| Author | Message | ||
     Henrik |
I just sent this off to the editor of Road Racing World: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's something you might be interested in; http://www.actionstation.com/detail.asp?Product_ID=BGSM&SRCH_CATEGORY=Bodyguard_ Armored_Shirts&SRCH_ID=&SRCH_DESCRIPTION=&SRCH_MANUFACTURER= Action Station is again claiming CE approval of one of their products; the "Bodyguard SuperMoto Air Armored Shirt." I saw the shirt on their website (see attached screen shot) and was interested in buying one for some dirt riding. Since I don't heal up as quickly as I used to, good protective gear is important to me, and I think the CE testing and approval is an important step in guaranteeing quality gear for riders. I remember your story about their back protectors, onto which they attached CE approved labels "because they were made better than the Knox protector" which *was* CE tested and approved, and which they in turn then copied and sold as their own design. So I called Action Station to inquire about the CE approval; The shirt has not been tested because, according to Action Station, it's made even better than CE specs require. In other words, yet another Action Station product promising a certain level of protection without the testing to prove it, and thus without the actual right to claim CE approval. I've seen the Action Station products, and they are nice and seem very well made, but promising riders a level of protection, which even Action Station can't claim to know (without impartial testing), is at best doing the riding community a disservice, at worst risking the health of riders. These claims go unchallenged because the US, as opposed to the EU, have no guidelines or regulations for MC protective gear other than helmets. Maybe it's time we got some? Henrik Bo Pedersen New York >>>>>>>>>>> Just a heads up about dishonest claims from a manufacturer of supposed protective gear. It's a jungle out there - buyer beware Henrik | ||
| Henrik |
Back protectors; Here is a well researched starting point for choosing a back protector. It's interesting to see how few of the manufacturers care to have their protectors tested to back up their claims. As with everything else - you may have the best product out there, but if you don't care to put your $$ where your mouth is, buyer beware. There is also a good explanation of what a back protector does, and what it will not do for you. Henrik | ||
| Henrik |
Here is a link to a study of different materials to be used in body armor, and their usefulness. It's a bit dry, but in the introduction is a good description of what anatomical structures can be protected and against what type of injuries. Also some force numbers at to how much impact certain structures can handle before injury occurs. www.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Available/etd-0430104-131552/unrestricted/mcarboni.pdf copy and paste the entire link into the address bar of your browser. And here is a new US player in the protective gear game: http://www.highvelocitygear.com/gear.html No affiliation or personal experience with this outfit. If it works as advertised it could be a good deal. Henrik (Message edited by henrik on October 15, 2004) | ||
| Henrik |
Jut got off the phone with High Velocity Gear (HVG). When asked they offered up the certification numbers for their CE approval so that I could contact Cambridge and SATRA (?) to verify. Pretty cool. I also asked why they choose a form factor almost identical to the Dainese product: - apparently those moldings are readily available for anyone's use both in Europe and Asia, so HVG saved a ton of $$ as opposed to having to tool up and create their own moldings. - HVG is using Astrosorb padding in all their armor, which is why they can achieve the 1621-2 Level 2 rating with only 4.49kN force transmission for the back protector and the 1621-1 rating for the shoulder/elbow/forearm armor. - Dainese is using aluminum for shock absorption in their armor. The back protector is only 1621-2 Level 1 certified, and their extremity armor is not certified. NOTE! I have not verified the HVG certification, and have no way of verifying the Dainese info, other than the CE ratings, which are as HVG stated. No affiliation, personal experience, kick-back or other benefits. Henrik (Message edited by henrik on October 15, 2004) | ||
| Velocitygear |
Hello. John Franklin with Velocity Gear to offer up our CE certification for those interested. For those curious as to how I knew of this post, someone clicked on the link above and our site tracking software listed this specific post. You will need to contact Satra UK for verification, do a search or use this email address PETED@satra.co.uk Our CE certification numbers are as follows: 1889(issue 2)EXT1 If anyone has questions in regard to body armor or CE certification please feel free to email us at support@highvelocitygear.com | ||
| Reepicheep |
Thanks for dropping by, Frank. Welcome to badweb. For everyone else, don't read anything nefarious into "site tracking software". Every web site gets, as a part of the information about the page you are requesting, the page that the user was on when they clicked the link to get to your site. This is called the referrer field in the HTTP headers. Everybody gets it, including badweb. The fact that highvelocity tracked and acted on this information shows suggests a company with a lot of attention to customers both current and potential. Or Frank is just another bored web geek poking through the Apache logs  | ||
| Henrik |
I shot off a mail to SATRA to confirm the CE testing and approval of the High Velocity Gear protector. Here is the communication: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Sirs, I confirm that a Motorcycle Back Protector reference CI-B-31121975 was tested by SATRA and met the requirements of prEN 1621-2 Level 2 as detailed on our certificate 1889 (Issue 2) Extension 1. However, this certificate does not cover any shoulder or elbow/forearm protectors to EN 1621-1. Hope this is of help Best regards, Peter Doughty SATRA Quality Assurance Ltd, Wyndham way, Kettering, Northants, NN16 8SD, England. >>> Henrik Bo Pedersen <> 18 October 2004>>> Hello Pete Can you please verify, that High Velocity Gear, producing/selling motorcycle protective equipment in the US did indeed get CE certified - CE certification #1889(issue 2)EXT1 In particular: that their back protector is CE 1621-2 Level 2 certified? That their shoulder and elbow/forearm protectors are C# 1621-1 certified? Thank you for your help Henrik Bo Pedersen | ||
| Henrik |
Got word back from Peter at SATRA, that the High Velocity extremity protectors are indeed tested and passed EN 1621-1 test. Henrik | ||
| Henrik |
Here is my first impression review and some pictures of fit of the High Velocity Gear full armored jacket with back protector. As mentioned earlier, High Velocity Gear is a newcomer to the MC protection scene. They are one of the few manufacturers receiving a full EN 1621-2 Level 2 CE certification for their back protector. In addition, their extremity (shoulder & elbow) armor is also CE certified. I don’t know to which level. But the fact that they go through the process of getting their gear tested and certified, to me shows an interest in providing their customers with quality gear. The jacket is made from a stretchy material (Lycra?) which makes for a comfortable fit – which in the end makes it more likely that you’ll wear it The jacket zips open to the right of the chest protector, which makes sense in order to fit a one-piece chest protector. It does make for a bit of contortion trying to get the zipper closed, but the stretch material is helping there. The material is pretty heavy duty stuff, and I think it would hold up well in use under a jacket. The dense fabric could also, depending on it's sweat transporting proporties, get kinda hot.  The shoulder, elbow and chest protectors are a hard shell design with a foam inner padding. I believe it’s EVA foam, but don’t quote me. These protectors are stitched permanently to the jacket. The elbow armor has an additional Velcro strap to hold it in place – more on the elbow armor later. The jacket also incorporates shoulder blade padding (EVA foam with no hard shell) along the upper edges of the back protector. The shoulder armor, shoulder blade padding and the back protector, together makes for a very nice coverage of the back in the areas most likely to receive impact in case of a crash. It would have been nice to have Astrosorb covering the shoulder blades as well, but that's a nit-pick.  The back protector is a hard shell design as well. The padding used is a combination of EVA foam and Astrosorb. Astrosorb is one of the newer impact absorbing materials, no doubt helping the back protector achieve the Level 2 certification. The shell of the back protector is pre-curved in a turtle shell fashion, so it will fit your back when it is slightly rounded. In standing position the back protector “hovers” a bit off your back – but since that’s not how you’ll be using it, I don’t think it matters. I haven’t tried this armor on the bike, but according to my indoors “sit testing”, the curve should fit nicely in my regular riding position. The lower part of the hard shell is articulated to allow side-to-side bending at the hip. The individual scales of the shell are also connected in an articulating fashion, allowing you to bend forward. They will however try to prevent any backwards bending.  The back protector is zipped to the jacket and incorporates a wide, sturdy kidney belt. The elastic in the belt is very firm and seemingly of similar quality to industrial lower back support belts. I guess jacket and back protector could be worn individually, the back protector however would require a jacket on top of it since there are no shoulder straps. My overall impression is, that this protection system is well made and a bargain for the CE testing levels provided. For comparison, the very similar Dainese armor jacket costs about $350 and only achieved Level 1 certification for the back protector – no word on certification of the extremity armor. In addition, Dainese uses a crushable aluminum honeycomb in the back protector as opposed to Astrosorb in the High Velocity protector. Now to my only real issue with this system; I didn’t like where the elbow armor is attached to the shirt. In order to fit the elbow protectors over my elbows, I had to rotate them rearwards about 100°, which of course twisted the sleeve of the shirt between the elbow and shoulder armor. I contacted High Velocity Gear, who were very responsive, regarding this, and I’m apparently the first one to complain about this. Their take on it, is that the fit and location is a question of preference. They also offered to make me a custom jacket with the elbow armor in the location of my choosing at the same cost as the off-the-rack jacket. I took them up on the offer and will let you know how it turned out when I receive the custom. Here are pictures of my left arm with the elbow armor twisted in place. The first picture shows the seam of the sleeve spiraling down my arm. Second picture is a closeup of the twisted part of the upper sleeve.   Would I recommend this product. Certainly. You get a lot for your $$ and the company has been responsive to my comments. Whether the elbow armor location will be an issue for you … well, you’ll have to test for yourself and maybe have a jacket customized. The jacket is a comfortable fit and have good coverage without limiting motion. As far as fit under a heavy leather jacket; I'd have to guess, but if your jacket came with armor and it can be removed, I think you'd be fine. If you have a snug fitting jacket that doesn't have armor, it might be a tight squeeze. Henrik (Message edited by Henrik on November 10, 2004) (Message edited by henrik on November 10, 2004) | ||
| Henrik |
As promised a follow-up on my dealings with High Velocity Gear: I've got to say - they came through in a big way. I recently received my custom made armored jacket and it fits very well. They hadn't moved the elbow armor as far over as I'd requested, but enough to make the suit fit. I contacted High Velocity regarding the elbow armor placement on the custom, and since they're having the jackets manufactured overseas, there is sometimes a communication issue - and they offered to give it another try to get it perfect the way I'd asked for. Granted, that is as it should be, but still a very pleasant surprise. I went ahead and kept the custom as it was. In addition to shipping me the custom, High Velocity had also included the latest design change to their back protector; an upgraded waist belt, which is now solid enough and has the additional adjustment straps to function as a very nice kidney belt as well. Also new for 2005 are upgraded straps for securing the elbow/forearm armor. Good stuff. I'll be using it for dirt duty as well as the (very rare) occasion, where I want to go for a quick spin around the block without the full suit, where I can wear the armor under a lighter jacket. Henrik | ||
| Road_thing |
Henrik, judging from the photos, it looks like you could use a little protective gear for your thumb! I've got the same mark on mine right now... Ain't home improvement fun? rt | ||
| Henrik |
Sure is ... | ||
| Twowheeldream |
thanks for the info on that armor Henrik... i wonder if it could be sewn into a jacket almost like a liner to completely replace the armor already in there. i just bought one of the new MotoGP jackets about 6 months ago and was all happy that it had CE armor. then about a week or two later, i see a little lable inside the jacket that reads: THIS GARMENT IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE "PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT AS DEFINED IN OR WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (EC DIRECTIVE) REGULATIONS 1992 (S.L. 1992/3139) AND HAS THEREFORE NOT BEEN EXAMINED OR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE REGULATIONS. NO LIABILITY WILL BE ACCEPTED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER OF THIS GARMENT ARISING OUT OF THE GARMENTS NOT-COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH REGULATIONS". let me tell you, after spending $250 bucks on a riding jacket... i wasnt too happy. I really like the way the jacket fits, it feels good and i like the look.... just wish i had the peace of mind knowing what kind of protection im using  | ||
| Outrider |
TWD...Although your jacket may not be up to Henrik's standards, it probably is just fine in the protection department. They just included the label in order to help prevent product liability suits. Heck, even the helmet manufacturer's attempt the same thing and their attorney's are downright nasty in the event you sue them. In essence, all the safety equipment manufacturer's are doing is designing and selling you stuff to help protect you in an accident. None will guarantee their product will prevent any type of damage to your body. That would be financial suicide for them and most certainly false advertising. | ||
| Steve_a |
In some EU countries, if a motorcycle garment claims any protective properties whatsoever (other than rain protection) it must meet the EU standards for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). There are some legitimate reasons (and others less so) for not wanting to comply with those standards, so you see labels like the one above. There are some excellent pieces of motorcycle gear (an Aerostich suit, for one), that do not meet the letter of the CE standards for PPE, but which surely offer as much real-world protection as some garments that do. | ||
| Twowheeldream |
Outrider, didnt think of it that way... kinda like McDonalds now having to put "caution contents are hot" on thier coffee cups when i think abuot it, i wasnt really expecting the jacket to do much more than stop my skin from peeling off in the event of an accident the vents on my jacket are through the chest pockets... once i get up to speed the wind mashes them flat and no air gets in... anybody have this problem or any ideas to keep them open... it vents pretty good other than that. just wish it had another vent in the forearm | ||
| Henrik |
Must have missed Charles' post - sorry. But here goes, only a year late  The CE has certification for both armor/padding and for protective clothing. More and more manufacturers put CE approved armor in their suits, jackets and pants. That doesn't necessarily mean the entire piece of protective gear is CE tested and approved to be called "protective clothing." In Europe, in order for manufacturers to be allowed to even hint, in any way shape or form, that their clothing is protective, it *must* be officially tested and approved. However, getting clothing CE approved as "protective" requires extensive destructive testing of fabric, stitching, general construction etc. I only know of one british made suit that is actually CE approved as protective clothing ... and it's very, very expensive. It's been awhile since I looked into this, so there may be more now. So don't despair if your gear has a label like Charles': THIS GARMENT IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE "PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT AS DEFINED IN OR WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (EC DIRECTIVE) REGULATIONS 1992 (S.L. 1992/3139) AND HAS THEREFORE NOT BEEN EXAMINED OR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE REGULATIONS. NO LIABILITY WILL BE ACCEPTED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER OF THIS GARMENT ARISING OUT OF THE GARMENTS NOT-COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH REGULATIONS". it doesn't necessarily mean that the gear is inferior, and the armor in the gear may very well be tested and approved even if the clothing itself is not labeled as being protective. Hope this clears things up a bit. Henrik | ||
| Henrik |
In my searches since my last posts, I came across T-Pro Forcefield armor and really liked what I found. In the US T-pro is sold through Johnson Leathers. It seems that the T-Pro back protector has one of the highest impact absorption rates of anything out there. It's also made from a rubbery mesh-like material that allows some venting and have received very high ratings in the British bike press. I ended up buying the back protector as well as their padded shorts - and had a chance to real-life test them on track. Worked quite well. Which brings up another point about some types of armor; Many types still utilize some sort of crushable honeycomb material as shock absorbing material, which makes this type of armor "one-time only." Kinda like the crumble zones in a car. One shot and the shock absorption is gone and the armor should be replaced. When I first looked at T-Pro they did not advertise multi-hit protection, but now they do: T-Pro technology - middle of page. Anyway - from a personal and purely anecdotal point of view, I really like the T-pro stuff. An advantage from a rider point of view is that Johnson Leathers can retrofit the T-Pro armor into most jackets and replace shot or questionable original armor. Henrik (no affiliation, kick-back etc. etc.) | ||
| Blake |
I wanna hear about your testing scenario.  Spill it! | ||
| Henrik |
I think I may have mentioned it before, but sure ... I must be 2 years ago at VIR. It was October and snowed when I rode out to Jersey to meet up with my riding buddy. Anyway - it was cold even at VIR, so I'd take my time to get up to speed at the beginning of each session. So, early afternoon on the first day I went out, did a full lap to warm up the tires and continued what I'd been working on that day - braking later and harder. So I go flying into turn 1 at the end of the front straight of VIR South and jam on the front brake at the first brake marker ... and before I know it the front washes out and I'm on the ground tumbling - you know "ground-sky-ground-sky-ground-sky-ground-sky-ground-sky-ground-sky". I finally stopped tumbling just before the turn. The bike had slid from about the first brake marker clear past the cones indicating the turn - through the turn and continued up the straight leading towards VIR North. I must have rung my bell pretty good, 'cause it took an hour or so before my double vision went away. By that time I had the bike fixed back up and went out and did the last session of the day. It turned out I'd separated my AC joint as well, so the following day I had to bail on riding the North course. As you can see, I was fairly banged up - I also had a couple of good bruises on my thigh - but considering the tumbling, I believe (anecdotal, I know) I without good suit and armor would have been quite a bit worse off. The few times I'd glanced at the speedo coming up the straight it'd indicate about 120 mph top speed. I figure I'd gotten the bike slowed a bit before crashing but I don't remember downshifting. So do the math What did I do wrong? Well, to main mistakes were 1) braking too hard on still cold tires. Despite the day warming up and a warm-up lap, 2 laps would no doubt have been much more appropriate. 2) not enough "pre-braking" before braking hard. I should have worked on my braking technique - i.e. brake lightly and letting the suspension compress before transitioning much more smoothly onto really hard braking. Oh well - lessons learned ... hopefully Henrik | ||
| Rocketman |
This may not be relevant to CE testing of motor clothing, but there's a shit storm brewing in the UK right now regarding helmet testing. New EU laws have allowed lots of cheap helmets on to the UK market. These helmets are not tested to anywhere near the standard of the British Kite Mark. They certainly won't stand up to the US Snell test either. I don't know how the Euro testing in general is affecting safety clothing tests, if at all, but it would seem logical in view of the circumstances surrounding the new and poor regulations regarding what crash helmets are now legal under these new rulings, to look further for ones own safety. There may well be a link. Rocket | ||
| Henrik |
Good to know Rocket - and quite disturbing too. We're unfortunately all flying fairly "blind" when it comes to these safety gear issues. There are helmet issues here in the US as well. There is considerable difference between the DOT and the SNELL testing/passing requirements. It rests on a difference in opinion about which injuries a helmet should protect against. Too much to hope for more research to further clarify the actual injury mechanisms wrt. head trauma. Most of the old research tested straight line impact, whereas newer research seem to indicate that most actual trauma involves some angular moment and rotation which changes the protection requirements entirely. Thanks for the heads up (no pun intended ) wrt. helmet qualities. If it's a problem on your end, I have no doubt we'll be seeing something similar in the US soon - if we aren't already ... Henrik | ||
| Rocketman |
Actually Henrik, this weeks MCN published their own helmet test and it concentrates specifically on exactly the issues you mention. The test involved dropping the hemispherical anvil onto varying helmets twice, which is normal procedure, except MCN dropped the anvil from the 307cm maximum height both times. The Snell test reduces the height for the second drop. Arai RX7 Corsair and Suomy Spec 1R were placed even at the first drop. Shoei XR1000 bettered them both. Shark RSR Racer, AGV Ti Tech Evolution were a little behind, and a cheap import bought in a supermarket was way down. The second drop though, which is more representative of the helmets ability to withstand further damage was more telling. The RX7 walked it by a huge margin offering protection not that far off the first drop. Every other helmet was way down in performance on the second drop, the Spec 1R the only helmet to beat the cheap import in the second drop, though they were all pretty close in poor performance compared to the RX7. The kerbstone anvil test where the helmet is dropped seven times from varying heights, four times to the forehead area, twice to side impact, and the final drop to the top side, only the XR1000, Spec 1R, RX7, and RSR Racer made it to the test finishing in that order of performance. The hemispherical anvil test rendered the other helmets not mentioned beyond further evaluation after the first test. The third test was the penetration test where a 3kg metal spike is dropped onto the helmet. This test is not required by ECE standards. Eurocrats don't see enough injuries or deaths from this type of danger to motorcyclist to warrant the penetration test. Suffice to say, out of the last four helmets that made it through the first two tests, only the RX7 passed the spike test. Arai concentrate on making their inner shell resistant to this type of attack. Rocket | ||
| Blake |
It's not the helmet surviving that is of concern is it? | ||
| Henrik |
I think what Rocket is referring to is the ability of the shock absorbing material to perform it's function - in particular in the multiple impact tests. But that's part of the debacle; in order to design a proper protective system we need to know what kind of impact/injury we need to protect against. The anvil straight drop test is unfortunately not representative of the impact seen in motorcycle crashes. The kerbstone test is a bit more indicative in that it uses multiple impacts to more areas of the helmet using an anvil shape more like what we're likely to encounter in a crash situation. But all fail to test for the angular hit, which with a body in motion will most likely include a rotation vector as well. Think of it this way; hold a bucket of water by the handle and rotate the bucket one way - then the other. You'll notice that the bucket moves, but the water doesn't rotate with the bucket. Now think of the bucket/water as the skull/brain and you'll see that a hit with an angle and/or rotation will have the skull moving while the brain doesn't. That kind of impact causes laceration injuries to the brain and is much more common than the straight on hit emulated in the tests. The other big debate in helmets is how hard a hit should the liner be able to absorb and how much energy should be allowed to be transferred to the head through the helmet/liner? SNELL opts for protecting against very high impact hits which forces the use of stiffer liners, which in turn is much less shock absorbing against lower impact hits. DOT is the exact opposite. Unfortunately motorcyclists are still only a small group, so it's difficult to find adequate funding for research. And as long as the certifying organizations test as they do, helmet manufacturers are not going to make any changes to their design. Henrik | ||
| Court |
The Kerbstone does multiple tests with the same helmet? It'd be interesting to see how the cumulative effects occur. I'd always taken as gospel, and adhered to the "bang it/trash it" theory and have a collection of helmets waiting to become table lamps. | ||
| Blake |
The DOT versus SNEL versus the British standard is a very interesting bioengineering and statistical probability issue. I'm familiar with the debate, but I don't have an opinion on it, yet. Boxers know how to take advantage of the rotation vector scenario. Brutal stuff. | ||
| Henrik |
... adhered to the "bang it/trash it" theory Oh, absolutely - no doubt about it. The multi hit testing is merely to determine if the helmet is able to protect you against 2nd or 3rd hit during the same crash. As I described in my crash experience above, I rolled for what seemed like forever and only know for sure I hit my head at least once. It's quite possible, likely even, that I hit several times. Henrik | ||
| Bomber |
my direct and indirect experience tells me the rotational componant and the multi-hit capabilities are both of prime importance -- sadly, H is likely right in that there will not be good research to help sort the wheat from the chaff anytime soon -- gubmints don't seem to be very interested, and I doubt their level of expertise -- worse are the existing certifying bodies, as their first job is to ensure their continued existance -- making research, unbiased data collection and dispersal, and, ultimately, proctecting riders a secondary consideration . . . last helmet in our family to hit the deck showed impacts in three different places (about 120 degrees apart) and deep scratching (indicating the direction of travel whilst hard agains the pavement) in four differing paths -- lets get Dr Hurt to un-retire and give him some dough! | ||
| Davegess |
We need a PHD student who is into bikes to take this on as a disertation. Very interesting and scary stuff. |
