# my honest review of grayne goggles



## boardningmania (Feb 23, 2015)

Hey guys,

I recently joined this forum looking for a good snowboarding community. Community is great, but product recommendations can be a hit or miss. I was looking for quality goggles and fell into the trap of buying from wiredsports.

I recently bought the grayne mtm blackout polarized. I was excited about how some people here advertise them as inexpensive and good quality.
Here's what I think
-the elastic on these goggles are horrible. They loosened through out the day up to the point where I cannot tighten them anymore
-plastic on the sides that connects the band to the goggles look like its from a toy from the dollar store
-anti fog and lens were decent

I am looking to exercise my refund with wiredsport's promise of a 3/year manufacturer defect guarantee. The problem is: they don't return their calls or email.

Bottom line:
Don't do business with wiredsport unless you are a lifetime member being paid to write a few good posts about their products


----------



## Argo (Feb 25, 2010)

There is a difference between $150 goggles and $50 goggles. You found out what it is. I used electric EG2 for 5 years with great luck other than some fogging on very specific incidents. I now use smith iox and love them....


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

*your complaint has been filed in the "expert shopper" category*

you bought polarized snow goggles?


----------



## racer357 (Feb 3, 2011)

there are some products that are exactly what you pay for them ( unless you find the top names on sale) goggles are one of them.

I forgot my goggles one time and picked up a set of 60.00 giro goggles at the shop in the lodge. I wasted 60 bucks because the lens in them sucks and I couldn't see without spots everywhere. Lesson learned.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

boardningmania said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I recently joined this forum looking for a good snowboarding community. Community is great, but product recommendations can be a hit or miss.
> 
> ...


I've been a member here for 4 years. I know for a fact what wiredsport has contributed to this community and to board sports. You've been here less than a month and have four posts total, including this one accusing (..without evidence) longtime members of being paid shills for WS! 

While You are certainly entitled to your opinion of the product you purchased if it isn't to your liking. I know who I tend to trust in this exchange. I'm completely comfortable pointing anyone to wiredsport for advice or gear purchases! 

I might also add that there are plenty of members of SBF who are not the least bit timid, shy, or for that matter, polite or even tactful in expressing their opinions or dislike of, stupid people, sub-standard products or service. Afaik,.. You are the first person I've ever heard complain about WS or their cust. service! 

And there has *never* been the slightest "whiff" that WS has ever payed or enticed anyone to endorse their products. (...the slightest evidence or suspicion of _THAT_ would definitely have resulted in heated debates, comments and many prematurely closed threads!)

So,.. I'm gonna file your comments under the category of "Sour Grapes & you can't please everybody!" I've worked enough service and retail jobs to know there are people in the world that would bitch and complain about having won a free Rolls Royce!


----------



## boardningmania (Feb 23, 2015)

Chomps, 

I understand where you are coming from. You're a tool for WS.


----------



## ThredJack (Mar 18, 2014)

boardningmania said:


> Chomps,
> 
> I understand where you are coming from. You're a tool for WS.


And you're a troll who lives in your parents basement, downloading pictures of Sarah Michelle Geller.

Seriously, like Chomps said, WS is a valued member of this community. Chomps is also a respected member here. So shut the fuck up and stop bad mouthing members of this community, if you'd like to continue being a part of it. Otherwise, GTFO.


----------



## Kenai (Dec 15, 2013)

boardningmania said:


> You're a tool for WS.


And whether you are right or wrong about his product, you are a dick. 

:finger1:


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

File under butt-hurt.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

snowklinger said:


> you bought polarized snow goggles?


:rofl2:

The10charruleshouldntapplytosmilies.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

ThredJack said:


> boardningmania said:
> 
> 
> > Chomps,
> ...


Wellllll,.. I Thank you for that, but even I think calling me "_respected_" is pushing it!  :lol: But there is NO doubt who the _real_ "Tool" is! :facepalm1: 

Troll away troll!


----------



## ZacAttakk (Oct 20, 2014)

boardningmania said:


> Chomps,
> 
> I understand where you are coming from. You're a tool for WS.


Fuck off dude. You have five posts on here. No one cares about your opinion when you start throwing out accusations like that. WS has given tons to this community in advice and free give ways to support current riders and to get people started in the sport. Can't buy a pair of 50 dollar goggles and expect to get a pair of oakleys.


----------



## CERBERUS.lucid (Oct 17, 2013)

:computer3:
FYI side slipping your green runs doesn't constitute "snowboarding" :finger1:


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

how i see it, the grayne are 1/3 the price, and _almost_ as good. and they absolutely shine above anything else i looked at under $100. i'd rather have my grayne and 10 replacement lenses for the money than another pair of Oakley that were expensive as shit, still fog and scratch and had only a high yellow lens. 

wiredsport, thanks for the check, how did i do?


----------



## ThredJack (Mar 18, 2014)

chomps1211 said:


> Wellllll,.. I Thank you for that, but even I think calling me "_respected_" is pushing it!  :lol: But there is NO doubt who the _real_ "Tool" is! :facepalm1:
> 
> Troll away troll!


I WAS pushing it a bit.  But I think my point stands, OP is a tool box.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

CassMT said:


> how i see it, the grayne are 1/3 the price, and _almost_ as good. and they absolutely shine above anything else i looked at under $100…..
> 
> *wiredsport, thanks for the check, how did i do?*


:WTF: :question:
…you mean you *are* getting paid??? WTF,..? I haven't been offered a single penny for all my praise and glowing endorsements! 

Ok,.. so it seems you may _actually_ be a paid "whore" for Wiredsport?? (  ) But _givin' it away for *free??? * What does that *make me????*_ :blink: :facepalm1:


OMG!!! _I'm a gear slut!!!_ :eyetwitch2:

:rofl4:


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Wait I can get paid by Wired Sport? Sign me up, I also have some great advertising options!


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

not gonna quote all those emoticons, but no chomps, jesus f christ, i am not paid by wiredsport. seriously wonder about you dude


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

CassMT said:


> not gonna quote all those emoticons, but no chomps, jesus f christ, i am not paid by wiredsport. seriously wonder about you dude


:facepalm1:
Seriously??? I really hope that was just a tongue in cheek jab at me for my smiley use! Otherwise, I have to ask,.. Is _everyone_ becoming sarcasm impared around here???

Of course you're _NOT_ being paid!! You really thought I was serious?? Now it _my_ turn to ask,.. *jesus f. christ man,..?* How long have you been reading my bad jokes around here that they aren't _instantly_ recognized as such??? :blink:

Genuine Apologies if you _actually_ thought I was seriously calling you a paid shill! :facepalm1: :blink:


----------



## KansasNoob (Feb 24, 2013)

If it counts for anything Chomps I thought it was funny, lol


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

KansasNoob said:


> If it counts for anything Chomps I thought it was funny, lol


*whew*
Thanks,..!  I appreciate it! I really thought maybe I was losing my touch! 

I certainly assumed my sarcasm and contempt for the OP's _ridiculous_ accusations would be _immediately_ obvious to any who read it! :dunno: 




-sigh-
I really wish I could get out & ride anywhere this season!!! :sad:


----------



## Rookie09 (Sep 5, 2012)

chomps1211 said:


> :facepalm1:
> Seriously??? I really hope that was just a tongue in cheek jab at me for my smiley use! Otherwise, I have to ask,.. Is _everyone_ becoming sarcasm impared around here???
> 
> Of course you're _NOT_ being paid!! You really thought I was serious?? Now it _my_ turn to ask,.. *jesus f. christ man,..?* How long have you been reading my bad jokes around here that they aren't _instantly_ recognized as such??? :blink:
> ...


I don't see how anyone who has spent more than a day or two on this forum could NOT see the obvious sarcasm. I'm pretty sure sure everyone know what you're all about.

This: :hairy::hairy::hairy::hairy::hairy::hairy:


----------



## ThredJack (Mar 18, 2014)

I'm pretty sure Chomps is a paid shill for whoever designed the emoticons we have.


----------



## Helix (Feb 23, 2015)

ThredJack said:


> I'm pretty sure Chomps is a paid shill for whoever designed the emoticons we have.





I spent like $20 on this emoticon based on Chomps' usage of it and now I find out he's a paid shill? Wtf dude, I trusted you to be an unbiased user of emoticons.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

ThredJack said:


> I'm pretty sure Chomps is a paid shill for whoever designed the emoticons we have.





Helix said:


> I spent like $20 on this emoticon based on Chomps' usage of it and now I find out he's a paid shill? Wtf dude, I trusted you to be an unbiased user of emoticons.


LMFAO!!! :rofl4:

:hairy:


----------



## Ashcampbell (Mar 14, 2014)

chomps1211 said:


> -sigh-
> I really wish I could get out & ride anywhere this season!!! :sad:


You can be 3rd in line after BA and someone else is done with my mom.


----------



## cookiedog (Mar 3, 2014)

boardningmania said:


> Bottom line:
> Don't do business with wiredsport unless you are a lifetime member being paid to write a few good posts about their products


I have to disagree I bought their goggles for my GF, I think they are pretty good quality for the price


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

yep, missed chomps 'sarcasm/humor' because i stopped at "whore'. normally, for good reason i just skip you entirely but yesterday i had no choice you seem intent on getting on my shit, well here you go.

you probably should have waited for my light response because, in any forum, syrupy apologies on one thread then making sideways comments and dragging my name around in others is a blatant asshole move. i would let it go cuz you seem like some kinda clown/retard, but that right there is limit


----------



## ShredLife (Feb 6, 2010)

the mods here are so weak. ban this dipshit and let's all move on.


----------



## speedjason (May 2, 2013)

I have my GTO for two years and they still work perfectly fine.
Of course they are not $100+ goggles but for how much they are, they are fantastic.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

CassMT said:


> yep, missed chomps 'sarcasm/humor' because i stopped at "whore'. normally, for good reason i just skip you entirely but yesterday i had no choice you seem intent on getting on my shit, well here you go.
> 
> you probably should have waited for my light response because, in any forum, syrupy apologies on one thread then making sideways comments and dragging my name around in others is a blatant asshole move. i would let it go cuz you seem like some kinda clown/retard, but that right there is limit


I honestly haven't a _clue_ what you're talking about! So since there seems to be a HUGE misunderstanding with something I guess I posted somewhere,..? I'll avoid posting any reaction "I" had to the "retard" thing, as that was certainly a direct and _unmistakable_ personal insult aimed at me! 

I don't know where I was supposedly "dragging your name around" or "intent on getting on your shit!" But, since You've made it plain that you don't care for me personally? All I can say to that is, That's Fine,..! There's Nothing here or anywhere else says you have to! 

Prior to your last post here, I had absolutely nothing against you at all! I generally respected your opinion and informed replies to various threads! I'll keep your comments here in mind for the future should I feel inclined to join a conversation you're involved in!

Cheers?! :dunno: :eyetwitch2:


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

if you don't know then there 's the root of your problem right there, not even paying attention to what you say, typing diarrhea


----------



## miplatt88 (May 13, 2013)

CassMT said:


> yep, missed chomps 'sarcasm/humor' because i stopped at "whore'. normally, for good reason i just skip you entirely but yesterday i had no choice you seem intent on getting on my shit, well here you go.
> 
> you probably should have waited for my light response because, in any forum, syrupy apologies on one thread then making sideways comments and dragging my name around in others is a blatant asshole move. i would let it go cuz you seem like some kinda clown/retard, but that right there is limit


Someone needs to get laid... chill the fuck out interwebz tough guy. You drink your OJ this morning?


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

miplatt88 said:


> Someone needs to get laid... chill the fuck out interwebz tough guy. You drink your OJ this morning?


and the Mod of the Year award goes to.......fuck you


----------



## racer357 (Feb 3, 2011)

miplatt88 said:


> Someone needs to get laid... chill the fuck out interwebz tough guy. You drink your OJ this morning?


but he stopped reading at "whore" and was obviously too self absorbed to see the whole thing is typed in sarcasm font.

it was a lighthearted attempt at humor for fucks sake.


----------



## miplatt88 (May 13, 2013)

CassMT said:


> and the Mod of the Year award goes to.......fuck you


OMG HE JUST WAS MEAN TO ME!!11!!1!!11 BUT BUT I WAS BEING SARCASTIC111!!!

but hey... fuck you too brah.

:hairy:


----------



## speedjason (May 2, 2013)

Gees, people. Chill the fuck out. Go smoke some weed.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

Okay everyone! I honestly don't know how this got so misconstrued like this,... But just so it's clear for Cassmt, as well as everybody else!

My comments the sarcasm was not even directed at Cass. I was actually trying to make the point With that sarcasm, of how utterly ridiculous the OP's Accusation that anyone here was being compensated In any way shape or form by wired sport for Posting positive comments on their goggles. 

So for me, the truly ironic and utterly confusing part of this whole fucking mess is the fact that I was actually defending Cass's name With that ridiculously sarcastic post And not as he seems to have interpreted directing Any of that sarcasm or ridicule at him. 

I can only assume that first he was upset or angered at the OP's original insulting comments, add to that the fact that apparently he doesn't appear to think much of me personally. Taking into account his Now painfully obvious, personal dislike for me,..? It would appear he just took everything I posted the wrong way I guess. 

Now that I know where I stand and what the problem really was?, let's just Leave it be! :dunno:


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

Hoppala... guys, you seem to have a thin skin these days... run out of coffee?

Cass, I read the "Depend" exchange in the skivvies psa thread and steep thread... and honestly see no point where he was in any kind dragging your name. Not taking sides, just saying :dunno:


----------



## BoardWalk (Mar 22, 2011)

I'm still trying to figure out the 'respected member' post. Is this something new??? Why was I not told.......:hairy:


----------



## Deacon (Mar 2, 2013)

It's like an early summer around here. I'm gonna go get 8k feet tonight, 300 at a time, and I'll be smiling the whole time because we got two inches of snow today.:jumping1:


----------



## deagol (Mar 26, 2014)

Deacon said:


> It's like an early summer around here. I'm gonna go get 8k feet tonight, 300 at a time, and I'll be smiling the whole time because we got two inches of snow today.


but that's like 26 runs !!!!:eyetwitch2:


----------



## Rookie09 (Sep 5, 2012)

deagol said:


> but that's like 26 runs !!!!:eyetwitch2:


Which really isn't that many for riding in the midwest when runs last anywhere from about 30 seconds to a couple minutes


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

Deacon said:


> It's like an early summer around here. I'm gonna go get 8k feet tonight, 300 at a time, and I'll be smiling the whole time because we got two inches of snow today.:jumping1:


Way to go! :


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

BoardWalk said:


> I'm still trying to figure out the 'respected member' post. Is this something new??? Why was I not told.......:hairy:


_Niiiice!!!_  Gohead, Rub it in! :laugh:

I never did get No Respect!









:hairy:


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

boardningmania said:


> Bottom line:
> Don't do business with wiredsport unless you are a lifetime member being paid to write a few good posts about their products


You know, you could have provided some valuable feedback about the goggles (I've never tried a pair so no idea how they compare). But instead you basically took it out on the whole forum. What did you expect?

And the "lifetime members" are people who figured they enjoyed the forum enough to contribute $10 or so. That's it! :finger1:

I do know that wiresport gave a good friend of mine a basic board to start out with as part of a "stoker" deal one winter. And he made my friends day! I have never bought anything from WS, and have never received money from him either, so I have no bias when writing this. I just know that has given gear away on numerous occasions, and spent a lot of time writing in the forum to help people select the right gear.

What have YOU done for the forum?


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

cookiedog said:


> I have to disagree I bought their goggles for my GF, I think they are pretty good quality for the price


You are clearly a paid shill. 

Now who said something about whores? I love whores! Their dads made some bad decisions!


----------



## sabatoa (Jan 18, 2011)

Deacon said:


> *It's like an early summer around here.* I'm gonna go get 8k feet tonight, 300 at a time, and I'll be smiling the whole time because we got two inches of snow today.:jumping1:



Seriously. What the hell is up in the last few pages of this shit show?

Regarding goggles, I dunno. My $90 giros broke and while they were in transit for warranty replacement (which was honored and I got back fast) I bought some shitty $20 Scotts...and you know what? They're fine. They don't look shiny and expensive but they do the job.


----------



## ThredJack (Mar 18, 2014)

BurtonAvenger said:


> You are clearly a paid shill.
> 
> Now who said something about whores? I love whores! Their dads made some bad decisions!


I believe Chomps has offered to buy us all hookers and blow. I could be wrong though, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. I am a paid shill after all.


----------



## Handbanana (Dec 10, 2013)

Wtf is going on here lately? Is it August or something? Fuck.


----------



## Manicmouse (Apr 7, 2014)

I can't pay the Lifetime membership 10 bucks now that I know it makes me a paid shill


----------



## taco tuesday (Jul 26, 2014)

Y'all trippin'. Especially the OP. Oh I bought a product online and didn't like it, I should write a nasty post about it. 

Shove off.


----------



## 16gkid (Dec 5, 2012)

Knock off goggles being lower quality than the actual goggles they copied from, sounds about right, then again the dudes whole line of products are complete knock offs, dont care how nice dude is, thats crap, seen the same thing in the motorcycle and automobile industry,and the rest of you talking shit about the OP for criticizing ur buddy even if rightfully so, are the literal shills :finger1:


----------



## Kenai (Dec 15, 2013)

16gkid said:


> Knock off goggles being lower quality than the actual goggles they copied from, sounds about right, then again the dudes whole line of products are complete knock offs, dont care how nice dude is, thats crap, seen the same thing in the motorcycle and automobile industry,and the rest of you talking shit about the OP for criticizing ur buddy even if rightfully so, are the literal shills :finger1:


Listen, aside from your utter lack of grammar, you make the same mistake the OP did. He came on here with a legitimate complaint, but in the midst of making that complaint he accused a well-respected forum member and EVERYONE ELSE ON THE FORUM as being dishonest and somehow covering for WS. He titled his post "honest" as if everyone else commenting on those googles was dishonest, he implied that people wrote dishonest reviews because they were "lifetime members being paid to write a few good posts," and then in his next post he accused someone disagreeing with him of being a "tool for WS." 

That approach was a a consummate douche move and ensured that his comments would be unceremoniously rejected. 

So seriously,:finger1: you right back.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

Once again, it would seem that the minority of people who insist on coming to the defense of the OP against the onslaught of the rest of us "Paid Shills?"  They either missed, or flat out purposely disregard the main complaint that was being made,..!! :eyetwitch2:

As Kenai put it,.. for the OP to barge in here and blithely accuse the regular members of being disreputable, dishonest, in the pocket of, anyone? No one has disputed the OP's right to be dissatisfied,..! We have questioned his objectivity, his rationality, his social skills, parenting, toilet training, etc etc!!

He hasn't established to ANYONE'S satisfaction that his complaints were "rightly so" as 16g so illegibly put it! He just accused!

What I pointed out was that we have more than a few members that have absolutely NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER in expressing their dissatisfaction with ANYTHING! People, places, companies, etc! If there were any hint of a systemic, company wide problem with Wiredsports product quality or customer service? I seriously doubt that the OP would be the first to complain!!!

He's here two days, and his only contribution is to complain that we are all dishonest,… Yet in four years I can't recall one single instance of of anyone, including the more vociferous, curmudgeony members complaining abut Wiredsport! So,.. who am I gonna trust? Not him!! Not without a shitload of evidence to back up his accusations! 

16g,.. You don't like "knock offs?" Cool! Don't buy any! But just because you don't like the concept doesn't prove the OP's accusations! Not everyone here can afford to buy Oakley and O'Niels!


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

16gkid said:


> Knock off goggles being lower quality than the actual goggles they copied from, sounds about right, then again the dudes whole line of products are complete knock offs, dont care how nice dude is, thats crap, seen the same thing in the motorcycle and automobile industry,and the rest of you talking shit about the OP for criticizing ur buddy even if rightfully so, are the literal shills :finger1:


Step 1. Find shotgun with ammo
Step 2. Put gun in mouth
Step 3. Pull trigger with big toe.
Step 4. Bleed to death
Step 5. If death does not happen repeat steps 1 through 4 as needed. 

You and fucky the clown over there are both fucktards.


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2013)

To start with, an expensive product does not equal a quality product, it just increases the likelihood that it is a quality product. An inexpensive product does not equal a low quality product either, just increases the likelihood.

The reason that people like Grayne goggles, myself included, is that they are a very good product for the price. I own a pair of Grayne MTN goggles that I have never experienced a problem with. They have never fogged up on me, and I cannot discern any major quality differences between my Grayne goggles and any expensive brand.

Goggles are straight up a fashion accessory. You aren't getting anything more useful/functional when you shop for a good pair of 40 dollar goggles or a good pair of 200 dollar goggles. The only difference I have ever noted is that generally the 200 dollar goggles are going to look a lot cooler. If you think there is a significant difference, prove me wrong.

You wanna know what really sucks about those 200 dollar goggles? They are still just a fragile as a 20 dollar pair, and that lens is going to get scratched to fuck just as quickly.

I don't doubt that the OP had a bad experience, and it sucks that he bought a pair of goggles based on positive reviews that didn't pan out, but have you ever looked on Amazon? Even the consistently highest rated products have a couple people giving them one star, and talking about how terrible the product is, it doesn't make them right.


----------



## 16gkid (Dec 5, 2012)

chomps1211 said:


> 16g,.. You don't like "knock offs?" Cool! Don't buy any! But just because you don't like the concept doesn't prove the OP's accusations! Not everyone here can afford to buy Oakley and O'Niels!


And thats why companies fail, why go through all the R&D on a product when someone can take your finished product and then just copy it directly and sell it for less since they dont have to cover the r&d cost, nice job bruh


----------



## DevilWithin (Sep 16, 2013)

I don't own, nor have I won any products from Wiredsport -- I don't even enter the contests since I have a good job right now and can afford my own gear. I'd rather see someone that truly needs the gear win. I'm saying this since I have no affiliation or direct experience with Grayne or other products Wired sells. What I can say is that Wiredsport has been great to this community and goes above and beyond to make things right. 

Case in point, there was a thread back in January that CassMT started about his Grayne GTO goggles and potentially modifying them due to fogging. You can read the thread here: http://www.snowboardingforum.com/outerwear-accessories/161825-considering-goggle-mod-surgery.html

Skip to Page 2 and read Wired's response. Not only did he do everything to try and make it right, it was also clear that he is knowledgeable about the manufacturing process and engineering that went into his product. That didn't strike me as someone that simply produces cheap knockoffs. 

Everyone else has already stated what else I think, so no sense repeating. I just have a different impression of Wired's character based on how he has contributed and given back to the forum and hate to see his integrity brought into question. The OP is entitled to his own opinion, but I feel like other examples of the way Wiredsport has dealt with issues are worth bringing to light.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

16gkid said:


> And thats why companies fail, why go through all the R&D on a product when someone can take your finished product and then just copy it directly and sell it for less since they dont have to cover the r&d cost, nice job bruh


OK,.. so you won't address the actual issue everyone has with the OP of this thread. You avoid it and attempt to shift focus off of the real issue to this BS argument about knock offs! 

If you have a problem with knock offs? _Brah,.._  Start a thread about knock offs! But you don't accuse me or other members,.. (without ANY evidence) of being on the take without you're getting a great big…... 
*F.U.MF!!!* :finger1:


----------



## ThredJack (Mar 18, 2014)

16gkid said:


> And thats why companies fail, why go through all the R&D on a product when someone can take your finished product and then just copy it directly and sell it for less since they dont have to cover the r&d cost, nice job bruh


Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism. Don't like it, go back to whatever commie country you came from.


----------



## speedjason (May 2, 2013)

16gkid said:


> And thats why companies fail, why go through all the R&D on a product when someone can take your finished product and then just copy it directly and sell it for less since they dont have to cover the r&d cost, nice job bruh


Not everyone can shell out $150 for goggles.
The whole industry is this way. Just look at last year brand new gear. How much they are making.


----------



## 16gkid (Dec 5, 2012)

speedjason said:


> Not everyone can shell out $150 for goggles.
> The whole industry is this way. Just look at last year brand new gear. How much they are making.


I have a set of Von zipper fishbowls($75), el kabongs($85), dragon apx ($65 +extra lense) and nfx($55 +extra lense). You can find quality googles for cheap if you shop right.


----------



## 16gkid (Dec 5, 2012)

ThredJack said:


> Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism. Don't like it, go back to whatever commie country you came from.


You mean like china? I hear they dont have knock off shit there......


----------



## Manicmouse (Apr 7, 2014)

16gkid said:


> I have a set of Von zipper fishbowls($75), el kabongs($85), dragon apx ($65 +extra lense) and nfx($55 +extra lense). You can find quality googles for cheap if you shop right.


Why the fuck do you need so many pairs of goggles?!!

Just wondering!


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2013)

16gkid said:


> I have a set of Von zipper fishbowls($75), el kabongs($85), dragon apx ($65 +extra lense) and nfx($55 +extra lense). You can find quality googles for cheap if you shop right.


So what makes any of those goggles functionally better than Grayne goggles?


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

now i'm wondering which company or model Grayne are supposedly knocking off. i don't pay much attention, but have yet to see someone else with Graynes or anything that looks just like 'em


----------



## jtg (Dec 11, 2012)

OP's complaint sounds legit to me. If he had a bad experience, it's perfectly fine to post about it. Doesn't matter who has a higher post count. Bunch of babies around here :embarrased1:


----------



## speedjason (May 2, 2013)

16gkid said:


> I have a set of Von zipper fishbowls($75), el kabongs($85), dragon apx ($65 +extra lense) and nfx($55 +extra lense). You can find quality googles for cheap if you shop right.


So none of these companies copied each other. Hummm. I wonder how capitalism works...
I really dont see what your point is.
And why you have so many goggles is beyond me.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

16gkid said:


> I have a set of Von zipper fishbowls($75), el kabongs($85), dragon apx ($65 +extra lense) and nfx($55 +extra lense). You can find quality googles for cheap if you shop right.


I have fishbowls too (paid like $100 new) and they are comfy, but their lens quality is SHIT. The chroming rubs off with the wind it seems; i'm on my 3rd lens as they all get scratched to death, and the 3rd already lost it's chroming in 2 sessions.

I have Smith too and.... nothing. The only scratch they have is from my board's edge one time a gust of wind made my board hit the lens. Also, lens clarity and optics are miles away (better). They have fogged on me a few times, but under pretty specific conditions.

Oakley, the same... far superior. 

So yeah...... I could write a similar review and say John Jackson et al is a paid whore for advertising VZ.......... but i could care less. Im ok with my VZ being less quality than others.


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2013)

His point was that you can get name brand goggles at a price point very close to that of Grayne goggles, if you are willing to look, so why would you ever buy Grayne goggles?

Ok, so what? What do you think makes those name brand goggles functionally better than Grayne goggles?

I do think that the OP's review and opinion on the goggles is valid, but I do not think that it is valid to make an assumption that everyone who liked the goggles must be a liar.


----------



## Deacon (Mar 2, 2013)

jtg said:


> OP's complaint sounds legit to me. If he had a bad experience, it's perfectly fine to post about it. Doesn't matter who has a higher post count. Bunch of babies around here :embarrased1:


The problem wasn't his posting a complaint, it was the accusation that we're all paid off by WS to promote false positive feedback. Try to keep up if you're going to start name calling. :dunno:


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

jtg said:


> OP's complaint sounds legit to me. *If he had a bad experience, it's perfectly fine to post about it. Doesn't matter who has a higher post count. *Bunch of babies around here :embarrased1:


OFFS! :facepalm1:
How many times does it have to be reiterated? *NOBODY Has said the OP doesn't have a right to post a complaint about a product he had a problem with! * 

The problem from the start has been with the unsubstantiated accusations of rampant dishonesty and payoffs and the insults directed at longtime members of this forum!!! 

Additionally,.. the *only* reason any mention of the OP's post count was made at all, was to point out that it obviously indicated he signed up solely to make those insulting, defamatory, and Unnecessarily inflammatory comments in the first place!! 

Ipso facto,.. he's a *FUCKING TROLL!* :eyetwitch2: ...and we have never been partial to tolerating trolls here! 


So,.. To my mind? The few individuals who have jumped to the 0P's defense, and who have consistently, _conveniently_ persisted in Ignoring that fact,..?

They're the ones in need of calling the "Wahhmbulance!" :facepalm1:


----------



## 16gkid (Dec 5, 2012)

F1EA said:


> I have fishbowls too (paid like $100 new) and they are comfy, but their lens quality is SHIT. The chroming rubs off with the wind it seems; i'm on my 3rd lens as they all get scratched to death, and the 3rd already lost it's chroming in 2 sessions.
> 
> I have Smith too and.... nothing. The only scratch they have is from my board's edge one time a gust of wind made my board hit the lens. Also, lens clarity and optics are miles away (better). They have fogged on me a few times, but under pretty specific conditions.
> 
> ...


I was actually gonna start a new thread about VZ's horrible lense quality:happy:, on my 3rd lense for my el kabongs (vz was nice enough to warranty me this one), you literally cannot touch the lense until its completely dry or it will rip thr iridium coating right off, have had great luck with the dragons so far and my 4 year old smiths are still pretty much scratch free


----------



## 16gkid (Dec 5, 2012)

chomps1211 said:


> OFFS! :facepalm1:
> How many times does it have to be reiterated? *NOBODY Has said the OP doesn't have a right to post a complaint about a product he had a problem with! *
> 
> The problem from the start has been with the unsubstantiated accusations of rampant dishonesty and payoffs and the insults directed at longtime members of this forum!!!
> ...


:blahblah:
Shill gon shill, have a cigarette and relax bruh, its the fuckin internetz


----------



## ShredLife (Feb 6, 2010)

16gkid said:


> :blahblah:
> Shill gon shill, have a cigarette and relax bruh, its the fuckin internetz


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

16gkid said:


> :blahblah:
> Shill gon shill, have a cigarette and *relax bruh, its the fuckin internetz*


So let me see if I've got this straight,..? 

….It's the "internetz" so it's irrelevant? It doesn't really matter and is not worth getting upset or expressing an opinion over? And as such, you felt compelled to reply to the irrelevant interwebz posts, on an irrelevant topic, and make an irrelevant comment just to insult us crybabies for picking on the OP over an irrelevant point that was never at issue in the first place?

:icon_scratch: 

Ok,.. I'm relaxed now! :blink:


----------



## ThredJack (Mar 18, 2014)

chomps1211 said:


> OFFS! :facepalm1:
> How many times does it have to be reiterated? *NOBODY Has said the OP doesn't have a right to post a complaint about a product he had a problem with! *


You'll keep repeating yourself forever Chomps. Stupid is as stupid does.


----------



## boardningmania (Feb 23, 2015)

Told you guys chomps is a tool


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

boardningmania said:


> Told you guys chomps is a tool


Chomps is our special custom brokeback tool. In case you missed it the guy knows, understands and can communicate the basics of the sport. I'll admit his cigarrette quitting is affecting all of us, but sadly he can't take Dr. Klinger's Rx.

He cured me of smiley usage forever though!


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Here people let me break it down for you because clearly some people are fucking morons. 

You pay for what you get. You will always pay for what you get. 

the "oh but a brand name goggle or a knock off goggle don't matter it's all the same" BULLSHIT. 

Take it from someone that has sold every goggle brand under the sun as well as rides more days than most of you combined. Goggles matter. 

What you in fact pay for is minimal in the frame, it comes down to lens quality. The more you pay the higher the lens quality generally. I.e Oakley, Dragon, Smith, etc. etc. The frames are always second to the lens. Ever notice that a replacement lens costs almost as much as a new set of goggles? Ever ask yourself why? It's the lens quality and composition. 

Now the "my goggles fogged up". Well here let me break it down to you as there's a plethora of reasons why lens fog. 

1. You have a face mask tucked underneath it so that when you breath the warm air goes upward into the goggle and traps itself. 
2. You sweat like a whore in church, it will fog. When on the lift pop up the corner of the goggle so that the air regulates and it defogs. 
3. You dunked them in water or rode in the rain and didn't let them dry out. The trapped moisture will cause them to fog. Leave them in a bag of rice over night. 
4. You wear a jacket that is overly tight up to the neck and have a hood up. This creates a chimney effect. Your goggles will fog. 
5. On the chairlift you are constantly taking your goggles off your face and putting them on your head. What have we learned already? Heat goes up, it catches in the goggle, it causes fog!

As far as foam/stripping/whatever coming off. If you do not take care of your shit, it will break. Let them dry out. Don't shove them inside a helmet, beanie, glove, etc. etc. and think they won't get trapped moisture or that the moisture won't cause them to deteriorate. 

Now as far as the Grayne goggles in question. I know at least 5 other brands that are using that exact frame/lens combo. They range in price from $45 up to $180. $50 seems appropriate to me for what you get. But as already mentioned you pay for what you get. The lens quality by and large is cheap as fuck on these things. They work, but I wouldn't expect them to be even remotely on the same level as anything like an Oakley, Electric (which they're based off of), Dragon, or Smith. So once again you pay for what you get. They do their job and they're on a pricepoint that most people can reach vs dropping $100 plus. Could I use them and be fine? I have used them and been fine from more than one of the various other companies that utilized this same frame/lens and I assure you I ride more than you and in varying conditions. 

Now if you want to complain about your lackluster performance of them, go for it. But don't sit there and cry like the little bitch you are because something you bought after others informed you it wasn't on the same level didn't live up to your expectations. And most certainly don't sit there and scream SHILL at them because unlike you they didn't have a bad experience. Experiences are based solely off the individual that uses the product, not off others. I know that's a logical thing to say, but we're fucking using logic here. 

So in short you bought something that wasn't as good as a brand name, it didn't live up to your expectations, and you cried at the people that had good experiences with it. Sack up, realize YOU are the master of your products destiny and more than likely caused the issue, not these people that simply said hey for the price it's not a bad option but it's also not a great option. 

There? Any questions? Or do you want me to go into the tech nerd shit about why different lenses matter? Because I can and it will be more boring than anything you've read in a while, plus I have better things to do like piss people off on the Internet.


----------



## Deacon (Mar 2, 2013)

snowklinger said:


> Chomps is our special custom brokeback tool. In case you missed it the guy knows, understands and can communicate the basics of the sport. I'll admit his cigarrette quitting is affecting all of us, but sadly he can't take Dr. Klinger's Rx.
> 
> He cured me of smiley usage forever though!


Quit being a paid shill for chomps. :hairy:


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

16gkid said:


> I was actually gonna start a new thread about VZ's horrible lense quality:happy:, on my 3rd lense for my el kabongs (vz was nice enough to warranty me this one), you literally cannot touch the lense until its completely dry or it will rip thr iridium coating right off, have had great luck with the dragons so far and my 4 year old smiths are still pretty much scratch free


There you go. 
Oh you warrantied them? Guess i should contact VZ as well. Mine lasted 2 days, really 2; and the chrome is all gone except right under the frame.

So yeah.... you buy entry level no-name stuff at low end prices..... dont expect Oakley quality. Sure, it will function, but something will be a compromise. Many don't care or notice; others know what to expect. Others throw a hissy fit.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

snowklinger said:


> boardningmania said:
> 
> 
> > Told you guys chomps is a tool
> ...


Uh-uhhmm,…. Hey, SK! er-Ahhmn,.. Tha,… uh,…? Hmnnn,.. _Thanks,..?_ for the-e-e, uhmm,.. er,… kind,..? words and,.. umm support!(*???*)










It's greatly,…….. Uh,..? _OK!_ Yeah, wth? _*…..Appreciated!!*_ :blink: 





 :lol:


----------



## 16gkid (Dec 5, 2012)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Here people let me break it down for you because clearly some people are fucking morons.
> 
> You pay for what you get. You will always pay for what you get.
> 
> ...


tl;dr :happy:


----------



## ThredJack (Mar 18, 2014)

F1EA said:


> There you go.
> Oh you warrantied them? Guess i should contact VZ as well. Mine lasted 2 days, really 2; and the chrome is all gone except right under the frame.
> 
> So yeah.... you buy entry level no-name stuff at low end prices..... dont expect Oakley quality. Sure, it will function, but something will be a compromise. Many don't care or notice; others know what to expect. Others throw a hissy fit.


I shamelessly fall into the "Don't care or notice" category....


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

in my actual experience , one oakley lens does not equal 7.5 grayn lenses. and the frames i give 0 shits cuz i can not see them


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

you made your filthy bed of smilies!

i got you a hug from some new guy though!


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

but why male models?


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

CassMT said:


> in my actual experience , one oakley lens does not equal 7.5 grayn lenses. and the frames i give 0 shits cuz i can not see them


oakley didn't even a make a decent looking frame till this year


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

snowklinger said:


> *you made your filthy bed of smilies!*


----------



## Kevin137 (May 5, 2013)

The OP Is a KNOB, coming in and attacking someone with that attitude does no one any good, i simple post of how is the best way to get on contact post would of been far more efficient...! I am also a believer in you get what you pay for, and some of what you pay for is very good warranty with an expensive product (normally) as well as a better quality item...!!!


----------



## surfinsnow (Feb 4, 2010)

Wow. I've been wearing the same pair of Zeal SPPX goggles for at least three seasons now. The optics are so perfect you can hardly tell you've got a lens in front of you. They never fog. They adjust to light conditions, both darkness and light color. They cost nearly $300 at the time I got them...meanwhile, you've bought eight pairs of shitty $50 goggles which you hate. 

You get what you pay for.

Oh, I've got half a dozen pairs of cheap Smith goggles as back-ups. Clear lenses, amber lenses, just extra goggles that I keep on board just in case. I've actually given a couple of them away to people who lost their goggles on the mountain. Just don't buy shittly goggles. If you saw a new snowboard for $75 would you think it was a great deal or just a scam?


----------



## Argo (Feb 25, 2010)

Deacon said:


> It's like an early summer around here. I'm gonna go get 8k feet tonight, 300 at a time, and I'll be smiling the whole time because we got two inches of snow today.:jumping1:


That sucks a dick. I did 30k by lunch today.... lmao. That is around 15 lifts. I cant imagine how many laps I would have to make a day to get tired!


----------



## Deacon (Mar 2, 2013)

Argo said:


> That sucks a dick. I did 30k by lunch today.... lmao. That is around 15 lifts. I cant imagine how many laps I would have to make a day to get tired!


It does suck, relatively. But I'm going to ride what i have and be thankful i get to.


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2013)

BurtonAvenger said:


> What you in fact pay for is minimal in the frame, it comes down to lens quality. The more you pay the higher the lens quality generally. I.e Oakley, Dragon, Smith, etc. etc. The frames are always second to the lens. Ever notice that a replacement lens costs almost as much as a new set of goggles? Ever ask yourself why? It's the lens quality and composition.


Can you explain what is different about a higher quality/more expensive lens? What makes an Oakley lens better than the lens used for Grayne goggles?

I'm asking because recently I got all pumped up about Oakley's new Prizm lens, but most of the people who have bought them say that it's all just a bunch of marketing hype, and there's no reason to replace your current goggles with their tech. I can't seem to find any legitimate reasons why certain lenses are better than others. They all seem to be offering the same tinting options, I've never had fogging issues, and they all have zero durability if you get the mirror finishes. The dyes that Oakley is purportedly using to block certain spectral peaks seemed to be the first real tech advantage differentiating them from other lenses, but this wasn't backed up by user reviews.


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

Argo said:


> That sucks a dick. I did 30k by lunch today.... lmao. That is around 15 lifts. I cant imagine how many laps I would have to make a day to get tired!


I'm amazed by those numbers. Wow, your lifts seem to spin fast . 
Did track some days recently... 15-17k is max what I can reach till noon (3hrs, 7-9runs, fast riding, no lift lines). Do your lifts open that early?


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

JonSnow said:


> Can you explain what is different about a higher quality/more expensive lens? What makes an Oakley lens better than the lens used for Grayne goggles?
> 
> I'm asking because recently I got all pumped up about Oakley's new Prizm lens, but most of the people who have bought them say that it's all just a bunch of marketing hype, and there's no reason to replace your current goggles with their tech. I can't seem to find any legitimate reasons why certain lenses are better than others. They all seem to be offering the same tinting options, I've never had fogging issues, and they all have zero durability if you get the mirror finishes. The dyes that Oakley is purportedly using to block certain spectral peaks seemed to be the first real tech advantage differentiating them from other lenses, but this wasn't backed up by user reviews.


Anything Oakley has on the market now was military grade 5 years ago. If you take a .22 caliber ballistic and fired it at an Oakley lens it would not penetrate the lens, it would dent it for sure, but it would not penetrate it. Now go do that with a Grayne and watch that bullet soar right through it. 






Now lets talk optical quality. Take your Grayne lens out of the frame and hold it up to a light and squeeze it from the side. Look at that distortion you're seeing. That distortion will effect your eyes all day. Now take an Oakley lens from the last 3 years or the Prizm lens and do the same. There will be a complete lack of distortion. That lack of distortion helps your eyes all day and allows you to not have vision problems. 

A mirrored finish on the Graynes is sprayed on. It's the lowest quality you can get of a mirrored finish. The Oakley process is stronger, more resistant to scratches, allows for better light transmission, etc. etc. 

Prizm is not a crock of shit. Those people are either 1. Fucking idiots. 2. Fucking oblivious or 3. Fucking oblivious idiots. Prizm works. Oakley has led the lens revolution for over 10 years. Anyone that says what they do doesn't work, has never used them or only uses them for 5 to 10 days a year in perfect ideal conditions. 

In short you pay for what you get. Anyone that rides a couple hundred days a year will know the difference between good lenses and GREAT lenses. 

If you really want to do some tests get an infrared light and shine it through your lenses and then Oakley's and tell me what you have going on. 

Oakley lenses>Everything else.


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

neni said:


> I'm amazed by those numbers. Wow, your lifts seem to spin fast .
> Did track some days recently... 15-17k is max what I can reach till noon (3hrs, 7-9runs, fast riding, no lift lines). Do your lifts open that early?


You'll find out soon enough eh?


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

ridinbend said:


> You'll find out soon enough eh?


:thumbsup:

I'll be dead at 11am, LOL.


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2013)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Anything Oakley has on the market now was military grade 5 years ago. If you take a .22 caliber ballistic and fired it at an Oakley lens it would not penetrate the lens, it would dent it for sure, but it would not penetrate it. Now go do that with a Grayne and watch that bullet soar right through it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks BA! That's exactly the type of information that I was looking for. I was not aware of any of those differences before reading your explanation.


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

*you will have a solid 1 day to recuperate*



neni said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> I'll be dead at 11am, LOL.


Don't worry, we'll take it easy at the LUV, like always.

Our lifts turn slow and we take plenty of time to just hang out.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

neni said:


> I'm amazed by those numbers. Wow, your lifts seem to spin fast .
> Did track some days recently... 15-17k is max what I can reach till noon (3hrs, 7-9runs, fast riding, no lift lines). Do your lifts open that early?





ridinbend said:


> You'll find out soon enough eh?





neni said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> *I'll be dead at 11am, LOL.*


:laugh:
I can only imagine a day riding a resort with enough vert. that my body could get exhausted & satisfied enough to feel I've gotten in "good" day's riding by _noon!_ :dunno: :laugh:

Riding these 300-500ft hills here,..? Especially when the snow and riding is _really_ good? Sometimes you can go first to last chair,… 9 to 9 and still feel like you want more!!! 

I'm simply *Green* with envy neni!


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

snowklinger said:


> Don't worry, we'll take it easy at the LUV, like always.
> 
> Our lifts turn slow and we take plenty of time to just hang out.


Sound like a perfect chill trip closure day ccasion14: 
Looking forward to all parts :happy:


----------



## Argo (Feb 25, 2010)

neni said:


> Sound like a perfect chill trip closure day ccasion14:
> Looking forward to all parts :happy:


For example, the lionshead gondola rises 2200' in 8 minutes it takes around 3 minutes at a cruiser pace to get to the bottom. if I'm moving fast I can get 6 laps in an hour with a 2 minute run down. That's 12k' an hour. Lifts open at 830 currently. Most I have done by 1230 is 44k'

We don't have to go fast at all but lots of vert can happen


----------



## Argo (Feb 25, 2010)

neni said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> I'll be dead at 11am, LOL.


Don't worry, my wife runs about that speed too and I have no problem hanging out with her. She is done around 17k' then it's beer:30.....


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

Argo said:


> For example, the lionshead gondola rises 2200' in 8 minutes it takes around 3 minutes at a cruiser pace to get to the bottom. if I'm moving fast I can get 6 laps in an hour with a 2 minute run down. That's 12k' an hour. Lifts open at 830 currently. Most I have done by 1230 is 44k'
> 
> We don't have to go fast at all but lots of vert can happen


Yeah, that's it. Our lifts, especially the Tbars, are very slow compared to that :blush:
2600ft / 2100ft gondola - 16min
1900ft chair - 15min
1100ft steep Tbar - 11min
850ft flat Tbar- 12min


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

that's what we call a dino-chair, as in dinosaur. half the day is shot. we still have a few, but nothing like that


----------



## ItchEtrigR (Jan 1, 2012)

Argo said:


> For example, the lionshead gondola rises 2200' in 8 minutes it takes around 3 minutes at a cruiser pace to get to the bottom. if I'm moving fast I can get 6 laps in an hour with a 2 minute run down. That's 12k' an hour. Lifts open at 830 currently. Most I have done by 1230 is 44k'
> 
> We don't have to go fast at all but lots of vert can happen


I just jizzed the monitor 

my dreams aren't even that big. Gotta plan a trip sometime soon


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

CassMT said:


> that's what we call a dino-chair, as in dinosaur. half the day is shot. we still have a few, but nothing like that


The gondola n chairs are actually pretty modern, but the layout of the terrain makes them cover long sections with few verts. 
The tbars are dinos, no doupt, lol, but they are needed to access some of the best pow runs soooo... we sort of happily waste half our days on them )


----------



## KansasNoob (Feb 24, 2013)

Sometimes you have to ride the old lifts to get to the good stuff... I'd much rather be on Alberta at WC than Raven... Granted Wolf has little vert compared to many places, but you feel like you have the place to yourself...


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

yeh we just got a 'new' dino this year, probably 15mins for 1000 vert. but, still usually worth it


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

And the good thing... the steep tbar keeps the noobs off those slopes


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

To complete this thread jack:

The lifts at Nakiska are...

Silver - 426m (1400 ft) vertical - 7 min
Gold - 452m (1483 ft) vertical - 5 min
Olympic - 396m (1300 ft) vertical - 8 min

If you're moving on the Gold chair, you could do 6-7 laps in an hour, so 8900 to 10380 an hour.

In a decent 2:30 hour morning with a coffee break in the middle, we did 16000 vertical feet. If you did that all day you could theoretically hit 48000 ft in a day. Only times I've done over 30,000 ft my legs were rubber by the end. Good feeling!


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

poutanen said:


> *To complete this thread jack:*
> 
> In a decent 2:30 hour morning with a coffee break in the middle, we did 16000 vertical feet. If you did that all day you could theoretically hit 48000 ft in a day. Only times I've done over 30,000 ft my legs were rubber by the end. Good feeling!


SsssOk Mang!!! This thread _needed_ Jacking!


----------



## jtg (Dec 11, 2012)

Grayne is better than Oakley. Paying for Oakley is paying for marketing.


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

marketing, trade show fees, r&d (only what's necessary ) , trips and perks for actual media shills, a nice house for the CEO's mama , and a Boxter for all the VPs


----------



## 16gkid (Dec 5, 2012)

jtg said:


> Grayne is better than Oakley. Paying for Oakley is paying for marketing.


Shillin like a villain :facepalm3:


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

16gkid said:


> Shillin like a villain :facepalm3:


Rymin' like a Hymen!! :facepalm1:


----------



## surfinsnow (Feb 4, 2010)

You're jerkin' on your gherkin if you think Grayne makes better goggles than Oakley. I've not been a big fan of Oakley since Luxotica bought them out (Lenscrafters), but they're still way better than Grayne.


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2013)

surfinsnow said:


> You're jerkin' on your gherkin if you think Grayne makes better goggles than Oakley. I've not been a big fan of Oakley since Luxotica bought them out (Lenscrafters), but they're still way better than Grayne.


If Luxottica does indeed own Oakley, then I think you can safely assume that they are way overpriced. Did you know that Luxottica basically has a monopoly over all the major brands in the eyewear industry, and that is why they can get away with charging insane amounts of money for little pieces of plastic and metal.

Sticker shock: Why are glasses so expensive? - CBS News

If Luxottica owns Oakley, I am pretty confident in my assumption that you are paying a premium solely for marketing and aesthetic appeal, and not for any sort of technological superiority.


----------



## Deacon (Mar 2, 2013)

surfinsnow said:


> You're jerkin' on your gherkin if you think Grayne makes better goggles than Oakley. I've not been a big fan of Oakley since Luxotica bought them out (Lenscrafters), but they're still way better than Grayne.


That said, for the amount that i ride (30 days a year +/-), for $65, I really, really like my Graynes. I had EG2s that I thought were ok, but I didn't feel they were worth $90 more.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

JonSnow said:


> If Luxottica does indeed own Oakley, then I think you can safely assume that they are way overpriced. Did you know that Luxottica basically has a monopoly over all the major brands in the eyewear industry, and that is why they can get away with charging insane amounts of money for little pieces of plastic and metal.
> 
> Sticker shock: Why are glasses so expensive? - CBS News
> 
> If Luxottica owns Oakley, I am pretty confident in my assumption that you are paying a premium solely for marketing and aesthetic appeal, and not for any sort of technological superiority.


I'll take a lens that can be shot with a .22 caliber any day of the week over a stamped generic lens. When it comes to eyewear you pay for what you get, much like helmets, and certain brand name products. 

Luxotica brands > imitation.


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2013)

Taking a second look at BA's comments on the functional advantages of Oakley I have become a little more skeptical as well.



BurtonAvenger said:


> Anything Oakley has on the market now was military grade 5 years ago. If you take a .22 caliber ballistic and fired it at an Oakley lens it would not penetrate the lens, it would dent it for sure, but it would not penetrate it. Now go do that with a Grayne and watch that bullet soar right through it.


That video only shows Oakley's sunglasses, not their goggles. I cannot find any information on the tested impact resistance of Oakley snowboarding goggles (ANSI or otherwise), so I highly doubt that they meet these same specifications.



BurtonAvenger said:


> Now lets talk optical quality. Take your Grayne lens out of the frame and hold it up to a light and squeeze it from the side. Look at that distortion you're seeing. That distortion will effect your eyes all day. Now take an Oakley lens from the last 3 years or the Prizm lens and do the same. There will be a complete lack of distortion. That lack of distortion helps your eyes all day and allows you to not have vision problems.


Why is this pertinent? When you wear the goggles the lens will not be deformed, so you won't be seeing any optical distortion anyways. Grayne claims that their lenses are "optically correct spherical lenses", and when I put mine on I see no distortion.



BurtonAvenger said:


> A mirrored finish on the Graynes is sprayed on. It's the lowest quality you can get of a mirrored finish. The Oakley process is stronger, more resistant to scratches, allows for better light transmission, etc. etc.


The mirrored finish on my Grayne's definitely is not very durable. I have scratched them up pretty good going through glades, and even putting them in my bag, but I was under the impression that this was true for all mirrored lenses. Do you have any sources that state the different manufacturing processes that Oakley uses, or testing the two lenses side by side for scratch resistance?



BurtonAvenger said:


> Prizm is not a crock of shit. Those people are either 1. Fucking idiots. 2. Fucking oblivious or 3. Fucking oblivious idiots. Prizm works. Oakley has led the lens revolution for over 10 years. Anyone that says what they do doesn't work, has never used them or only uses them for 5 to 10 days a year in perfect ideal conditions.


Anecdotal evidence from user reviews is not science, but I am still much more likely to believe the majority of user experience over any marketing. Even if there is science backing Oakley's new Prizm lenses, if the average user cannot discern the difference should they be paying the extravagant markup for the "better" technology? I would say no.



BurtonAvenger said:


> In short you pay for what you get. Anyone that rides a couple hundred days a year will know the difference between good lenses and GREAT lenses.


I just do not believe this statement, and never will. If you name a product, I can almost guarantee that I can find a better product at a better price point. Even if I can't, I'm sure that the original product goes on sale. If it can be sold at 50% off (which most snowboarding equipment does sell at after being on the market for a year), did the product ever deserve the original MSRP?



BurtonAvenger said:


> If you really want to do some tests get an infrared light and shine it through your lenses and then Oakley's and tell me what you have going on.


I am not sure what you could gain from this test. I was under the impression that infrared light is invisible to the human eye, so what am I going to see by shining an infrared light through my goggle lenses?



BurtonAvenger said:


> Oakley lenses>Everything else.


I think that this statement still has yet to be proven.


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

what good is a bullet test if they can't take the slightest thwak from a tree branch with a permanent scratch (just like any other)

this will never be settled imo, it's more economics, aesthetics, and a certain worldview that make the choice plain for one side or the other


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

And I'll continue to stick to my belief that you people are fucking stupid. I could sit here and actually give you real fact based information, but it will never be good enough for you. 

So continue to use generic crap. Continue to suffer through its pitfalls. You pay for what you get and if the company isn't putting anything into R & D i.e. Grayne then you will continue to have an inferior product. 

The information is out there if you actually care to research it. I'm not going to hold your hands and point you in it. You clearly are too hung up on who owns who to actually go "fuck a multi-billion dollar company with DOD contracts could actually make a far superior product than a company that just makes imitations". LOGIC!

Also no goggle is scratch resistant, but some are far superior. It's all in the finishing project. Look it up.


----------



## ShredLife (Feb 6, 2010)

BurtonAvenger said:


> I'll take a lens that can be shot with a .22 caliber any day of the week over a stamped generic lens. When it comes to eyewear you pay for what you get, much like helmets, and certain brand name products.
> 
> Luxotica brands > imitation.


bouncing a .22 projectile off a lens =/= shooting it with a .22


those were not bullets.


----------



## lab49232 (Sep 13, 2011)

I'm confused, why are we shooting our goggles with a .22 again?


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

'you get what you pay for', HA, since when. this reminds me of the pharma companies justifying huge profits by saying their r&d is so expensive, BS. shit's expensive because they can get it, because of the marketing (budget)


----------



## surfinsnow (Feb 4, 2010)

The first pair of Oakley's I bought were like a dream compared to my original shitty generic goggles I got from Sports Authority when I bought my newbie package many years ago. But Luxotica bought them out. I hate Luxotica. The company I used to work for (a major clothing retailer which happened to own Lenscrafters) was bought out by Luxotica, an Italian company, and they just shut every division down, 30,000 employess, because they wanted the Lenscrafters brand. Then they bought Oakley. Fuck 'em. 

I love my Zeals. But now Zeal has been bought by Quicksilver or something. They still make a superior product, though. It is absolutely stupid to think that your $29 resort goggles are just the same as a Zeal or Oakley goggle.


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

I don't know much about the technology but a buddy of mine is an engineer at oakley in the military shield division. In a few short chats we've had, it's pretty clear the amount of time and testing put into creating quality lenses, shields, hockey masks etc. and his description of his job leads me to believe there is a reason why oakley is leading the market in technology and goggle sales. This feels like an "I hate Burton because they're the biggest" thread. Last I heard from my bro oakley was experimenting with electrical warming fibers in the lenses to eliminate all fogging. They wouldn't be where they are now if they hadn't been producing quality for some time. Nothing against grayne their shit looks great but there is a difference between Kia and Lexus, it's not just marketing bullshit.




> But Luxotica bought them out. I hate Luxotica.


Capitalism happens. A lot of people were let go at oakley also when this buyout happened. They also wanted to take the headquarters from SoCal if I recall correctly. Rich get richer, poor get poorer. Oh well.


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2013)

BurtonAvenger said:


> And I'll continue to stick to my belief that you people are fucking stupid. I could sit here and actually give you real fact based information, but it will never be good enough for you.


This sounds like a cop out to me. Admittedly, you have way more experience with all things snowboarding than I do, but your opinion is still just an opinion. Yes, it carries a lot of weight, but no matter your opinion FACTS will always win out over someone's opinion. Right now I am trying to establish what the actual FACTUAL and MEANINGFUL differences are between Oakley and Grayne goggles are. You imply that people don't care about these facts, but obviously we do or we wouldn't be having a discussion about it.

In my opinion, the facts that you have so far provided are either irrelevant (optical distortion due to bending the lens, infrared light tests), or you have not provided a source of information that proves these facts (impact resistance, scratch resistance).

I have tried finding information regarding these issues, but I have not found a single source that proves any of the facts that you have stated. This shit is not common knowledge, if you want to prove that there is something different about the Oakley manufacturing process please provide an actual source for your information.



BurtonAvenger said:


> So continue to use generic crap. Continue to suffer through its pitfalls. You pay for what you get and if the company isn't putting anything into R & D i.e. Grayne then you will continue to have an inferior product.


Again the statement "you pay for what you get" is a complete fallacy, and cannot be used as the basis for an argument. Is a 25,000 dollar watch any better at telling the time than a 5 dollar watch? Sure there are differences between the watches, but if I'm only interested in telling time I'm going to buy the 5 dollar watch. You have failed to prove any functional differences between Oakley goggles and Grayne goggles that would matter to your average user, so why should the average user be spending the extra money?

Also, I'm not sure what you imagine Oakley is doing R+D wise for their snow goggle line, but I highly doubt they dedicate much of their resources to it. If you look at the product page for any pair of goggles they all claim the exact same thing. If Oakley had some sort of technology that made their goggles better don't you think it would be plastered all over their website. The only difference I can find is their Prizm tech, which it seems most people are not happy with.



BurtonAvenger said:


> The information is out there if you actually care to research it. I'm not going to hold your hands and point you in it. You clearly are too hung up on who owns who to actually go "fuck a multi-billion dollar company with DOD contracts could actually make a far superior product than a company that just makes imitations". LOGIC!.


I personally have not found any of this information out there, and I have looked, but you say that you have, why can't you provide your sources? And I don't think you can completely dismiss the fact that Luxottica owns Oakley as irrelevant. The fact is, the company is known for charging customers an exorbitant amount of money while giving them the illusion of choice. They either manufacture, design, or own about 80% of all eyewear that is bought around the world. Wow, they must be an amazing company you might say, 80% of people buy Luxottica. The problem is that Luxottica also owns Lens Crafters, Sunglass Hut, Target and Sears optics stores, as well as a bunch of others. So they only sell their brands, giving the consumer the illusion of choice, but in fact the consumer only has the choice of buying Luxottica to begin with.

In my mind those are pretty shady business practices. It does not mean they make a bad product, but I also will not trust any marketing coming from a business that works this way. 



BurtonAvenger said:


> Also no goggle is scratch resistant, but some are far superior. It's all in the finishing project. Look it up.


Give me something to look up. You said that the finish on Grayne goggles is sprayed on, where can I find this information? How does Oakley deposit their mirror coatings/what makes them better?

Until you can prove these things, all you have is your expert opinion. Your opinions matter to a lot of people on this site, so I wouldn't be surprised if people will choose Oakley over Grayne based off of your opinion alone, but I do not appreciate when people state their opinion as fact. If you can't back up your opinion with anything but your experience, do not state it as fact.


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2013)

ridinbend said:


> I don't know much about the technology but a buddy of mine is an engineer at oakley in the military shield division. In a few short chats we've had, it's pretty clear the amount of time and testing put into creating quality lenses, shields, hockey masks etc. and his description of his job leads me to believe there is a reason why oakley is leading the market in technology and goggle sales. This feels like an "I hate Burton because they're the biggest" thread. Last I heard from my bro oakley was experimenting with electrical warming fibers in the lenses to eliminate all fogging. They wouldn't be where they are now if they hadn't been producing quality for some time. Nothing against grayne their shit looks great but there is a difference between Kia and Lexus, it's not just marketing bullshit.


The electrical warming fibers sound pretty dope, but they are not currently in any Oakley goggles. I believe that most people in the military wear Oakley eyewear because they believe it to be the best. To me this means a lot, because these are people whose lives may depend on them seeing something clearly. However, I doubt that the same amount of time or resources is dedicated to Oakley's snow gear line, as is dedicated to eyewear used by the military.

I am not sure that the Kia/Lexus debate is applicable in this case. It is very easy to look at the spec sheet of a car, or step inside one, to tell the differences between very complicated vehicles. However, on paper all goggles are claiming the exact same thing, without much for evidence. So in the end it comes down to user experience. 

As far as I know, the majority of people who have bought Grayne goggles have had a good experience with them, and are glad they saved money. This includes myself. So to be convinced that Oakleys are better than Graynes, I would either have to be given facts about their technological/functional advantages, or the majority of Grayne goggle buyers would have to start talking about how they wished they had bought a more expensive goggle.


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

BA thought bubble: ((whoa, that JonSno is the most reasonable sounding stupid person i've ever encountered))


----------



## ShredLife (Feb 6, 2010)

BA:


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2013)

Hahahaha, that was perfect lol.


----------



## surfinsnow (Feb 4, 2010)

JonSnow said:


> The electrical warming fibers sound pretty dope, but they are not currently in any Oakley goggles. I believe that most people in the military wear Oakley eyewear because they believe it to be the best. To me this means a lot, because these are people whose lives may depend on them seeing something clearly. However, I doubt that the same amount of time or resources is dedicated to Oakley's snow gear line, as is dedicated to eyewear used by the military.
> 
> I am not sure that the Kia/Lexus debate is applicable in this case. It is very easy to look at the spec sheet of a car, or step inside one, to tell the differences between very complicated vehicles. However, on paper all goggles are claiming the exact same thing, without much for evidence. So in the end it comes down to user experience.
> 
> As far as I know, the majority of people who have bought Grayne goggles have had a good experience with them, and are glad they saved money. This includes myself. So to be convinced that Oakleys are better than Graynes, I would either have to be given facts about their technological/functional advantages, or the majority of Grayne goggle buyers would have to start talking about how they wished they had bought a more expensive goggle.


All I know is that my Zeal SPPX goggle is the best goggle I've ever owned, and I've owned many goggles, including hi-end Oakleys. I don't think I'd ever buy anything else. Not a shill, absolutely no connection with Zeal. My wife bought them for me for a Christmas present. In any light conditions, it's like you're not even wearing goggles. They are perfect.


----------



## KansasNoob (Feb 24, 2013)

JonSnow said:


> The electrical warming fibers sound pretty dope, but they are not currently in any Oakley goggles. I believe that most people in the military wear Oakley eyewear because they believe it to be the best. To me this means a lot, because these are people whose lives may depend on them seeing something clearly. However, I doubt that the same amount of time or resources is dedicated to Oakley's snow gear line, as is dedicated to eyewear used by the military.
> 
> I am not sure that the Kia/Lexus debate is applicable in this case. It is very easy to look at the spec sheet of a car, or step inside one, to tell the differences between very complicated vehicles. However, on paper all goggles are claiming the exact same thing, without much for evidence. So in the end it comes down to user experience.
> 
> As far as I know, the majority of people who have bought Grayne goggles have had a good experience with them, and are glad they saved money. This includes myself. So to be convinced that Oakleys are better than Graynes, I would either have to be given facts about their technological/functional advantages, or the majority of Grayne goggle buyers would have to start talking about how they wished they had bought a more expensive goggle.


Defrosters for optics aren't new, many sledding helmets have them....

Some in military use Smith as well due to their turbofan setup....

I think the difference between the <$100 Graynes and $250+ Oakleys is obvious... but for the price they're great, I was gifted a set and between my $70 Smiths and $70 Graynes, I'm wearing the Graynes every day. I tuck my bandana under my goggles, and it took building a jump to fog them up.


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2013)

surfinsnow said:


> All I know is that my Zeal SPPX goggle is the best goggle I've ever owned, and I've owned many goggles, including hi-end Oakleys. I don't think I'd ever buy anything else. Not a shill, absolutely no connection with Zeal. My wife bought them for me for a Christmas present. In any light conditions, it's like you're not even wearing goggles. They are perfect.


I have absolutely no problem with a statement like this. Your opinion on which goggles suit you better is valid, and it's fine for you to try to convince people of buying Zeal goggles based on your experience. My problem with other peoples statements however, is that they are STATING that that Graynes are technologically far inferior without stating any actual facts. If it is your opinion/anecdotal state it as such, just like you did, if you are stating something as factual/scientific please be willing to provide the proof of such a claim.

BA is stating that everyone who buys Grayne goggles instead of Oakleys is an idiot, but so far he has not provided any substantiated evidence that Oakleys are better, just that he likes them better therefor anyone who disagrees must be a moron. He is making a pretty aggressive statement about other people's intelligence based off of what? That "you get what you pay for". If I've every heard a stupid statement it is that.

As far as I can tell the only real evidence (posted so far) for a goggle's superiority is user reviews, because all goggle manufacturers claim the exact same things about their goggles without verifiable scientific evidence to back up those claims. If user reviews are the only thing that I can justifiably base a logical argument off of, without it being a personal opinion, than I would say that Grayne goggles are a good buy. If I was to trust the opinion of a known expert in the field, albeit his poor attempt at proving scientific evidence, I would go with Oakleys.


----------



## SoCalSoul (Nov 13, 2013)

Love how this thread keeps truckin' along and the OP is nowhere to be seen....talk about a troll that started a wildfire....


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2013)

SGboarder said:


> Exactly what is shady about their business practices?


The fact that they own almost every major retailer for prescription glasses and sunglasses and basically only stock them with brands they own/are somehow affiliated with. This allows them to basically determine whatever price point they want, and the consumer will be none the wiser. It is basically price fixing.

As an ignorant consumer you may go into one of these stores and believe that sunglasses are inherently expensive, so you will be willing to pay a premium for them. Go to the LensCrafters website and you can see that their cheapest pair of sunglasses is 60 dollars. Do those sunglasses provide any technologic superiority over a generic brand pair of sunglasses? No. Do they cost any more to produce? I am guessing negligibly so, probably on the order of a couple of cents per pair. But the fact is they have fixed the market in the sellers favor.

I am fairly certain that they aren't doing anything illegal, otherwise they probably wouldn't be in business, but they are definitely scamming the consumer/setting up the market to favor them. Although there is still technically competition in the "free market" they have created localized places where there is no competition, so this free market no longer exists, but they trick the consumer into thinking there is by stocking "different" brands that are all actually owned by the same company.

I just think it is a shitty way to do business. I think there should always be some amount of fairness/honesty between a business and it's customers, but when a business can control the entire market it is very easy for them to get greedy and sell you a pair of sunglasses at twenty times the amount they produced them for.

If you owned a business would your mission be solely for profit? Personally, I would hope that most business owners try to make a reasonable profit while providing the customer with a good product at a fair price. A free economy works off of the principal that consumers will choose which businesses to buy from, therefor putting businesses with crazy prices out of business, and eventually reaching a balance between the consumer and the producer. This system does not work if the producer is hoodwinking the customer into believing that they are buying competing brands, but they are all actually owned by the same company. It gives the consumer a false sense of choice, and the producer way too much power over the market.


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

JonSnow said:


> The fact that they own almost every major retailer for prescription glasses and sunglasses and basically only stock them with brands they own/are somehow affiliated with. This allows them to basically determine whatever price point they want, and the consumer will be none the wiser. It is basically price fixing.


Yes, it sure sounds like they have some pricing power - probably more than most companies. Not sure what is shady about that.



JonSnow said:


> As an ignorant consumer you may go into one of these stores and believe that sunglasses are inherently expensive, so you will be willing to pay a premium for them. Go to the LensCrafters website and you can see that their cheapest pair of sunglasses is 60 dollars. Do those sunglasses provide any technologic superiority over a generic brand pair of sunglasses? No. Do they cost any more to produce? I am guessing negligibly so, probably on the order of a couple of cents per pair. But the fact is they have fixed the market in the sellers favor.


You seem to imply that there should be a relationship between technology/performance and price of an item, as well as between cost to produce and price. Why should that be the case? If the company manages to sell sunglasses at $60+ than lots of consumers clearly have decided that those sunglasses are worth that much to them (or more) regardless of their functionality or cost to produce - after all nobody forces buyers to make these purchases.



JonSnow said:


> I am fairly certain that they aren't doing anything illegal, otherwise they probably wouldn't be in business, but they are definitely scamming the consumer/setting up the market to favor them. Although there is still technically competition in the "free market" they have created localized places where there is no competition, so this free market no longer exists, but they trick the consumer into thinking there is by stocking "different" brands that are all actually owned by the same company.


How are they 'scamming' the consumer? And are you seriously suggesting that there should be a competitive market for every product category? Very few industries work like that. In fact, it seems logical that the starting point should be the opposite - unless there is reason to believe that a market is clearly competitive (lots of buyers and sellers, undifferentiated product, etc.), the assumption has to be that it is not.
And are you saying that companies somehow have an obligation to inform the consumer if a market is not fully competitive? How would that even work?



JonSnow said:


> I just think it is a shitty way to do business. I think there should always be some amount of fairness/honesty between a business and it's customers, but when a business can control the entire market it is very easy for them to get greedy and sell you a pair of sunglasses at twenty times the amount they produced them for.


What is unfair/dishonest about selling a product for twenty (or whatever) times the amount it costs to produce the product? Maybe the fair price is 100x times the cost of production. And presumably different consumers value an item differently - to some it may be worth 20x, to others 100x.



JonSnow said:


> If you owned a business would your mission be solely for profit? Personally, I would hope that most business owners try to make a reasonable profit while providing the customer with a good product at a fair price.


What is an 'unfair' price? If consumers did not think the price was fair, they presumably would not buy the product - nobody forces them to (unless it is a necessity like staple foods, basic clothing, etc.).



JonSnow said:


> A free economy works off of the principal that consumers will choose which businesses to buy from, therefor putting businesses with crazy prices out of business, and eventually reaching a balance between the consumer and the producer. *This system does not work if the producer is hoodwinking the customer into believing that they are buying competing brands, but they are all actually owned by the same company*. It gives the consumer a false sense of choice, and the producer way too much power over the market.


That just makes no economic sense. Economics 101 teaches us that the system still works perfectly: Pretty much any producer has an incentive to raise the price for its product if it has pricing power - at least up to a point. Generally that will reduce the quantity demanded (and transacted), but combined with the higher price it will increase profits (again, up to a point). What is unfair or shady about that?
Why should a consumer have an inherent right to have (or to expect) competing suppliers for every product?
There is no false sense of choice - consumers can choose between a bunch of different sunglass models at different prices. That choice is completely real and consumers are completely free to buy or not buy any of the products offered to them at the offered price. Why should consumers be entitled to anything else?


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2013)

SGboarder said:


> Yes, it sure sounds like they have some pricing power - probably more than most companies. Not sure what is shady about that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You make some great points.

I probably shouldn't have included the argument about pricing to begin with, because I don't really agree with what I said lol. I definitely think that businesses should be able to price their products however they wish, and that the economy will self regulate pricing in the long run.

However, I still disagree with you, and my main point about the company is them creating an illusion of choice for the consumer. I think that they are purposefully manipulating the customer into believing that quality sunglasses are always expensive, and they are doing it in a very intelligent but sneaky manner.

1. Do you agree that most major eyewear retailers are owned by, and only sell Luxottica brand eyewear at a fairly high price point?
I do.

2. Do you think that this may cause the average, ignorant consumer to believe that all quality eyewear is expensive?
I do.

3. Do you think that because all major eyewear brands owned by Luxottica are at a high price point, that customers will mistrust other less expensive brands even if they are of the same quality?
I do.

I am not sure if I think that what Luxottica is doing should be illegal, but it is extremely close to price fixing, which is illegal.

I do know that Luxottica is purposefully manipulating consumers, so I choose not to trust any information that comes from them, or one of the hundred brands affiliated with their schemes. Marketing isn't illegal, but I personally try not to do business with companies that have blatantly manipulative marketing strategies, and that is because for a free market to regulate itself in favor of the consumer, consumers have to actively choose not to do business with businesses that take advantage of them.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

Hey HEY HEY!

We had this thread good and jacked! What do you guys think you're doing getting back on topic?


----------



## ThredJack (Mar 18, 2014)

poutanen said:


> Hey HEY HEY!
> 
> We had this thread good and jacked! What do you guys think you're doing getting back on topic?


Reverse thread jacking, NOT cool!


----------



## booron (Mar 22, 2014)

Optical systems are far more complex than any of us realize.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

booron said:


> Optical systems are far more complex than any of us realize.


You ain't just Whistlin' Dixie!!!
Otherwise,.. How would you explain _this,….._








:blink:










_...reversed _reversed threadjack!!


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Listen here fucktards. I'm not going to bother going into the minutia of your stupid ass arguments. 

Oakley is better. FACT.
Grayne is an OEM immitation. FACT.
Oakley leads the R & D of goggle manufacturing in the world. FACT.
Grayne is a generic stamped lens, sprayed on mirror coated, generic goggle. FACT. 

The information about all of Oakley's processes is out there on the Internet. FACT. 
Shredlife is a fucking angry man who is pissed his season is non-existent. FACT. 
Oakley is owned by Luxotica. FACT. 
Oakley is the only goggle manufacturer with DOD contracts and trickles its technology down into its civilian lines. FACT. 
The Internet is a research tool that provides you with everything you're looking for. FACT. 

Now here's one for you, you guys are too stupid to research it yourself and look into why Oakley charges what it does other than the argument of "Marketing, Capitalism, it's a brand name.". Look past that and you'll clearly understand why I say you pay for what you get. 

Yes, it's true there are things that the knock off is better or exactly the same i.e. pharma or your crappy watch analogy. But when it comes to optics if you actually sat down and read some information on this thing we call the Internet which has this other thing called Google and saw some studies and articles on the tech behind the lens you might actually change your opinion. But no you're too fucking hung up on stupid things to look past that. 

I'm done, I don't need to waste my time with fucktards I've said what I needed to say that's relevant. You pay for what you get with optics and if you can't realize that then go for it have inferior optics. 

For what it's worth I don't even use Oakley I use Smith and Dragon. Dragon which has Oakley doing their lenses and Smith which has their own proprietary technology that functions great for what I need it for.


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

yes , it must be upsetting to be surrounded with all these inferior beings, i feel for ya ba


----------



## jtg (Dec 11, 2012)

holy crap did you ever drink the oakley kool-aid.

it's always funny when people talk about "military grade", because the quality of gear that those thugs get is actually minimal viable product at the cheapest possible price, not better than "civilian" products. aside from weapons obviously. 

being owned by luxottica should tell you enough about what you're paying for. everyone knows that they charge many multiples beyond what their products are worth, because they have a near-monopoly position. sounds like you need to do some research 

i own both oakley and smith. quality control on smith are absolute shit. several of my lenses have distortion out of the box like they sat in the sun and deformed or something. I/Ox too. oakley is fine but they fog up super easy so they're useless. same with anon. I/Ox seems to have the fogging thing figured out. not all smith goggles do though. i have oakley shades, and i like them, but if i'm being honest with myself they are absolutely not worth anything close to what they cost.


----------



## ShredLife (Feb 6, 2010)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Listen here fucktards. I'm not going to bother going into the minutia of your stupid ass arguments.
> 
> Oakley is better. FACT.
> Grayne is an OEM immitation. FACT.
> ...













yea, we never had a season out here this year... it sucks. i'm great tho - life has never been better, and i've got more shit to do than just go snowboarding. you're too emotional.


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2013)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Listen here fucktards. I'm not going to bother going into the minutia of your stupid ass arguments.
> 
> Oakley is better. FACT.
> Grayne is an OEM immitation. FACT.
> ...


I'm really kinda surprised that anyone respects your opinion. Do you always respond to logical criticism with angry bluster?

You keep putting in the time to tout your UNSUBSTANTIATED and sometimes IRRELAVENT facts about Oakley's superiority, but you are unwilling or unable to back up any of them.

Maybe I am an idiot because I don't know, or can't find any of the information that you are claiming, but I would be an even bigger idiot to blindly accept the information that you are spouting about Oakley just because you said it was true. 

I cannot confirm or deny any of the pertinent facts about Oakley that BA is spewing out. Anyone want to help him find them, since I obviously can't and he is unwilling to provide his sources?


----------



## Argo (Feb 25, 2010)

I prefer Smith IOX over any goggles I have tried so far. Cost is not an issue as I paid$65 for IOX and $30 for replacement lenses. I like electric EG2 for field of vision but they fog up like crazy on me, they can also be found for $65 in summer on sale. 

I still stand by my original post, you get what you pay for in general. Smith goggles that msrp for $50 are complete shit. Any goggle that you can buy retail for under $100 is going to be shit if you use them. If you ride under 30 days a year then you probably aren't doing much in the way of laps/vertical and don't have to worry about your optics. If your riding a 300' vert mountain, you don't have to worry about optics....... 

As far as Oakley being owned by a bigger conglomerate, who the fuck cares. Most of the boards you people ride are made by a bigger conglomerate but you guys ride them like your boyfriends dicks.


----------



## mojo maestro (Jan 6, 2009)

jtg said:


> it's always funny when people talk about "military grade", because the quality of gear that those thugs get is actually minimal viable product at the cheapest possible price, not better than "civilian" products. aside from weapons obviously.


"Those thugs"........you should choose your words more carefully. A lot of good people just trying to do better for their families. My salute to you...:finger1:


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

i'm still wondering who the five companies using the same mold as grayne are, if they exist they are making themselves very hard to find


----------



## Psi-Man (Aug 31, 2009)

CassMT said:


> i'm still wondering who the five companies using the same mold as grayne are, if they exist they are making themselves very hard to find


I think BA mentioned at least one in an earlier post....electric.


----------



## Argo (Feb 25, 2010)

CassMT said:


> i'm still wondering who the five companies using the same mold as grayne are, if they exist they are making themselves very hard to find


I have seen them around for sure. Maybe not 5 companies but at least 3. They are definitely out there. They definitely have a place in the market.


----------



## booron (Mar 22, 2014)

I had VZ Fishbowls and they sucked the cock. I went to several places and tried on every goggle they had and the only goggles that fit my giant face/head were the Fishbowls and the Oakley flight decks. My head/face is big enough that if the Smith IO/X shifted slightly from raising my eyebrows, the foam on the side of the frame would dig right into my eyeball.

So basically I had to pay $170 for a particular design I could not get from any other goggle because the Flight Decks are _different_ than all the others..

For my birthday last year my mother sent a window cleaning guy over to my house and I was all "WTF, Mom?, I've got a bottle of Windex?!?!" And my windows didn't _look_ dirty anyways. Well holy Hell, when that guy left I felt like I was living in HD...

It sounds stupid, but now I feel like I'm riding in HD.... OWWWW!!!!


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

At the risk of being banned.....


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

*yoga sport enthusiasts unite!*



poutanen said:


> At the risk of being banned.....


fantastico!


----------



## mojo maestro (Jan 6, 2009)

You sure she's doin' yoga? She kinda looks passed out drunk......either way.....works for me.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Hi Guys,

Stoked to read all of the opinions here. Forums are rad for exactly this kind of thing and I hope it is cool if I 

throw in my piece. Our primary goal in producing products is to *STOKE* our customers. To us that means offering 

unexpected quality, warranty, and support at an amazing price. In terms of internet activities our goal is to spread stoke, help with 

info where we can and do our part to promote a healthy sport. That means being transparent and accessible. We would 

never engage in any black hat tactics or shill marketing. That is unethical, it is not our style and in the long 

term it is bad business. 


We take our 3 year warranty for Grayne very seriously. We are the only goggle brand that I am aware of that 

has such a warranty. It has two functions. 1. it offers customers absolute security in their purchase against 

manufacturer defect. 2. It allows us to catalog and analyze every complaint that we receive on any product. In this 

way we can know if there is ever an issue that is coming up repeatedly and if the percentage of occurrence moves 

outside of the norm for our industry.

We use all of this info to improve our products every year through iteration. We are extremely proud of the product 

that we offer and I am personally available to anyone to help them get top performance out of our gear.

To the OP, we have had one Grayne customer _ever_ comment to us on our elastic strap. 

The first email in this string was received on the evening of 3/2 and I responded myself at 2:30 AM on 3/3 so that my 

response would be there when the customer woke up the next AM. That exchange:

*--------------

To whom it may concern:

I recently purchased the Grayne MTM Blackout Goggle w/ Polarized Anti Fog bundle (order #100017102). I used it for 

the first time yesterday on the slopes and I noticed the elastic getting looser through out the day. I am very 

unsatisfied with the product and would like my $64.90 sent back to me.

--------------

Hi (name removed),

Please send a photo of the issue. I have not heard of this issue but I am sure we can troubleshoot for you.

-------------- 

Photos were sent and I responded

--------------

Hi,

In the photos the strap is significantly too loose. Google straps rely on initial strap tension to maintain tension 

while riding. This same system and materials are used in all snowboard goggles. I will be happy to exchange the 

strap if required. Please test on your end an let me know.

--------------*

In additional emails we issued a return authorization # and offered to pay all shipping if the strap tested defective. There was no further communication or activity. As we had not heard back from the customer, I assume that he went on to tension the strap a bit more and is now riding happily. In regards to the strap adjustment clips, we have not cataloged a single failure.

As noted above, if (OP) you have remaining issues with your goggles, I am available. Kindly post to this thread, PM or email and I will get you sorted.

STOKED!


----------



## ThredJack (Mar 18, 2014)

poutanen said:


> At the risk of being banned.....


Best. Pic. EVER.


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Stoked to read all of the opinions here. Forums are rad for exactly this kind of thing and I hope it is cool if I
> 
> ...


cool of you to post, not necessary imo.

everyone assumed the op was a dicksplash from the get go. I'm sure his boot laces are troublesome.


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

mojo maestro said:


> You sure she's doin' yoga? She kinda looks passed out drunk......either way.....works for me.


Downward dog?


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Stoked to read all of the opinions here....
> 
> ...


Ok,.. Maybe I am alla sudden having trouble comprehending the written word, but I have read that posted email exchange several times and I'm still not certain that I "get" what the customer/OP's issue was??? :blink:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but My interpretation of that explanation is the "customer" didn't tighten the strap sufficiently in the first place? And as a result, it kept loosening up _more_ as he was riding? Really,..? *REALLY!!!???* :facepalm1:

OP was too stupid to work Elastic,...? REALLY??? 
What a Knob! :facepalm3: As SK mentioned,.. I'll bet he does have trouble tying his shoes! "Mommy" never shoulda stopped doin' that for him! 

FFS!!!


----------



## CassMT (Mar 14, 2013)

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Stoked to read all of the opinions here. Forums are rad for exactly this kind of thing and I hope it is cool if I
> 
> ...


oakley could not even conceive of this service, too big to give a shit. i hadn't been thinking of this whole topic in terms of 'better' but instead, 'better deal', and that clinches it.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Here are some photos of straps from our Grayne goggles and from some similar goggles that MSRP between $150 and $200. Dragon APX, Electric EG2, Smith IOS. We are very proud of our strap. One feature that we do not mention in our sales info is that all Grayne straps undergo a stain resistant and UV protectant process. It wont protect the strap from everything but it does help a lot and allows for cleaning with warm water applied from a damp cloth (strap only please).


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

Wiredsport said:


> Here are some photos of straps from our Grayne goggles and from some similar goggles that MSRP between $150 and $200. Dragon APX, Electric EG2, Smith IOS. We are very proud of our strap. One feature that we do not mention in our sales info is that all Grayne straps undergo a stain resistant and UV protectant process. It wont protect the strap from everything but it does help a lot and allows for cleaning with warm water applied from a damp cloth (strap only please).


my Electrics and Bern fit exactly like that, it turned out to be a deal breaker for both.

My Smith Squads are tight with my Giro Combyn though.


----------



## speedjason (May 2, 2013)

snowklinger said:


> my Electrics and Bern fit exactly like that, it turned out to be a deal breaker for both.
> 
> My Smith Squads are tight with my Giro Combyn though.


Speaking of Combyn, why did they used a detachable strap hook? It comes loose all the time I have to keep checking it. Drives me nuts.


----------

