• 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!

New OTT

Yeah, diecasting aluminum is pretty straightforward. Titanium, though, much more difficult - they were first told it couldn't be done, for pieces so thin.

So the Ti alloy they came up with to do the job they coined as x-metal, which is what they named the product line after, and then a particular type of finish.

The way I heard it was they originally used sand casting then later switched to lost-wax casting, which, though more expensive, got better results. But both involve breaking the mold with each casting, while with diecasting, the mold is reused again and again.
 
The way I heard it was they originally used sand casting then later switched to lost-wax casting

This is the first I heard of this. Has this been proven to be the case? Even back in the mid-late 1990s prior to the release of Romeo when you look at patent documents it states investment casting is what they wanted to use. Not sure how sand casting factors in?
 
This is the first I heard of this. Has this been proven to be the case? Even back in the mid-late 1990s prior to the release of Romeo when you look at patent documents it states investment casting is what they wanted to use. Not sure how sand casting factors in?

No, it's what I heard but I can't back it up. Which is why I usually qualify that statement "the way I heard it was" or something similar.

There is an obvious difference to the finish between 1st gens and later gens, though; the 1st ones had rougher lines and occasional hints of flashing remaining. Later gens are near-perfect with no flashing.

Though some of that could be due to better post-casting finishing processes, the switching of casting methods would certainly have created better results, since lost-wax does better for intricate items.
 
Yeah I would figure it was them getting better at investment casting rather than switching to a whole new technique. Not many manufacturers would invest in a method and totally abandon it shortly afterwards for another expensive method, especially since they previously already patented the latter technique.
 
I'm not gonna be surprised one bit and I'll leave this here too.......MEDUSA
 
Last edited:
By making it for a very specific purpose which is eyewear.

Patent US5541674 - Dimensionally Stable eyewear - Google Patents

Interesting doc.

They aren't actually patenting investment casting; they're patenting "dimensionally stable eyewear", of which one embodiment is investment cast from Ti or a Ti alloy.

And yes, it's describing using investment casting from the beginning.

Still, seems strange there'd be that much flashing left on the 1st gens, since that gets smoothed off the wax pattern before the investment mold is made.

But that was interesting; thanks.
 
Part of the dimensionally stable eyewear constitution is titanium using a certain casting method. Their invention is basically summed up in their statement "More particularly, the present invention relates to investment cast eyewear orbitals with improved dimensional stability."

In the end it's something for the lawyers to argue over.
 
Part of the dimensionally stable eyewear constitution is titanium using a certain casting method. Their invention is basically summed up in their statement "More particularly, the present invention relates to investment cast eyewear orbitals with improved dimensional stability."

Yeah I'm not disagreeing with that - I'm saying the patent isn't for the process but for this particular product created by the process. But the question was if they started with sand casting and later switched, or used lost-wax the entire time.

And that doc is compelling, that they used lost-wax the entire time; it's the simplest explanation.

Sooooo, anybody hear any rumors about a new OTT coming out this year?!?
:focus:
 
Back
Top