How the Banana Sunglasses Score works

Every frame review on this site carries a score out of 80. This page is the contract behind those numbers: what gets scored, by whom, against what scale, and where the method stops. If a score ever looks wrong, this is the page to argue with.

What the photographs are

Camera clamped to a horizontal Manfrotto autopole, pointing straight down at the reference mat — The camera hangs from a clamp on a horizontal Manfrotto autopole, straight down over the mat. A monitor on a second clamp carries the live view.

The printed reference mat with its bridge cross, 100 mm scale bar and four dot coded fiducials — The mat: bridge cross, verified 100 mm bar, and four dot coded corner fiducials the software reads to correct perspective.

A frame positioned on the reference mat, bridge on the cross — Every frame sits the same way: bridge on the cross, temples open, resting naturally. The splay is data, so nothing is propped square.

The full shooting station: softbox, backdrop, and the frame collection laid out on the table — The station. Every frame in the collection is shot in one session under the same light, which is what makes them comparable.

Review photos are editorial. The measured images are separate: every frame is photographed top down on a printed reference mat with corner fiducials and a verified 100 mm scale bar, corrected for perspective and normalised to a fixed scale of 10 pixels per millimetre. Those images share one coordinate system, aligned at the nose bridge, which is what makes frames overlayable and their dimensions readable straight from the picture. The frame size comparison tool is built from exactly these images and nothing else.

Who is scoring

Ken, wearing the Oakley Sutro Lite Sweep — Me, in the Sutro Lite Sweep.

One person: me, Ken. I ride these frames, I photograph them, and I run BananaOptics, where I make prescription inserts for most of the frames on the board. That last part is a commercial interest and you should read the RX criterion knowing it. I handle it by scoring the mechanism, not the brand: the 100% S3 holds the top RX score on the board because its pin system makes the insert easier to take out and put back than anything else here. That is a property of how the frame is built, and it would score the same if I sold nothing.

Scores are judged on my face, and faces differ, so one calibration fact is published rather than hidden: I have a wide head. Where a frame's fit changes the experience, the review says in prose who else it suits, and the score stays mine. A fake average would be less honest than a disclosed sample of one.

The board

Eight criteria, whole points from 1 to 10, no halves. Four criteria form the Ride half, how the frame performs in sport, and four form the Life half, what it is like to own. The two halves add to the Banana Sunglasses Score, out of 80. Ties are allowed, and a tie is information: two frames arriving at the same total from opposite directions is exactly the kind of thing the per criterion table exists to show.

The criteria, and their anchors

The scale is absolute, not relative to whatever I happen to own. Each criterion is calibrated by two named frames: the best and the worst expression of that criterion in the collection. Those anchors are published in the table below and on every review. A new frame is scored against the anchors, never against the field, so a score keeps meaning the same thing as the board grows. If a frame ever beats an anchor, the criterion is re anchored and the change is dated on this page.

Criterion	What it scores	Anchors, 10 and low
ProtectionRide	Wind, debris and sun from the side and above. How much the shield keeps out, and by the same token how much of your view it fills. Not impact resistance, which is Quality. Not UV, which every genuine lens passes.	10 Velans, 5 Sutro S and Lite S
GripRide	Stays put sprinting, sweating, looking down in the drops.	10 Radar EV, 2 Sutro
VentilationRide	Fogging on climbs, at stops, in rain.	9 Sutro Lite, 4 Sphaera, Radar EV and Jawbreaker
ComfortRide	Weight, nose pads, temple pressure, how it works with a helmet. Not retention. A frame can slide and still be faultless on the skin, the Sutro Lite is the proof.	10 Radar EV, 3 Sphaera
StyleLife	Can you wear it to the cafe afterward.	10 Sweep, 5 Velans
QualityLife	Hinges, materials, finish, how it is put together, whether it survives two seasons in a jersey pocket. Not optical quality. Lens performance lives on the Banana Lens Score board so the two boards never double count.	10 Jawbreaker, 5 Sutro and Sphaera
RXLife	Prescription friendliness, judged on two things published separately per review: which honest prescription routes exist and how good the best one is, plus how much room the frame's geometry leaves behind the lens. Nobody else scores this.	10 100% S3, 4 Vanguard
EcosystemLife	Lens swap ease, spare lens availability, case, accessories. Tech features count here.	10 Sutro, 2 Vanguard

Configuration, exactly as tested

Each review names the exact unit tested, SKU and colourway, but reviews the model: colourway variants share every scored property except paint and fitted lens, and the fitted lens is never scored here because tints and coatings have their own board. A frame is scored in the exact configuration owned and tested, printed at the top of each review. Four entries on the current board need that rule spelled out:

My Sutro frame carries the OO9406A code, Oakley's Low Bridge Fit, but runs the standard nose pad rather than the low bridge one. On this model the pad is the fit difference, so it sits like a standard Sutro and is scored as one.
The SunGod Velans is reviewed with its bottom rim removed, because that is how I actually wear it. The rim changes two criteria at once and the review explains what it does.
My Jawbreaker came used with a Prizm Road lens in place of the stock 24K Iridium. No criterion on this board depends on the fitted lens, lens performance is the other board's job, so the score stands and the configuration line discloses it.
The Meta Vanguard was owned, used and then returned, so its review is written from records of the ownership period rather than from a frame I can pick up. Grip was left unscored until 2026-08-03, when I scored it from memory of wearing it. That is a weaker basis than every other number on this board and I would rather say so than quietly present it as equivalent. If the recollection is wrong, this is the score to doubt first.

Why the totals bunch together

The criteria contain deliberate tensions. A frame that seals against wind cannot also ventilate freely. A temple that grips the back of your head presses on it. So strengths buy weaknesses, and totals compress toward the middle even while single criteria span 2 to 10. The board runs from 65 down to 42, and that narrow looking spread is a property of an opinionated rubric, not of timid scoring. Read the per criterion rows, the totals are the summary, not the story.

What this method cannot claim

It cannot tell you how a frame fits your face, only mine, plus a described guess about yours. It does not measure impact protection, UV, or optics, the first two because every genuine frame here passes, the last because tints get their own board. And it cannot rank value: price is deliberately unscored, because I sell into this category and a value column from me would deserve your suspicion.

Scale, anchors and criteria set 2026-07-31. Changes are dated here.
2026-08-03. Rescored on further wearing: the 100% S3 drops to 8 ventilation, 7 comfort and 6 quality, and the Radar EV Path rises to 9 quality and 9 ecosystem. That moves the top of the board from the S3 to the Radar EV Path. Three criteria re anchored as a consequence, because an anchor has to name a frame that actually holds that score: ventilation is now anchored at 9 by the Sutro Lite, since nothing scores 10 any more; comfort drops the S3 from its top anchor; quality adds the Sphaera and the Velans to its low anchor. The Meta Vanguard's grip was scored, so it is no longer a partial total.

Artikel wurde in den Warenkorb gelegt