Crossrange Release

[ShortChangeHero]

That design doesn't scream active at all. Rather boring... I'll stick with my Jawbreaker and EV Zero. Maybe there is some active soul who hates gigantic cycloptic shields... Maybe they'll bite.

Sent from Q's Note5

Right! I rather have a wide shield that wraps my face for protection over having interchangeable ear stems. They are getting really desperate with this design.

@OakleyFrankFMJ do multiple Csixs count as multiple frames?

 

[OakleyFrankFMJ]

Right! I rather have a wide shield that wraps my face for protection over having interchangeable ear stems. They are getting really desperate with this design.

@OakleyFrankFMJ do multiple Csixs count as multiple frames?

Yup!

 

[pjd1234]

Ugly......thats all i can say about that. No inspiration just random crap.

 

[Ventruck]

Yes but here's what they're not showing you....

View attachment 308812


Oakley's new Crossrange sunglasses were designed for those on the move. Whether it's for active use or simply exploring the city, the sunglasses were designed from the ground up to transform into a frame that is perfect for things like running or cycling and then can be changed up for everything else. What they've done is created a modular design that has easy to swap grippy earstems and nose pieces for sport and and an opposite of lower profile pieces for everyday use.


Soooooo....basically.....this is part of the next Lux conspiracy....kill off the active lines altogether and ensure EVERY person is running around is some kind of generic wayfarer whether hanging at the beach, riding their bicycle or out for a jog.

The thing I don't get? Do you really have any practical reason to NOT want Unobtainium? Like I get having a lifestyle frame and it's less because it doesn't have that etc. But if you had a frame with the Unobtainium option, where's the need to switch that out? If the rubber is done right, it doesn't really mess with the fit. Seems like they created a new modular design with rubber that provides a non rubber option that nobody would ever really choose. Shrug...maybe that's just me.

Either way- it's generic, it's boring and if you gave it to me, I wouldn't wear it. BTW- can you tell I don't like them?

That's how I saw it too — why NOT run the Unobtanium? The potential in a modular design could've been to alter widths or profiles, and in doing so I would've made it happen with reversible stems, instead of producing a separate set altogether.

So I do see this as something that will work more effectively in a dedicated sports design, but casual market is likely still where majority of profits are made. You wouldn't believe how many goofys already wear casual frames for cycling/jogging, though. Most anyone in the more casual "active" category (as opposed to "sport") isn't as likely to invest in a dedicated, second pair for their activities. Simple stuff like non-competitive volleyball or frisbee or something. Surely could've been executed better, but I don't think they were dead-wrong with how they went about it.

 

[supersharp]

So this is a lifestyle frame frame with unobtainium, basically. For me, unobtainium is really a must in the Texas heat. Without it, plastic frames just slide off your face with the humidity and sweat. I really don't see a point in frames without it. The only exception I can make is the original Pit Boss. Interchangeable nose bridge is good too. It will help accommodate a wider range of faces. It's an interesting concept, but the overall shape is uninspired. Looks like a Jupiter to me.

 

[excollector]

Do you guys see them returning to their "roots" anytime soon or are they going to continue down the Lux path?

 

[QLR1]

Do you guys see them returning to their "roots" anytime soon or are they going to continue down the Lux path?

Nope. Further down the soulless, corporate path, this company will go.

Sent from Q's Note5

 

[excollector]

That's kinda how I see it also. What if we all sign a petition and send it to Jim, think he'd come back?

 

[pistolpetefan23]

Unobtanium isn't for everyone. Do you think the average person wearing them as a Lifestyle pair, a la Wayfarers or some other SoCal type design, is going to want rubber? There's a reason there's active frames, which usually have some kind of rubber, and Lifestyle, which usually don't. Sometimes things crossover a bit (Mainlink, Straightlink). This is a modular design to give people the option. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but it's an attempt at something different. I, for one, would love the option to change out the design of earstems on a few pairs, not necessarily because I like rubber sometimes and not others, but because of the aesthetics. There are several pairs where I like the main profile, but don't like the earstems. This is a step towards providing options (hence the "cross" name in the model, harkening to the swappable earstems on the RX Crosslink line).

People love to bash new Oakleys and whine about a "lack of innovation", but there's an attempt at innovation and yet the same old complaints and questions about "will Oakley ever make anything cool again?" come up, mostly from the same people. This sentiment damn near makes this forum unreadable at times. Especially since, outside of the X-Metal line, my personal opinion is that most vintage Oakley stuff is fugly compared to new lines like the Flak 2.0, Hijinx/Antix, Turbine (square O), Straight Jacket, Jawbone/Racing Jacket, Carbon Shift, Tincan/Tinfoil, (even the Prizm lenses line) and more.

 

[excollector]

I appreciate that they mixed it up a little on this pair with the stems. My only complaint is how many versions of the Wayfarer style do we need. I'm certainly not looking for a continuous supply of X-Metal. I loved the Tinfoil and now it's gone. I loved the Antix and it's gone. I apologize if I made a redundant post I haven't been here long.