• 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!
It looks like an steel blue to me ... greyish blue.
Looks like steel blue to me as well.
E882C78F-F275-4D9D-B4A2-D03031AA5C49.jpeg
 
So I bought one and I'm pretty disappointed with the design. I emailed Oakley with this feedback:

Hi I'm a long time Oakley fan since the Mumbos in the 90's with several pairs of glasses, goggles, shoes, backpacks, bags and lots of apparel. I purchased the MSK3 and it arrived within a week. The order process was simple and easy.
The problem I have is with the mask itself.
The pictures showed a very promising mask with a great design and seemingly good comfort level but when I opened it I was disappointed to find that the filter is a separate unit that connects with two patches of velcro. I was going to test the mask on a quantitative fit testing machine (the same machine used to test medical masks as well as firefighter breathing apparatus masks) but seeing how the filter is installed and worn, I'm certain that the mask would fail. Even the least expensive KN95 non surgical masks pass with a 22% - this mask as constructed would likely fail worse. This mask is billed as a "non-medical" mask that prevents fogging. Unfortunately it fails on both. I can see a few deficiencies with the mask: First, the mask comes in a great box but it has nothing to store the mask in when it's not being worn. I would have expected a microfiber bag or even a neck lash strap to wear the mask around the neck. Second, because the filter is a separate unit that is attached in two relatively small spots on the sides, it collapses during inhalation, allowing unfiltered air into the mask. Also, since the filter collapses during inhalation, it negates the design of the mask to keep the mask off the nose and mouth when worn. Third, because the filter is a separate unit, it does not prevent exhalation through the mesh. Although the mask does have a rubberized nose bridge, exhalation occurs directly below the nose bridge, out the front mesh and up into the face, causing glasses to fog, negating the rubberized nose bridge design.
With all that said, the better question is "how can the mask be made better?"
If the mesh were made with a double layer and if a filter could be inserted between the two layers, then the mask would fulfill everything that is promised. Inhaled air would be forced through the filter and exhaled air would not escape around the filter and through the mesh. It would be better to have the filter inserted from the bottom and not the top so as to maintain the integrity of the nose bridge, as well as prevent moisture from collecting at the bottom of the filter pocket. Also the mesh window should be smaller than the filter itself so that air could not pass around the filter but be forced through it. I hope my feedback is helpful and is considered for the mask design. The mask has a lot of promise and could be the best mask on the market if a few of these design shortcomings are addressed.

I did receive a response. Here is what they said:
Thank you for being a valued customer. We apologize for your experience and would like to resolve your issue for you. Please send us an email at OakleySocialCSE@Oakley.com and we will get back with you shortly. Our agents are working hard to answer any email to this box within 24 hours Monday – Friday 9 am – 5 pm.

Not sure if they will address this design issue. Hopefully they will - the design is very promising but misses the mark the way it is.
 
So I bought one and I'm pretty disappointed with the design. I emailed Oakley with this feedback:

Hi I'm a long time Oakley fan since the Mumbos in the 90's with several pairs of glasses, goggles, shoes, backpacks, bags and lots of apparel. I purchased the MSK3 and it arrived within a week. The order process was simple and easy.
The problem I have is with the mask itself.
The pictures showed a very promising mask with a great design and seemingly good comfort level but when I opened it I was disappointed to find that the filter is a separate unit that connects with two patches of velcro. I was going to test the mask on a quantitative fit testing machine (the same machine used to test medical masks as well as firefighter breathing apparatus masks) but seeing how the filter is installed and worn, I'm certain that the mask would fail. Even the least expensive KN95 non surgical masks pass with a 22% - this mask as constructed would likely fail worse. This mask is billed as a "non-medical" mask that prevents fogging. Unfortunately it fails on both. I can see a few deficiencies with the mask: First, the mask comes in a great box but it has nothing to store the mask in when it's not being worn. I would have expected a microfiber bag or even a neck lash strap to wear the mask around the neck. Second, because the filter is a separate unit that is attached in two relatively small spots on the sides, it collapses during inhalation, allowing unfiltered air into the mask. Also, since the filter collapses during inhalation, it negates the design of the mask to keep the mask off the nose and mouth when worn. Third, because the filter is a separate unit, it does not prevent exhalation through the mesh. Although the mask does have a rubberized nose bridge, exhalation occurs directly below the nose bridge, out the front mesh and up into the face, causing glasses to fog, negating the rubberized nose bridge design.
With all that said, the better question is "how can the mask be made better?"
If the mesh were made with a double layer and if a filter could be inserted between the two layers, then the mask would fulfill everything that is promised. Inhaled air would be forced through the filter and exhaled air would not escape around the filter and through the mesh. It would be better to have the filter inserted from the bottom and not the top so as to maintain the integrity of the nose bridge, as well as prevent moisture from collecting at the bottom of the filter pocket. Also the mesh window should be smaller than the filter itself so that air could not pass around the filter but be forced through it. I hope my feedback is helpful and is considered for the mask design. The mask has a lot of promise and could be the best mask on the market if a few of these design shortcomings are addressed.

I did receive a response. Here is what they said:
Thank you for being a valued customer. We apologize for your experience and would like to resolve your issue for you. Please send us an email at OakleySocialCSE@Oakley.com and we will get back with you shortly. Our agents are working hard to answer any email to this box within 24 hours Monday – Friday 9 am – 5 pm.

Not sure if they will address this design issue. Hopefully they will - the design is very promising but misses the mark the way it is.
I bought one, just because, but won't wear it as I get all the cheap masks I need here at work, even some new design 3M. But they are cool looking and thats my excuse.
 
I bought one, just because, but won't wear it as I get all the cheap masks I need here at work, even some new design 3M. But they are cool looking and thats my excuse.
Same here.
I will not even open the plastic bag.
It will be an artifact for future generations.
 
So I bought one and I'm pretty disappointed with the design. I emailed Oakley with this feedback:

Hi I'm a long time Oakley fan since the Mumbos in the 90's with several pairs of glasses, goggles, shoes, backpacks, bags and lots of apparel. I purchased the MSK3 and it arrived within a week. The order process was simple and easy.
The problem I have is with the mask itself.
The pictures showed a very promising mask with a great design and seemingly good comfort level but when I opened it I was disappointed to find that the filter is a separate unit that connects with two patches of velcro. I was going to test the mask on a quantitative fit testing machine (the same machine used to test medical masks as well as firefighter breathing apparatus masks) but seeing how the filter is installed and worn, I'm certain that the mask would fail. Even the least expensive KN95 non surgical masks pass with a 22% - this mask as constructed would likely fail worse. This mask is billed as a "non-medical" mask that prevents fogging. Unfortunately it fails on both. I can see a few deficiencies with the mask: First, the mask comes in a great box but it has nothing to store the mask in when it's not being worn. I would have expected a microfiber bag or even a neck lash strap to wear the mask around the neck. Second, because the filter is a separate unit that is attached in two relatively small spots on the sides, it collapses during inhalation, allowing unfiltered air into the mask. Also, since the filter collapses during inhalation, it negates the design of the mask to keep the mask off the nose and mouth when worn. Third, because the filter is a separate unit, it does not prevent exhalation through the mesh. Although the mask does have a rubberized nose bridge, exhalation occurs directly below the nose bridge, out the front mesh and up into the face, causing glasses to fog, negating the rubberized nose bridge design.
With all that said, the better question is "how can the mask be made better?"
If the mesh were made with a double layer and if a filter could be inserted between the two layers, then the mask would fulfill everything that is promised. Inhaled air would be forced through the filter and exhaled air would not escape around the filter and through the mesh. It would be better to have the filter inserted from the bottom and not the top so as to maintain the integrity of the nose bridge, as well as prevent moisture from collecting at the bottom of the filter pocket. Also the mesh window should be smaller than the filter itself so that air could not pass around the filter but be forced through it. I hope my feedback is helpful and is considered for the mask design. The mask has a lot of promise and could be the best mask on the market if a few of these design shortcomings are addressed.

I did receive a response. Here is what they said:
Thank you for being a valued customer. We apologize for your experience and would like to resolve your issue for you. Please send us an email at OakleySocialCSE@Oakley.com and we will get back with you shortly. Our agents are working hard to answer any email to this box within 24 hours Monday – Friday 9 am – 5 pm.

Not sure if they will address this design issue. Hopefully they will - the design is very promising but misses the mark the way it is.

Thanks for sharing.

I am disappointed in the feedback I have heard with these.

I guess as Oakley fans and at the price tag it’s going for we had hoped Oakley would “Have our backs” and produce a functional but fashionable mask.
 

Latest Posts

Back
Top