Messages posted by : ise
Profile for ise > Messages posted by ise [1815]
they're not all equal of course, mirrored lenses are more prone to visible scratches obviously as it's a coating on the lens itself and some mirroring seems much susceptible than others. But mirroring is good so I do have some, I just try and be careful with them and I don't have them kicking around my sack day in-day out. If there's a brand you fancy you can often turn up reports on google from people who've had experience with them. |
|
that's just you, I think of attention deficit every time :D |
|
and neither do I, I buy what I need for the environment I'm in. Just because a brand has a recognized name hardly makes it designer.
Height makes a difference, UV intensity increases 13% for every 1000m gain in height. So what works well at a 100m in terms of light reduction won't work at 3000m. Plain black lenses might reduce the visible light but not necessarily the UV light which is the most harmful. The standards EN172 and EN170 define testing and classification of lenses for UV protection and light transmission so when I buy a pair of Bollès for example I know those tests were passed for the environment they're in. I don't know that for a pair of 10 quid glasses from the petrol station no matter how handy they are for driving down the M4.
Excellent, so you must be a lot happier with those now. I tried to explain this above http://www.j2ski.com/ski-chat-forum/posts/list/16/7349.page#62228 for interest. If your boots glasses match those tests then they're an excellent buy, mostly they won't as boots by default will sell you stuff safe for driving which by definition won't be safe for high light/high UV situations. |
|
It could be you've damaged your eyes already then :) The problem is a lot of cheap glasses don't offer adequate eye protection for prolonged use at height in intense sunlight. I've bought cheap glasses in the UK for driving there and they're just fine, but they don't work well day after day at height. As a point of fact, having polarised glasses isn't going to help you in snow, reflected light from snow isn't polarized, as a recap about 80% light hitting snow is reflected so that's quite a bit of light. Obviously it doesn't do any harm to have polarized glasses but if that's the measure you're using to select glasses for skiing or mountain use it's not a good measure. I only mentioned bollé, cebe and alpina because you can pick them up for under 50 quid a pair and they seem to last well, I wear them for work and they're fine and I know other people that do as well. |
|
they do seem expensive, I use bollé, cebe and alpina in harsher conditions than skiers would experience and they're fine without the price tag |
|
That looks fairly ideal for what I need. I think the E4 is so epic because it runs from Spain to Germany which seems a long way :) I'm never really sure who does that kind of route, it's not exactly well known, even I'd never heard of it until I saw it on a map :) |
|
|
Starring Emily I see according to her Facebook status :D
|
|
|
You might be a bit on the late side for two weeks time ) You're probably getting "Delayed onset muscle soreness" (DOMS), that probably accounts for the much reported 2nd or 3rd day stiff or sore muscles people get skiing or any unaccustomed exercise. It's part of the muscles strengthening so even though the discomfort if caused by tearing micro-firbres in the muscles it's not a bad thing as such and even if you were fitter you might push yourself more and still arrive that point. Hot/cold showers following exercise is thought to possibly help but I'd not bother and opinion on pre-excercise stretching seems to be on balance negative but post-excercise seems to help, nothing dramatic, a walk or better still a nordic walk after exercise seems to help hugely.
So take a walk around the village for 20 or 30 minutes, that might help hugely and anyway, it's mountains, it's nice ) |
|
Profile for ise > Messages posted by ise [1815]