Anyone here ride with Aviator sunglasses?

[jasonh]

I recently did a shakedown ride in shorts and T-shirt while wearing my Serengeti sunglasses. Normally I ride with typical riding glasses from Oakley or Tifosi. I was a bit surprised by how superior the lenses were and wondered if anyone here ever rides with “normal” sunglasses, and realized the noticeable superiority of higher quality lenses?

[Orbital]

I sometimes ride with my Oakley Holbrooks because they are prescription. The coverage sucks tho. Hard to see when down low and let’s light in the sides which is particularly annoying when riding thru tree cover or anything that makes the sunlight blink. I much prefer contacts with my Alba Optics.

[IchDien]

On my 80's Peugeot riding around town sure...normally no. I'm always a little bit scared they'll fall off and hit the front tire and be crushed or something. Especially when you're turning your head a lot in traffic etc.

They look great though, and yes, Oakleys look stupid for practically every situation other than a sports related one.

[Alexandrumarian]

For some winter rides i used my old real glass mountaineering Julbo shades. They cut down a lot so they are great for the snow, also for the sunniest days. I find the optical quality to be clearly above the cycling glasses i have (including jawbreaker etc) but they weight a small ton and the side vision is not good.

[TobinHatesYou]

Are you Serengeti's lenses polarized? Polarization can cut down on glare and give the illusion of a clearer image. Most cycling specific Oakleys are not polarized.

[jasonh]

Tobinhatesyou- Yes. They’re polarized glass lenses.

[TobinHatesYou]

Tobinhatesyou- Yes. They’re polarized glass lenses.

That”s probably why everything looks clearer. Oakley Road Prizm lenses, for example, are non-polarized because they want cyclists to see slick / wet spots on the road, metal debris, etc.

[wheelbuilder]

High quality polarized lenses are awesome for driving and just general use. By far my favorite. Most high quality cycling specific lenses are not due to what Tobin mentions above. That said, you haven't lived until you experience Carl Zeiss lenses. I've ridden every Oakley iteration of lenses including prizm and they are indeed very, very good. Zeiss optical clarity is better imo. The only brands that I know of that use them are Koo...(Kask), and older Rapha glasses. I'm sure there are more, but if you get an opportunity, try some out!

[Konsi]

I ride with Vuarnet Glacier glasses, because I need prescription glasses and with these, I can use one pair for cycling, mountaineering, and driving. They are rather heavy and real glass, but the view is great

[dmp]

Another factor is that glasses for cycling have a very pronounced curve to the lens to give wrap around coverage. Even the very best of these introduce some distortion and chromatic aberration that is greater than that seen with a flatter lens.

[TheKaiser]

Another factor is that glasses for cycling have a very pronounced curve to the lens to give wrap around coverage. Even the very best of these introduce some distortion and chromatic aberration that is greater than that seen with a flatter lens.

Yes, that is a good point you bring up, and relates to something that I'd wanted to mention. People often talk about optical quality as if it is a single thing, but really there are many aspects to it. I think that the above posters are correct that it is tough for a plastic lense to beat a glass lense in terms of clarity, but distortion is another matter and relates more to lense curvature and thickness.

In the past, Oakley's "Polaric ellipsoid geometry" patents seemed to give them a true technical advantage in that regard. I had used various wrap around Oaks over the years without any issue but tried some Smith and Tifosi glasses and felt like they had a sort of "fishbowl" effect that really messed with my descending confidence. I would imagine that those patents have expired by now, plus with the Luxottica buyout they could liscense that

I also had some Nikon sunglasses for casual wear which had fantastic clarity. Oakley reps used to have this test unit which was like a maniquin head with lasers in the eyes and they would point them at a target and then you could pop various glasses on the head to see how much they altered the laser dot aim. We tested many pairs of shades, both Oakley and other brands and, sure enough, the Oakley's had little to no effect on the aim of the beams, whereas other high end glasses, even glass ones like my Nikons, would bend the beam significantly.

But aviators do rock: https://blog.ribblecycles.co.uk/wp-cont ... -1980s.jpg

[doogie2304]

[XCProMD]

Can’t get any cooler than that.

But, don’t aviators “peel” when sweat spills often on them? Perhaps it depends on the colour/ coating?

[jfranci3]

There are a bunch of reasons why your Serengeti lenses are better:
1) flatter - you cycling glasses have a base 6 or 8 curve. Your casual glasses are 4 or 6. Normal RX glasses are 4.
2) material- Oakley’s are poly carb lenses (except for half frames?). Your Serengeti are like CR-39 plastic (or similar, which is super clear.
3) age- polycarbonate lenses shrink and warp over time.
4) use - you probably clean your Sports glasses 10x more than the casual ones.
5) coatings - the sports specs have more coatings which wear over time.
6) Heat - you've exposed your sports glasses to heat above 130f - the coatings, again, expand more than then lenses do. Heat messes up coatings.