Difference between MX and Snow goggles?

10 messages
16/09/2007 at 08:50
For a start the price, why are snow ones so much more expensive? Is there really any difference?
16/09/2007 at 08:52
different coatings on the lens I would imagine. the rest is about what people will pay.

Lil
16/09/2007 at 09:00
I have a pair of Oakley Crowbar MX but now need some goggles for snowboarding, need new goggles as I have lost the old strap and obviously cant use a quick strap for snowbarding.

Anyway, Oakley MX crowbar around £50, the same goggle in snow around £80, why?
16/09/2007 at 10:20
Murvalous wrote
I have a pair of Oakley Crowbar MX but now need some goggles for snowboarding, need new goggles as I have lost the old strap and obviously cant use a quick strap for snowbarding.

Anyway, Oakley MX crowbar around £50, the same goggle in snow around £80, why?


check the lens.. not much need for very strong lens on a mx bike as not much chance of snow glare or flat light affecting yor riding!!

Lil
16/09/2007 at 10:35
Dunno but i use light sesative progrip goggles on my crosser. They also have a double lense to stop them misting up and they a bloody brilliant.... even when i go up to wales in the snow with a sweaty head and not moving they don't mist up.. about 20-30 quid. super brill. and they have little pegs for your tear-offs
17/09/2007 at 04:46
Bump for the weekday crew in case they ahve anymore to add :
17/09/2007 at 05:41
YOZ 450 wrote
Dunno but i use light sesative progrip goggles on my crosser. They also have a double lense to stop them misting up and they a bloody brilliant.... even when i go up to wales in the snow with a sweaty head and not moving they don't mist up.. about 20-30 quid. super brill. and they have little pegs for your tear-offs


I had similar light sensitive MX goggles (orange lenses), and used them to ski with when I first moved to Canada. They did an OK job, and served a purpose for the ski season.

Last winter I bought some Oakley ski goggles and noticed quite a difference - they fitted my ski helmet better and gave better definition particularly in lower light conditions. They were comparable to mid/high end MX goggles in price.

If I'd not purchased the Oakleys then the MX goggles would have been an adequate compromise, but the Oakleys have proved better for skiing in.
17/09/2007 at 05:51
Hi,

Can't speak for all makes but, on my Oakleys, the MX goggles have the little doobries to take tear-off visors while the snow goggles don't and, iirc, one version of the MX lens gives almost 100% light transmission, which isn't available on the snow goggles.

Fwiw, I used the Oakley MX goggles skiing last year because I specifically wanted a completely clear lens - I went to Finland and the previous year I'd used tinted goggles that were completely useless in low light - couldn't see the lumps 'n' bumps in the snow. At least with clear-lens goggles, if it's sunny you can wear a pair of shades inside the goggles.

Hth.

Regards,

Stuart

I speak my mind, which is possibly why you don't hear much from me.
06/11/2011 at 18:50
Looking at the oakley website it all looks the same. The lenses are less superior i think in MX and not as curved. but screw it for the £30 ill try it! I ordered my MX with the Black iridium lenses which are on the snow ones, gotta be worth it,who cares if its not as curved... cant see it being any diff.
06/11/2011 at 21:43

Snow lenses, as stated consist of two lenses sandwiched together, think double glazing,so are less likely to mist up.

Tbh it's best to wear the correct eye protection for your chosen discipline, you only have one pair of eyes.

As for tints :- http://uk.oakley.com/innovation/optical-superiority/lens-tints

Your say
email image
10 messages
Forum Jump