lined up with the second-to-last decorative hole molded into the outside of the orbital. Oddly enough, there is no notch in the orbitals themselves for the lens bump to fit into. Makes me think that the lenses and frames must have changed during the course of the OTT's availability.

I would say that either one of us got OTTs with switched lenses. When I originally took lenses out the bump was on the nasal side for sure. I'd tell that facing upper corner but that is what I'm not 100% sure since it was quite some time ago. What I am 100% sure is that those bumps weren't facing outwards.