Kettle fighting thread

[satanboy]

Do they make the water taste better? People are weird...

So you prefer a Citi Golf to a Porsche? Same difference.

 

[HapticSimian]

So you prefer a Citi Golf to a Porsche? Same difference.

Oh, phuleeeze...

I don't mind spending moolah where it translates into tangible benefit. I'll happily pay for a nice smartphone, a pair of Oakleys, a Leatherman over a no-name brand multitool, a 42" LCD instead of my gran's little black & white tv etc. But something that boils water? A R700 kettle isn't going to make water go any more boily than a R90 kettle...

What a daft analogy.

 

[ponder]

...a Leatherman over a no-name brand multitool...

Hey, don't knock the no-name brand ones. I got a no-name brand one for free many many years ago from some beer promotion and it's till going strong and looks brand new

 

[Drunkard #1]

They have a glass door.

A watched pot never boils.

Oh, phuleeeze...

I don't mind spending moolah where it translates into tangible benefit. I'll happily pay for a nice smartphone, a pair of Oakleys, a Leatherman over a no-name brand multitool, a 42" LCD instead of my gran's little black & white tv etc. But something that boils water? A R700 kettle isn't going to make water go any more boily than a R90 kettle...

What a daft analogy.

You shot yourself in the foot with the Oakleys comparison. The only reason to by a R 2900 pair of Oakleys over 100 pairs of R 29 Afrox glasses is for pose value.

On some products, I buy the very best product available, knowing that I can rely on it to perform better and more consistently than anything else on the market. The other side of the coin is that you can't blame your equipment any more, any ****-ups are your fault.

As for Le Creuset, just go to Adams, point at the kettle screaming DISCOUNT, DISCOUNT, pay your R 450 and enjoy your kettle - it's cheaper than a night out or a tank of petrol. Don't get it if you're not going to use it, but if you are, enjoy. I don't want to know what I paid for my Le Creuset set, but it's worth every cent.

 

[HapticSimian]

You shot yourself in the foot with the Oakleys comparison. The only reason to by a R 2900 pair of Oakleys over 100 pairs of R 29 Afrox glasses is for pose value.

No, you've shot off your mouth without knowing what you're talking about. Here's a 400kb .pdf you might find interesting...

The same principles still govern their design. There are reasons beyond them being a US company for them supplying the US military; they are the best shades you can buy. Enjoy your cataracts if you think a street-corner pair of sunglasses does anything but damage your eyes.

 

[Drunkard #1]

No, you've shot off your mouth without knowing what you're talking about. Here's a 400kb .pdf you might find interesting...

The same principles still govern their design. There are reasons beyond them being a US company for them supplying the US military; they are the best shades you can buy. Enjoy your cataracts if you think a street-corner pair of sunglasses does anything but damage your eyes.

None of the tests in that review says anything about cataracts, how do your Oakleys perform in those tests after being used and scratched for three years, while I'm using my 17th new pair of Afrox safety glasses, why are so many brands missing from that comparison, and why do the results seem randomly ordered with Oakley at the top?

Test the basics - UV transmission and anything to do with eye strain (I'm no optician) and you'll see dozens of safety specs (Hilti, Afrox, Uvex) come up top, right next to (and sometimes outperforming) your Oakleys. There was an Aussie study done a while back (and they know their sun-protection); find it, read it.

Edit: From Wikipedia:

High prices cannot guarantee sufficient protection as no correlation between high prices and increased UV protection has been demonstrated. A 1995 study reported that "Expensive brands and polarizing sunglasses do not guarantee optimal UVA protection."[13] The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has also reported that "[c]onsumers cannot rely on price as an indicator of quality".[14] One survey even found that a $6.95 pair of generic glasses offered slightly better protection than did expensive Salvatore Ferragamo shades.[15]

 

[DigitalSoldier]

No, you've shot off your mouth without knowing what you're talking about. Here's a 400kb .pdf you might find interesting...

The same principles still govern their design. There are reasons beyond them being a US company for them supplying the US military; they are the best shades you can buy. Enjoy your cataracts if you think a street-corner pair of sunglasses does anything but damage your eyes.

Couldn't agree more.

Big difference between el cheapo shades and expensive shades.

 

[Drunkard #1]

I've had two pairs of Oakley shades in 11 years. The second replaced the first only because I wanted polarised lenses; it's still in near-perfect condition an in irregular use. You seem unable to look after anything, so perhaps you are better served stocking up on your R29 welding glasses.


So, what...? 30 brands aren't sufficient?


Neither am I, but fortunately my sister is. It's easy enough to block the frequencies of light that are harmful to one's eyes. What isn't so easy is ensuring clarity and minimal distortion, both obviously critical to minimise eye (and brain) strain, and especially critical for flying which is why I rate Private Pilot magazine's independently conducted tests very highly.

I drew the short genetic stick with my eyes; I suffer from rather severe myopia, light sensitivity and weakened retinal tissue. I don't mind spending a bit to ensure that my eyes are still at least usable when I'm ancient, rocking away on my porch, sipping my afternoon tea.

Here's a copy of the same test, conducted a year later, this time covering 65 different pairs of shades. This one handily also has a clearer explanation of testing procedures and is much better laid out.


You find it; I'll read it.

If you're at all interested, spend a bit of time on YouTube watching the tests Oakley conduct - it's all rather impressive. Here are a couple of interesting ones. To say Oakley is a brand built only on image is ignorant. I will not deny that the majority of people who buy Oakleys do so in order to look cool... or hot... or sexy... or whatever the vernacular of the time might be, but that didn't factor into my reasoning.

Anyhat, we'd probably best get back to kettles...

Firstly, sorry blu, but you can't say it's unexpected.

enigma, your new Pilot study mentions ANSI Z87.1, a safety glasses standard, which the Afrox specs pass, seeing as Z87+ is stamped onto the lenses, including all optical requirements in the standard. Thank you mass production. Why would I require better optical performance than the standard requires? I have a "2 turbines minimum" rule when it comes to flying, so that kind of rules out piloting for me.

Obviously the standard doesn't focus on what your study focuses on - it's a safety glasses standard. Pilot has taken one small part of the standard, the optical performance part, and run tests based on that. Why? Don't Oakleys satisfy the other requirements of the standard? Why no UV testing? And don't say UV protection is easy, plenty of samples failed the UV tests in the study I mentioned above. Was Pilot just trying to sound professional by including a standard? Their testing shows a 20% variation in performance between Oakley left and right lenses. That screams "methodology fail" to me. As does them using relative rather than absolute values in their interpretation. Give me peer reviewed studies, not magazine articles and YouTube marketing material.

Don't get me started on the scratching that your 11 year old glasses must have on their lenses. As for me keeping a pair of glasses for more than 6 months! No thanks, I'll ditch them (or lose them or have them washed away by a wave) long before any scratches become a problem. And I don't care, they literally cost R 29.

You're just trying to justify the cost of your Oakleys. Leave blu to buy her kettle, it'll last forever, unlike your glasses, and costs less than a quarter of their price.

 

[HapticSimian]

Firstly, sorry blu, but you can't say it's unexpected.

enigma, your new Pilot study mentions ANSI Z87.1, a safety glasses standard, which the Afrox specs pass, seeing as Z87+ is stamped onto the lenses, including all optical requirements in the standard. Thank you mass production. Why would I require better optical performance than the standard requires? I have a "2 turbines minimum" rule when it comes to flying, so that kind of rules out piloting for me.

Obviously the standard doesn't focus on what your study focuses on - it's a safety glasses standard. Pilot has taken one small part of the standard, the optical performance part, and run tests based on that. Why? Don't Oakleys satisfy the other requirements of the standard? Why no UV testing? And don't say UV protection is easy, plenty of samples failed the UV tests in the study I mentioned above. Was Pilot just trying to sound professional by including a standard? Their testing shows a 20% variation in performance between Oakley left and right lenses. That screams "methodology fail" to me. As does them using relative rather than absolute values in their interpretation. Give me peer reviewed studies, not magazine articles and YouTube marketing material.

Don't get me started on the scratching that your 11 year old glasses must have on their lenses. As for me keeping a pair of glasses for more than 6 months! No thanks, I'll ditch them (or lose them or have them washed away by a wave) long before any scratches become a problem. And I don't care, they literally cost R 29.

You're just trying to justify the cost of your Oakleys. Leave blu to buy her kettle, it'll last forever, unlike your glasses, and costs less than a quarter of their price.

I'd be quite happy to have something that exceeds set standards (or minimum allowable specifications, in other words) thankyouverymuch. You're just one of those annoying folk who can't say "I'm sorry, I was talking out my arse" aren't you? Here's the one lens on my old Oakleys:

If you're not satisfied with that, I can always take a picture of the left-hand one with JP Montoya's signature on it, identifying it as a limited range only available between '01 and '04. So, 10 years old then... but even if you continue to be a chop about it, at least 7. How many scratches do you see? I look after my stuff.

As for the 20% difference between left & right, please do highlight where you pull that from... Is it perhaps from the last column on the table - the one in grey, in case you can't see that well - that references the chart visible on page 1? You can't draw percentage conclusions from that.

Here is Oakley's own information on the UV protection their shades offer - to suggest a company like Oakley would sell anything that doesn't block any and all UV is a mite disingenuous, don't you think? Also, please explain to me how the rest of the ANSI tests are relevant to a test focusing on optical clarity and quality? Perhaps this will satiate you.

You obviously didn't watch the little YouTube videos linked to earlier...

 

[TKD01]

I don't mind spending moolah where it translates into tangible benefit. I'll happily pay for a nice smartphone, a pair of Oakleys, a Leatherman over a no-name brand multitool, a 42" LCD instead of my gran's little black & white tv etc. But something that boils water? A R700 kettle isn't going to make water go any more boily than a R90 kettle...

I don't know about kettles, but the toast from a R500 Russel Hobb toaster bought from Woolies does taste better than toast from the R100 PnP toaster... LOL...

 

[Archer]

A R700 kettle isn't going to make water go any more boily than a R90 kettle...

What a daft analogy.

Just like a R1000 bicycle wont get you any closer to point B from point A instead of a R250k car

Potential differences between kettles is the time they last (build quality), time taken to boil the water and aesthetic appeal. All three can and will lead to price differences, with two of them providing easily measured tangible benefits. Think a little before you make silly comments.

 

[HapticSimian]

Just like a R1000 bicycle wont get you any closer to B from point A instead of a R250k car

Potential differences between kettles is the time they last (build quality), time taken to boil the water and aesthetic appeal. All three can and will lead to price differences, with two of them providing a easily measured tangible benefit. Think a little before you make silly comments.

Don't you dare make my sunglasses fight thread about kettles now!

I get the aesthetic appeal side of things, but a kettle - to me - is only an appliance. As long as it does what it should, and doesn't look awful, I'm happy. We've used the same R80 or R90... hang on, lemme check... AIM kettle for about 5 years now. Even if it breaks tomorrow, I can stock up on at least 4 decades' worth of kettles for the price of one of blu's.

Whilst we're at it the original thread was on the topic of stove-top kettles, so it will waste electricity whilst taking markedly longer to boil anything. That's no longer a kettle, it's an ornament in the shape of one, regardless of how long it will last.

Take the context of comments into account before you dismiss them as silly.

 

[Drunkard #1]

I'd be quite happy to have something that exceeds set standards (or minimum allowable specifications, in other words) thankyouverymuch. You're just one of those annoying folk who can't say "I'm sorry, I was talking out my arse" aren't you? Here's the one lens on my old Oakleys:

If you're not satisfied with that, I can always take a picture of the left-hand one with JP Montoya's signature on it, identifying it as a limited range only available between '01 and '04. So, 10 years old then... but even if you continue to be a chop about it, at least 7. How many scratches do you see? I look after my stuff.

As for the 20% difference between left & right, please do highlight where you pull that from... Is it perhaps from the last column on the table - the one in grey, in case you can't see that well - that references the chart visible on page 1? You can't draw percentage conclusions from that.

Here is Oakley's own information on the UV protection their shades offer - to suggest a company like Oakley would sell anything that doesn't block any and all UV is a mite disingenuous, don't you think? Also, please explain to me how the rest of the ANSI tests are relevant to a test focusing on optical clarity and quality? Perhaps this will satiate you.

You obviously didn't watch the little YouTube videos linked to earlier...

I know I'm not talking out my arse because you're not the first fashion victim to claim that your sunglasses have super powers. The minimum specs are sufficient for safe use in plenty of situations (like not getting your fingers cut off by a grinder, or not crushing cars with a R 40 000 000 shovel), not a random list of standards for people hanging around on the beach. Getting a pair of glasses that's been certified Z87+ means that they will be fit for purpose, including any optical performance requirements. Anything more is just marketing, unless you've got a need for a pair of glasses with higher resolving power than your eyes?

That's why I conciser the Pilot test to just be marketing. They don't offer any reason to consider super high resolving power (is there any scientific evidence that it, or any of the other tests they ran, help?), they use Z87 standards for testing, but don't mention the values that the standard considers to be acceptable, they only tested new glasses, not a 10 year old pair like yours (I'm assuming that at "48 lines resolving power", you won't be able to see the scratches causing the loss of definition, never mind photograph them) and they put all the results in relative values, so that I can't get a sense of the absolute differences between the specs.

I don't buy into "branding". In fact I consider it to be a scourge inflicted on consumers by greedy faceless corporations. Remember that back in 2002 and 2003, Ray Ban had only just been taken over by the "brand experts" Luxottica, so they still made some quality products, and look how "poorly" their stuff performed. So no, I don't think demanding UV test results from Oakley is disingenuous, plenty of samples fail these tests, and since UV protection is the single most important aspect of sunglasses' performance, I think the test should have been done.

You say that you look after your stuff. What about looking after your eyes? My glasses get chipped, scratched and pitted because they're always with me, and often between my eyes and a stream of steel filings. I'm not scared to shove them into my pocket, or wear them into the sea. I think of my eyes first, not how to keep my limited-edition-super-costly-fashion-specs scratch free and safe from thieves.

You keep your R 90 kettle (I paid R 300 for my electric kettle at Pick and Pay, so I don't know what crap you're buying for R 90) and your R 3000 poser glasses. I'll investing in reliability and durability over fashion.

 

[satanboy]

Oh, phuleeeze... ...

What a daft analogy.

both vehicles get you from point A to B...so they are the same (in your world)

/throws head back and guffaws

 

[HapticSimian]

Earlier suspicion about you being unable to admit asshattery confirmed, then. Thank you.

 

[Drunkard #1]

The only asshattery is you claiming that your Oakley Z87 tested specs are superior to my Afrox Z87+ certified specs.

 

[copacetic]

Holy ****, you people will argue about anything.

 

[HapticSimian]

Holy ****, you people will argue about anything.

Absolutely

 

[satanboy]

Earlier suspicion about you being unable to admit asshattery confirmed, then. Thank you.

/inserts battery

 

[GhostSixFour]

I won't pay that much for a kettle either. I agree with Enigma, I'll spend on the same items as him.. But a kettle.. No way..