My friend Alan Rider is an adventurer and writer who makes a living having extraordinary experiences and writing about them. Check out his Web site, Alan Rider’s Xtrordinary Xperiences.

Several years ago, we shared one of those experiences: driving Route 66 in a  yellow Corvette so hot you needed quality sunglasses just to look at it:

Howells and Rider on Route 66

Alan recently interviewed me for his site as a service to his adventurous readers, who are likely to wonder the the same things he does about sunglasses. That interview is reproduced below:

Why did you start SunglassesBuyersGuide.com?

I’ve always appreciated any piece of gear that helps me better enjoy the outdoors. Years ago, as a writer for Outside magazine and the editor of the annual Outside Buyer’s Guide, I was fortunate enough to test some great sunglasses, along with binoculars, backpacks, boots, and lots of other gear. I always had a particular fondness for sunglasses—they enhance vision, protect your eyes, and make you look better than you really look. Even if they cost a couple hundred dollars, that’s a bargain. Also, I had cataract surgery last year, which renewed my commitment to protecting my eyes with great shades.

Is there such a thing as an all-around pair of sunglasses, or do you recommend having different designs for different purposes?
While there certainly are multipurpose sunglasses, I suggest owning at least two pairs: one for active sports, another for casual streetwear. Protection is the priority for sports, while fashion and great optics take center stage for everyday sunglasses. For example, I love glass sunglasses—good ones are optically brilliant—but I’d never wear them for sports, because they can shatter. It’s possible to get even more specific, because you might not wear the same sunglasses for, say mountaineering as mountain biking. You’d want very dark lenses for walking across snow slopes, while for mountain biking in and out of the woods you’d want lighter, more contrasty lenses, or maybe versatile photochromic lenses.

What are the most important features you’d recommend someone look for in a new pair of sunglasses?
Let’s call 100% UV protection a given. Next up in importance is the sheer quality of the lenses, their visual acuteness. That’s hard to judge at a glance, which is why I so strongly recommend buying name-brand sunglasses. The major companies do the R&D, the lab work, the ongoing testing, to make sure their lenses are sharp and won’t cause eyestrain. Then comes aptness for the job: a lot of wrap for sports, for example, for peripheral protection.

What should someone expect to pay for a decent pair of shades?
You’re taking your chances when you spend under $100. They may seem good at first, and you congratulate yourself on your bargain-finding prowess. But when you wear them for hours at a time, they’re likely to strain your eyes. You might not even attribute that to your sunglasses; you might just feel crummy, not refreshed after a day in the sun. That said, I’ve found some pretty good sunglasses for under a C-note, and they’re reviewed on my site.

What’s with all these funky lens tints?
A lot of what you think are tints are actually just coatings that you see from the outside. They may or may not have a function. Often their function is, well, to be funky. It’s the base tint that counts—what you see looking through, not at, the shades. There are only a handful of basic base tints, and each has a purpose. Gray and green are color-true and calming. Bronze and copper are high-contrast and great for a range of light conditions. Rose and yellow are for low light.

There are enough brands and styles out there to make your head spin—can you name a handful of your favorite top-quality brands?
My favorites are the ones on my site. I don’t review junk. Maybe I will someday, but it’s generally a waste of time and money to deal with the kinds of sunglasses you find in discount stores or gas stations. And, sad to say, the same goes for a lot of designer sunglasses that people spend $300 or $400 for. You’re paying for a name and a look, not for good lenses. That’s not the case with the more expensive sunglasses on my site. When you fork out for Oakley, Maui Jim, Kaenon, Hobie…you get a great look and great lenses. So my advice is always to buy from companies that make sunglasses, not handbags.

Both winners of the Ford Ironman Triathlon in Kona, Hawaii—and, in fact, every finisher of the race last Saturday—had something in common besides unwavering determination and an astounding level of fitness. They all wore sunglasses. That’s quite a change from a generation ago when most cyclists spurned them and it didn’t even occur to runners to protect their eyes.

Of course, sunglass technology has advanced tremendously since then—better lenses, lighter-weight frames that grip securely without excess pressure, and soft rubber nosepieces that allow shades to ride cozily where they belong with no bounce or slippage.

It was no great surprise that Oakley seemed to be the dominant eyewear of choice. Women’s winner Chrissie Wellington of England (above, Matthew Murray photo) wore a new model called Enduring—the first women’s-specific sport shade.

Men’s winner Craig Alexander of Australia (below/Matthew Murray photo) wore the venerable Oakley Radar. I also noted a smattering of Rudy Project, Nike, Specialized, and Foster Grant in the field as the athletes toiled in a fierce tropical sun and battled capricious crosswinds whipping across black-lava badlands.

Why the dominance of Oakley? It’s an iconic brand that pioneered those sport-shade innovations mentioned above. And, as the crew inside Oakley’s portable laboratory demonstrated for Ironman spectators, the company does exceptional R&D and quality control. The Rolling O showed Oakley’s outstanding performance in a series of ANSI tests for optical quality and impact resistance.

But the proof is really out under the sun. Craig Armstrong told me that he started wearing Oakley long before sponsors slid him free shades. “Down in Australia we’ve always had a consciousness about sun protection. I remember saving up for a pair of mirrored Frogskins. They were the best. I never wanted to wear cheap shades. I’m out in the sun so much—I really have to look after my eyes.”

Chrissie Wellington’s version of Enduring was actually a special-edition Pace Breast Cancer Awareness model in honor of her grandmother, who passed away recently. (Chrissie is pointing to the emblematic pink ribbon in the photo above.) She auctioned her shades after the race to raise money for breast cancer research.

Links

Enduring


Oakley Radar

Paul Azinger is a man of vision. He selected six rookies for the Ryder Cup matches last weekend, juggled his players masterfully, and took the cup back from Europe. Visionary. And speaking of his vision—if you saw his mug on television, you saw some very cool shades that the good folks at Kaenon have identified for us. They are (ta-da!) from Kaenon. Hard Kore to be specific. I happen to own Hard Kore myself, in Kaenon’s polarized bronze tint (Azinger wore it in polarized gray) with 12% visible light transmission. It’s a superb all-around sunglass. Frameless at the bottom, it has an athletic look enhanced by a comfy rubber nosepiece and dollops of nonslip rubber at the temples—but wide temples give it streetside flair. Kaenon’s proprietary SR-91 is a best-of-all-worlds lens material, a plastic with glasslike clarity. Suggested retail is $209, but Hard Kore is available at an amazing price at 6pm.com.

Phil Dalhausser (above) and Todd Rogers were in top form in their gold medal-winning match because, well, they were properly attired. Both are Oakley men. And both wore their Oakleys, replete with lenses, as they beat Brazil yesterday in Beijing. The cynical press had a field day earlier in the Games when Dalhausser and Rogers were spotted wearing their Oakleys minus lenses, due to a fogging problem. Reporters assumed they were under draconian orders from their sponsors. But an Oakley spokesperson assured me two things: 1. The guys didn’t have to wear sunglasses at all. They chose to wear them because they’re used to wearing them. (That’s evident when you see the sunglasses tan lines on their faces.) 2. Oakley has fogproof shades that the guys didn’t happen to opt for. Want ‘em? Free Shipping at Zappos

In the women’s gold-medal match, Kerri Walsh and Misti May-Treanor (pictured) played sans lunettes in a steady rain. Had the sun been shining, you’d have seen them in Bollé-Kerri in Serpent, Misti in Rattler. Check ‘em out at Sunglasses from FramesDirect.

And if you’re wondering about other prominent shades-sporters in these Games, Jeremy Wariner’s omnipresent shields are from Adidas, and Lolo Jones’s from Oakley. Sunglasses from FramesDirect.

Sure, we all marveled at Usain Bolt’s world-record performance in the 200-meter finals yesterday. But the real question on our minds was, “What were those cool shades Walter Dix (bronze medalist) was wearing?” Answer: Oakley Radar.

Why would a track & field athlete wear sunglasses, particularly at night? Reduced glare. Enhanced depth perception. Focus.

Gotta have ‘em? Zappos sells them. zappos.com

Click here for tips on buying the best shades for summer beachgoing.

Savona hails from Serengeti’s Cosmopolitan collection, which means they made me look a whole lot more sophisticated than I am. I strutted around town and sand wearing it in a shiny black frame with the kind of long vertical axis that pleases celebrities (“Hey, look at me! I’m incognito!”) I drew disappointed paparazzi. Neat touch: The inside of the gently wrapped, 6-base frame is done up in a crazy zebra mosaic. But don’t think all the hoopla means Savona skimps on lens quality. Serengeti loads it with a polarized, photochromic (24% to 9% visible light transmission), brown-tint glass they call Drivers. It’s a brilliant lens. Life springs to life. None of that copper wash that some brown tints lay on a scene. Drivers has all the restfulness of a green tint, but with brilliant sharpness—thanks to the wonders of glass and, perhaps, to filters that block bothersome blue light. $189. Buy it: Free Shipping at FramesDirect.com

Got a license to be hip? Then you can legally wear Tron. But you’ll give up nothing optically in the course of making your stand for total coolness. Tron boasts a shield look that’s increasingly popular on the street—that is, a one-piece lens crosses over the nose bridge, and though the wrap is 6-base (seems more like 8), it protects your eyes with gogglelike aplomb. The nonpolarized CR-39 lens with gray base tint is tapered—that is, thinner to the sides of the optical center (see “Optical Clarity” in our handy Glossary). It’s not a lens for super rough stuff, but my, is it at once sharp and restful. But the real reason you want Tron is for its frame detailing—namely, gala side temples, huge and louvered, and outrageously decorated. Mine was black with a splatter paint job, but behold here Tron in pink. And then some. $125. Buy it: Free Shipping at Zappos

The large, very masculine Embargo was issued to me in the leopardlike Havana frame with a polarized brown lens (14 percent VLT), and I wouldn’t have it any other way. (Though you’ve got lots of frame and lens options.) The 8-base wrapped frame is superthick at the corners of your eyes for max pro against sidelighting. Smith works wonders with lenses. These issue the expected “Wow,” but with a small side order of “Ahh.” Clarity is excellent—Smith tapers its lenses for impeccable resolution. Every detail at the beach will pop, even as the sun sinks slowly in whatever direction it’s going. $119. Buy it: framesdirect.com.

I wanted to believe.

You’ve seen the ads in the magazines. Free sunglasses. Supposedly for promotional purposes. I bit.

Now, I did have to fork out for postage and handling. But $18 for polarized sport shades with interchangeable lenses? Cool.

I wanted to believe.

I wore the brown lenses during a few bike rides. If you like the world in soft focus—a layer of brown gauze draped over life—these babies are for you.

Then I had a chance to test them out in an optical laboratory. The claimed near-perfect “actuity” (sic) didn’t pan out. Duh. When a diopter scope projected a definition pattern to represent their optical clarity, the pattern shifted way off axis and fuzzed out so that the evenly spaced test lines blurred together. It hurt to look at it.

The lab then tested their impact resistance. (The maker made no claims on this score, though I like to count on sport shades for some degree of protection.) The first standardized test, firing a little steel ball at the center of a lens, popped the lens right out. The second test, dropping a weighted cylinder, shattered the other lens to smithereens. Decent shades with polycarbonate lenses pass these tests with maybe a scratch or two. I now own an empty frame that retains just a few sharp shards.

Free sunglasses. Worth every penny.

The Tour de France is always a showcase of races within the race. So who’s winning the battle for sunglasses dominance in the 2008 Tour? So far it’s Oakley , although Rudy Project took today’s stage.

The first five stage winners all sported Oakleys: Alejandro Valverde (above), Thor Hushovd, Samuel Dumoulin, Stefan Schumacher, and Mark Cavendish. The current wearer of the yellow jersey, Kim Kirchen, is also an Oakley rider. (He and Cavendish both ride for the USA’s Team Columbia .)

Rudy Project got on the leaderboard today with a win by Italy’s Riccardo Ricco (below). But guess who forgot to put on his shades this morning? Oops.

Not to worry. Rudy Project has some great riders in the Tour, including Denis Menchov and Oscar Freire, both contenders for the yellow. Look for Oakley and Rudy Project to duke it out for the, uh, iridium jersey the next two and a half weeks.