What is your main hold-back...

[Fezz]

I have been using more and more of it. I am pleased that it is available in the progressive lens brands that I mostly use(Shamir Genesis, Younger Image). I have been playing around with pricing and may slowly fade out poly due to what I feel is the superior product=Trivex/Trilogy/Phoenix. I wish that Shamir would put it out in their Piccolo design though! The rep told me that it will be out late this month (Feb) or early March. But i have not heard anything else about that. Does anybody else have more info?

Fezz
:cheers:

[hcjilson]

You are in a unique position with the ability to provide your product in any of the materials in the industry. If we set aside the obvious advantage of polarization (currently available in Poly and CR39 only), which product do you prefer personally?

I ask this question with the knowledge that all products we are discussing are representative of the best this industry can offer, each with certain inherent advantages. I just was curious as to preference.

tx from hj

[hcjilson]

photo supplied by Billy Brock some time ago..Trivex blank stops vehicle!!

[rinselberg]

You are in a unique position with the ability to provide your product in any of the materials in the industry. If we set aside the obvious advantage of polarization -- currently available in Poly and CR39 only -- which product do you prefer personally? ...

Hello Harry!

Optima now offers SV lenses in polarized 1.67 high index. The product is called Optima PolarTech 1.67:

http://www.optima-hyper.com/fpress.htm


And I have been reading on the Internet about polarized plano sunglasses in Nxt, which is another name for Trivex. So perhaps polarized Rx lenses in Trivex are not too far around the corner.

Regards from rinselberg

[rinselberg]

And I forget to mention the names of three sunglass manufacturers that offer polarized lenses (including Rx options) in Trivex-like materials:

1. Kaenon Polarized
2. Ice Tech Advanced Polarized Sunglasses
3. Rudy Project USA

ALL three have websites.

[For-Life]

That is great except I can get Airwear Aspheric Alize (stock) for a third of the price and 1.67 TL Aspheric Alize (stock) for almost half the price that I pay for Phoenix Super Hi.

[hcjilson]

Thanks Ron,
I wouldn't want to have been hanging since I needed single vision lenses! Only progressives for me from now on! :):)

[Billy Brock]

SPECS, great post about comparing attributes ! Great way to make an informed judgement !

HC, LOL LOL ...... the good ol' Mr. Hanlin speed bump ! .... lol lol :)

IMHO a cheeeeeper product may sometimes be selected as a financialconsideration????..... Poly and 1.67(again just my opinion) areincategories different from Trivex and all 3 have important roles intheindustry.

Many wonder why some practitioners base product utilitydecisionson $$$$$$ ? ? ? ? ?........ where have "best product for thebest solution" values gone?

B

[CEO]

Although Poly is still an bigger part of my business in total volume, I usually personally wear Trilogy. Most of the time I wear rimless frames and I like the light weight, chemical resistance and strength of Trilogy with Rimless. Also, I am one of those sensitive to poly's optics, however, I also realize that this does not affect everyone equally. Every person is unique.

In designing lenses or materials, I really try to put aside personal preferences, and sometimes it is hard. I try to take seriously problems other people have, or market niches to be filled, irregardless if they personally affect me. I am not a very big market potential.

[For-Life]

Many wonder why some practitioners base product utilitydecisionson $$$$$$ ? ? ? ? ?........ where have "best product for thebest solution" values gone?

B

Ask Sam Walton

The problem is that even stores that sell a differentiated product have to be concerned with keeping costs low. If I rated a product on a scale of 0 to 100 should I charge twice or three times as much for 100 when you know the customer will be more than satisfied with a 90 or 95?

[drk]

If I rated a product on a scale of 0 to 100 should I charge twice or three times as much for 100 when you know the customer will be more than satisfied with a 90 or 95?

For-Life has a good point, there. Practical.

You know, why are we really drawing a comparison between poly and trivex? Their differences exceed their similarities.

Trivex is best compared to CR-39, in my opinion. It is "super plastic". It has optics like CR-39, looks like CR-39, but is a little thinner, a lot lighter, and a lot tougher. It's a natural upgrade for CR-39-oriented opticals.

Polycarbonate is best compared to 1.6 and other higher indices, maybe even 1.67. The optics are similar (from all objective standards), it's drillable, strong, thin and inexpensive.

High index is 1.59, 1.6, 1.67, 1.71 etc. These all fit in the same category: "the thinner lenses that sacrifice optics".

Mid-index is 1.54, 1.52, and CR is 1.5. These all fit in another category: "the thicker lenses that do not sacrifice optics."

Why do we compare the two? One is the top end of the mid-indices and one is the low-end of the high indices. They have totally different roles. The similarities are really only in impact resistance, and that they are the lightest in their respective categories.

I think an argument can be made either way, when faced with a higher than normal Rx: go high index and go "cosmetic", or go mid-index and go "vision". Depends on your philosophy and/or patient.

The confusing part is deciding on the low Rx. CR-39 and polycarbonate would be the natural top candidates because of low cost (glass, too, if you're a hard-core). Optics are fine in poly in low ranges. Built-in UV, impact resistance, workability, etc., I think, make this a polycarb no-brainer. That's an upgrade that is very affordable. Poly makes a superb basic lens.

Trivex's role in the low Rx can be extolled as well, but really, that's a pricier upgrade. You cannot really position Trivex as a basic lens, but as a premium lens.

I would look at it this way:

1.) Basic lens: polycarbonate

2.) Premium lenses
a.) low Rx: Trivex
b.) high Rx: 1.67 (or your favorite high-index)

That, I think, is a reasonable positioning scenario. Board's thoughts?

[Specs]

I think the poly vs. Trivex is due to the safety factor of the Trivex and the superior abbe value in a safety lens. My 2 cents.

[canuck]

drk, good points. It's obvious that there's much to be said about this topic and in the overall scheme of things everyone has a good point. An argument can always be made if you consider only the factors that are important to YOU. Price, optics, cosmetics, scratch resistance, weight, etc.

Overall though, Trivex is truley a great innovation.

• Optics like CR39. We all argree on that.
• Impact resistance of poly. We all agree on that. In fact, no other lens material in the world shares this property. We have waited 20 years for this development and rather than embracing it we argue against it.
• It's the lightest weight material on the market (specific gravity of 1.1). Poly is similar, I'll agree but Trivex is still the LIGHTEST and provides one of those rare marketing opportunities that don't come by often and will pass you by if you do nothing about it (remeber FEATHERWEIGHTS). Consumers love this stuff!
• Material stregth and stability. No cracks at the hole after drilling! Have you ever had a patient that spent >$350 for galsses in a nice drill mount and then have little cracks arond the drill holes. Think about how you'd feel if that was you're money. Expensive glasses that look like dollar store stuff. It is your image that is at stake here folks.
• Thickness reduction better than CR39, similar to poly up to -3.00 (if you argue this then you are simply splitting hairs). The core of your business (anywhere from 65% to 75% of it) is made in the range of Rx between -2.00 to +2.00, so why the debate about thickness. In plus power, there is no comparison.
• Trivex is just as thin, is lighter, better optics, better scratch resistance, holds AR coatings for LIFE, etc.Blah, blah, blah.....

For the majority of your business you must have a plan. That plan should be to offer the BEST options first and market them to your patients. Let them make the decision, you'll be suprised. It works. The result of your plan is that you lab bill will most likely go up a bit, but so will your profits!!!$$$!!! What a nice change. You also differentiate from your competition. Differentiate or die!

OK, I've said enough.

Cheers :cheers:

[Clive Noble]

We make a lot of Rimless drilled mounts and for ever were experiencing problems with Poly but had to use it for these frames.
Since Trivex entered our lives, non adapts are very rare and every other problem associated with Poly has vanished.

Unfortunately we have to use Poly every now and then, but that isgetting rarer with the introductions of high index drillable materials

My vote is Trivex if the Rx is not too high.