[NSRCA-discussion] DriveWear Glasses

[astropuppy]

Thanks Scott,
DriveWear is what my eye doctors office is pushing; but, I don't think they
understand me when I say I fly model airplanes a 100 yards out and 400 feet
up in the sky.

I always thought polarization was a good thing until I went back to
straight clear lenses in my everyday glasses. A earlier poster is correct,
with my polarized (non-studly) fit-overs on over my glasses, I have to read
the LCD on my SD10 with my head turned sideways. Gas pumps with LCD's are
darn near impossible to read.

DriveWear glasses are appealing because they change with conditions. Here
in the inland northwest we fly mostly in bright sun while the coastal
Northwest is frequently overcast. I, personally, have a very hard time
seeing wings in overcast. The light adjusting technology of the Wiley-X
glasses is interesting.

The money for Oakley's doesn't bother me, I'm just looking for something to
fit my (flying) needs. So anybody with any other suggestions please chime
in.


On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com> wrote:

> Of course, right when I sent that, I remember the other name that I was
> considering.  I'm sorry I left the original question that Mike asked about
> DriveWear.  The other pair was from Wiley-X.  The link to their site is
> http://www.wileyx.com/index.aspx
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Honestly, I haven't tried them much in overcast conditions.  I LOVE them
>> in bright conditions.  I have a feeling though that I will want to buy a
>> pair of the black iridium lenses eventually.  At the NATS, I had a pair of
>> non-polarized grey lenses over my glasses during the overcast flights and I
>> could really see my wings level much better.  This was before the Oakleys
>> so I'll have to do some experimentation.  So far, it was worth the $400 I
>> paid.  The website shows they start at $150 but by the time you're done, it
>> is quite a bit more expensive.  My eye doctor had other choices that I was
>> considering but cannot think of the name of them right now.  If I find
>> them, I'll send that link as well.  They were considerably less expensive
>> than the Oakleys and still looked studly.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:42 AM, astropuppy <astropuppy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How do you like the Fire Iridium tint in overcast and bright conditions.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I bought these: http://www.oakley.com/products/4658/15247 with the
>>>> Fire Iridium lens.  There's a million styles out there for Oakley if you
>>>> really like Oakley.  These just fit my big ole head good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Doug Cronkhite <seefo at san.rr.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Which frame/lens style did you get Scott?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 7, 2012, at 7:21 AM, Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I bought a pair of Oakley prescription glasses.  For our purposes
>>>>> (model aviation), I was told NOT to get the polarized version.  Mine are
>>>>> amazing and worth the money paid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Peter Vogel <vogel.peter at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Polarized lenses often make it difficult, if not impossible, to read
>>>>>> the LCD display on our radios because the direction of polarization in
>>>>>> glasses is 90 degrees opposite the polarization of the LCD film.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter+
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone4S
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 7, 2012, at 6:45 AM, astropuppy <astropuppy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anybody have experience wearing DriveWear lens while flying?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.drivewearlens.com/home.php?flashchange=8
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am going to be buying new prescription glasses soon and would like
>>>>>> to consider all possibilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *Scott A. McHarg*
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Scott A. McHarg*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Scott A. McHarg*
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Scott A. McHarg*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120207/f1760038/attachment.html>