Compare visors.

[B-Nads 0]

I am switching to a full face protection after nearly losing 2 teeth Monday night. I cannot stand cages, so I am between the Itech FX50 and the Oakley full-face combo. Any input on your pref and why?

[Patrick67 1]

FX50.... Itech visors take normal cleaning solution, Oakleys blur if you use anything but Oakley AFR solution.... That's been my experiance anyway.

FX50 makes you look like a UFO though... but's it's hockey, not a beauty contest.

[B-Nads 0]

FX50.... Itech visors take normal cleaning solution, Oakleys blur if you use anything but Oakley AFR solution.... That's been my experiance anyway.

FX50 makes you look like a UFO though... but's it's hockey, not a beauty contest.

AFR is not a prob - I currently have it since my aviator is an Oakley. I was concerned more with periferal and downward vision. As for the look, anything that covers my face is an improvement. :P

[Chadd 916]

Only complaint I've heard about the Itech is that it is a little heavy and can shift your helmet a bit forward.

[louis 0]

Tried that last time i got stitches , 5 games later went back to the half visor!

Tried cages and the combo ...I just can't get used to it .

Oakley would be a little better , The itech fogs up more and weights a ton on the helmet !

Good luck to ya !

[jbyun04 7]

from my experience Itech doesn't offer the vision that Oakley does, it fogs up more and it scratches easier.

[sds 0]

my review of the itech is waiting for approval. I'll probably add to it now that I see some issues raised here.

Fogging: I have ZERO issues with fogging. I'm not sure what is going on w/ others, but it is not an issue for me.

Scratching: I have nothing to compare it to. I do have a few scratches on mine after several games, but nothing that I would call unacceptable.

Weight: It is heavier than a cage. I do not notice it out on the ice though.

Vision: I can't compare to the oakley, but I love the vision I have coming from an iTech cage. maybe the oakley is better, but I am satisfied.

Fit: The chin doesn't cup as well on the FX50 as their cages do. If I strap it tight - the helmet shifts forward. If I loosen up, the helmet is fine and the chin cup lightly touches my chin.

Cost: replacement visors are much less expensive on the iTech

[B-Nads 0]

The only issue I might have is that some people have reported fitting problems between the Oakley full combo on NBH helmets - my lid is a NBH5500L.

[theone96 0]

Oakley visor combo has been good for me. I had fitting issues with the Itech. It is lighter too.

[kärpät 0]

I have a medium Rbk 8k helmet and i can't fit my large nbh 8500 cage could a Medium fit? Or a oakley visor combo wich one would be right med or large?

[TBLfan 25]

medium. The size of the cage should match the size of the helmet. A 8500 is a wide cage so you might still have some fit issues (as I do with my 692) but with the right j-clips it works.

[halfmoonyote 0]

I am switching to a full face protection after nearly losing 2 teeth Monday night. I cannot stand cages, so I am between the Itech FX50 and the Oakley full-face combo. Any input on your pref and why?

I have BOTH of these combos. I started with the FX50 but switched to the Oak.

Here are the major differences I found, and why I switched to the Oakley:

1.) Weight. The ITech is MUCH heavier than the oakley. There isn't even a comparison. The weight of the ITech pulls your helmet forward and your constantly pulling it back. Which leads to my next point...

2.) Visibility. I would give the Itech a 1 rating out of 10 for visibility for several different reason. First, with the weight, it constantly pulls your helmet forward (as mentioned) and with that, reduces your visibility. You are constantly looking at the top rim of your helmet.

When the helmet is in 'normal' position, the visor curve on the Itech blurs or distorts your perception when you are looking down at the puck. It is frustrating. I found myself trying to look through the bottom cage wickets to find the puck. At that, I might as well have just stayed with a full cage.

Peripheral: The Itech has bars on either side of your eyes, similar to that of a football facemask, so your periphal is majorly hindered. The Oak has full periphery vision.

The MAJOR difference is visor size. The Itech has 'less' visor than the Oak does. The Itech has 3 cage wickets, and less visor, whereas the Oak has 2 cage wickets and MORE visor.

The chin cup is much more comfortable on the Oak.

The only gripe I have about the Oak is that it fogs and condensates very easily. It seems like I am constantly wiping it between shifts. I am going to try a fog spray to see if it helps.

If you need more info, PM me, and I can send you detailed pics of both masks.

For the money though, I would recommend the Oakley.

[sds 0]

1.) Weight. The ITech is MUCH heavier than the oakley. There isn't even a comparison. The weight of the ITech pulls your helmet forward and your constantly pulling it back. Which leads to my next point...

just how loose is your helmet? My helmet fits well and there is no pulling on it. The only reason my helmet tips forward is to get the chin cup snug.

2.) Visibility. I would give the Itech a 1 rating out of 10 for visibility for several different reason. First, with the weight, it constantly pulls your helmet forward (as mentioned) and with that, reduces your visibility. You are constantly looking at the top rim of your helmet.

When the helmet is in 'normal' position, the visor curve on the Itech blurs or distorts your perception when you are looking down at the puck. It is frustrating. I found myself trying to look through the bottom cage wickets to find the puck. At that, I might as well have just stayed with a full cage.

I have not experienced any of this. Everywhere I look through the shield it looks just fine.

Peripheral: The Itech has bars on either side of your eyes, similar to that of a football facemask, so your periphal is majorly hindered. The Oak has full periphery vision.

This is overstated plain and simple. While I can't compare the two, the peripheral vision on the itech is in no way "majorly hindered". IT may be better on the oakley, but I haven't noticed any lack of vision on the itech, let alone "majorly".

The MAJOR difference is visor size. The Itech has 'less' visor than the Oak does. The Itech has 3 cage wickets, and less visor, whereas the Oak has 2 cage wickets and MORE visor.

you might want to correlate this with your fogging issues. I have no fogging in my itech which is probably due to the smaller visor you are complaining about.

For the money though, I would recommend the Oakley.

The Oakley may very well be a nice visor and the iTech may not have worked out for you, but I just wanted to point out that not everyone has these complaints.

Not to mention the tool-less design of the iTech makes it very convenient to replace the shield or pop off the full assembly for a skate and shoot.

[halfmoonyote 0]

The Oakley may very well be a nice visor and the iTech may not have worked out for you, but I just wanted to point out that not everyone has these complaints.

Not to mention the tool-less design of the iTech makes it very convenient to replace the shield or pop off the full assembly for a skate and shoot.

Hey Man - he was asking for experiences - I gave him mine.

No need to piss on my neck and tell me it's raining, ok?

Instead of spending time trying to debunk someone else's experiences to make yourself seem like a hockey svengali, why don't you simply state YOUR experiences?

By the way, I actually play hockey.

[sds 0]

Hey Man - he was asking for experiences - I gave him mine.

No need to piss on my neck and tell me it's raining, ok?

Instead of spending time trying to debunk someone else's experiences to make yourself seem like a hockey svengali, why don't you simply state YOUR experiences?

By the way, I actually play hockey.

if you can't take rebuttals to your over embellished posts - don't write them. Many people rely on these reviews to make their purchasing decisions and some of your claims are curious to say the least.

Let's just take a look at your point about looking down at the puck. Unless you turn your head at a 90 degree angle and look straight downwards - you HAVE to look through the cage. The visor is too small to do otherwise. You said the visor was too small yourself, yet you make a grand point about all the distortion. So, where is the distortion coming from? From looking straight through the visor?

I apologize if half your post didn't make sense to me, but I think it is worthwhile to others who may be considering an FX50 purchase to point out that some of your claims may be disputable.

Now, if you could point me to the board that is for people who talk about hockey equipment, but don't play - I'll make my way over there and leave the real "players" alone. <_<

[qmechanic 17]

I use an FX50 combo with a medium Nike Bauer 8500 helmet. I like it. As another poster mentioned, I wouldn't call the FX50 pretty (makes your head look like a bubble), but the vision is great. The FX50 started fogging up after a few games, but it's fine if I remember to spray it with anti-fog before a game. One problem with the FX50 is that it might be small for you if you have a large head. The FX50 only comes in one adult size the last time I checked.

[jokerit1967 0]

Let's just take a look at your point about looking down at the puck. Unless you turn your head at a 90 degree angle and look straight downwards - you HAVE to look through the cage. The visor is too small to do otherwise. You said the visor was too small yourself, yet you make a grand point about all the distortion. So, where is the distortion coming from? From looking straight through the visor? blink.gif

I purchased both the Itech and the Oakley combos. The Oakley fogged up less, I'm not sure why. The Itech also had more distortion, and limited peripheral vision because of the aforementioned reasons above... I expected the Itech to have greater distortion since Oakley as a company prides themselves on making strong eye wear material that is also supposed to be more optically correct than glass... however, I have done no outside research to find out whether or not Oakley actually manufactures their shields (I did hear that they didn't - although I never bothered to try to verify this...) and even if they don't manufacture it they still could have requested a strong and more optically correct material or spec from whomever manufactures the shields, or they may actually have outsourced the manufacture while providing the formulation or materials from which to make the shield.

As far as owning the patents to superior optically correct polymers I still think it would more likely be in Oakley's stable rather than Itechs...since Oakley is a premium eye wear lens manufacturer. There is an aviator/pilot's magazine excerpt that I have somewhere rating Oakley plutonite iridium lenses as more optically correct than any of the other eye wear manufacturer's in the comparison such as Bolle, Ray Ban, Revo, Maui Jim, etc. So aside from personal experience it shouldn't surprise anyone if in fact (yes if) the Oakley shields are more optically correct than Itech's. What I expect from Itech is making shields that are somehow more aesthetically pleasing or more functional as far as mounting, etc. to the normal hockey buyer since they've been involved in hockey much longer.... but as far as optics Oakley would have the edge both in R&D and flat-out $ power to make something more optically correct than Itech would.... (although I do not exclude the possiblity of Itech being somewhat fortuitous in developing a more optically correct polymer...nor the possibility of their licensing a better polymer than Oakley uses for hockey purposes...)

If an objective test proves that Itech's shields are more optically correct than Oakley's might be that hockey shield/combo buyers are projected as unwilling to spend the amount of money that would be required to bring an optically correct hockey shield to market.... (retail on a replacement lens for M-Frames ranges from $35-$70 (MAP) and the hockey shield being much larger...would probably have to put the retail of such a shield at higher than they think hockey consumers are willing to pay.

[The Stranger 0]

How is the length on the Oakley? I bought an fx50 because I had the hx50 already for the convenince of tool-less switch between the two and sharing of lenses, but I found it too short to fit my Bertuzzi-face properly. It also didn't really fit my helmet perfectly either since it is oddly a little narrower than the hx50 .

[sds 0]

I'll updating my review, but as an FYI - my LHS fixed my fitting issue. The cage was catching on something. they just tweaked the cage a little and it snaps in fine now. A marginal fit is now a great fit.

[sds 0]

just as a courtesy to those researching the FX50 who may have read my initial review in the equipment review section - I have updated it w/ new information...

[halfmoonyote 0]

Seems our experiences aren't so different after all, champ.

;)

[sds 0]

Seems our experiences aren't so different after all, champ.

;)

some experiences may be similar - the interpretations are not.

- My helmet does not pull forward.

- I have no distortion problems

- I love the visibility (you gave it a 1/10)

- The reduced periphery is so small that I didn't even notice it until I specifically looked for it. After seeing it, I dismissed it as a non-issue it was so small.

So, while you gave the impression you hated the combo - I fully endorse it and would recommend it to anyone looking for a visor that protects your face too.

[rwshockey55 0]

I have had both itech and oakley, and i prefer oakley.. like the rest have said oakley seems to have clearer vision, and less fogging.. this is my personal experience.