Jimbo Jambo wrote:
The Tifosi cheapos are way better quality even if they aren't polarized.
Non-polarized sunglasses have the potential to do more UV damage to your eye than wearing no glasses at all. Your pupil dilates and lets more light in, but the UV light has not been effectively filtered out from the light. So it's like opening your door wider for robbers to get in
I wasn't aware that was a thing but a friend of mine who "runs" 120mpw (over half of this is walking, rarely runs faster than 12:00/mi when he does run) has like 6 pairs of these.
Checks out for me.
I have had several kinds of sunglasses, and nearly all of them have had some kind of issue. Some fog up in cold weather. On some the nose piece degrades over time. Some of them slide down your face as you run.
Goodr's are comfy, stable, look like regular sunglasses, and seem to last a good amount for me before the coating starts coming off. I just got the black pair. No crazy colours for me. I like that they are cheaper, because sunglasses always end up getting scratched.
Funny. I just bought a pair. My old glasses are almost shot, and they don't make them anymore, so I figured at $25, I'd try the Goodrs. I ran in them today, and they seem OK. The price was the difference for me because it's not a big loss if they aren't great.
I took a pretty bad fall one time while going at a decent pace, mostly groomed trail, slight decline lug caught a small root and I tumbled, splashing myself in GU drink as my handheld bottles broke my fall and as I stood back up my goodr glasses to my surprise were still on my face. They work surprisingly well. My only complaint is that every pair I've tried are pretty dark. Going in and out of shady areas isn't great.
davld45 wrote:
Jimbo Jambo wrote:
The Tifosi cheapos are way better quality even if they aren't polarized.
Non-polarized sunglasses have the potential to do more UV damage to your eye than wearing no glasses at all. Your pupil dilates and lets more light in, but the UV light has not been effectively filtered out from the light. So it's like opening your door wider for robbers to get in
No, you don't need polarising filters for UV. They're helpful for blocking reflections off water etc., which reduces glare.
Polycarbonate lenses absorb near 100% UV without any coating, plus they're decent against scratching and fairly cheap. Some other types of lenses will need coating for UV protection, though, like the ones Goodr is using.
I've found the quality of goodrs to be pretty bad. I have a couple pairs of Sunskis and love them -- perfect for running.
I'm a jogger and I NEVER wear sunglasses so the OP is WRONG!!
Bullet the Blue Sky wrote:
Funny. I just bought a pair. My old glasses are almost shot, and they don't make them anymore, so I figured at $25, I'd try the Goodrs. I ran in them today, and they seem OK. The price was the difference for me because it's not a big loss if they aren't great.
Bought them a week ago, the same price. Tested. Happy with the purchase. Some people say these sunglasses are not worth their price, but I don't know what these people expected for $25.
Not sure why people hate on Goodr. You're buying a $25 pair of sunglasses that fits incredible well and don't bounce around on your face when running. They don't make you look like a try hard jackwit, and if you happen to toss them around or scratch them, they're cheap. Roka/Tifosi/Oakley whatever just make you look like a dip.
Ho Hum wrote:
No, you don't need polarising filters for UV. They're helpful for blocking reflections off water etc., which reduces glare.
Polycarbonate lenses absorb near 100% UV without any coating, plus they're decent against scratching and fairly cheap. Some other types of lenses will need coating for UV protection, though, like the ones Goodr is using.
Huh, didn't know there was a material for that! To be honest I am basing my knowledge on my physics textbook. Thanks for adjusting my understanding.
I got a free pair and they're great. I use them for both hobby jogging and hobby driving.
I thought try hards made fun of hobby joggers for spending a lot of money on running accessories, like $250 carbon plated shoes, while trying to break a 4 hour marathon.
Doesn't it make sense for hobby joggers to be wearing cheap sunglasses?
I’ve had a couple pairs - I like them! They stay in place while running, are comfortable, and are cheap (good for me because I always break or lose sunglasses). I’ve had Smith and Oakley sunglasses that are nicer, but its not a big enough difference to pay the increase in price, especially when Goodrs do the job with no major complaints. They also look good in casual settings...I’m not keen on the wrap around “sports” look at a restaurant or at the grocery store.
Novett wrote:
Bullet the Blue Sky wrote:
Funny. I just bought a pair. My old glasses are almost shot, and they don't make them anymore, so I figured at $25, I'd try the Goodrs. I ran in them today, and they seem OK. The price was the difference for me because it's not a big loss if they aren't great.
Bought them a week ago, the same price. Tested. Happy with the purchase. Some people say these sunglasses are not worth their price, but I don't know what these people expected for $25.
Some people want nice things. Other want things that are nice for the price. Given sunglasses last 3-4+ years worrying about 100 bucks more or less seems like a minor issue.
Jimbo Jambo wrote:
The thing is - they are terrible sunglasses - they have just marketed well toward hobby joggers and faster runners too. They push them as being polarized, but however they polarize them is really cheap, we've had a number of pairs returned as the coating leaches off the lens. The Tifosi cheapos are way better quality even if they aren't polarized.
Yeah, this 100%. Goodrs saw a gap in the market for cheap, decent looking shades. They also leaned into the frat guy with an MBA marketing schtick that was everywhere a few years ago (Chubbies being the worst offenders).
The Tifosi versions are the same price and are such better quality. I had a pair of Goodrs and their build quality is the same a novelty Wayfarers in the Chucky Cheese prize cabinet.
davld45 wrote:
Jimbo Jambo wrote:
The Tifosi cheapos are way better quality even if they aren't polarized.
Non-polarized sunglasses have the potential to do more UV damage to your eye than wearing no glasses at all. Your pupil dilates and lets more light in, but the UV light has not been effectively filtered out from the light. So it's like opening your door wider for robbers to get in
Polarization has nothing to do with how much UV light is filtered out. All it does it cut the glare you get off of stuff like water, snow, and windshields.
wearmysunglassesatnight wrote:
davld45 wrote:
Non-polarized sunglasses have the potential to do more UV damage to your eye than wearing no glasses at all. Your pupil dilates and lets more light in, but the UV light has not been effectively filtered out from the light. So it's like opening your door wider for robbers to get in
Polarization has nothing to do with how much UV light is filtered out. All it does it cut the glare you get off of stuff like water, snow, and windshields.
Polarization works for UV because most of the UV light is bouncing off the ground or water surface before heading up into your eyes, which polarizes the light. (assuming you aren't looking right at the sun). Polarization on glasses works by filtering out light that is polarized in the up-down direction, filtering most of it out. That includes visible glare as well as some more UV than the lenses alone. If you turn your head perpendicular to the horizon, the polarization would not work as intended. The glare is filtered out by polarization too.
I have multiple pairs because they are cheap, effective, and I don't have to wear them like a hawk. I've lost a few pairs of sunglasses over the years so the $25 price point is helpful so I don't have a freak out like I would if I lost a pair of expensive Rokas. I'd watch expensive sunglasses more closely, but s*** happens.
Similarly, because they are cheap I can have multiple pairs to rotate through at any time to extend their life. But mostly, I have two young kids who like to touch my stuff and if they break a $25 pair of shades while screwing around, I wouldn't have to bust out the belt. I'd just be disappointed
davld45 wrote:
Jimbo Jambo wrote:
The Tifosi cheapos are way better quality even if they aren't polarized.
Non-polarized sunglasses have the potential to do more UV damage to your eye than wearing no glasses at all. Your pupil dilates and lets more light in, but the UV light has not been effectively filtered out from the light. So it's like opening your door wider for robbers to get in
You can test for that. Either get a uv lamp and a $bill. If it turns pink, no uv protection. If the bill stays green you are good.
A bored optometrist might be able to test them also. Be ready for aggressive upsell.
I wear cheap rimless shield sunglasses, got tired of breaking expensive glasses. I don't care for that goodr fake Ray-Ban look. I also like interchange lenses for twilight runs.