What a prize, the knowledge of knowing the answer should be more than enough on your quest to know all about the "O"ly grail

Roger Byrne (SCOOBY - 10/29/2004 1:59:35 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

by the way, FACTOR is right so its H S Factor.

Roger Byrne (SCOOBY - 10/29/2004 2:00:40 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

..."besides Unobtainium is hydrophillic not hydrophobic"
Aww crap :( I am hanging my head in shame, I guess I just failed Oakley 101!
You'd think after 9 years of wearing Oakley stuff I would've got that by now...


adam moore (adamjmoore - 10/29/2004 2:15:19 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

...i thought it was hydrophobic. but i guess water doesn't bead off of it, so maybe not

John Heins (john - 10/29/2004 2:43:13 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

It absorbs the water so it can become tacky....and then secrete that goo, and fall apart.

Dann Thombs (Dann - 10/29/2004 4:36:39 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

ah. haven't seen it hit those final stages yet

John Heins (john - 10/29/2004 4:42:05 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

hey Phil, no prob! anytime to show off some Oakleys... Ed, thanks for the comments! ^_^

hey EC, i can't compare with any of the Performance watches as i don't have any, but the keeper on the Analogs are pretty soft, although the original Crush has a bit more trouble with the strap getting in. as for the Unobtanium band itself, they're precurved into the body of the watch as Phil mentioned, so they're pretty comfortable. as for the keeper on the Performance watches, i remember reading that they tend to tear from usage.

Scooby, do you ever find yourself sniffing at the Unobtanium band every now and then, cos i do... ^_^ they do smell like vanilla. as for the Crush looking like the Bullet, i totally don't mind a cheaper watch looking almost exactly like one that's over two times more expensive. i actually like the Crush's design a bit more than the Crush 2.0, the O icon is set inside a sculpted indent, while on the Crush 2.0 it looks like it's just applied on the watch face. also, the crystal on the Crush is beveled in the body, reducing risk of scratching while the Crush 2.0 is flush. i also like the Crush's crown design, it looks more unique than the Crush 2.0's ordinary looking chrome crown. what i do like about the Crush 2.0 more is how the Unobtanium band is integrated with the body.

no idea what HSF stands for...

W.B. Ng (bong - 10/29/2004 5:42:20 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Does anyone out there own an Icon? I haven't seen many of these around.

Ed Chiu (eddyc - 10/29/2004 9:27:21 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

The Icon is exactly the same as the size as a time bomb apart from the flared sides, most think the icon is smaller but its just an illusion. The face Attchment and internals are exactly the same. So if the icon fits you so will the Time Bomb.

Roger Byrne (SCOOBY - 10/30/2004 6:34:16 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Crush and crush 2.0 are designed to appeal to 2 different types of customer, Crush being the more aggressive design aimed at the skate / surf lifestyles. Crush 2.0 to the person who likes a more traditional look and a watch that looks just as good when worn with a shirt and tie.

It was cool that crush looks so much like Bullet, but it does lead to confusion in some of the stores.

Roger Byrne (SCOOBY - 10/30/2004 6:37:51 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------