Anyone Have Latest ANSI Z87.1 Standards?

[John@OWDC]

Is this still the same?

ANSI Z87.1-2003

Basic Rx impact lenses:
• Shall be 3.00mm thick except those over +3.00D or greater shall have a minimum thickness of 2.5
• Pass a drop ball test of a 1-inch diameter steel ball dropped 50 inches
• Be sandblasted with the manufacturer’s identification
• Be delivered to the wearer bearing a Warning Label indicating that the protector only meets the Basic Impact Standard

High impact Rx lenses:
• Shall not be less than 2.0mm thick at their thinnest point.
• Pass a high velocity test in which a ¼ inch steel ball is shot at a lens at 150 ft/second
• Be sandblasted with the manufacturer’s identification and a plus (+) sign
• Be manufactured from either polycarbonate or Trivex

[Kwill212]

Are you saying LaramyK doesn't have the most up to date z87.1-2020? Seems like $62 well spent by the lab.

[Elvis Is Alive]

There have been 3 revisions since then: 2010, 2015, and 2020.

Here is the link to purchase the latest revision that Kwill is referencing: https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/...E2ODY3NjE5MzY.

[Uilleann]

Are all the standards continuing to be loosened over time? I've always personally stuck with the 1996 version (or was it 97?...have to go back and check my paperwork). At least as far as in-house work.

Ironic in'it that in the US, the only thing you'll actually get legally called on is impact - but not a whiff about power/axis etc?

[Kwill212]

Are all the standards continuing to be loosened over time? I've always personally stuck with the 1996 version (or was it 97?...have to go back and check my paperwork). At least as far as in-house work.

You are doing in house safety work, to a 25 year old standard no less? Bold choice.

Ironic in'it that in the US, the only thing you'll actually get legally called on is impact - but not a whiff about power/axis etc?

Well that's because impact rating is covered by federal regulation(21 CFR 801.410) and lens power isn't. ANSI isn't law(though is often referenced by OSHA which is, notably for eye protection). A lens shattering is obviously more inherently dangerous than lens power that is off. Also lens power that is sufficiently incorrect to induce a dangerous situation for the user is easily noticeable by the user. Impact resistance is "invisible" to the user. Also I don't think that is want Ironic means.

[Uilleann]

You are doing in house safety work, to a 25 year old standard no less? Bold choice.

I posted clumsily. No, we're not doing in-house safety jobs. I meant our in house lab uses the older ANSI tolerances when doing dress-work, or checking in outside lab work as they have been more restrictive in past years than more recent. I haven't checked in a while though, so perhaps that's changed recently?

Well that's because impact rating is covered by federal regulation(21 CFR 801.410) and lens power isn't. ANSI isn't law(though is often referenced by OSHA which is, notably for eye protection). A lens shattering is obviously more inherently dangerous than lens power that is off. Also lens power that is sufficiently incorrect to induce a dangerous situation for the user is easily noticeable by the user. Impact resistance is "invisible" to the user. Also I don't think that is want Ironic means.

As for lens power not mattering - I'll beg to differ. (and yes, I'm sure we're all well aware that ANSI is nothing but a a pirate code - ie: a guideline, and not a rule.) Impact resistance is what it is. Would be nice to see some level of basic mandated accuracy on lens power, and centration also. Anything. Though undoubtedly all the on-line lobbyists would howl like stuck pigs about it.

[Kwill212]

I posted clumsily. No, we're not doing in-house safety jobs. I meant our in house lab uses the older ANSI tolerances when doing dress-work, or checking in outside lab work as they have been more restrictive in past years than more recent. I haven't checked in a while though, so perhaps that's changed recently?

But why? Seems pretty arbitrary. Why bother with referencing ANSI at all? Go back to the B&L Job Coach and have tolerances of 3° for 0.00-0.50D, 2° for 0.62-1.00D, and 1 degree for anything hither than 1.12D? Or just make up your own tolerances and go with that. Yes, the standards change over time, due to testing and evaluating. Here is a example, a memo from Daryl about changing the cylinder axis tolerance, especially in low powers.

http://216.144.236.77/files/memo_on_...tolerances.pdf

To quote from the memo:

"Moreover, these slightly relaxed tolerances are quite reasonable and justifiable, and are actually more consistent with the optical criteria used to establish the other axis tolerances. Note that increasing the tolerance on cylinder axis for a prescribed cylinder power of 0.25 D even further, from 9° to something even more realistic—such as 11°, will result in only marginal improvements in the failure rate. In summary, we can literally “improve” the tolerances on cylinder axis by using a more consistent methodology while dramatically reducing industry reject rates. Consequently, it would behoove the Z80 Subcommittee to consider relaxing the tolerances on cylinder axis for the 0.25 and 0.50 D cylinder powers accordingly."

Holding to tighter than established standards sounds better to a consumer maybe, or someone who hasn't researched the standards. "ANSI tolerance is 14 degrees off! Can you believe that Mrs. Smith? But don't you worry, we make all of our lens here at Uilleann's Pipe and Lens Emporium to a very strict 2 degree tolerance." Sounds flashy, but really it's just increasing the breakage rate for no discernible difference.

As for lens power not mattering - I'll beg to differ.

A lens shattering is obviously more inherently dangerous than lens power that is off.

Surely you can see the difference between these two statements. Quite the strawman there.

Impact resistance is what it is. Would be nice to see some level of basic mandated accuracy on lens power, and centration also. Anything.

Of course, but that ship has done sailed and sank to the abyss along with licensing.