# oakley crowbar vs. Smith I/OS, vs. Electric EG2



## oxi (Oct 17, 2009)

see if you can find a place to try them on first, not all goggles fit all faces. imo in the end it's down to personal taste in which ones look the best.


----------



## NYinfamous2k2 (Aug 5, 2009)

I cant really give you to much tech info, but I was looking at those 3 last year also and I went with the smith I/O in the end. My thoughts on all 3 were as follows: 
EG2s seemed constructed well, good lenses, there mirror finish lens looks sick, but when wearing them they were so rediculously huge they felt uncomfortable on my nose and looks almost cartoon big on my face. but alone its a badass looking goggle

Crowbars they fit very well, peripheral vision is hindered the most with these. I personally dont like the quality of the crowbars. alot of my friends rock them and they are constantly breaking on them. what I did like was they have sooo many lenses to choose from. one being, I think it was called pink irridium. Im color blind so I have trouble with alot of lenses this lens worked great in night or day, and almost persuaded me to get these. but IMO they look ugly as shit. like a big halo goggle. 

Smith I/0 by far the most comfortable (for me) peripheral vision was great. the irridium mirror lens works great during bright days but can be a bit dark during overcast days. the other lens they give you didnt work for me with my color blindness. So i got a clear lens for night. the ease of changing the lens is fast and e z . so what it came down to for me was comfort and peripheral vision. so for me the clear winner were the smith I/O


----------



## fredericp64 (Jan 4, 2010)

Try them all on to see how well they fit with your helmet and your face. 

I've heard great things about the Smiths though.


----------



## c_mack9 (Jan 9, 2009)

ive had eg2s and loved em. i have a tiny face and thought they wouldnt fit me but they do. im gonna get a new pair this year. also throw oakley splice into the mix unless you dont like the way they look. you really cant lose with all the ones you listed, like they said, try em on, and figure out how much you care to spend.


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

I love the way Smiths fit, but do be aware that in my experience their lenses scratch easier than many others. Doesn't stop me from wearing them, but just use some extra caution.


----------



## fredericp64 (Jan 4, 2010)

This might get your rocks going. You've got I/OS in there as well as Crowbars. 

Goggles And Accessories at Gearscan.com


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

Smith I/OS is the smaller version of the I/O. If you are looking for something to fit a smaller face, then look at the EG2.5 instead of the regular 2.

The Smith I/O/S and EG2/.5 offer the most peripheral vision out of any goggle on the market. The main selling point of the I/O is the lens swapping. It is really easy to swap lenses out of the I/O. Another big benefit with the Smiths is that it comes with a hard case, microfiber bag, and extra lens. Great deal.

I swear by Oakley products. There is no doubt that they have the most durable lenses out of any goggle manufacturer. It is the only eyewear brand that has a contract with the military. Another thing I love about Oakley is that they have Asian fit goggles widely available. It's not just good for Asians though. If you find that most goggles leave a gap in the nose area, the Asian fit will probably solve that problem for you. I use the A-Frames and Splices.


----------



## Tarzanman (Dec 20, 2008)

Why does having a contract with the military mean anything? If you think that they use the same lenses for snowboarding goggles that they do for tactical glasses then you're mistaken.

Tang had a contract with NASA. Does that mean they make the most high-tech drink mix?


----------



## c_mack9 (Jan 9, 2009)

Tarzanman said:


> Tang had a contract with NASA. Does that mean they make the most high-tech drink mix?


Yes. have you ever drank Tang? it's ah-mazing.


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

Leo said:


> It is the only eyewear brand that has a contract with the military.


At the end of the day, this really doesn't mean a whole heckuva lot. Any soldier will tell you that a lot of the stuff he/she gets issued is utter crap. I'm not saying Oakley is crap, far from it, but having a military contract doesn't necessarily say anything about the quality of a product.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

Tarzanman said:


> Why does having a contract with the military mean anything? If you think that they use the same lenses for snowboarding goggles that they do for tactical glasses then you're mistaken.
> 
> Tang had a contract with NASA. Does that mean they make the most high-tech drink mix?


Because those military goggles have to go through ballistics testing. Oakley test all of their lenses with two different impact tests.

One test shoots iron balls into the lens. They do two sizes for the balls. I forgot the number, but if you really want me to go dig it out the size and speed I'll gladly do it.

Second one drops a big metal object from a certain height onto the lens.

We have training videos here that demonstrate these tests using Oakley sunglasses and competing brands like Maui Jim. The Oakleys don't shatter.

And before you go spouting about how we shouldn't believe everything we see in those training videos, our buyers and owner recently came back from touring the Oakley headquarters. They saw these things first hand and even rode in the tank that they own.

So in this case, the military contract is a pretty significant deal to me. I personally have had a very hard impact with my Oakley goggles. The tiniest nick resulted.

@linville: Well, from my family and friends in the military, they consistently tell me their stuff is better. The only items they call crap are things like food and prescription glasses (mainly because they are ugly hunks of bottle lenses on cheap plastic, even then they say it's really durable). They won't buy a civilian version of something if they have a military one like those camelpacks. Then again, most of my military friends and family members are still serving so maybe that has something to do with it (you know, they might not want to complain). Even my 62 year old father who served in the Korean military says their stuff is better and how they had everything well before the general public.

Edit: By the way Tarzan, these tests are done on their civilian products. So even if they use a different material for their military versions, it doesn't matter since the civilian ones stand up to impact tests. Are you just making assumptions? I have a feeling you're going to say something along the lines of me believing everything I see or am trained on.


----------



## Tarzanman (Dec 20, 2008)

LOL. Yes, I had a lot of Tang in my youth.


c_mack9 said:


> Yes. have you ever drank Tang? it's ah-mazing.


----------



## Tarzanman (Dec 20, 2008)

Leo said:


> Edit: By the way Tarzan, these tests are done on their civilian products. So even if they use a different material for their military versions, it doesn't matter since the civilian ones stand up to impact tests. Are you just making assumptions? I have a feeling you're going to say something along the lines of me believing everything I see or am trained on.


Leo, with all due respect....you aren't trained on equipment. The rep from Oakley or Smith or whomever comes into your store and gives you the marketing spiel. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion or knowing some of the particulars/idiosyncracies of a particular product but you do not work for consumer reports. As I recall, you work for a retailer and retailers are only ever given half of the story (the good half) when it comes to products they are selling.

If you knew how government contracts were awarded (I do, because I have worked for a few companies who have bid on large DOE projects), then you would not harbor the false illusion that government/military contract = automatic best quality. Talk to someone who has served and you will realize that the vast majority of standard issue gear is of middling quality to strike the best balance between practical utility and cost. The military buys cheap or broken sh** just as often as they buy top shelf stuff. Look at the Osprey, and look at the recent lawsuit involving the Predator done targeting system. Just two examples among many that exist.

I am not saying that your conclusions about Oakley vs Smith/Anon/whomever are incorrect, but the reasons and suppositions that you are basing your opinions on are laughable at best. If you knew a little bit more about about how the world works, then that would probably be more clear to you. I don't mean this post as an insult, it is intended as advice. Try to look a few levels deeper before rattling off points that really don't have much innate bearing on the issue at hand.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

Tarzanman said:


> ddoopsiesdfasdfsdafd


I think I see what you did there :cheeky4:


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

In Leo's defense just about everyone I know who has worked in the optics field is brainwashed by Oakley. As much as Oakley spends on consumer marketing, they have to spend as much or more marketing to retail employees in the biz. Honestly, it's brilliant.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

Thing is, I'm a retail employee, but I'm not in sales. I don't have a rep train me. I've voluntarily watched training videos and read the info available. Furthermore, I already said that there are employees who have seen these tests first hand.

I also said that means their lenses are high quality regardless of whether or not it's the same grade as used in the military because the ones they test are civilian models. You can argue that we are being fooled with supposed real products, but I think that's taking it too far.

I have asked my military family and friends. In fact, my sister in-law who is Navy just told me she prefers military versions over civilian ones. So while you are correct in that not all military gear is high quality, the important ones are. Hydration packs, clothing, eyewear/protection, those are all top notch. Food, tootbrush, things like that are cheap.

I'm sorry, but I'm not the type of person that thinks the worst of this world. While there are undoubtedly less than honest companies out there, I don't find Oakley to be one of those from my experience. I don't have to work for consumer reports for that. I've been a long time Oakley eyewear supporter before I was ever in this business. This is because time and time again, their lenses are the most durable. Their snow goggles are no different as per my experience last season. I'm not saying they are the end all goggle... I actually prefer the Smith I/O design... I'm just saying in the world of durability, Oakley lenses rule. That's from my own experience, not assumptions about a company using marketing hype.

I respect your opinions Tarzan, but for you to say you are giving me advice is condescending because you are doing so by questioning my street smarts. Sorry, I'm not pessimistic. Until I personally catch Oakley outright lying about their product, I'm going to recommend them.

You want a company that lies about their products and uses pure marketing hype? Look at companies like Bitch Boards and Ed Hardy.

Edit: Navy sis just said you get crappy shit in bootcamp. When you're out, and especially if you specialize, you get top notch stuff. She's over here so I thought I'd ask lol.

By the way, I digress with the military contract example. I understand where you are coming from. I just thought it as being significant that of all the eyewear companies, Oakley has the contract. Yes, they are tested... that's a fact. But you brought up a good point... whether or not they are the same materials is unknown unless someone actually wants to compare a military goggle next to a civilian one. I think I'm going to ask my best friend about that one. He has all types of army gear. Would be interesting to know.

But yea, I should have just stated that they do impact tests on their eyewear and not brought up the military thing. I stand by my belief that they have the most durable lenses though and that's purely from personal experience with multiple sunglass and goggle brands.


----------



## thtrussiankid01 (Aug 31, 2010)

yo i can tell you guys are having a very meaningful conversation but could i get a little help with my question


----------



## Tarzanman (Dec 20, 2008)

You're right that I am questioning your street smarts. You have made other claims regarding goggles that I flat out think are innacurate. Besides having covered basic optics in my college physics classes, I am also an avid photographer... so you'll have to excuse me if I find your statements about the superiority of one particular brand of thin, plastic double lenses to be...subjective and unsophisticated.

therussiankid:
The main differences between those goggles (I/O vs crowbar vs EG) are the size and the fit. It is impossible for anyone to tell you whether the EGs might be too big or whether the Oakleys seal properly against your nose bridge without squeezing it. You have to go try them on yourself. You really need to put in a couple of hours or days on the mountain before you have a good idea of what you personally need/want in a snow goggle.


----------



## SnowBrdScotty (Apr 4, 2009)

Tarzanman said:


> Leo, with all due respect....you aren't trained on equipment. The rep from Oakley or Smith or whomever comes into your store and gives you the marketing spiel. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion or knowing some of the particulars/idiosyncracies of a particular product but you do not work for consumer reports. As I recall, you work for a retailer and retailers are only ever given half of the story (the good half) when it comes to products they are selling.
> 
> If you knew how government contracts were awarded (I do, because I have worked for a few companies who have bid on large DOE projects), then you would not harbor the false illusion that government/military contract = automatic best quality. Talk to someone who has served and you will realize that the vast majority of standard issue gear is of middling quality to strike the best balance between practical utility and cost. The military buys cheap or broken sh** just as often as they buy top shelf stuff. Look at the Osprey, and look at the recent lawsuit involving the Predator done targeting system. Just two examples among many that exist.
> 
> I am not saying that your conclusions about Oakley vs Smith/Anon/whomever are incorrect, but the reasons and suppositions that you are basing your opinions on are laughable at best. If you knew a little bit more about about how the world works, then that would probably be more clear to you. I don't mean this post as an insult, it is intended as advice. Try to look a few levels deeper before rattling off points that really don't have much innate bearing on the issue at hand.


at one time they had body armor that didn't work. ain't that a bitch!


----------



## oldlady (Jan 11, 2010)

thtrussiankid01 said:


> yo i can tell you guys are having a very meaningful conversation but could i get a little help with my question


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## ESW (Jan 2, 2009)

Crowbars are very nice, never tried the smiths, but oakleys are always nice. You can get them pretty cheap too at oakleyvault.com hit it up.


----------



## thtrussiankid01 (Aug 31, 2010)

ok i found out that the oakleys dont fit me well too much pressure on the nose
so between the I/O's (not the I/OS) and the eg2's what would be a better buy. They both fit me very well and i can ge them both for about the same price (around $130). I know the i/o's have the extra lenses and the hard case but the eg2's are just so sexy though.
So any suggestions


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

Tarzanman said:


> You're right that I am questioning your street smarts. You have made other claims regarding goggles that I flat out think are innacurate. Besides having covered basic optics in my college physics classes, I am also an avid photographer... so you'll have to excuse me if I find your statements about the superiority of one particular brand of thin, plastic double lenses to be...subjective and unsophisticated.


Well, I still love you Tarzan and you give great advice. But trust me, just because you are more educated in optics does not make me stupid.

We have debated issues like this before and I still speak out of personal experience. You guys told me to ask any military serviceman/woman about the quality of gear and I did. I will even ask my special forces best friend. You tell me the superiority of one brand's lenses is subjective and unsophisticated, but I have given you examples of personal experience and others' experiences around me. People who have seen demonstrations first hand.

I'm not using a college book to explain myself. I'm using personal experience and advice of others. I am also going to have a discussion with our photographer about lenses since you have sparked my interest now. I'll report back.

I stick with my statements. Oakley is the most durable (lenses). Spherical lenses will offer a wider field of vision which is why goggles with flat lenses are consistently smaller. You won't find a modern Smith I/O or EG2 sized flat lens goggle. Flat lenses are cylindrical so the vision won't be noticeably distorted (I'm only speaking for close range, I have never done backcountry so can't speak for something that requires more attention to detail like that), but there is some distortion. It was enough for me to notice going from Dragon DXs to an Oakley A-Frame.


----------



## jmacphee9 (Nov 11, 2008)

using many different goggles in my day, oakleys are something else. im not saying that i love them or they are my fav but leo is 100% correct on their durability. it is steps ahead any other company...


----------



## c_mack9 (Jan 9, 2009)

thtrussiankid01 said:


> ok i found out that the oakleys dont fit me well too much pressure on the nose
> so between the I/O's (not the I/OS) and the eg2's what would be a better buy. They both fit me very well and i can ge them both for about the same price (around $130). I know the i/o's have the extra lenses and the hard case but the eg2's are just so sexy though.
> So any suggestions


depends on if you change your lens out on the go. last year i had eg2s with a spare lens, it isnt hard at all to change them. the frame is very soft without a lens in it. i wouldnt wanna do it on the hill with gloves on but i dont think it would be THAT much harder than the I/O. and youre right, the sex appeal of the eg2 is tough to beat. i just ordered my new set from leo since they are on sale. hurry up, sale ends tonight.


----------



## svwannabe (Dec 24, 2009)

The Smith I/O's are pretty nice, i was checking them out yesterday. Oakleys are always a good brand, i was looking at their Splice series, a friend just picked up a set of those.. they are pretty nice.. Personally i can stand the EG2's at all, they look retarded.. but to each their own.


----------



## thtrussiankid01 (Aug 31, 2010)

of the 2 goggles which are more durable. i dont mean the lenses scratching but just durable in general, those that would last me the longest. and to anwser c_mack9's question i dont switch lenses at all. My old goggle (Zeal I think) i got them for 100 on sale and they had only i lense, a polarized one and i never even thought of switching.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

If you want durability, the Smiths will beat Electric. The I/O has a lifetime warranty to boot. I've actually heard from a couple of people about them honoring a broken goggle that is 30 years old. :thumbsup:


----------



## NYinfamous2k2 (Aug 5, 2009)

Oh S$!T I didnt know my Smiths had lifetime warranty. Good to know thanks 
thtrussiankid01 go with the Smith I/O you wont be disappointed. Like you I never used to change lenses either but is so easy with these I dont mind anymore and it only helps.


----------

