Poll - Trying to get some numbers on Swarovski rubber armour issues. (2 Viewers)

[Hikerboy]

My whole bino bought in 2014 is falling apart. Rubbish and I lost all respect for Swarovski!

You might be able to have Swarovski re-skin your SLC with the same rubber armoring as what was on the HD version (dark green/black), as they're built on the same chassis. The armor on that model is of higher quality.

 

[ManakusCR]

There are a few threads going on about the problems with Swarovski's biodegradable armour. I just wanted to know how many are actually having problems with it.

Please post a photo of your binoculars if they are splitting/peeling /cracking, particularly the NL owners because so far I have only seen evidence of the ELs.

NL PURE 10x42.
Never used any chemicals on them. Cleaned using the ridiculous soap and brush included.
1 year and 6 months of use.
Costa Rica.

 

[ManakusCR]

The whole bino? It looks like it's just the outer covering. Send it back to them and they'll re-do it.

It will be a lot cleaner when they return it as well

Yeah but is it fare that you pay so much money to have to go through this hassle? Back then they use to make stuff that last for ever. Now owning swarovski is just a status symbol. We are so stupid to fall for this game.

 

[SGBirder]

Yeah but is it fare that you pay so much money to have to go through this hassle? Back then they use to make stuff that last for ever. Now owning swarovski is just a status symbol. We are so stupid to fall for this game.

Fully agree. Its those in US/Europe who have easy/affordable access to the service centre that think its fine to keep sending them back for replacement armour

 

[Chotacabras]

A great idea, for sure. Do not be discouraged by the comments below: your poll has already provided a service and will yield useful information.

Good start and good intentions, but your poll needs work, esp. re: EL's. Owners of EL's prior to the armor switch are lumped in with those having the later armor version. This will clearly bias results. For EL's, it is imperative to categorize by armor type: 'original' ('classic, old'...) armor and 'new' ('revised, resdesigned...) armor.

Second, owners of both ELs and NLs range from collectors whose binoculars never go outside to those who use them regularly for long hours. That is central to the issue at hand. Some form of usage category is central to the question. Obviously, that is inherently problematic to assess without bias by respondents.

Good start: I wish I had solutions rather than mere suggestions.

I have one-year-old Swarovski EL 8.5x42 (the later WB FIELD PRO model), used heavily in UK climate... no sign yet of issues with armour or anything else, fingers crossed. I do wash the body more or less frequently (just with warm tapwater and a small paintbrush, if necessary a drop of dishwash liquid), especially if there has been salt-spray or some other insult... the other day, a nose-bleed!

 

[Chotacabras]

Photos of ELs belonging to me and other birders locally

Where is "locally"? Is it hot-dry or hot-wet or habitual bugspray use? Or cold temperate? Just trying to understand whether there's some particular factor here.

 

[SGBirder]

Where is "locally"? Is it hot-dry or hot-wet or habitual bugspray use? Or cold temperate? Just trying to understand whether there's some particular factor here.

Tropics.

Can't speak abt insect repellents used by others, but I've personally moved away from DEET based products.

Swarovski previously emailed that
"Due to sweat, heat and moisture the biodegradable armouring can deteriorate.
Our Product management will surely take up this issue to work on longer lasting armouring in future."

So I guess their choice of biodegradable material can't cope with typical field conditions...

 

[Chotacabras]

Tropics.

Can't speak abt insect repellents used by others, but I've personally moved away from DEET based products.

Swarovski previously emailed that
"Due to sweat, heat and moisture the biodegradable armouring can deteriorate.
Our Product management will surely take up this issue to work on longer lasting armouring in future."

So I guess their choice of biodegradable material can't cope with typical field conditions...

Thanks for reply! It's clear that there's a genuine issue, though I suspect statistically over-represented here: irate victims more likely to seek somewhere to loudly complain... I certainly would!

I also suspect (?) that things like bugspray, suncream, hot-humid and high UV make rapid degradation more likely, and that regular washing may help (at any rate with bugspray, suncream and similar). Hopefully Swarovski will resolve the issue so that affected binoculars get a durable replacement. Meanwhile, fingers crossed for my own ELs.

[As an aside, must be tough being an alpha optics engineer! They give it their best, create incredible products... but then it only takes one thing to fail under heavy worldwide endurance testing (eyecups on some Zeiss models a similar issue). And resolution is surely not straightforward for products already in industrial production.]

 

[Leoninthecity]

I visited the Swarovski stand at the UK's Global Bird Fair on Friday & politely but forcefully pointed out the degree of reputational damage this problem was causing (whilst also praising NL's ergonomics & optics). I didn't catch the name of the person I spoke to but she was called over by a colleague so I guess she was fairly senior and, as she had (I think) a slight German/Austrian accent, I assume she was from 'head office'. She explained that they were well aware of the issue, that the formula for the armour casing had been changed to be more 'environmentally friendly'

They must be crackers, putting their entire reputation at risk in aid of some dubious 'environmental' objective.

This is becoming quite a conundrum. The confusing part of this whole thing, is not only that when you buy an expensive high end Swarovski binocular, and that you expect quality all around, but you expect even by appearances the binoculars to be quite durable and tough. Surprise, surprise.

Amen! Well said.

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 don't think there's an excuse to this happening to a supposedly top-quality product.

Indeed. The entire point of armouring is to protect the binocular from abuse. Coating it with some thin, brittle plastic that cannot handle reasonable wear-and-tear is counterproductive.

I've received conflicting information regarding this. In Spring, that was also my understanding, but this month a (different) credible source suggested to me that the 'new recipe' armour will only 'officially' enter service from January 2025.

Rumour, counter rumour and endless speculation, but the facts remain a mystery.

If Swarovski wanted to limit the reputation damage, it would provide fullest possible information. Potential customers should not have to guess or gamble.

 

[MiddleRiver]

As noted before, the PR team could address the issue differently, but I don’t agree that Swaro ‘must be crackers’. As certain compounds are found to be undesirable, companies will have to move in different directions. It’s unfortunate that an otherwise ‘good deed’ turned out poorly. As long as they figure it out and support their customers, I see no reason to hate on the company for changing formulation. Beating up on service department is different conversation.

Yes I’m an environmentalist. I’m also a birder and the former is essential to the latter ;-)

 

[Hikerboy]

Two weeks ago I purchased a new NL 8x42, and during my initial inspection, I immediately noticed that the armor (rubber) felt loose and not fully adhered to the binocular's housing. I also noticed a few, yet miniscule anomalies within one of the eyepiece lenses, almost like small spots within the lense which couldn't be cleaned away. Perhaps I bought a lemon?

Did these "minor" issues affect the view? - No. However, when considering the cost of these instruments, I wasn't too happy, and I promptly returned them for a full refund.

 

[welshhillbilly]

I was going to treat myself in the new year.Have now decided not to due to the ongoing issues.

 

[Jim M.]

... It’s unfortunate that an otherwise ‘good deed’ turned out poorly. As long as they figure it out and support their customers, I see no reason to hate on the company for changing formulation...

The idea of changing a component of a binocular to something "biodegradable", when people expect that binocular to last for decades and generations seems dubious from the start. You want single-use plastics to be biodegradable, not something intended to last for decades or more. If I had known in advance that the armor on my Swaros was going to naturally degrade in the not too distant future, I would never have bought them.

I have yet to see an explanation of what Swarovski expected to happen when they made this change. Did they expect the armor to last 10, 20, 30 years or what? Whatever the expected longevity was, it seems almost like built-in obsolescence. And whatever testing they performed, it was obviously inadequate.

So, in sum, I see ample reasons to fault the company. Something going amiss with this change seems entirely forseeable.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I'm not sure that the term 'biodegradable' has been used by Swaro, but regardless, it can simply mean that once disposed of, it will not leach toxic compounds into the environment. EVERYTHING degrades with enough time. The issue is whether you want certain compounds in the environment during manufacture, use, or disposal (degradation).
ALL companies are facing such issues and the history of industralized society if full of such examples. Lead (in pipes and ammunition for instance) and more recently PFAS come to mind as obvious examples. To think that Swaro would intentionally use a material which only lasts, say, five years, is sheer lunacy. For some reason, they changed formulation, and the results were less-than-ideal. They fecked up... My point is that it's something understandable given the parameters. What DOES deserve criticism, is how they have handled it since then. 100% transparency and warranty would nip all the bad press in the bud ;-)

 

[SGBirder]

I'm not sure that the term 'biodegradable' has been used by Swaro, but regardless, it can simply mean that once disposed of, it will not leach toxic compounds into the environment. EVERYTHING degrades with enough time. The issue is whether you want certain compounds in the environment during manufacture, use, or disposal (degradation).
ALL companies are facing such issues and the history of industralized society if full of such examples. Lead (in pipes and ammunition for instance) and more recently PFAS come to mind as obvious examples. To think that Swaro would intentionally use a material which only lasts, say, five years, is sheer lunacy. For some reason, they changed formulation, and the results were less-than-ideal. They fecked up... My point is that it's something understandable given the parameters. What DOES deserve criticism, is how they have handled it since then. 100% transparency and warranty would nip all the bad press in the bud ;-)

Yes, they have used the term ‘biodegradable’ in their email to me

‘Due to sweat, heat and moisture the biodegradable armouring can deteriorate.’

 

[Leoninthecity]

As long as they figure it out and support their customers, I see no reason to hate on the company for changing formulation.

Much evidence within this thread suggesting that their customer support on this issue has been mediocre, to put it mildly.

And as far as ‘figuring it out’ goes, that process should have been done long before Swarovski introduced the change in their production line: unsuspecting customers should not be the victims of a failure to do proper testing. Instead, they’ve allowed this situation to persist for years.

Yes I’m an environmentalist. I’m also a birder and the former is essential to the latter ;-)

Which is fine. However, a situation in which a premium product must be regularly sent back to a far-away factory, undergo a complete cosmetic rebuild, and then returned to the consumer, doesn’t seem particularly helpful to the environment.

 

[MiddleRiver]

Much evidence within this thread suggesting that their customer support on this issue has been mediocre, to put it mildly.

And as far as ‘figuring it out’ goes, that process should have been done long before Swarovski introduced the change in their production line: unsuspecting customers should not be the victims of a failure to do proper testing. Instead, they’ve allowed this situation to persist for years.


Which is fine. However, a situation in which a premium product must be regularly sent back to a far-away factory, undergo a complete cosmetic rebuild, and then returned to the consumer, doesn’t seem particularly helpful to the environment.

I fully agree with almost all of this (not sure it's the result of poor testing or a conspiracy... some things work well in lab and not so much when released to public), and it's one reason I've avoided Swaro (looked long and hard at 8x32EL's) to date. What I'm pushing back is at the notion that trying to be environmentally conscious is stupid or wrong. Their formulation, once tested in the field, failed. They should back up their premium product 101% and in a timely and transparent manner. End-of-story.

Membrane based rain barriers are going through the same dilemma. Love me some 3-layer PFAS hungry rain gear. The top makers (arc'teryx, patagucci, etc.) are scrambling to figure out how to shed water. Remains to be seen whether we can wean ourselves from PFAS...

 

[Leoninthecity]

What I'm pushing back is at the notion that trying to be environmentally conscious is stupid.

You have drawn an incorrect inference.

They should back up their premium product 101% and in a timely and transparent manner. End-of-story

Yes, I agree. And if they had taken that approach, it would indeed by the end of the story.

Unfortunately they chose a different strategy, so their ‘brand’ is now tarnished.

 

[Scott98]

Membrane based rain barriers are going through the same dilemma. Love me some 3-layer PFAS hungry rain gear. The top makers (arc'teryx, patagucci, etc.) are scrambling to figure out how to shed water. Remains to be seen whether we can wean ourselves from PFAS...

oh, we're going to wean alright - 3m and the Dupont family, the ones who profited off poisoning the whole world and every creature in it, have been forced to cease producing PFAS by 2025 in lawsuits.

I've already been wearing PFAS-free clothing for years - companies like Jack Wolfskin and Vaude ditched them 5+ years ago. Finally Mountain Hardwear has also come around, I bought a new shell from them this spring that has no PFAS or PFOA chemicals that were in Gore-tex for decades.

btw Nikon Japan switched away from using toxic PVC-containing "armor" in their binos many years ago. Nikon also never put the toxic PFAS chemicals on any of their glass. So way ahead of Swaro environmentally (in addition to the focusers )

 

[zesprianu]

I have been using the NL 10x42 for about 4 years almost daily, walking a lot through river areas, and coming home covered in mud. I have always cleaned them by putting the entire binocular under the tap with warm water, and I had not any problems with them. In the photos you can see the condition they were when I sold them to buy the NL 10x32.

Just a note, the NL 10x32's armours feels a bit harder and not as sticky as the NL10x42, they are made of different materials.