Lower ANSI Standards For Certain Pairs

[nlgrav182]

Doing some reading after realizing my Crosshair is made in China, and it seems that the Crosshair and a handful of other pairs are not held to the ANSI Z87.1 standard for high and low impact protection, but a lesser standard known as Z80.3. This lesser standard only has light transmittance standards and less impact protection.

From Wiki:
The U.S. standard is ANSI Z80.3-2001, which includes three transmittance categories. According to the ANSI Z80.3-2001 standard, the lens should have a UVB (280 to 315 nm) transmittance of no more than one per cent and a UVA (315 to 380 nm) transmittance of no more than 0.3 times the visual light transmittance. The ANSI Z87.1-2003 standard includes requirements for basic impact and high impact protection. In the basic impact test, a 1 in (2.54 cm) steel ball is dropped on the lens from a height of 50 in (127 cm). In the high velocity test, a 1/4 in (6.35 mm) steel ball is shot at the lens at 150 ft/s (45.72 m/s). To pass both tests, no part of the lens may touch the eye. [20]


Oakleys at Z80.3:
Oakley - The Official Site

Big bummer for me. I'm going to try to return the Crosshairs for something else. Maybe the Ti model is USA and Z87.1.

Seems that Lux is having more and more an influence on Oakley...

 

[OakleyGuru379]

To pass Z80.3 is still impressive though! Some safety glasses don't!

 

[whirrx]

I believe this has much less to do with cutting cost with construction and more to do with the security of the lens in wire/acetate frames, just judging by the looks of the pairs in the search. I wouldn't fret too much at all, because in the end they're still plutonite lenses and won't shatter when struck, more so the lenses probably separated in a percentage of the tests so they had to be qualified for a lower standards.

 

[nlgrav182]

To pass Z80.3 is still impressive though! Some safety glasses don't!

I believe this has much less to do with cutting cost with construction and more to do with the security of the lens in wire/acetate frames, just judging by the looks of the pairs in the search. I wouldn't fret too much at all, because in the end they're still plutonite lenses and won't shatter when struck, more so the lenses probably separated in a percentage of the tests so they had to be qualified for a lower standards.

The old Oakley doesn't settle for "still impressive." It should be Z87.1 or keep working. Moreover, I paid full Oakley price for a pair of glasses that are not full Oakley (USA, Z87.1). Not cool.

 

[Rustpot]

Call and tell them as much. They'll do it unless people tell them not to.

 

[JacketFan]

I wouldn't worry about it, polycarbonate is extremely shatter/impact resistant, 10 times as much as hardened glass. They use it for cheap safety glasses. The marketing geniuses at Oakley have made people think it's a unique feature but it's not. And unless you're in a battle zone or something it's not going to be an issue.

 

[Rustpot]

I wouldn't worry about it, polycarbonate is extremely shatter/impact resistant, 10 times as much as hardened glass. They use it for cheap safety glasses. The marketing geniuses at Oakley have made people think it's a unique feature but it's not. And unless you're in a battle zone or something it's not going to be an issue.

Yes, but must we get into ANOTHER discussion in this thread about how inferior you feel Oakley lenses are? We get it, "Oakley just uses polycarbonate, it's the same as $5 safety glasses."

Not when we're talking impact protection and getting a pair that will take abuse and keep you from going blind. Some of us use our Oakleys for things like safety glasses, bike riding glasses, motorcycle glasses, shooting glasses... you know, things where you have a higher likelihood of getting hit in the face. Working under the previous assumption of all Oakleys being Z87 at minimum was a bit of a relief knowing you could count on any pair in your collection to be certified to stand in the way of harm. Now we find out some frames carry a standard for impact protection that will not allow use in industrial environments or other applications?

Compare the Z80.3 to the Z87.1-2003

A lens retention test is conducted via a “high mass” impact. A pointed 500 gm (1.1 lb) projectile is dropped 50 inches onto the complete protector mounted on a headform. No pieces can break free from the inside of the protector, the lens cannot fracture, and the lens must remain in the frame or product housing. This test is a good measure of the product’s strength, simulating a blow such as from a tool that slips from the work surface or when the lens collides with stationary objects.

• A high velocity test is conducted, at 20 specified impact points, where the projectile is a ¼ inch steel ball traveling at specific speeds depending upon the type of protector. For spectacles, the velocity is 150 ft/sec or 102 mph. The pass/fail criteria are the same as for the high mass test, plus no contact with the eye of the headform is permitted through deflection of the lens. This is meant to simulate particles that would be encountered in grinding, chipping, machining or other such operations. In the United States, compliance with the standard is self-certified, based on test results generated by the manufacturer as part of its initial design and ongoing Quality Control procedures. No independent certification is required. Products meeting the basic impact standard shall be marked “Z87” on all major components. Those products which pass the “high” impact tests listed above can carry a “Z87+” marking on the lens(es).

*Above reference provided by Philip M. Johnson, Director of Technology, Sperian Eye & Face Protection, Inc. Original Article

ANSI Z87.1-2003 Summary


1. Two Levels of Protection:

Basic and High LENSES: The new standard designates that lenses will be divided into two protection levels, Basic Impact and High Impact as dictated by test criteria. Basic Impact lenses must pass the “drop ball” test, a 1" diameter steel ball is dropped on the lens from 50 inches. High Impact lenses must pass “high velocity” testing where 1/4" steel balls are “shot” at different velocities.

Spectacles: 150 ft./sec.
Goggles: 250 ft./sec.
Faceshields: 300 ft./sec.

FRAMES: Now, all eyewear/goggle frames, faceshields or crowns must comply with the High Impact requirement. (This revision helps eliminate the use of “test lenses”, and assures all protectors are tested as complete - lenses in frame - devices). After making an eye hazard assessment, employers (safety personnel) should decide on appropriate eyewear to be worn, although High Impact would always be recommended. All of our spectacles are High Impact protectors.

2. Now, Products Must Indicate Impact Protection Level.

To identify a device’s level of impact protection, the following marking requirements apply to all new production spectacles, goggles and faceshields. Basic Impact spectacle lenses will have the manufacturer’s mark, i.e. an AOSafety product will have “AOS” and a Pyramex product will have a "P" etc. Goggles and faceshields will have AOS and Z87 (AOS Z87). High Impact spectacle lenses will also have a plus + sign, (AOS+) or "P+" etc. All goggle lenses and faceshield windows are to be marked with the manufacturer's mark, Z87, and a + sign (AOSZ87+).

Note: Lenses/windows may have additional markings. Shaded lens may have markings denoting a shade number such as 3.0, 5.0 etc. Special purpose lenses may be marked with “S”. A variable tint lens may have a “V” marking.

3. Sideshield Coverage Area Increased

Sideshield coverage, as part of the lens, part of the spectacle, or as an individual component, has been increased rearward by 10-millimeters via a revised impact test procedure. While side protection in the form of wraparound lens, integral or attached component sideshield devices is not mandated in this standard, it is highly recommended. Further, OSHA does require lateral protection on eye protection devices wherever a flying particle hazard may exist, and flying particle hazards are virtually always present in any occupational environment. All of our non-prescription safety spectacles meet the requirements of OSHA and the new Z87.1 for side protection.

4. No Minimum Lens Thickness Requirement For High Impact Lenses.

The new standard does not have a “minimum lens thickness” requirement for High Impact spectacle lenses. The previous standard required a 2-millimeter "minimum”. However, the protective advantages of wrap-around lenses and the many other advancements in eyewear design have eliminated this need.

Note: Glass lenses still fall into the Basic Impact lens category. The “minimum lens thickness” of 3 millimeters remains in effect for this category.

I have my M Frame 3.0 as my work pair because they are Z87+ and they'll stop whatever the shop can throw at me. I occasionally wear something else into the shop when I'm on my way out to my car or sunny days when I'm going to be working outside. I CANNOT do this with a Z80.3 rated pair.

 

[JacketFan]

Oakley just uses polycarbonate, it's the same as $5 safety glasses.

You are so right.

Seriously though, we're in a thread where you are literally discussing about "how inferior you feel Oakley lenses are".

 

[Rustpot]

You are so right.

Seriously though, we're in a thread where you are literally discussing about "how inferior you feel Oakley lenses are".

So there's no difference between anything made from the same materials. Good to know. I'll go buy some Harbor Freight Chinese specials next time I need tools. They're just as good as Mac, or Cornwell, Snap-On, etc, right? It's all made of steel, so what possible difference could there be?

And this isn't the lens as much as the frame. The impact tests are there to ensure nothing (including the lens) impacts the eye. A frame that allows the lens to come free under impact is much more dangerous and less protective than one that will hold the lens in place and not allow it to reach the eye.

 

[Batwolf]

I can't tell if those posts are sarcastic but I don't think all polycarbonate lenses are treated equal.