Oakley Radar EV Path Sunglasses - Review

 I wear mine inside the straps as well! It means I can take my helmet off without moving the glasses and risking dropping them.

 No, no Callum, you don't understand... it in "the rules". Glasses go over helmet straps.

 Yep, rule #37 that is ! Obey the rules !

 that’s just for roadies

 Haha, I prefer function over conforming to rules!! I tried it in line with the "rules" and when I took my helmet off, I nearly dropped my $309 glasses in the dirt. Lesson learnt from then on.

 the straps on my Giro are slightly lifted so the glasses have to go underneath. it's truly embarrassing.

 ^ I'd be too ashamed to admit that in public

 Gotta abide by the rules, Man.

 It is almost as though "the rules" have evolved from common sense findings over the years

It is also more aero than having flappy straps*

* I'm taking the mickey a bit but it is actually true!

 wtf? Helmet needs to "close"? How on earth would glasses interfere with the helmet doing its job?

Pros wear glasses over straps to show the sponsor and glasses more clearly. Or to reduce the pressure on your head from the straps pulling on the glasses, which doesn't happen with glasses that actually fit close to your face, or helmets with straps that are offset.

It's not a safety thing. That's stupid. If you have wide glasses, put them over. If they fit your face, put them under.

 @Callum-H: there's these things called neoprene neck band/cord/straps that for like 1 € would've avoid that...

 Speaking of helmets, the issue with a $150 helmet is that we are less willing to replace them when they get a dent. Which could explain why the author is riding around with a dented helmet (the last photo).

 @MojoMaujer you'll never see a real snowboarder wearing glasses over a beanie.....goggles all the way )

 Speaking of helmets, 15 or 150$ gives you the exact same protection, if not comfort.

 @ad15 in the 80's.

 @MojoMaujer ok there was this one time, but I was sure no one saw me....

 Good spot ryan! I think the author needs a new helmet... and the straps look very loose too

 I've worn my glasses under my straps for almost 20 years. I've been in numerous accidents that include faceplants and top-o-head tree plants and have never once considered glasses to put my face in any more danger than whatever dumb move I just made.

 Oakley lenses don't shatter though, and I would rather have them between my eyes and the stones than nothing in a crash, plus the arms sit close to my face so over the straps is uncomfortable and makes them slip. I also can't put those neoprene straps on either, nothing to clip to and the arms are too short because then the straps would sit on the rubber part of the arm so they wouldn't grip my face.

 @MojoMauer I think most of us realize that that's an unbelievably rare scenario... or we just don't wear sharp sunglasses. If you saw someone wearing glasses over a beanie it was probably so people could see the name of the sponsor and not cover up half the product.

And why would you want your shatterproof eye protection to fly off in a crash??? Then you no longer have eye protection on, which really sucks if you end up rolling downhill or taking multiple impacts. I'd much rather keep them on.

 In the case of these Oakleys I don't think it really matters if you go over or under because they're hideously ugly no matter what.

 I like Oakley's but there are a lot better choices out there than these, imo.

 You sir need to do some research. It's your eyes and your wallet that will hurt if your sunglasses failed. $35 for glasses with 3 lenses means it most likely has distortion and or flimsy construction with little testing. I want to be able to see and stop a rock from entering my eye. I am willing to pay good money for safty. Not to mention you can buy used stuff for less then retail. Just for the love of God never chince out on eye ware or helmet. Unless your a hipster then I encourage you to wear neither and ride a DH trail. Good luck bud

 Are you willing to pay good money for spelling lessons too? Just being cheeky.

 "Tifosi Veloce with 3 lenses for $35." Where?

 ...mmm ... can't imagine rocks entering my eyes, I just wear my cheap £50 sun glasses to keep the sun / flies, and dust / mud out ...

 Oakley are well made, but not refined enough to be worth the price. For the same msrp you can get rudy projects. Make yourself a favour and try a pair at your local store.

 How much is your eyeball worth?

www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2012/12/13/skiing-miller-accident-wife/1767091

I like glasses that actually protect my eyes, not shatter when a pebble hits them.

 "I am willing to pay good money for safety"

BS argument. A bazillion dollar pair of Oakleys is no safer than a $10 pair of ballistic safety glasses or a $65 pair or Ryders/Tifosi/Whatever.

 Mine costed me ~20€, have them for years, and the problem so far has been the number of times I found myself looking around for them just to realize I had them on all along...

 If safety is your main concern then what about safety glasses?
I have a £5 pair of Dewalt safety glasses that look very similar to the above with a clear lense. They work perfectly.

I also have a pair of oakleys for those sunny days and these lenses look very interesting, I've long been considering some different lenses that can be used in the sun and in the dark forest. The black iridium lenses I have are useless in dark conditions.

 Eh, i wear glasses all of the time. I'm special when it comes to inserting contacts.

I like the oakleys plastic frames. They're durable, light and when you leave them in the car they don't burn your face.

I also like that i can change the sides. I've got a normal black set and another set that wraps around more and holds my glasses better while running/biking

Thay said, the rubber expands and gets squishy when they get older. You can't get the rubber seperately wich sucks.

I need something like this, but with prescription lenses. $200 for a prescription frame isn't all that out of line. My insurance has an allowance for eyewear and I can get a set of normal glasses and a set of sunglasses each year. My out of pocket costs are usually pretty low.

Cheap glasses are exactly that. Cheap

I wear them enough that I want a nice set and can justify the extra money for the nice optics. I've tried $120 sunglasses through sams club and they were unusable after 10 months because the uv coating peels off.

I genuinely don't care if people think i look like a tool if these work as advertised. I wear an xc lid with a road jersey and baggy shorts on my fat bike and love every bit of it

 Most of what you paid for on these is marketing/sponsoring and profit margin, not the product itself - that's what makes most of the price difference between similar products, not quality. Most cheap glasses nowadays have quality lenses.

 I have an old pair of M-Frames that I use. I only run a clear lens and added vents with a Dremel tool. It looks like the vented lens that was $20 more. They are 100% UV, so I don't squint. They work great. Best part, I bought them 15 years ago for $75. I replaced the lens 9 years ago for $35. I think they've more than paid for themselves, but not sure if forking out $190 for new Oakley's is really worth it if something happens to my M-Frame...

 I used to wear clear $4 safety glasses, they had distortion and fogged badly but still better than grit in eye. The veloce deal was on backcountry.com, $35 for the fashionable tortoise frames - I bought three pair and they fit my head. They are $55 on amazon now and I still think they're a good value at that price. Comes with good packaging (hard case and little baggies) to keep the fragile plastic lenses safe.

I agree some Oakley are a little nicer but not safer or 'more optical'

 There is a very good reason why Oakley is able to charge such high prices and still be among the best selling sunglasses made. It's the same reason that they are chosen as the exclusive eyewear supplier for the US armed forces, and why Oakley also produces lenses for some of the most highly regarded sport and safety eyewear brands on the planet. It's all because Oakley makes the best lenses on the planet. Period.

Whether you like their styling and material choices or not is your own choice...hell I don't really like anything they make outside of the "sport" line, but the fact is, they are the best.

I am a sunglass fanatic, and have a huge collection consisting of many brands and types. For style I prefer Ray-Ban, but when it comes down to business, for safety and sport, nothing touches the performance of Oakley's designs and lenses. I haven't yet tried the new "Prizm" line but wouldn't hesitate to buy the "trail" lens just on trust, because i've never been let down before. That said, i'm trying to get to an Oakley store soon to try it out and see if it's good enough to replace my riding array.

 Yeah I second that, I've tried riding in cheap sport sunglasses, but they distorted things so much I used to get headaches and my eyes would hurt, my Oakleys are so clear to look through and they do not distort things at all. So I am happy to have paid my money to get them, I feel they are worth every cent!

 Cost and value are two completely different things, and perception is key there, which is where marketing steps in.

As an example, Oakley, precisley, charged stupid amounts for a pair of gloves (the ones with the knuckle protections, ~70$ for the "military" iirc) which were actually standard chinese catalog gloves that costed less than half from other "lesser" brands on crc.

 That is completely true, and because it is present in every part of every market there was no real point in stating that, it doesn't cost $309 to make sunglasses, or $2,000 to make a thermomix but that is what's charged for the company to make a profit and stay afloat. And what may appear the same often isn't, there would be no way Oakley was selling "exactly" the same gloves as everyone else, there would be some differences in them, whether or not they are worth it is another question.

 Yeah I think even the folks at Oakley would tell you directly that it doesn't cost $300 to make polymer-framed sunglasses, even with the best lenses you can get.

But until you can get something better (or at least as good), cheaper, the prices will stay where they are.

BTW Oakley's factory pilot gloves are a patented design. There are plenty of Chinese knockoffs, but they don't hold a candle to the real thing. That said, I agree they shouldn't cost $80. But again, they wouldn't be priced there if they didn't sell there.

 I guess we'll have to agree on disagreeing then.

Just to let you know my everyday sunglasses costed me a "whooping" 6€ (sale price) at Decathlon, years ago; the lenses are flawless in every respect, just as any other sunglasses you can buy from commerce, other than the usual suspects street sellers, cheap Chinese products shops, etc., and like most anything nowadays, big names included, you bet they came straight from China, lenses included. I could've gone for some three figure Essilors though; just wasn't that convinced of the extra benefit, I guess.

And my complete bike was also tagged, new, at right about the same price as Saracen's Amplitude ALX naked frame. Quality standards? No, exact same Indonesian made frame, both...

 It's not a matter of agreement or disagreement. Sunglasses are about as personal-preference based as you can get.

When it comes to "cool" sunglasses, I buy whatever I like the most. I expect nothing more from anyone else. I even mentioned previously that i'm really not a fan of Oakley's "lifestyle" line. Just not my style at all. I just jumped in on this conversation to dispell misinformation that is often distributed by those who don't own real Oakley products.. No real Oakley lenses are made in China. Lens manufacturing is all US and Europe-based. Some frames are made in China however. There is no reason for anyone to justify their eyewear choice by trying to put down brands they didn't buy. It's dumb. They're sunglasses for God's sake, buy what you like and answer to no one.

I also want to clarify, I don't mean to say that Oakley is right for charging $300 for "plastic" sunglasses. Only that until they have real competition, those prices will only go up.

 They do, marketing aside, and the bottom line is precisely that overall retail prices have much less to do with cost and much more to do with marketing choices than people is willing to believe, and it really doesn't matter much, if at all, to that or to quality where they're made, which can change from one day to the next as well, but hey, try to get any of that through the average pb brandname fanboy skull... sunglasses are obviously no exception.

 Supply and demand...any given product is worth exactly what people are willing to pay for it. Goes for anything. This is why Ebay is such a fantastic thing for the consumer. Ebay is where you really find what something is worth.

 You're forgetting the sole goal of marketing/propaganda is to influence perception, aka "personal preference", and preferably unconsciously, so any demand is already skewed from the get go.

 Demand is demand...doesn't matter if it's demand for the best lenses one can get, or demand for the logo that appears on them. Either one can result in the purchase of a product, which means either one is "demand".

Not sure where you are going here.

 No. Again, you're forgetting in many cases "demand" is created (induced) by the supply side; in fact that's been the goal of said side since probably ever and been the way economy operates since at least the 80s, with the so-called "supply-side economy", aka "zombie economy".
Price AND demand can both easily be set by marketing - that's what it exists for - and the more you spend on it, the better chances you get to succeed at influencing the later into accepting whatever you choose for the former.

 Rolex, omega, diamonds, Oakley...

 Well if you want to go poser, I have a Montblanc to go with all of those... but they're all priced to the moon.

 You still have no point...DEMAND is DEMAND. You are inventing this concept of "artificially created demand". There is no such thing, by definition all demand is artificial. All demand is created by marketing - again by definition. You can't want a product if you don't know it exists.

I'm guessing you are sour because Oakley, like any company of overpriced sports and fitness-related gear, markets their products as superior based on a pile of made-up technological concepts. Like HDO lenses, which are simply lenses created using the same processes used by prescription lens manufacturers for years (who, incidentally charge even MORE exhorbitant prices for their products), and 3D polarization, which, despite being patented by Oakley, is widely used and a fairly routine technology these days. Or "Prizm" lenses, which are really just cleverly chosen lens tints...not some voodoo magic as it's marketed. This is no revelation...just like Red Bull is really just flavored sugar water, or Apple products are built using the exact same hardware and tech as Google and Microsoft products, and use an operating system that's actually far older and less sophisticated than either company's, and Under Armour is simply repackaging material that's been around since the 60's, and Keurig is forcing hot water through instant coffee, modern "high-tech" OHC engines are actually the oldest internal combustion engine design...the list goes on and on and on. Mountain bikes could possibly be the BIGGEST example of this...yet here you are, on a mountain biking forum, complaining about a high-end sunglass company. The point is that all of these products WORK. As long as they do what they are advertised to do, they will sell. And even sometimes when they don't. The general populace believes that the guys who design these products are akin to aerospace engineers, while we know the real deal...but again, what does it matter when they work?

 You know what works for me right now? My current 20€ cycling sunglasses and the 6€ everyday ones... along with my 300€ ht, but whatever...

Here's story for you, though:

Years ago Gillette came up with their super-duper 4-blade razor, supposedly the best thing since sliced bread (which btw already was nothing but a (major) pure marketing feat), and... it tanked. No one would take it and it just didn't sell. So what do to do? Well, what they've done is spend a whooping 700 (seven hundred) millions in marketing to try to prop up the turd and make it desirable. And it worked! Yes, that's it, you've heard it right: they've created... wait for it... demand! Magically, all those fine people that couldn't care less about it beforehand, suddenly "realized" they just couldn't live without it any longer and it became a major success - a *marketing* success. All this without even changing a thing about it, all just by the wonderful magic of marketing illusion and the hard cash that goes with it. They've tricked all those people into believing it really was something *they* wanted. And all simply because it just had a higher profit margin than its already perfectly capable predecessor.
Moral of the story? Marketing does work; marketing DOES create demand. After all, like they say, there's a sucker born everyday... but hey, their money, not mine.

As for the Oakley in general, even if I liked them or believed them to be worth the asking price in the first place (which I don't, btw), they just happen to really not work for me at all, so, much to their fanboys chagrin, they're out of the question even before you ask.

Nice try, though.

Have a nice shiny day.

 I guess i'm just surprised that this is such a big deal to you. Demand, whether created by clever marketing or not, is demand. I don't think we actually disagree there.

And I think what you mean to say in your story about the razor, is that marketing made people feel like they NEEDED the razor, despite the fact that their current razor did the job just fine. We are not in disagreement about any of this. THis is how marketing works and has worked since the beginning of time.

What I still don't understand is why you are so mad about it? You have made it very clear that you are happy with your cheap sunglasses and don't need $300 sunglasses, and that you are happy with your current cheap hardtail and don't need a $5000 Pike and CCDB equipped boost 148 rig. Cool. Not everyone is as lucky as you. Some of us are much happier with our nicer bikes and more expensive sunglasses. I started out on full-suspension, and built a hardtail about 10 years ago just to experience that kind of riding, and hated it. After three rides I sold it and haven't touched a hardtail since. Likewise, wearing standard "el-cheapo" sunglasses is torture for me on the trail. Even my Killer Loops (about $200 new) sucked to the point where it was almost dangerous for me to wear them. My first pair of M-frames with VR28 lenses were an absolute revelation. So, again, sometimes it's not all marketing...some of this stuff actually does WORK.

 lol all I can say is I wonder why you'd think I'm mad, specially since I really couldn't give the slightest damn about it, but (and maybe as a proof of that) it's all fine by me...

What's funny though is you feeling the need to stress how your more expensive bike and glasses are supposedly much nicer than mine (maybe, maybe not; not losing my sleep about it), as that makes it look like you're worrying about it. Still, i feel sorry for your inability to pick nice non-expensive sunglasses, but if you can't see beyond a particular brand, quality wise, not being a competitor, it's fine by me as well.

And about my glasses, nothing special about them, but then nothing bad either - they just work as they should (as in they do their job without you even noticing them - you can read about it further above) and that's all you should need.
About my bike, funny thing is I actually would've bought a fs by now (the reason why I even created an account)... if only anyone would sell it to me, but apparently pb is more full of attention whoring posers than actual sellers and buyers, otherwise they wouldn't have miss a chance to sell/buy to someone that more than meets their demands (and that the few times you even get an answer, which has only been after insistence), but then, who cares? ultimately, and for the price of a cheap frame, you can pick a fully equipped wc winning class trials mc, which would take me places no bike or work out ever could, so again who's mad?

 Ok you are just here to hate. It's painfully obvious to anyone still reading this that you are the one who's mad.

You are either totally misunderstanding, or purposely twisting what i'm trying to get across. I'm going with purposely twisting. If you really get so butt hurt over people with nicer bikes and other things, you DEFINITELY don't want to be a member here. My bikes are by no stretch the nicest around, in fact i'd be willing to bet i'm below average in ranks of "badass bikes" here. Yet i'm not calling out the members with brand new carbon frames and enves.

I don't judge people on the gear they choose. I judge them on their attitudes and words.

 hahaha ok... I don't even know what you're arguing about or why but fine have it your way whichever that is. The only reason I kept replying is out of politeness, though, but guess that's a bad thing around here, giving YOUR attitude so enjoy it pal and have a blast with it. Don't look under the bed though, may be monsters out to get you there as well. bye. dinner's up.

 Avatar.

 wait 6 months and there will be a Boost 138 version

 www.uvex-safety.com/en/products/safety-glasses/safety-eyewear-goggles-glasses-spectacles/model/131/modelName/uvex-i-3

 You can buy the exact replica of these glasses on ebay for $3-5. Made in China. Like oakleys.

 I actually was at one recently looking at some clear lenses glasses. My only problem is my nose is too wide for most glasses.

 I don't wanna buy any replica! I don't want to cheat anybody, that I'm wearing an oakley. I don't give a shit what's the brand on my nose! The important is the safety, and trust me when I say, a store which is making safety glasses worth more money to me than oakley who has his first one, just because, there is a logo of the great oakley!!!

 Orao Galibier (decathlon). 30 €. You've got a photocromic lense that works for all conditions and reclinable screen so it doesn't move. Problem solved. Move along, folks.

 Fully agree. And I know the safety glasses have been tested for industrial-sized impacts - I've treated them like absolutely shite and have only ever broken a lens once (which required driving over them with a truck).

 Im sure you can find them in white frames to suit your style

 Oh. I didn't know they came in white. That sounds perfect for me!

 Fake carbon, like mine - just can't beat that...

 I've had my POC Trabec for like 2 years now and have worn it with tons of different sunglasses with no problem.

 My POC Trabec hated my Nike running shades, but Oakley frogskins worked just fine.

 @Andersdoge do you keep loosing the glasses? That why you've used tons of different glasses? Reckon that's a problem ????

 Nah @ad15 I'm just a sunglass whore.

 Couldn't agree more!

 Wayfarer with interchangeable lenses would be excellent.

 Have you looked at fast jackets, flak jackets, or half jackets? Or, if you want full frame, how about Jawbone or Split Jackets? All of those support most of the huge array of lenses Oakley offers.

I am a big fan of the shield-type sunglasses, because when I ride i'm not worried about how I look, i'm worried about how I SEE. But I know lots of folks who will not wear them, but that's what the single lens "jacket" style is made for.

 Not my style.

 On top can be very uncomfortable on long rides.

 Agreed...there are too many people worried more about how they look when riding than how they actually ride. I'm going to an Oakley store this weekend to try out Radar EV and Jawbreaker frames, and see if the Prizm Trail lens is an improvement over my current trail lens - VR28. I currently have the standard Radar frames and they blow away anything else out there when it comes to eye protection and view optimization for riding. How do I look in them? Dunno, never checked. Don't care to.

 Even in the 80's I thought the frog skins were cool, but I was too young for a minitruck and never had a mullet.

 I think you mean the wrong angle.

 I have the Jawbreakers with Prizm Trail, and I thought exactly the same thing, but they are honestly amazing! They do boost certain colors and help with the glare from certain types of dirt. They are in short the best glasses I have ever bought and were worth every cent!

 Have you used their G30 lens? It's perfect for MTB and looks identical to this.

It was originally developed for golf I believe.

 Yeah it's not the same. I have a G30, although I prefer the VR28 for the trail. The Prizm lens is built very different than anything Oakley has done before.

 Well looks like I'll be giving them a try then.

 Yeah I haven't tried the G30,but these lenses are different to anything else I have ever used, for once the marketing department haven't lied or bended the truth, the lenses actually do boost the Green, Brown and Red colours!

 I love most smith optics stuff, i swear by their goggles for snowboarding, but i got rid of my pivlocks - they warped my vision a bit, making it feel like i was really high up from the ground. it was a disconcerting feeling.