# Zionor goggles?



## deadlift350 (Apr 25, 2018)

Any of you guys try these budget goggles?
https://www.amazon.com/Zionor-Snowb...ip/dp/B01A42F5QW?ref_=bl_dp_s_web_11072924011

Brand is Zionor. They seem legit, however I know there are downfalls to low-end goggles. They claim UV protection, but not sure. Anyone here have experience?


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

Cheap is cheap. Save your eyes and buy real goggles.


----------



## phillyphan (Sep 22, 2016)

deadlift350 said:


> Any of you guys try these budget goggles?
> https://www.amazon.com/Zionor-Snowb...ip/dp/B01A42F5QW?ref_=bl_dp_s_web_11072924011
> 
> Brand is Zionor. They seem legit, however I know there are downfalls to low-end goggles. They claim UV protection, but not sure. Anyone here have experience?


Would you buy a budget HELMET to save a few bucks??


----------



## deadlift350 (Apr 25, 2018)

phillyphan said:


> Would you buy a budget HELMET to save a few bucks??


no lol, but that saves my head. Goggles didn't seem like a big deal.... or are you saying that the budget lenses could be damaging to the eyes if they dont have the correct protection? (obviously i don't know much about eyewear in general)


----------



## lab49232 (Sep 13, 2011)

Truth, they'll work as well for eye protection as most any expensive goggle. The goggle market is like all the optics markets. Its a crazy price gouging market. You can go to your eye doctor and spend $300-$400 on same glasses there, or go to Warby Parker or the like online and get glasses for well under $100 with lenses.

There are some bells and whistles you can get with high end, as well as some added durability with some (Oakly makes bullet proof lenses, you know in case you're thinking you make take a bullet to the face while riding...) 

You aren't going to get lot of extra vision enhancement optic performance from the cheaper models, and some cheaper models are better feeling and lasting than others. But for what they actually do, the high end goggle market is a luxury purchase, not a necessity. Goggles jobs first and formost are to protect your eyes from cold air, snow, rain, and wind, and maybe some sunlight UV protection, so you can keep your eyes open while going down the mountain. Most any of the cheapest models will still give you that.

As a person who owns multiple pairs of goggles across all range, if I didn't have money or cheap options for high end goggles, the fact I can get a goggle and like 8 lenses on some cheaper brands and models for the price of one pair of goggles with one lens that will still inevitably get scratched the second it touches anything mildly abrasive, well I like 8 goggles for the price of one in that scenario.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

Nope. Cheap goggles sacrifice on clarity, optical quality, and durability. The mirror coating is basically a film that will wear/scratch off where most high end stuff is chemically bonded and you have to physically scratch the plastic to effect the mirror. The cheap shit is all heat pressed lenses using a low optical quality plastic. Not nearly as clear and there will be distortion. Lots of eye strain. I also wouldn't trust any of it for UV, and the UV at high alpine is many times more intense than average. You are at a higher elevation with thinner air and you have all the uv from the sun and it bouncing off the snow too. Its aggressive. The face foam is cheaper. The construction is cheaper, the band is lower grade elastic and will bacon much faster, and your anti fog will be sub par.

Your eyeglass comparison is flawed in that all a set of prescription eyewear really has to do is bend light the right way and be clear. With glass that's pretty damn easy and there isn't much of a price gap in clarity with glass. With plastic there is, and you are also asking a whole lot more out of a goggle. Anti fog, clarity from plastic, durability of mirror coating in a harsh environment, foam durability bonded to TPU in varying humidity and temperatures, elastic durability in the same. It's a big difference.


----------



## woodhouse (Jan 18, 2013)

They wont compare to the top brand goggles in most aspects, but they are probably just fine

I cant justify $200 on goggles, I have a pair for $30 goggles that are about 11 years old that work just fine and never fog

I just bought a new pair because they look a little childish and im now 11 years older....

I bought these, Im heading to killington next week with them, ill try to do a review for guys looking for a more budget friendly goggle

https://www.amazon.com/WildHorn-Out..._1?_encoding=UTF8&refRID=ZSPBW74AS5B2XWE2ZMQB


----------



## MrDavey2Shoes (Mar 5, 2018)

I'd much rather spend my money on something basic like a Smith Cascade than buy something from one of these "instagram goggle" companies. They spend all the money on the aesthetics of the goggle and don't give you a quality product. If you're on a budge I'd go with basic and tested.


----------



## phillyphan (Sep 22, 2016)

This last weekend I rode with a guy and he had them......I had not heard of them other than this post. He likes them. A lot.


----------



## lab49232 (Sep 13, 2011)

Nivek said:


> Nope. Cheap goggles sacrifice on clarity, optical quality, and durability. The mirror coating is basically a film that will wear/scratch off where most high end stuff is chemically bonded and you have to physically scratch the plastic to effect the mirror. The cheap shit is all heat pressed lenses using a low optical quality plastic. Not nearly as clear and there will be distortion. Lots of eye strain. I also wouldn't trust any of it for UV, and the UV at high alpine is many times more intense than average. You are at a higher elevation with thinner air and you have all the uv from the sun and it bouncing off the snow too. Its aggressive. The face foam is cheaper. The construction is cheaper, the band is lower grade elastic and will bacon much faster, and your anti fog will be sub par.
> 
> Your eyeglass comparison is flawed in that all a set of prescription eyewear really has to do is bend light the right way and be clear. With glass that's pretty damn easy and there isn't much of a price gap in clarity with glass. With plastic there is, and you are also asking a whole lot more out of a goggle. Anti fog, clarity from plastic, durability of mirror coating in a harsh environment, foam durability bonded to TPU in varying humidity and temperatures, elastic durability in the same. It's a big difference.


Have you seen production cost for most of the high end goggles? It's, well again, the goggle market is the biggest gouger for any part of your snow kit as far as price vs cost goes. And what is it exactly you think snowboard goggles are doing for you? Magical clarity from the Gods? Even the most expensive plastic goggle lens doesn't enhance your vision in any extreme way.

No one here is arguing that the Smith Io or the Oakley A Frame or whatever you want aren't more durable than a cheaper brand goggle but lets not kid ourselves, goggles are fragile as sh*t, if you aren't careful with your lenses you're gonna ruin a 2-3 hundred dollar goggle your first day on the slope. I have a drawer full of old lenses that are all beat to hell from just about every goggle company on the market. 

If you're trying to buy a goggle that will last forever, well good luck. But if youre really careful with your goggle, only ride once in a while, or if you're ok replacing your goggles every once in a while but only spending $40-$50 instead of $300, go for it. At 5 to 6 times the price I promise you with 20 years of testing that if you ride a cheap goggle and an expensive goggle and treat them identical you will not get 6 times the days out of your top tier goggle, not even close. And if your unlucky or not careful, you'll have your 6 times more expensive goggle clip that tree branch or skid on some ice and ruin the lens 6 times sooner than your cheap goggle.

Again for BEST performance, obviously spend some extra money, for adequate performance at a savings feel free to go cheap. Anti fog is probably your biggest concern, most of the rest of it is field of view and subtle enhancements. It all comes down to how much extra do you need from performance per extra dollar spent and that's for each person to decide on their own, but most cheap goggles will ABSOLUTELY acceptably get you down the mountain for multiple days.


----------



## surfvilano (Dec 20, 2010)

lab49232 said:


> Have you seen production cost for most of the high end goggles? It's, well again, the goggle market is the biggest gouger for any part of your snow kit as far as price vs cost goes. And what is it exactly you think snowboard goggles are doing for you? Magical clarity from the Gods? Even the most expensive plastic goggle lens doesn't enhance your vision in any extreme way.
> 
> No one here is arguing that the Smith Io or the Oakley A Frame or whatever you want aren't more durable than a cheaper brand goggle but lets not kid ourselves, goggles are fragile as sh*t, if you aren't careful with your lenses you're gonna ruin a 2-3 hundred dollar goggle your first day on the slope. I have a drawer full of old lenses that are all beat to hell from just about every goggle company on the market.
> 
> ...


Agreed, I picked up a set of $200 Electric EG3 goggles a few months back that were left over from last season for $89(with a bonus lens - usually $30-40 each from them) and ended up in a steep part of a tree run where I had no choice but to straight line through a narrow gap between a few trees. Needless to say, despite using my front arm to part the branches I still ended up with a nice fleck of lense coating chipped off right dead center above my nose from the tiniest bit of contact with some pine needles. I'd have been super bummed had I not gotten such a good deal. I'll never buy quality goggles at full retail price, such a rip off.


----------



## Saveyour$ buddddy (Dec 7, 2020)

"yOu ShOuLd SpEnD 200$ On BrAnDeD gOgGlEs tO gO skiInG, AnY leSS aNd yOur noT dOInG IT rigHt" -Nivek

This guy's such a joker, go back to your Mt Blanc villa dude. If you enjoy spending 80% of your money on paying for a brand label your probably not looking at these goggles in the first place.

I did seriously have some doubt's last year when I bought my pair of Zionor goggles, I wanted to get some magnetic lens goggles for easy lens swapping between day and night skiing without having to carry a second pair or come off the hill to get them. Didnt want goggles that felt cheap, had lenses that fell off too easily, got scratched or fogged up all the time. Bought these with low enough expectations, but happy to get a pair of goggles and a second clear lens for about 100$.

Have had them out probably 30 times now and completely satisfied. The frame does feel a bit cheap by itself but is solid with the lens mounted on it. Magnets do their job well, they keep the lenses mounted through almost any wipe out but come off easy enough when you pull them directly off. Only time I have had them come off is after a big crash off a wind lip that I came down almost face first on (broke a pole in half, goggles were still in one piece).

Have had a couple of spills in the trees and on some ice and so far no scratches on the lenses. The fog/water proofing is still holding up fine in temperatures from +10 to -20 Celsius.

Realistically I dont expect the scratch proofing and water proofing to last forever on these because its probably not the absolute best. But it definitely does the job more than adequately for now, and I expect I'll get a few more years of regular use out of these lenses for sure. Good value overall in my opinion.

Once their not holding up I guess I'll finally buy a 250$ pair of oakleys... or maybe I'll just buy a replacement lens for 30$. 

Here's E Dean Butler, founder of LensCrafter, describing price gouging in the eyeglass industry, which might as well be the ski goggle industry too considering Oakley, Smith and most other name brands are owned by these same company's:
“You can get amazingly good frames, for $4 to $8,” Butler said. “For $15, you can get designer-quality frames, like what you’d get from Prada.” And lenses? “You can buy absolutely first-quality lenses for $1.25 apiece”. Yet those same frames and lenses might sell in the United States for $800


----------



## kieloa (Sep 20, 2019)

Saveyour$ buddddy said:


> (broke a pole in half, goggles were still in one piece).


Pole? You're a skier? Eww...


----------



## WigMar (Mar 17, 2019)

I wore Electric EG2's for years until they sold their mold. Thinking I would save some money, I bought Zionor's version. The lenses fit perfectly in my EG2 frames, but they sucked. I'm sure it's possible to produce cheap lenses that look great. These were not those. They had distortions, and allowed condensation to build up in between the lenses. I also experienced more eye fatigue than with my Electric Lenses.


----------



## bseracka (Nov 14, 2011)

I'd rather spend a little more to get a low end goggle from a reputable company then buy knockoff goggles. UV at altitude and reflected off snow is no joke. For long term eye health I'm inclined to trust the UV protection statement from a company that has something to lose.


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

Check out Angry's take on this subject: Angry Snowboarder - Goggles . While I'm sure there's markup for name-brand merchandise, I'm also sure there are corners cut for knock-offs. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you get shit.


----------



## lab49232 (Sep 13, 2011)

Donutz said:


> Check out Angry's take on this subject: Angry Snowboarder - Goggles . While I'm sure there's markup for name-brand merchandise, I'm also sure there are corners cut for knock-offs. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you get shit.


Ugghhh this thread is back..... Largely because of what appears to be someone associated with Zionor but again the truth is WAY in the middle of what he said and that Angry Video. As someone who has seen production cost on some of the name brands as well as on the Alibaba style I'll again break some of this down.

The Angry video just is him largely calling things crap, talking in circles without actually saying anything that's super valuable. I can rip a Dragon lens apart 100 times, call it crap while im doing it, but that doesn't mean much. Nobody intelligent in the world has claimed the $40-$50 goggle is 100% equal. But when you then start talking about needing surgery and destroying your eyes if you use budgets.....Oh come on what a complete fear mongering attempt to try and make a point. 

So here we go

Goggle Shape: Angry is right there is cylindrical and spherical. Spherical are largely viewed as better as being a more natural shape. However unlike what the video made it sound like, many of the budget goggles use cylindrical lenses, and many high end name brand goggles use the "inferior" cylindrical.
Oakley Line Goggle: $200 with a cylindrical lens
Zionor X Google: $23 spherical lens

Anti-Fog Tech: Again the application he discusses is accurate. Cheap goggles do have some venting design but other companies do usually develop with venting more in mind. However as he literally says in the video, most of the budget goggles are actually made from the old molds of name brand product meaning the venting is often very similar if not the exact same. And as he actually mentions, the anti-fog spray on cheap goggles actually does work, but he makes it sound like why it works matters. Yes Oakley spent a LOT more money developing an anti fog tech that is built in to the lens. Does that make it worth more money than if an anti-fog pray would work, no. Anti-fog sprays are easier to destroy or wear off to be fair. So then you have to decide, is a lens that cost upwards of $100 more to replace worth it? 

Foam: Yup foam is quality. Theres no question cheaper goggles use cheaper foam. Is that going to hurt you? No. Does that mean you'll have to replace them sooner, likely yes. How much sooner, that depends on a lot. If you compare a Zionor you can buy for $25 to an Anon M4 Goggle for $300, you can go I can buy literally 12 for the price of one. So as far as durability purely economically speaking, the M4 would have to last 12 times the lifespan of the budget goggle. Purely talking durability wise, no high end goggles are not worth the price. BUT if you prefer the luxurious feel and the like, that may be worth money to you. How much is up to you. You can buy a Corolla that will feel like a car or you can buy a BMW for triple the price that will just feel better.

Bullet Proof: This is something that I found a hilarious marketing gimmick when it first came out. Bullet Proof lenses. Now keep in mind this doesnt mean they are more durable/scratch resistent/etc for functionality. This is purely penetration of the lens. Lens penetrations is a nearly 100% non factor that serves no purpose. He at one point literally talk about snow penetrating the goggle. Snow's not breaking your lens, you're not getting shot at while snowboarding, and branches and twigs poking your eye out through your goggles, well it just doesn't really happen. So is this tech real, yes. Does it actual serve a function, no. Do some people still find the idea valuable, yes. Does this make non bullet proof lenses worse, not in any way that matters.

UV protection: This is one he largely mentions but oddly never shows the testing. This is also the tricky one. Higher end goggles you do have a stronger sense that they have tested and rated their lenses. Lower end you have to decide if you believe their claim or not. Now tht being said of the few lenses I've looked at all have been at least comparable to their UV claims. And you absolutely should not buy any goggle that doesn't mention UV protection. Im sure tehre are some out there completely lying, but it's not the industry standard to do so

Ratings/Reviews: These are all bought. Theres no question. Influencers exist exactly as he stated. Don't trust influencers to tell you what to buy. But also don't refuse to buy something just because an influencer uses it

All in all yes higher end goggles use better material. Yes they have little things that do a little better. Cheap goggles are like driving a Corolla. It'll get you there, it'll do it safely, it'll be fine. If a part does break (IE a scratched lens) its cheap and easy to fix. High end goggles are Rolls Royce, they'll just feel absolutely better, it'll come with perks you don't need, but maybe you're just willing to splurge for the feel. But It'll cost you a lot more and when it breaks repairs (IE a scratched lens) will cost a fortune. Oh and name brands markup are FAR FAR more substantial than teh cheap goggles unlike what he indicates. Name brand goggles cost pennies to produce same as the cheap ones.


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

lab49232 said:


> Truth, they'll work as well for eye protection as most any expensive goggle. The goggle market is like all the optics markets. Its a crazy price gouging market. You can go to your eye doctor and spend $300-$400 on same glasses there, or go to Warby Parker or the like online and get glasses for well under $100 with lenses.


Well, here's the thing... I'm quoting this old post because my wife has actually had direct experience with this scenario. We went to an optometrist, got tested, then went to a different place that some friends recommended, that would make the glasses for far, far less. And they did, in fact, make them for far, far less. And after six months or so of enduring the quality (or lack thereof), my wife gave up on them and went back to the original optometrist and paid far, far more. But now she has glasses that don't distort the world or give her headaches.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's always going to be this way. But it's just as true that you're not necessarily going to get the same product but without the name. Sometimes the cheaper option works fine, or in a few cases is even superior (Kirkland TP for instance, which is way better than any of the mainstream brands), but far more often you are getting what you pay for. Does an item that costs 10x more give you 10x more value? Maybe not. Maybe it only gives you 5x or 7x more value. But you have to decide if you're willing to take the chance, because at least some of the time, you're going to get shit. And then you're going to have to eat crow, pay the full retail, _and _eat the cost of the cheapo that didn't work out.

It really comes down to how price-sensitive you are, and how much your time is worth to you. Paying for the name brand may mean you are paying way more for essentially the same basic functionality, but it also means you're far more likely to get a quality item that you won't have to fix or send in for warranty or whatever. If on the other hand you have lots of time but are cash-poor, it may be worth your while to spend a few dozen hours obsessing over specs in order to save a few bucks.


----------



## lab49232 (Sep 13, 2011)

Donutz said:


> Well, here's the thing... I'm quoting this old post because my wife has actually had direct experience with this scenario. We went to an optometrist, got tested, then went to a different place that some friends recommended, that would make the glasses for far, far less. And they did, in fact, make them for far, far less. And after six months or so of enduring the quality (or lack thereof), my wife gave up on them and went back to the original optometrist and paid far, far more. But now she has glasses that don't distort the world or give her headaches.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's always going to be this way. But it's just as true that you're not necessarily going to get the same product but without the name. Sometimes the cheaper option works fine, or in a few cases is even superior (Kirkland TP for instance, which is way better than any of the mainstream brands), but far more often you are getting what you pay for. Does an item that costs 10x more give you 10x more value? Maybe not. Maybe it only gives you 5x or 7x more value. But you have to decide if you're willing to take the chance, because at least some of the time, you're going to get shit. And then you're going to have to eat crow, pay the full retail, _and _eat the cost of the cheapo that didn't work out.
> 
> It really comes down to how price-sensitive you are, and how much your time is worth to you. Paying for the name brand may mean you are paying way more for essentially the same basic functionality, but it also means you're far more likely to get a quality item that you won't have to fix or send in for warranty or whatever. If on the other hand you have lots of time but are cash-poor, it may be worth your while to spend a few dozen hours obsessing over specs in order to save a few bucks.


Ya Im not an expert on medical lenses but I'd imagine a prescription lens is far different than a simple polycarb goggle lens. Goggles are designed to protect your eyes from wind and the elements, and cheap goggles, by and large, do every bit of that. But in the end yup you get what you pay for to an extent. But no, wearing a cheaper brand goggle (in most cases) isn't going to create even the slightest of damage to your eyes. And it's not going to provide you a far inferior riding experience

Basically, I just hate this push to convince people on the fence of buying gear or struggling to afford gear at all, and telling them they need to break the bank on every part and that otherwise they'll be in danger, it's just horrible, a lie, and frankly detrimental to the industry. Yes you can buy cheap goggles, yes they'll work, no you're not going to get every bell and whistle but there's no shame in needing to purchase a $30 goggle or in opting to not break the bank for luxury over simple.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

Saveyour$ buddddy said:


> "yOu ShOuLd SpEnD 200$ On BrAnDeD gOgGlEs tO gO skiInG, AnY leSS aNd yOur noT dOInG IT rigHt" -Nivek


Should I feel honored? You created an account and made a response to me just to defend your no-name cheap china goggles. You're a skier. 

Here's a few things no one is mentioning.
You all keep mentioning $300 goggles. The M4 is the most likely being mentioned as the almost all of the rest at that price are photochromic or polarized. Both of which understandably cost more. Oh and the M4? Comes with a damn facemask ya twits. Those cost around $40 on their own. So your ceiling of comparison just dropped. Good job. 

No one has complained about shops needing to make money before, so accept shop markup or go away. Now, lets assume you give a shit about shops existing, so they have to make money. A shop margin of 40%, which is low for softgood accessories, puts a $200 goggle now at around $120. They can't undercut the shops they sell to or people would just window shop in person and order online. So they have to sell, even direct, at a consistent price with shops.

So apples to apples these brands are not charging 5-6 times what you get the questionable Amazon option for. More like 2-3.

Goggles go on sale, also no one said you had to get $300 goggles.

Lastly, UV is something like 3-6 times more intense at elevation in the snow. So yeah, I'm willing to pay extra to a brand that could be held responsible if their goggles don't actually block the necessary spectrum of UV. You only have one set of eyes. 

Someone also tried to mention that you can get high end cylindrical goggles. The difference is that those high end options are still injected lenses vs stamped or pressed. So the optics aren't quite as good as spherical or toric, but they're pretty damn close.


----------



## lab49232 (Sep 13, 2011)

Nivek said:


> Should I feel honored? You created an account and made a response to me just to defend your no-name cheap china goggles. You're a skier.
> 
> Here's a few things no one is mentioning.
> You all keep mentioning $300 goggles. The M4 is the most likely being mentioned as the almost all of the rest at that price are photochromic or polarized. Both of which understandably cost more. Oh and the M4? Comes with a damn facemask ya twits. Those cost around $40 on their own. So your ceiling of comparison just dropped. Good job.
> ...


.... What in the rambling mess of a statement was this?

Nobody was talking shop vs manufacturer selling prices. comparing manufacturing costs vs retail costs was mentioned, maybe you're getting confused? And yes most of us are aware of how and why MAP pricing exists and works. Doesn't play any role in "can you wear cheap goggles."

Keep it simple for people trying to get real information for their buying purpose. Can you wear cheap goggles safely and get adequate performance? Yes. Do high end goggles have some extra bells and whistles, of course. Are cheaper goggles dangerous, or going to cause serious issues resolved by $100+ goggles, just unequivocally not.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

Bring me some third party UV spectrum testing then we can agree on if Amazon goggles are "unequivocally" as protective.

It doesn't play a role in if people are capable of wearing them, you're right. People are complaining about how expensive name brand goggles are though. Well there's a whole factor that hasn't been mentioned. I mentioned it. Pretty simple.


----------



## cjaggie123 (Oct 21, 2018)

I can't stand that Angry video, really turned me off of that guy. Talks about how he's going to test all of these things, then doesn't actually show any real testing. Just bitches about how online reviewers are "people that snowboard" not "snowboarders" because of some elitist arbitrary criteria. 

I would really like a nice breakdown/comparison of different brands, components, and features. Angry aint it.


----------



## lab49232 (Sep 13, 2011)

Nivek said:


> Bring me some third party UV spectrum testing then we can agree on if Amazon goggles are "unequivocally" as protective.
> 
> It doesn't play a role in if people are capable of wearing them, you're right. People are complaining about how expensive name brand goggles are though. Well there's a whole factor that hasn't been mentioned. I mentioned it. Pretty simple.


Actually if you want to claim fraud you need to bring evidence to the table to prove they're inferior. Not just rip them apart and claim they're crap. Otherwise you're trump complaining about a rigged election and fake votes. Don't pull a trump card (hahaha get it)

And as for the cost of name brand, to the public it doesn't matter why they're more expensive. Needing to match shop pricing doesn't add any value to the consumer. Telling consumers to spend more money because of middle man pricing is just, well not a great look. Especially when you then advocate buying sale goggles when that doesn't actually help shops as most of the time those last season goggles are being sold at a loss by the time you factor in shelf time and cost and the like. We get why big name brand are more expensive, but unless that adds value to the product, it doesn't matter, and MAP and retailer costs doesn't add end value to a consumer.

The video is garbage and extremely misleading, we all know it, but if you're an uninformed consumer who knows nothing about goggles there's just enough big words to make it sound ultra scary and that's just not ok.

Again, you want cheap goggles, you cant afford expensive goggles, you like the look of Amazon ones, if that's what you really want yes they'll work. No they're not the same as $200 goggles but yes they'll likely do anything and everything you need them too.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

I trust name brands to back up their claims and safety if necessary. I do not trust faceless Chinese shell companies to do the same. For me, that's it. If you do, go for it, it's your eyes, not mine.


----------



## lab49232 (Sep 13, 2011)

Nivek said:


> I trust name brands to back up their claims and safety if necessary. I do not trust faceless Chinese shell companies to do the same. For me, that's it. If you do, go for it, it's your eyes, not mine.


There ya go, that's an honest answer. Be honest with consumers. It's that simple. That video was a massive amount of unsubstantiated garbage and insane fear mongering. You don't trust cheap brand goggles but you dont have any evidence they don't protect from UV. You recommend buying name brand because you trust the company but nothing more. Consumers want simple basic answers and while it's easy to manipulate uniformed customers, you absolutely shouldn't do it as a brand or a shop, it's just bad practice.


----------



## Manicmouse (Apr 7, 2014)

Love the Zionor rep making a first appearance after finding this Jan 2019 post in a Google search and signing up to SBF 😂


----------



## WigMar (Mar 17, 2019)

Tinted lenses allow your pupils to relax and widen to allow more light to pass into the eye. This is fine when that tint includes UV filtering. It's pretty damaging to eyes to have tint without UV protection. Trust in a company is huge for me when it comes to my eye health. I trusted Zionor once...

When I put Zionor lenses in my Electric EG2 frames, I experienced eye fatigue. Either from the distortions in the spherical lenses (which there were) or more likely from UV rays penetrating deep into my eyeballs. I ended up wearing sunglasses under those goggles most of the time. Major PITA just to avoid an eye headache. I really wanted those lenses to work out too. I used the Electric frames because they were better from the foam to the straps. Fogging was also worse in the same frames.

Save money wherever you can. I wear Smith Squad XL that I got for around $50 in the off season that included two lenses. So $50 for a UV claim I know a company will back vs $40 for Outdoor Masters or Zionors.... my eyes are definitely worth that extra $10. There's a ton of value in that extra $10 when you look at how much better Smith's foam, straps, and venting are.


----------



## Old Man Winterizer (Mar 21, 2021)

lab49232 said:


> Truth, they'll work as well for eye protection as most any expensive goggle. The goggle market is like all the optics markets. Its a crazy price gouging market. You can go to your eye doctor and spend $300-$400 on same glasses there, or go to Warby Parker or the like online and get glasses for well under $100 with lenses.
> 
> There are some bells and whistles you can get with high end, as well as some added durability with some (Oakly makes bullet proof lenses, you know in case you're thinking you make take a bullet to the face while riding...)
> 
> ...


Well said! FOR THE PRICE & Quality I like Zionor and Wildhorn (US Ski Team official supplier). 
For the price you can’t beat the quality AND being able to replace a lense for $30 +/- vs buying a whole new goggle is a BIG plus for me. Yes, Oakley, hands down, has set the standard for optical clarity. And, you CAN change out the lenses but it’s a WHILE LOT more difficult AND MORE EXPENSIVE than changing out a Wildhorn lense.


----------



## Old Man Winterizer (Mar 21, 2021)

lab49232 said:


> Truth, they'll work as well for eye protection as most any expensive goggle. The goggle market is like all the optics markets. Its a crazy price gouging market. You can go to your eye doctor and spend $300-$400 on same glasses there, or go to Warby Parker or the like online and get glasses for well under $100 with lenses.
> 
> There are some bells and whistles you can get with high end, as well as some added durability with some (Oakly makes bullet proof lenses, you know in case you're thinking you make take a bullet to the face while riding...)
> 
> ...


And GOOGLE Top Ten Ski Goggles. Wildhorn is on the list. Right there with Oakley.


----------



## Manicmouse (Apr 7, 2014)

The Wildhorn rep is in the house 😁


----------



## f00bar (Mar 6, 2014)

Honestly, who pays full price for goggles unless in a jam? My brand new M4/mask/extra lense cost me $155.


----------



## Manicmouse (Apr 7, 2014)

f00bar said:


> Honestly, who pays full price for goggles unless in a jam? My brand new M4/mask/extra lense cost me $155.


Anon on a discount offers amazing value. They're already cheaper than most top of the line brands and they have good extras.


----------



## Old Man Winterizer (Mar 21, 2021)

Manicmouse said:


> The Wildhorn rep is in the house 😁


Nope. Not a Wildhorn rep. Just a guy that has purchased all three brands. And tested them myself.


----------



## kieloa (Sep 20, 2019)

😅 

Im using Dragon PXV's, they are great but bit too big.


----------



## Jack87 (Jan 9, 2021)

Loving my $20 bole goggles I got on sale at costco for like $15 3 years ago and still going strong.

It's really basic no bells and whistles and I like it that way.

Reputable brand where I can trust the UV ratting claims.

Fits nice with my costco bole helmet with vent control.

Would I want some nicer goggles hell yeah will I be willing to spend more money to get essentially the same needs covered nah not at all. I can replace the boles for the fraction of the cost to replacing just a lense from the expensive models. 

There is nothing you can do to not get scratches on lenses. I am not willing to drop a few hundred and get a stupid scratch in my line of vision and refuse to use those lenses again.


----------

