• Take 30 seconds to register your free account to access deals, post topics, and view exclusive content!

    Register Today

    Join the largest Oakley Forum on the web!

Carbon Blade Review

I appreciate the feedback on the review. I have been looking forward to these for a long time, for better or worse. I have to say I am pleasantly surprised. I wound up wearing that pair of matte/grey while I typed up the review. A few minutes ago I forgot I still had them on, went to my cab and there was one missing - it was on my face. They are really that comfortable to me.

I was/am serious about the mountain biking thing too. I feel like I could go run in these - not jog, but road race, or wear them with the top down at a rate of speed I won't elaborate on without fear of losing them. Once I get them 'out' for a test drive, literally, I'll be sure to chime in again. Maybe by then someone else will have done us the courtesy!

Another thing I thought about is I wear 30% tinted reading glasses at work on a regular basis because the bright faux BS lighting of our day irritates the heck out of me. I get headaches and what not. With at least a few of these they are low key enough that I could wear them at work during the day, throughout the day, and they are likely to be perceived as nothing more than nice Rx reading glasses to most.

Just thinking about them some more, it is still settling in, and still all good :cool-20:
I may have to speak those words "Oakley has impress...." - I'll wait on that. I'll sleep on it :lazy: and see what I go to grab when I wake tomorrow morning.
 
Do you happen to have a picture like this one, but from directly above the glasses?
20140403_133741 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Just trying to get a feel for how thick the lenses are. For some reason in the pictures they just look really thin to me.

Main reason for asking is that I'm wondering if that's why they are rated as ANSI Z80.3 instead of ANSI Z87.1
 
I, too, was waiting of this review, and man you covered everything, that's up to you to go that in depth! I just wanted the thumbs up from you before I bought them too, looks like I'll be placing an order tonight! Thanks man.
 
Do you happen to have a picture like this one, but from directly above the glasses? 20140403_133741 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Just trying to get a feel for how thick the lenses are. For some reason in the pictures they just look really thin to me. Main reason for asking is that I'm wondering if that's why they are rated as ANSI Z80.3 instead of ANSI Z87.1

Great ?

By look and feel there is no obvious difference from any of the other X-Metal lenses I have.
I did take some pics of the lens net to a Half-X and R2 and can share them once they sync.

...last time I discussed these I was ranting about lenses in paintball goggles <insert_flashback>!
IIRC the Z80.3 standard deals mainly with UV protection and such, but only recent versions include impact protection
I don't recall Z87.1 addressing the UV stuff...? maybe that has changed??
The thickness for the test would have to be the same I believe.
However, Z87.1 also has different levels, basic, high, etc...
I think you can be Z87.1-xxxx at a high or basic and still not meet the UV and other protections in Z80.1-xxxx

In the meantime have you seen this thread:
Lower ANSI Standards for Certain Pairs | Oakley Forum

Interesting stuff - worth looking into. I would like to know what rev of ANSI Z80.3 these are... that is actually my first question

My next ? would be what "basic impact standards" are being met?

I'm also wondering about the lens versus the entire frame being certified. I doubt you can put a Z87.x lens... in a non Z87.x frame and still call it that. I thought the whole piece of eyewear had to be certified for that. I am going back a few years. I have a pair of safety goggles that say that on the frame, not the lens. I would find it difficult to certify anything with replaceable lenses at Z87.x in the long term due to legal/liability concerns.

My guess is the change in rating is not so much the materials, but perhaps the legal-speak. These are not ballistic lenses in most cases. Granted there is a lot of Rx stuff that meets that standard, but those lenses are often thicker...

I can say that I have been smacked in a Z87-something or other rated faceshield with a paintball and it cracked, the guy was shooting hot, over 350fps, agreed limits are generally 300fps, 310 used to be the max we would shoot at, but some places will boot you if you are over 300fps. The Z87.x standard uses a smaller ball at a higher velocity for high impact and they use a larger ball, but just drop it for the lower I believe.

...many questions we have, Yes?

Also... from Frequently Asked Questions | Us
Are my Oakley glasses OSHA or ANSI Z87.1approved? What is the difference?
Most Oakley Eyewear meets or exceeds ANSI Z87.1 standards for optical clarity and impact resistance. Please check the product description on Oakley.com for exact specifications. Oakley has not taken additional measurements for OSHA standards. Please check with your employer for which standards may be required for use at work. OSHA Standards (—) 29 CFR, Eye and Face Protection (—) 1910.133 Federal regulated standards in which employers must comply for the protection and safety of their employees. This standard obligates employers to enforce the uses of appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to hazardous materials, liquids, vapors, chemicals or other harmful substances. It provides specific requirements of such protection allowed in the workplace. OSHA references ANSI Z87.1 as the benchmark standard for occupational eye and face protection. Section (b) (1) Protective eye and face devices purchased after July 5, 1994 shall comply with ANSI Z87.1-1989, “American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection,” which is incorporated by reference as specified in Sec. 1910.6. Occupational Safety and Health Administration - Home ANSI Z87.1 - Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection Standard Z87.1 (—) 1979 American National Standard Institute is a private, non-profit organization. It includes the specific standards for evaluating factors such as impact resistance, lens thickness, projectile penetration, and optical quality.

I'm not sure how old this is, but I guess I'll be making a call tomorrow?
 
Yeah I'm aware that rating doesn't always equal impact protection, that's why I was asking. The job I interviewed for today requires safety glasses, so if possible I'll be finding a lightweight Oakley frame for this purpose. I'm not a big M frame fan so I'm looking at other choices.
 
Check this out:

International Safety Equipment Association

"The 2010 edition represents a dramatic change in the way the standard is organized and how users of eye and face protectors will utilize the standard for selecting products for specific hazards. Earlier versions were organized by the type of protector. Each type of protector had a chapter in the standard. The chapter described the protector, the required testing and optical properties and established product marking requirements. This led to significant repetition within the standard as some products have the same testing, optical and marking requirements."

...

  • impact
  • optical radiation
  • droplet and splash
  • dust
  • fine dust particles
The standard includes descriptions and general requirements, as well as criteria for testing, marking, selection, use and care. Note that it does not apply to hazardous exposure to bloodborne pathogens, X-rays, high-energy particulate radiation, microwaves, high-frequency radiation, lasers, masers, or sports.

"Sports..." could cover a lot - and would no longer apply to sunnies in that category?
 
Back
Top