Carbon Blade Review

[GH4AU]

I got mine on order. Now the wait begins!

 

[Ventruck]

Well you already know my take from the other thread , but appreciate you sharing all the pics and the thorough first impression. Good to know the have function to them and hold well enough for sports. I didn't totally expect that because of the non-sport style nose, and I thought the arms were thin for the sake of saving on material for production. So nice to know the arms' thin design was more likely because Oakley could accomplish a stiff enough design with little volume - probably implies something about the quality of CF, resin, and production used too.


Can't deny I still think they're lacking in aesthetics and that I'd especially want the carbon shaped to the nose pads. Only other concerns is replaceable rubbers, and the lens mounting interface. Curious to what the screw holes look like. I'm assuming they're aluminum threaded plates sandwiched inside the frames, but could be wrong. Also wondering how the frame+lens deflect on the face with that screwed in interface.

If I had to pick one, I'd go with the Ice pair. Blue accents pop nicely.

 

[OakleyGuru379]

They look like a pair of Ray Bans.

 

[MJLSr]

They look like a pair of Ray Bans.

I've worked the Ray's - took them for a spin - similar, yes, but they don't come as close to hitting the full-range wearable mark, style to active. I can compare these to tires. The Oakley Carbon Blades stick to my face like my Michelin Pilot Super Sports stick to the road, whereas other tires can't. These fit like racking slicks on my face, like they were made for me. I didn't 'spin wheels' once pushing them

 

[MJLSr]

For those of you who are following the Z80.3 / Z87.1 questions - here is a pic from the foldout in my OO9174-04 Carbon Blade. It does specifically state the Z80.3:2008, but the PPE and impact requirement references are different. I did call Oakley and the first dude (gentleman, Sir) I talked to almost got pissed when I told him the lenses were not Z87.1 - he insisted it was a typo on the website and suggest I read the paperwork that came with the glasses, which I did. He was not aware. He was of few words, almost speechless as that standard has been a pillar of Oakley. I was then transferred to a manager who knows I have a half dozen pairs of glasses I am 'concerned' about and would like answers. I do expect they will get back to me as they also seemed quite interested.

Note there are some other standards mentioned for PPE - they may be inline with Z87.1, or Z87.1 could have evolved into something you need to certify on the glasses themselves, as I noted in a previous post.

Regardless I won't be playing paintball or getting into a shootout anytime soon (I hope?). I am more concerned about the quality and clarity of the lenses and how they protect my eyes from what I cannot see. I have read the FDA Reg. CFR 801.410 and their standard 'Basic' impact resistance and may be sufficient for me and my workplace. I have not had time to browse the 89/686/EEC.

This info was taken from a carbon blade and therefore applies in context. Future posts regarding this matter will be posted in a new thread once I hear back from Oakley.

here is the excerpt - sorry sideways...

 

[digi7alph0enix]

For those of you who are following the Z80.3 / Z87.1 questions - here is a pic from the foldout in my OO9174-04 Carbon Blade. It does specifically state the Z80.3:2008, but the PPE and impact requirement references are different. I did call Oakley and the first dude (gentleman, Sir) I talked to almost got pissed when I told him the lenses were not Z87.1 - he insisted it was a typo on the website and suggest I read the paperwork that came with the glasses, which I did. He was not aware. He was of few words, almost speechless as that standard has been a pillar of Oakley. I was then transferred to a manager who knows I have a half dozen pairs of glasses I am 'concerned' about and would like answers. I do expect they will get back to me as they also seemed quite interested.

Note there are some other standards mentioned for PPE - they may be inline with Z87.1, or Z87.1 could have evolved into something you need to certify on the glasses themselves, as I noted in a previous post.

Regardless I won't be playing paintball or getting into a shootout anytime soon (I hope?). I am more concerned about the quality and clarity of the lenses and how they protect my eyes from what I cannot see. I have read the FDA Reg. CFR 801.410 and their standard 'Basic' impact resistance and may be sufficient for me and my workplace. I have not had time to browse the 89/686/EEC.

This info was taken from a carbon blade and therefore applies in context. Future posts regarding this matter will be posted in a new thread once I hear back from Oakley.

here is the excerpt - sorry sideways...

View attachment 3410

I really appreciate you doing the research on this. Goes to show not even everyone at Oakley has noticed the change or knows the reasoning for it. Maybe its nothing, maybe its everything, but I won't use my eyes as a guinea pig without proper spec.
Thanks.

 

[Nuum]

Thanks for the reviews. I'm considering the Carbon Blade as my next pair as well. It would be nice if Oakley use the CF in the Fast Jacket model.

 

[MJLSr]

Editing thread to include Ferrari set and additional comments in initial post - Enjoy!

 

[WavecloudCustoms]

They look like a pair of Ray Bans.

Only much nicer style, lines and more dynamic.. Something about those RBs is soooooo fogie

 

[Sundalo]

Do they look better in person. So far, the only thing I like is the red color on the temple hinges. The red paint really pops. I assume that Ferrari gave them their paint code.