Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 57

Thread: Trivex

  1. #26
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by Hayde View Post
    Are the scratches deep enough to penetrate the coatings? If not, I think you're on the right track. I'd suspect other variables before I suspected the trivex. (And I'm not above doing the sound test on lenses to make sure they're not poly when I didn't order poly. Haven't caught many mistakes this way, but I've caught a couple over the years.)

    90% trivex! I thought I was hard core with my 50-55%!
    Coatings are EX3 and Recharge, which is why I'm curious-- EX3 is supposed to have glass-level scratch resistance. The scratches tend to be small and superficial-- not many long, large scratches, but tiny pittings.

    ETA: Running a report, looks like I overestimated slightly. Trivex is about 75%. Still a nice number. Poly's number two at 20%, CR-39 and Hi-Index tie for third.

  2. #27
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Saint Louis
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    141

    Ranges

    Slightly off topic as well, but can someone post the + and -ranges for trivex that generate success.

  3. #28
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Central Texas
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    526
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmoon View Post
    Slightly off topic as well, but can someone post the + and -ranges for trivex that generate success.
    Lotta variables there. Frame selection can make this vary widely, but clear SV Trivex does come in aspheric to help extend its cosmetic reach. The older patient set is a real blessing in that they're much more concerned with optics and durability than cosmetics, but still a good old roll and polish can still do wonders. I generally wont' recommend Trivex outside -4.50 to +3.50 unless there's a real need for durability that hi-index can't provide and they've already proven finicky with poly.

  4. #29
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    248
    How do ya'll handle stock finished vs. surfaced?
    Some times I find it difficult to resist the 1.60
    I fully appreciate Trivex! In fact I wear it both my suns/saftey but also my handsomely sporty Adidas RMGs :-D

    I've found some well produced and well priced stock Trivex and use it as often as I can.

    The life of an optician is full of so many choices!

    CS

  5. #30
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Maryland
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Sphinxsmith View Post
    I've found some well produced and well priced stock Trivex and use it as often as I can.
    What brand?

  6. #31
    Compulsive Truthteller OptiBoard Gold Supporter Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    At a position without dimension...
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,978
    My biggest motivator to recommend it is the tensile strength.

    For those not sure of what that is it's the "stiffness" of the material so lenses stay seated where poly tends to flex and pop out. Especially out of the top of bezels.

  7. #32
    Eyes eastward... Uilleann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,018

    Idea

    It's interesting that so many extol the vastly "superior" optics of Trivex. Why not just use CR39 - which is far superior optically yet again (since it seems Abbe value is the end-all be-all factor in "superior" optics here)? It's cheaper, available in EVERY lens design, thickness isn't all that different based on a three point difference against Trivex - and given that poly is a whopping 6 points towards the thinner end of things), and has superior scratch resistance as well.

    Its more than just a little silly with all the perfectly viable lens material options out there, that so many other choices (yes, even including poly, used intelligently) are summarily off the table in many of the dispensaries represented above. Trivex is a fine option for some Rxs - but is far from the second coming of the Messiah.

  8. #33
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,010
    Its more than just a little silly with all the perfectly viable lens material options out there, that so many other choices (yes, even including poly, used intelligently) are summarily off the table in many of the dispensaries represented above. Trivex is a fine option for some Rxs - but is far from the second coming of the Messiah. [/QUOTE]

    Actually the first syllable, tri means three. The holy trinity; Father, Son, and The Holy Ghost. You can't get much more Messiahesque and Trivex has redeemed us of our polycarbonate sins. Hallelujah brother
    I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it. Mark Twain

  9. #34
    Eyes eastward... Uilleann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,018
    Thankfully, there are a growing number of atheist dispensers! ;)

  10. #35
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Down in a hole!
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    13,055
    Quote Originally Posted by uilleann View Post
    it's interesting that so many extol the vastly "superior" optics of trivex. Why not just use cr39 - which is far superior optically yet again (since it seems abbe value is the end-all be-all factor in "superior" optics here)? It's cheaper, available in every lens design, thickness isn't all that different based on a three point difference against trivex - and given that poly is a whopping 6 points towards the thinner end of things), and has superior scratch resistance as well.

    Its more than just a little silly with all the perfectly viable lens material options out there, that so many other choices (yes, even including poly, used intelligently) are summarily off the table in many of the dispensaries represented above. Trivex is a fine option for some rxs - but is far from the second coming of the messiah.


    no guinness for you!!!

  11. #36
    Eyes eastward... Uilleann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,018
    Fezz, that's the best part - us Guinness drinkers prefer GLASS pints for it's vastly superior optical properties. Nitro drafts just don't settle out right in Trivex pint containers. And it makes it go all skunky. ;)

  12. #37
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Central Texas
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    526
    Quote Originally Posted by Uilleann View Post
    It's interesting that so many extol the vastly "superior" optics of Trivex. Why not just use CR39 - which is far superior optically yet again (since it seems Abbe value is the end-all be-all factor in "superior" optics here)? It's cheaper, available in EVERY lens design, thickness isn't all that different based on a three point difference against Trivex - and given that poly is a whopping 6 points towards the thinner end of things), and has superior scratch resistance as well.

    Its more than just a little silly with all the perfectly viable lens material options out there, that so many other choices (yes, even including poly, used intelligently) are summarily off the table in many of the dispensaries represented above. Trivex is a fine option for some Rxs - but is far from the second coming of the Messiah.

    Uilleann, no offense but I think your post jumps the strawman shark a little. I didn't see any materials regarded as summarily off the table in any part of the discussion so far. I'm sure you know why CR39 is problematic for many patients where durability and UV coating dynamics are an issue. The point I gather from the thread is that trivex is fine option for most Rxs.

    Edit:
    In fact I'll go one further, Trivex is the most logical first recommendation for most Rxs. A near-ideal union of reliable optics & superior physical performance makes an easier and more efficient decision tree when Trivex' shortcomings come into play. When the patient elects to alter materials for whatever reason, then the patient owns the respective risks of poly or CR39 instead of the optical.
    Last edited by Hayde; 10-31-2014 at 09:29 AM.

  13. #38
    Eyes eastward... Uilleann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Hayde View Post
    Uilleann, no offense but I think your post jumps the strawman shark a little. I didn't see any materials regarded as summarily off the table in any part of the discussion so far. I'm sure you know why CR39 is problematic for many patients where durability and UV coating dynamics are an issue. The point I gather from the thread is that trivex is fine option for most Rxs.

    Edit:
    In fact I'll go one further, Trivex is the most logical first recommendation for most Rxs. A near-ideal union of reliable optics & superior physical performance makes an easier and more efficient decision tree when Trivex' shortcomings come into play. When the patient elects to alter materials for whatever reason, then the patient owns the respective risks of poly or CR39 instead of the optical.
    No offense taken at all. Yet interestingly, this is precisely the sort of narrow thought process I was alluding to. Trivex is anything but an end-all, be-all magic lens for anything even remotely close to "most" SRxs when one steps away from the Kool-Aid. It is fine is a limited scope, but to ignore everything else - particularly when based upon the absolutely absurd Abbe argument in the low low powers it is most likely to be utilized - certainly jumps the shark as you put it! :)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Fonzie_jumps_the_shark.PNG 
Views:	40 
Size:	71.4 KB 
ID:	11477

    Happy Samhain to you!

  14. #39
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Central Texas
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    526
    Quote Originally Posted by Uilleann View Post
    No offense taken at all. Yet interestingly, this is precisely the sort of narrow thought process I was alluding to. Trivex is anything but an end-all, be-all magic lens for anything even remotely close to "most" SRxs when one steps away from the Kool-Aid. It is fine is a limited scope, but to ignore everything else - particularly when based upon the absolutely absurd Abbe argument in the low low powers it is most likely to be utilized - certainly jumps the shark as you put it! :)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Fonzie_jumps_the_shark.PNG 
Views:	40 
Size:	71.4 KB 
ID:	11477

    Happy Samhain to you!
    LOL go Fonz!

    I don't think he's gonna clear the hyperbole you've stacked up tho! : P

    I don't believe I said abbe was the sole factor in optical quality--nor did I see anyone else say that either. (When you're arguing against what someone didn't say, that's a strawman argument: )


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Scarecrow.jpg 
Views:	26 
Size:	48.7 KB 
ID:	11478

    As I said, it's way too easy for selling opticians to exaggerate the chromatic abberation risk, and too many do. I hate that professionals dispense off of vague numberless anecdotes and I don't endorse doing so. Yet anecdotes like moo2a's are illustrative that poly has a relatively high risk (compared to any other material) of inviting optical issues--and frequently enough where we wouldn't have anticipated them beforehand. If I can get my optical off the roullette wheel of wondering if any given patient is one of those inexplicable sensitive types who are poly non-adapts (abbe-driven or whatever the heck it is m0002a and a slew of other patients struggle with despite being in a moderate Rx)--that's attractive to me.

    Far, far, far more importantly, like Uncle Fester noted, tensile strength: blows poly away. It's not magical thinking or propaganda Kool-Aid that sold me on Trivex's durability advantages. It was just an empirical discovery in my lab. My optical can (and does) position itself with fewer warpages, stress marks, stress fractures, and potential chemical issues--and most of all: delays! They just don't trouble me or the patients who cough up the +$20 to $40 any longer. My warranties have almost entirely disappeared.

    Is my testimony (or any string of comments on a message board thread) statistically valid data for industrywide consumption of kool-aid? Not at all. But my data in my lab was statistically valid for my consumption and decisionmaking. I encourage any operation to test the results for themselves. For good control data have a stable lab staff intact and chained; rapid learning curves with or without turnover will foul up your experiment. Do diligent recordkeeping for a year leaving poly in the 'default' sales slot. (Spectacle lens sales count, broken down by material. Track only the lab remakes and lens warranties of the sales included in the volume tracking--of course tying the remake to the correct lens material column. Remake rate per lens material.) Switch to prioritizing Trivex the next year and watch the numbers on lab wastes, redos, and warranties.

    So if I can eradicate a number of individually rare (but collectively not insignificant) number of problems for patients and myself by prescribing Trivex, the question then becomes: In which situation is Trivex optically less preferable than poly? In which case is Trivex less durable or less reliable than poly?

    Poly is still my default choice for kids. They're replacing specs frequently anyway that I know getting 3 years out of the lenses is a lost cause. So broaden my thinking: for most Rxs of mild strength prescriptions, when is poly or CR39 preferable?


    Happy Halloween, partner!

  15. #40
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    262
    How has this debate aged? Poly vs Trivex still the same as it was 8 years ago
    Last edited by NAICITPO; 04-15-2022 at 05:25 PM.

  16. #41
    Eyes eastward... Uilleann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,018
    Trivex is still more expensive.

    And currently it's widely backordered - or simply non existant in many lenses.

    It remains heavier than poly due to its lower index.

    But PPG needs mo money, so be sure to order it every time!


  17. #42
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    262
    Also make sure you order every trivex lens with blue light protection

  18. #43
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    usa
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    749
    Quote Originally Posted by Uilleann View Post
    Trivex is still more expensive.
    I just looked at 3 different lab price lists for uncuts and Trivex was $5-10 dollars more across the board. For the lenses and labs I use anyway YMMV. To me a price is non-issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uilleann View Post
    And currently it's widely backordered - or simply non existant in many lenses.
    The only instances of backorders I have run into were trivex round segs(who cares), FTs wider than a 28(also not a big deal) and 7x28 for a short period. Maybe I can't get something like a transitions 7x28 or some other odd ball thing but it's going to be a rarely if ever used option. Otherwise zero issues with backorders.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uilleann View Post
    It remains heavier than poly due to its lower index.
    This is incorrect. Trivex is almost always going to be the lightest weight option compared to any other material due to the specific gravity(density). Trivex will be lighter than poly, in any normal Rx and frame combination, but only by 2-3 tenths of a gram. If you fit a -10.00 in a 57 eye then sure the tables turn and poly is a tenth or two of a gram lighter than trivex. Suffice it to say. Weight is a non factor between the two and they will both always be lighter weight than high index lenses.

    You could make an argument that poly in thinner than Trivex, which it obviously is in most cases. But again if we look at reasonable frame fits the difference in thickness is going to be negligible. Even in what I would consider a poor fit like a -5.50 in a 54-16 PD of 60(5mm decetration per eye) only nets you about a half millimeter of thickness difference.

    In plus lenses I think the advantages go to trivex over poly, especially for grooved or rimless frames. I can groove and drill knife edge trivex and know that I will have no issues with it, ever. Don't think I would do the same with poly. Now, if you have a lab with a dumb policy that every drill mount needs a 2.4 edge thickness or some nonsense then this goes out the window. But if you are ordering uncuts and edging in house, trivex for plus lenses is amazing.

    Then the coatings. As far as I can tell, Poly is the only material that has peeling AR issues. It's the only time I see it. People bring me lenses from elsewhere with peeling coatings after a couple years, and it is always poly. I have never seen it on any other material. Maybe that's just me.


    So IMO cost, availability, weight, and thickness are basically equal. The rest is all upside for trivex and all downside for poly. As I said YMMV depending on your labs and your in-house capabilities. Telling someone else what material they should use is certainly not a hill I'm going to die on, I don't care a single bit what other materials people use. But it's best to stick with facts and no conjectures if you want to make an objective comparison.

  19. #44
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    219
    Poly became the material of choice when drill mounts were the rage. Cr had to be made thicker for drill mounting and had a teddency to crack at the drill points. Poly solved both of these problems but brought a few of its own. Poly would stress crack at the drill hole not at the time of manufacture but several months later creating a redo situation. Poly would also crack from chemical exposure even a minor exposure like vapors from nail polish remover could cause a problem. Poly is 10% thinner than Trivex and 10% heavier so the weight is always the same. Poly is a soft material part of the reason it is highly impact resistant this also reduces its scratch resistance and ability to hold AR coating. All the materials get the same hard coat (unless you index match) but the scratch resistance changes with the different materials. Trivex came along to address all these issues it is up to you to make the best choice for your customers.

  20. #45
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter lensmanmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    1,129
    All the haters out there……Poly was crap when it was introduced as a lens option. Then came CDs. This is when poly cleaned up it’s act, and has improved as an optical material.
    The cost/benefit ratio makes it an ideal material for most average RXs. Yes, it’s an acrylic and has its down sides regarding chemical resistance and abbe value. The majority of wearers won’t notice it at all.
    Trivex is a great material, but the COG is why labs charge more. Drills and nylor? Trivex is better due to its resistance to chemicals. +2 to -4? Again, a good choice, at a cost to the consumer.
    With the improvements in the resin, poly is not evil.
    As for peeling hard coats? CR39 is worse than Poly. Yes, CR39 does need a HC for AR.
    Fight me.
    I bend light. That is what I do.

  21. #46
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,367
    I use Trivex a little less than before -- using more MR-8 and MR-10, but I still use it a lot. I almost never use poly because it's the one material for which I will see non-adapts, the cracking issues, etc., and coatings don't seem to stick as well as with any of the other materials I use. In my opinion, poly sucks.

  22. #47
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter ak47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Southwest US
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    544
    I'd like to point out that weight is not "always the same" in regard to trivex vs poly. In most Rx -3 to +3, but especially the + powers, trivex will weigh less. This is especially true if it is a drill or groove that, for mechanical reasons, will require edge thicknesses much thicker than what the Rx would necessitate. I never understand why so many +2ish specs are done in high index. Trivex will be better in every possible way except for that extra 0.1-0.2 mm center thickness that no one will ever notice....

  23. #48
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    219
    The weight will always be the same. There is no reason to make Trivex thicker than poly due to the mounting requirements both materials resist splitting and cracking equally. When a comparison is made the lenses have to be equal in size shape and Rx. The poly will be thinner in the center on a plus Rx and thinner on the edge on a minus Rx but the weight of the two will be equal for all practical purposes we are not talking about engineering numbers.

  24. #49
    Master OptiBoarder optical24/7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down on the Farm
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,559
    Quote Originally Posted by Lensman11 View Post
    The weight will always be the same. There is no reason to make Trivex thicker than poly due to the mounting requirements both materials resist splitting and cracking equally. When a comparison is made the lenses have to be equal in size shape and Rx. The poly will be thinner in the center on a plus Rx and thinner on the edge on a minus Rx but the weight of the two will be equal for all practical purposes we are not talking about engineering numbers.
    I’ll disagree with what I hi lighted. I’ve never ever seen trivex crack or split. I can’t say the same for poly. Also, trivex is much more “rubbery”. Low powers, ground thin can flex more easily than poly.

  25. #50
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    219
    Poly will not crack or split during mounting as I stated it might stress crack at a latter date due to poor techniques used during mounting. The question was does Trivex weigh more or less than Poly and do you have to make one or the other thicker to have it function correctly in the mounting.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Could it be the Trivex?
    By NCspecs in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-27-2013, 07:26 PM
  2. what exactly is trivex?
    By rolandclaur in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-24-2011, 10:45 AM
  3. Trivex in the UK
    By rsandr in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-10-2006, 02:51 PM
  4. ! Trivex ??
    By bser in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-06-2006, 08:26 AM
  5. Is trivex all that?
    By drk in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 08-16-2004, 04:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •