EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Ski Vision / Goggles and the 12/13 season - your wish list...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski Vision / Goggles and the 12/13 season - your wish list...

post #1 of 30
6/27/12 at 2:34pm
Thread Starter 

Hey everyone,

 

It's been a while since I've spent much time here on the Epic boards - hope the summer heat isn't melting my northern hemispheric mates!

 

In a few weeks, we're heading to the summer outdoor retailers convention here in Salt Lake, and I'm wondering if there are any particular items of interest you're looking for in your next goggle.  Things like:

 

*Rx-ability

*Quick lens change

*Active anti-fog

*Lens color options

*Photochromic designs

*Active electronics (GPS and the like)

*Special fit needs (large noggin, Asian nose bridge etc.)

 

What sort of features are YOU looking for in your perfect slope side eyewear?  We'll have a chance to talk with several major manufacturers at this show, and give some direct feedback to them at a level that often gets 'heard' by the R&D and engineering departments.  I'd love to take your thoughts, suggestions, gripes and general feedback along with me.

 

I'm hoping I'll have a chance to meet a few more of you personally this season on your way through Utah.  If I can assist anyone in any way with your ski eyewear questions or needs, don't hesitate to let me know now or anytime.  Stay cool this summer friends!

 

Brian~

Reply
post #2 of 30
6/27/12 at 3:05pm

quick lens change would be my top priority I think... we don`t have many options that provide this feature!

Reply
post #3 of 30
6/27/12 at 3:30pm

*standardized size measurements instead of generalities like small/large/womens/junior

Reply
post #4 of 30
6/27/12 at 5:26pm

More OTG options.  Glasses are smaller these days & those of us that wear glasses under our goggles don't always need the huge bug eyes of the past.

 

Thanks,

JF

Reply
post #5 of 30
6/27/12 at 6:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ster View Post

More OTG options.  Glasses are smaller these days & those of us that wear glasses under our goggles don't always need the huge bug eyes of the past.

 

Thanks,

JF

Even though I use prescription glasses I can still use goggles and leave my glasses behind. I would say today the best option in the market is one of the compatible Smith Goggles + Smith ODS2 RX Adaptor. I saw that in a local shop and the fit is perfect, but I have no experience using it with prescription lenses on it or even at the mountain. It just seem to be a nice option!

Reply
post #6 of 30
6/29/12 at 10:07am

I'd be VERY interested if Smith is working on a photochromatic lens.  Shocked if they were, unfortunately.  Many prefer Smith optics, and would like to know what they're working on......or more specifically, what they're NOT working on, and why not.

Reply
post #7 of 30
6/29/12 at 12:34pm

better scratch abrasion resistance and lens durability!

Reply
post #8 of 30
7/2/12 at 5:03pm
Thread Starter 

Quick lens change has been just about mastered in the Smith I/O line I think.  I know there are other makers who offer this feature, though I don't know if anyone's got it as well put together with a combination of great optics and lens tint options, and a truly easy swap mechanism.  At least, not that I've seen to date...  Maybe at the show this year?

 

Size measurements may be difficult, as you have head sizing (like for hats), but then you also are adding any manner of top side coverings from wool hats, balaclavas, mohawks, pantyhose, and coon skin caps...not to mention the myriad of helmet choices available.  I'm not sure how any sort of standardized sizing would be possible to be honest.  Any specific ideas I can take with me to bounce of the manufacturers?

 

I do believe we're seeing more and more OTG style goggle offerings as the years tick by.  Although, I have yet to see any OTG goggle frame that impressed me in a big way.  I can tell you that of the makes I've seen, the OTG trend of the past few years or so is anything but smaller.  I'm not holding my breath that this will change, but will certainly make the request known to any company willing to listen!  I would second the Smith ODS2 insert system without hesitation.  I've had massive luck fitting it for the past couple seasons now, and we've got ophthalmic sport lens options that are better than in most regular eyewear.  It's an option to consider at least.  Best part of their system is, it's removable and can be used with sport glasses in the summer as well.

 

I do know that there are several companies working on photochromic lens options, although as a lens style, I repeatedly hear from makers that it is by far one of the least popular lens types...not to mention one of the most expensive to manufacture.  There are numerous reasons that could explain this - but suffice it to say, I don't believe we'll see a glut of photochromics arriving this season.  I'll see if I can get a list put together of the better makers who are currently offering one for you however.

 

Scratch/abrasion resistance.  THAT, my friend, is the lens holy grail!  If anyone figures that one out, they'll never have to work a day in their live again (or their kids, or their kids kids!)  :)  I don't think we'll see much change there, apart from looking to lenses without mirrors or any sort of anti-fog protection.  The goggle frame is designed to flex somewhat remember, to fit a range of faces, and to some degree, the lend has to flex as well.  You make a lens more scratch resistant, and you take away that flex (think glass).  You'll see more potential cracking in the lens substrate I would expect, to say nothing of a potentially less comfortable fit.  But - who knows?!  Maybe someday someone will create a super hard lens treatment that still flexes well.  I'll keep my ear to the rail on this one...though I'm not overly optimistic.

 

Anything more I can add guys?  Thanks for the input so far!

 

Brian~

Reply
post #9 of 30
7/2/12 at 6:36pm

Goggles - oh boy.

 

Fit is number one. I don't mean gaper gap, but for on the face and side of the head, and around the nose.

I have almost never found a goggle that fit comfortably. You can buy eye glasses using standard metrics - bridge width, temple length, interocular distance, frame shapes, materials, etc.

Why can't goggle manufacturer's spec these out in their white papers?

 

I don't care so much about changing lenses to suit ambient light conditions, I'd probably just buy two pairs with different lens tints and keep one in the car. Swapping lenses is a pain in the butt.

I hate having the goggles so tight (so they won't slip around) that they are uncomfortable on my face.  I hate having my nose squished.

 

Probably the best pair I ever had was a cheapo dual lens Scott pair, $29 from Wallyworld or some such place. I'll probably buy a couple more pair just like them.

 

I wear glasses - but never again under goggles. You hit something and the glasses will hit your face. Learned my lesson that way and have a scar to show for it.

Now just contacts.

 

Better or longer lasting anti-fog coating. Doesn't even work new, out of the box. After a few days I'm back to using Cat Crap.

 

I second the scratch abrasion. I pamper my lenses and still are beat up after about a year. (15-30 days on snow) Maybe a sputtered crystal coating? Probably too expensive though. Same stuff as watch faces or IPads.

 

Photochromics  -. If I remember correctly temperature and altitude plays havoc in lens color shifting. Overcast and dark lenses don't work. Or bouncing in and out of shadows on the hill.

They look good in the shop though :)

 

Would like to see more companies offering high intensity yellow lenses. 

Oakley has one (In my old M frames) I love, great for overcast days.

 

Active electronics - NO.

You're moving downhill at around what, 20-50 MPH with possibly dozens of other people on a crowded hill and want check - the weather? Watch your favorite Youtube skiing video? Check your GPS or stocks - displayed on a HUD? I'm pretty sure you are asking for a lawsuit.

 

With an exception of: a built in camera - there is one so far I've seen but it's a kludge. Build a camera invisibly into the goggles and you will retire wealthy and early. Don't put the playback inside the lens though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's all I can think of right now..


Edited by dwoof2 - 7/2/12 at 6:47pm
Reply
post #10 of 30
7/3/12 at 4:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uilleann View Post


Size measurements may be difficult, as you have head sizing (like for hats), but then you also are adding any manner of top side coverings from wool hats, balaclavas, mohawks, pantyhose, and coon skin caps...not to mention the myriad of helmet choices available.  I'm not sure how any sort of standardized sizing would be possible to be honest.  Any specific ideas I can take with me to bounce of the manufacturers?

 

I'll use dwoof2's term and say 'standardized metrics'.    They would not be dependent on what the user accessorizes with, but rather a dimensional description of the goggle itself.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwoof2 View Post

Goggles - oh boy.

 

Fit is number one. I don't mean gaper gap, but for on the face and side of the head, and around the nose.

I have almost never found a goggle that fit comfortably. You can buy eye glasses using standard metrics - bridge width, temple length, interocular distance, frame shapes, materials, etc.

Why can't goggle manufacturer's spec these out in their white papers?

 

  Even a simplified set of standardized metrics like   "radius", above bridge height,  cheekbone drop  would be an improvement  over what exists today, i.e. nothing.

Reply
post #11 of 30
7/3/12 at 4:43pm
I'd love to find something like the mirrors cyclists use that lets you see the jerk that's about to run you down from behind.
Reply
post #12 of 30
7/3/12 at 4:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfa81 View Post

quick lens change would be my top priority I think... we don`t have many options that provide this feature!


The new Anon magnetic goggles fit the bill. You can change them without even taking them off your face - just pull and pop. I expected them to fall out more easily than clip lenses, but after testing them for a good chunk of last season, no problems. Pretty sweet system so far.

 

@ OP: I like photochromic lenses for snowboarding. I've used them on sunglasses, but haven't seen all that many goggles with them (or maybe I haven't looked around enough).

 

Drop me a PM if you have time to meet up. I'll be at OR and wouldn't mind talking to a eyewear pro.

Reply
post #13 of 30
7/3/12 at 4:50pm
Quote:
Quick lens change has been just about mastered in the Smith I/O line I think.  I know there are other makers who offer this feature, though I don't know if anyone's got it as well put together with a combination of great optics and lens tint options, and a truly easy swap mechanism.  At least, not that I've seen to date...  Maybe at the show this year?

 

I like the i/o system, but it doesn't hold a candle to Anon's magnetic system. With i/o, you still have to line up the clips just right, which can be a pain using gloves on a lift. The Anons practically put themselves on.

Reply
post #14 of 30
7/3/12 at 5:51pm
Thread Starter 

It sounds the the jury's still out on absolute retention with their mag system, though never having used it personally, I can't offer any direct experience myself.  I can say that reports have mentioned potential pitfalls including the weight of a metal frame, poor optical quality seems to be noticed by some testers (admittedly something Anon's been known for for years), and the cost of additional/replacement lenses is steep - something in the $90-100 range per lens if I recall.  I haven't ever had issues changing out an I/O or I/Os myself, though I usually do it waiting for the lift rather than on the chair.  I'll see if they're there this year and what they offer if so for sure.

Reply
post #15 of 30
7/3/12 at 5:55pm

Some features I'd like to have on a pair of goggles

- Photochromic lens with a wide enough range so I can ski in the brightest and darkest conditions commonly found

- Mirrored lens because it looks cool

- A display showing speed, time and elevation, perhaps a feature to record my runs so they can be seen later

- Onboard video camera that isn't obvious

- A lens tough and flexible so I don't need to worry about scratches

Reply
post #16 of 30
7/3/12 at 6:01pm

The frame isn't metal; it just has a few magnetic connection points. Didn't feel any heavier than others. I was also pleasantly surprised at the optic quality - I thought the cool factor of the magnets would wear off and leave an inferior set of goggles behind, but they worked about as well as my I/O sensor mirrors, which I love. In terms of retention, I didn't take any huge diggers, but I did hurl them at the snow a couple of times - not a budge.

 

I probably sound like a shill for Anon, so I should clarify that I got a prototype for testing/review purposes and wore them for most of my days in 2012. The price is admittedly steep, though, and probably not worth it for the magnets alone. Maybe it'll go down when the novelty wears off.

Reply
post #17 of 30
7/3/12 at 8:03pm

Brian,  as for the scratch resistance.......perhaps I'm missing something, but what's the challenge?  In this vast world of today's technology, does there not exist a material/method by which to apply a thin, clear coating?  I'm no materials engineer but something like a very thin epoxy-esque coating for improve scratch resistance?  We have things for our phones that still allow capacitance/resistance for finger swipes, we coat precious metals, we line materials to go into orbit that are microns in thickness, so why not lenses?  If the lens is spherical, surely there wouldn't be enough distortion on such a thin layer?

 

I may be completely naive, but it seems.......lame.......that the tech either doesn't exist or isn't applied (no pun intended) to improve scratch resistance.  Heck, I've worn sunglasses and hockey visors (admittedly thicker than ski goggle lenses) that can take a heckuva beating.  And what about safety impact lenses?  They're FAR more likely to get hit by something dangerous than an errant branch when skiing.  Yet, lay a lens on the kitchen table the wrong way and it can get a scratch.  That's just wrong.

 

I'd pay double for a lens NO PROBLEM if I knew it would last longer without being paranoid about scratches all the time.

 

Apologies in advance for my oversimplification.  And as always, your insight and knowledge is greatly appreciated.

Reply
post #18 of 30
7/3/12 at 8:22pm

Brian,

Most everything has been covered, except one.  Price.  Goggles shouldn't cost as much as ski boots and in some cases skis!  Some of the prices are ridiculous. 

 

The should also code them for fit like Geranimals; these fit Giro and Uvex, these fit Briko and Shred etc.  I know its a dream t o think that the different industries will talk to one another and come up with standards, but it would be nice.

 

Thanks for taking the time to get input.

 

Ken

Reply
post #19 of 30
7/4/12 at 12:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kneale Brownson View Post

I'd love to find something like the mirrors cyclists use that lets you see the jerk that's about to run you down from behind.

Someone else mentioned a camera, how about a backwards facing camera and a display inside the goggles?  Kind of like backing up an SUV/Truck, except you'd be watching for people behind you. BAM!

 

On the serious side I'd say quick lense change, scratch resistance and anti-fog.

Reply
post #20 of 30
7/4/12 at 6:38am

175x400px-LM-8be91835_Mikey-Skis.jpegUillean I bet you'd like to see a goggle with one lens smack dab in the center!!

Reply
post #21 of 30
7/4/12 at 8:37am

Aside from one little fogging issue when I didn't properly dry them out, I'm pretty much satisfied with the latest version of the Smith I/O.  Super comfortable, easy to change lenses, etc.

Reply
post #22 of 30
7/4/12 at 8:51am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeUT View Post

Drop me a PM if you have time to meet up. I'll be at OR and wouldn't mind talking to a eyewear pro.

Will do Joe!  I'm still not sure which day(s) we'll be out, but let's do stay in touch.  Expect a PM soon.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke2320 View Post

Some features I'd like to have on a pair of goggles

- Photochromic lens with a wide enough range so I can ski in the brightest and darkest conditions commonly found

- Mirrored lens because it looks cool

- A display showing speed, time and elevation, perhaps a feature to record my runs so they can be seen later

- Onboard video camera that isn't obvious

- A lens tough and flexible so I don't need to worry about scratches

Photochromics are always difficult for two reasons: 1. Inherent difficulties with the technology (things such as density, transition rates and uniformity) and 2. Cost.

Mirrors are out there aplenty.  Just depends on if your maker of choice offers the color you're after I would guess.

Lots of these little GPS things popping up already from numerous makers.  My experience shows them to be very difficult to read, semi-accurate, and somewhat temperamental.  Perhaps some of these bugs have been worked out, but that still leaves their astronomical cost.

A vid camera would be neat, and I could see it adding three things: Coolness factor, weight & cost.  Would the added heft and expense be worth it to you in the end?

You mention tough, flexible and scratch resistance.  Unfortunately, you only get to pick two (if you're lucky...sometimes just one!)  As a lens material becomes more flexible, it tends to become softer.  When it becomes softer, the chance of scratching and abrasion goes up.  I am unaware of anyone who's been able to successfully crack that chestnut yet.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeUT View Post

The frame isn't metal; it just has a few magnetic connection points. Didn't feel any heavier than others. I was also pleasantly surprised at the optic quality - I thought the cool factor of the magnets would wear off and leave an inferior set of goggles behind, but they worked about as well as my I/O sensor mirrors, which I love. In terms of retention, I didn't take any huge diggers, but I did hurl them at the snow a couple of times - not a budge.

 

I probably sound like a shill for Anon, so I should clarify that I got a prototype for testing/review purposes and wore them for most of my days in 2012. The price is admittedly steep, though, and probably not worth it for the magnets alone. Maybe it'll go down when the novelty wears off.

Thanks for the info!  I thought I remembered a metal bezel, but clearly I'm fuzzy there.  :)  I will definitely have to take a look at their lenses again at my next opportunity.  Their past history hasn't been great in that regard.  I always love it when a manufacturer takes the time to do their lenses right!  Do you know if their production run differs much from your proto you were given?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnerbob View Post

Brian,  as for the scratch resistance.......perhaps I'm missing something, but what's the challenge?  In this vast world of today's technology, does there not exist a material/method by which to apply a thin, clear coating?  I'm no materials engineer but something like a very thin epoxy-esque coating for improve scratch resistance?  We have things for our phones that still allow capacitance/resistance for finger swipes, we coat precious metals, we line materials to go into orbit that are microns in thickness, so why not lenses?  If the lens is spherical, surely there wouldn't be enough distortion on such a thin layer?

 

I may be completely naive, but it seems.......lame.......that the tech either doesn't exist or isn't applied (no pun intended) to improve scratch resistance.  Heck, I've worn sunglasses and hockey visors (admittedly thicker than ski goggle lenses) that can take a heckuva beating.  And what about safety impact lenses?  They're FAR more likely to get hit by something dangerous than an errant branch when skiing.  Yet, lay a lens on the kitchen table the wrong way and it can get a scratch.  That's just wrong.

 

I'd pay double for a lens NO PROBLEM if I knew it would last longer without being paranoid about scratches all the time.

 

Apologies in advance for my oversimplification.  And as always, your insight and knowledge is greatly appreciated.

Hey Bob  :)  Let me see if I can break it down a bit more effectively.  Take note that things like phones and metals are rigid substrates to begin with.  Flex that iphone enough and it stops working pretty quick.  ;)  hehehe  But you see what I'm getting at?  Generally in ophthalmic lenses (eyeglasses) for example we use a relatively soft poly or monomer as our base, then we will stack different layers on top to enhance things such as UV absorbsion, anti-glare (light transmission) properties, and scratch resistance.  That layer is commonly accomplished using silicon dioxide (SiO2)...silica...glass.  It's super thin as you mention, and it's also super hard.  What happens if you flex the lens too much during surfacing or mounting it into the frame?  That hard layer cracks.  The harder the scratch resistance is, the easier it is to crack it.  Also, remember that your hockey masks and safety goggles are designed to stop impacts - not necessarily to be scratch resistant.  Unfortunately to date, the two are still rather mutually exclusive.  :(

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by L&AirC View Post

Brian,

Most everything has been covered, except one.  Price.  Goggles shouldn't cost as much as ski boots and in some cases skis!  Some of the prices are ridiculous. 

 

The should also code them for fit like Geranimals; these fit Giro and Uvex, these fit Briko and Shred etc.  I know its a dream t o think that the different industries will talk to one another and come up with standards, but it would be nice.

 

Thanks for taking the time to get input.

 

Ken

Price is always a concern.  But remember that R&D teams are always trying to out-innovate their competition, keep their design language fresh, make things as durable as they can, and all this for as low a cost to manufacture as their quality control will allow.  It's a massive tug-o-war game they have to play.  There are easily found goggles that retail in the $20-$30 range...but for my own part (and please don't think me snobbish in saying this here) I wouldn't want to wear them.  I think we're going to see more upward pressure on pricing rather than lower to be honest, as we see more whiz-bang gadgetry added to new models. (That whole GPS thing is a good example.)  And Ken, I fully think you hit it square with your last statement.  I don't think the different manufacturers will e-v-e-r come together on sizing.  Bindings are one thing as they directly relate to skiing safety.  The size of one's head...not so much.  ;)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliSki View Post

Someone else mentioned a camera, how about a backwards facing camera and a display inside the goggles?  Kind of like backing up an SUV/Truck, except you'd be watching for people behind you. BAM!

 

On the serious side I'd say quick lense change, scratch resistance and anti-fog.

I always thought some mini pyrotechnics would be great - take that 50 foot huck, and you shoot colored flaming streamers out of the side of the goggle!  Can you imagine!  :D  On a more serious note, I don't know that we'll see any revolutionary changes to lens swap, scratch and fog resistance anytime soon.  More likely smaller evolutionary steps.  But any improvements are good right?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

175x400px-LM-8be91835_Mikey-Skis.jpegUillean I bet you'd like to see a goggle with one lens smack dab in the center!!

Ha!  Yeah, my biggest problem is finding a goggle ROUND enough for my melon!  :D  Keep it coming all!  Great discussion!

Reply
post #23 of 30
7/4/12 at 9:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

175x400px-LM-8be91835_Mikey-Skis.jpegUillean I bet you'd like to see a goggle with one lens smack dab in the center!!

 

Should be out soon.  Once people see their favorite stars wearing them, the pressure is on to mass produce.

 

one eye goggle.jpg


Edited by L&AirC - 7/4/12 at 10:40am
Reply
post #24 of 30
7/4/12 at 10:31am

The Oakley Airbrake was a winner for me last season, lens change is quicker than the I/O, they ended up being a lot less drafty, and with the VR50 Pink Iridium I am set for every light condition. Of you can pick last years model up on the cheap I would suggest it.
 

Reply
post #25 of 30
7/4/12 at 11:54am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by L&AirC View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

175x400px-LM-8be91835_Mikey-Skis.jpegUillean I bet you'd like to see a goggle with one lens smack dab in the center!!

 

Should be out soon.  Once people see their favorite stars wearing them, the pressure is on to mass produce.

 

BANANA!  biggrin.gif

 

one eye goggle.jpg

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

The Oakley Airbrake was a winner for me last season, lens change is quicker than the I/O, they ended up being a lot less drafty, and with the VR50 Pink Iridium I am set for every light condition. Of you can pick last years model up on the cheap I would suggest it.
 

How is the fogging on those O's?  The general rule is more airflow across the lens both front and back will minimize fogging tendencies.  Were they ok for you?

Reply
post #26 of 30
7/4/12 at 1:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uilleann View Post

 

How is the fogging on those O's?  The general rule is more airflow across the lens both front and back will minimize fogging tendencies.  Were they ok for you?

I believe that fogging is not just a goggle issue, but is influenced by how you dress overall. I dress to prevent overheating. So fogging is not really an issue. But there is still some good venting. FWIW I ski in the PNW, so warmer, wet conditions are kind of the norm.

Reply
post #27 of 30
7/4/12 at 2:46pm

I really can't think of anything, but this did remind me that I need to warantee a pair of Smith sensor mirrors that fog between the lenses, and did so right out of the box. They fog when the temperature is below 30F! I've had another pair (platinum mirror) that had the same issue but not until the temps were in the low 20s, the replacement lens worked fine.

 

I couldn't care less about changeable lenses,  I'd rather have multiple pairs of goggles (I think I'm up to seven or eight at this point), but I wouldn't mind if replacement lenses cost less.

Reply
post #28 of 30
7/4/12 at 3:43pm

Lens coating options,more polarized models would be first glance needs.

The second is fit and finish. Thick padding which helps conformity to different shaped faces is nice.

too thin makes for bad fits and integrity troubles when it wears some.

 

 

Warrantied sealed lenses and frames so when they do go bad early in their usage lives there is a value solution that will create user loyalty. Tie that with excellent customer service and a good future will be enabled.

 

Lots of color options for those that enjoy a bit of personal flair or co-ordination

Reply
post #29 of 30
7/15/12 at 8:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uilleann View Post

 

Ha!  Yeah, my biggest problem is finding a goggle ROUND enough for my melon!  :D  Keep it coming all!  Great discussion!

 

 

   Hey Uilleann, I've been wondering if this guy is one of your relatives?

 

 

reddick-Lenser riddick-lenser.jpg

Reply
post #30 of 30
7/16/12 at 3:55pm
Thread Starter 

HOLY COOL!!!!!!  :D

 

I can't say as I've met him before...though I'm guessing he's a snowboarder anyway.  ;) 

 

Little over two weeks and I'll see if I can rattle a few cages at OR...at least I'll pass on the excellent insight from this thread to the various manufacturers and see what everyone has to say.  It's an exhausting show, but I'll try to report back with as much info as I can in short order.

 

Cheers all!

 

Brian~
 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Ski Vision / Goggles and the 12/13 season - your wish list...