WOW - I would be VERY upset! I have a pair of 3yr old EL32s and 1.5yr old NL32s and have never had an issue with the rubber.Photos of ELs belonging to me and other birders locally
WOW - I would be VERY upset! I have a pair of 3yr old EL32s and 1.5yr old NL32s and have never had an issue with the rubber.Photos of ELs belonging to me and other birders locally
Wow, that's pretty extreme degradation. I know that there is a lot of products that can cause this to rubberized materials, such as sunscreen, gun oil, deodorants and many more. Do you use any product that gets on your hands and then later ends up on your binoculars perhaps?Photos of ELs belonging to me and other birders locally
Swarovski have said that it's their environmentally friendly new armour material that's at fault, and are working on a new material.Wow, that's pretty extreme degradation. I know that there is a lot of products that can cause this to rubberized materials, such as sunscreen, gun oil, deodorants and many more. Do you use any product that gets on your hands and then later ends up on your binoculars perhaps?
Of course an armor should withstand all sorts of use and even a great deal of abuse. In this case it obviously doesn't. I was just thinking that there might be some products you could try to avoid getting on your binoculars to prolong the life of the armor. This is the reason that I asked.Swarovski have said that it's their environmentally friendly new armour material that's at fault, and are working on a new material.
Swarovski's own reply to another user, who posted in another thread here.Of course an armor should withstand all sorts of use and even a great deal of abuse. In this case it obviously doesn't. I was just thinking that there might be some products you could try to avoid getting on your binoculars to prolong the life of the armor. This is the reason that I asked.
Some people (me included) have no problem at all with deteriorating armor and some (like in your case) has severe degradation. Either the armor is different or the reason for severe degradation is an outside factor. The reason for the accellerated degradation could be acidic sweat, sunscreen, oils or other chemicals.
I have had this happen to the rubberized shoulder pad on some rifles. It's a somewhat common issue with some materials because the metal parts need something the keep rust away. This is usually some kind of oil, more typically synthetic oil. Even though it's a tiny amount that won't run it will still spread through the air from condensation. I fact, old clock makers and restorers actually used this effect to lube the internal mechanics by simply placing a little tray with oil on it inside the cleaned clockwork.
As mentioned; oils, petroleum products and other chemicals can certainly accelerate the degradation of rubberized materials. Even cooking oils do this. Some fabrics will gass off and can also cause this degradation.
I don't think there's an excuse to this happening to a supposedly top-quality product. But since it does happen, this might be something to consider.
Swaro reply:
The armouring material of Swarovski binos was changed 2015 with the new FP series due to environmental, cosmetic and allergic reasons.
The new material is - on a long term perspective - biodegradable. The new NL armouring is made out of the same material.
In general the new material overall has a better resistance and performance (Temperature, UV, humidity, abrasion) than the old one of the SV, but if it deteriorates, its damage behavior differs from the older material - due to the biodegradability. The old material blisterd the new gets softer and softer until it tears.
Prolongation of the armouring is possible if you apply a good cleaning and treatment of it, like for instance for leather. For the rare case of deterioration we offer a free replacement.
Swarovski's own reply to another user, who posted in another thread here.
It's not the chemicals, but environmental factors (temperature, UV, heat) that the material cannot withstand.
I hope Swarovski will re-armor them under warranty.[/FONT]
Wow, 38% of EL's and 20% of NL's is a large percentage of the total binoculars produced. Probably as the NL's are out in the field longer they will have more cracking.
All you need is 100 samples to get a meaningful result from a survey. You don't need to survey all binoculars produced.Out of respondents not out of binoculars produced - the figures are completely meaningless.
I had to return my ELs three times but obviously in the stats was only recorded once!Out of respondents not out of binoculars produced - the figures are completely meaningless.
I am not buying any more Swarovskis until they get the armor issue fixed.I had to return my ELs three times but obviously in the stats was only recorded once!
All you need is 100 samples to get a meaningful result from a survey. You don't need to survey all binoculars produced.
"According to many statisticians, a sample size of 100 people is the minimum required for meaningful results in a survey."
How To Determine Survey Sample Size: A Short Guide
Understand how sample size affects survey confidence and why it's crucial for studies with large populations. Learn the importance of participant numbers.survicate.com
I am not buying any more Swarovskis until they get the armor issue fixed.