Hmmm, maybe I am wrong, but I thought only the spherical lenses had XYZ optics because of the 3D curviture (and agreeably the viariable thickness of the lens). That wouldnt apply to torrics and flat lenses. Again I could be totally wrong but thats what i've always thought. Its the only reason I shy away from cutting M-Frame lenses for custom work. Someone else wanna shed some light on the subject?

Looks like you're right according to Oakley, but they dont really explain how they achieve it with a toric lens. If you think about it, with a toric lens, theres no rake, so how can light focus in the center? Vertically, an image would hit mulitple points without rake. And then there are frames like the mag 4 with absolutely no curvature at all. I cant even begin to explain how that would be considered XYZ.

http://oakley.com/technology/lens_clarity/

Toric lenses have rake. Whereas spherical lenses are based on a spherical blank (doye), toric lenses are based on a torus-shaped blank, which in this case is kind of a football shape. Think an ellipse rotated around its long axis.

Oakley used to make a distinction between spherical-based lenses as XYZ technology and toric-based lenses as Polaric Ellipsoid technology. I think they just refer to it all as XYZ now.

Oh ok that clears it up. I knew there used to be different terms. I guess if they achieve the same result there's nothing wrong with calling it the same thing but there is different science associated with each.

Thanks for all the positive comments!
About the lens clarity:
I can't see anything distored. The clarity is just perfect. The color is just a little bit of getting used to. I can even drive a car like normal. Every green color just gets a little bit more grey, but still recognisable as green.

About the lens cutting:
My OPD has access to a polycarbonate cutter. He said the M-frame lens is made out of Lexan, so that's a bit stronger than polycarbonate, but he thought the cutter would be able to do it.
He first cut the lens in half and cut off the lower points so that the lens was more round. He did this with a 1.5 foot iron saw. They made a picture of that, I just have to get that from the OPD.
The polycarbonate cutter copied the lens that is put in the machine (the original) and replicated that out of the M-frame lens. He could also sign the starting point. That way my lens has the same nosebridge width as the original M-frame, which leads to the best possible clarity.

It was the first time he did anything like that, but I'm glad I let him do it...

Polaric Ellipsoid expired a short while back, so I guess they updated the tech for the toric lenses. Here's a few visuals to show the difference between the Spherical and Toroidal lenses:

Oakley XYZ Spherical

Cheapo dual lense


Oakley XYZ Toric Dual lens (like Gascan)

Cheapo toric


How a Toric lens is a subsection of an ellipse.

Cool Dann, I still dont see how that helps the focal point of a toric lens. There's only horizntal curvature. Ahh well.

Edit: Fig 14 shows that even the toric lenses have slight vertical curvature so I get it now. You probably loose alot of the curve when you cut a Juliet or Penny lens out of it.

Hi. How much does it cost for the lens itself? And why is it that you cant wear it when you are driving?

Nice explanation Dan.

I have another favourite lens colour now!! Green is simply superb. I never liked the Ichiro's Emerald colour but THIS one really ROCKS!!!

High Definition Optics refers to all Oakley Lenses and it DOES matter from where you look behind the lens. Don't think other wise. Your prizm imbalance will be so strong if you look through an M-Frame lens any other way.

XYZ can also refer to the spherical lenses as well. They never really went into detail with this.

Nice Juliets by the way. I notice the Base curve for the lenses is a little too wide though. Oh well. Just don't wear them for too long.