0
Hi, just discovered this forum with a link from www.socalsvriders.com. Just thought I'd share some info I've compiled on back protectors and CE standards.
There are currently no standards or testing procedures necessary to call a piece of cardboard "the best protection system in the world" in the United States. This is something I feel strongly about needing to change. It is ridiculous to buy gear based on marketing hype, sponsorship deals, rumors, arbitrary experience, looks, and feel. Real, scientifically derived numbers should be the first reason for buying a piece of "protective" gear, always.
It can be very confusing, but after some discussions on other sites and some minimal online research I have found 6 companies that offer actual CE approved back protectors and specify compliance with the proper back protector CE standard :
Knox
Spidi
T-pro
Alpinestars
Dainese
BKS
The back protector standard(EN1621-2) can be either 18 kN for LEVEL 1 compliance or 9kN for LEVEL 2 "high performance" compliance.
***4kN is the medically recommended level of transmitted force, but it is actually not required by the current CE back protector standard EN1621-2 LEVEL 1 or LEVEL 2. See BKS Leathers below.
The CE limb/joint protector standard is labeled EN1621-1, it allows joint/limb armor to transmit no more than 35kN of force. Both of the CE standards( the back or limb standards) use the same amount of energy as a starting point, 50 joules. However limb/joint armor is rated based on its performance at an initial force of 50 joules, 75 joules, or 100 joules, leading to 3 levels of performance within the standard. They all must allow no more than 35 kN of energy to transmit: LEVEL 1 (50 joules), LEVEL 2 "high performance" (75 joules), and LEVEL 3 "extreme performance" (100 joules).
http://www.pva-ppe.org.uk/ PART%203...20EXPLAINED.htm
Here's an excerpt from the link above with an explanation of the current CE back protector standards:
"Draft standard prEN 1621-2 covers back protectors. This may well have been published as a full standard by the time you read this article. The impact energy is the same as for limb protectors, at 50 Joules, but the transmitted force is lower than for limb protectors at 18 kN for “Level 1” products and 9 kN for the higher performance “Level 2” products. There has been criticism of the standard from medical experts who consider the transmitted force levels too severe; citing decades of automotive research which indicates 4 kN is the maximum force the brittle bones which form the human ribcage can withstand before they fracture. Four kiloNewtons is the requirement adopted in standards covering, for example, horse riders’ body protectors and martial arts equipment.
Attempts to reduce the transmitted force requirement to 4 kN and to correspondingly reduce the 50 Joule impact energy requirement were strongly resisted by industry, who claimed consumers would be “confused” by different impact energy requirements between EN1621-1 and EN1621-2.
In truth, it was in the industry’s commercial interests to test both types of protector at 50J, since they could then extol the efficacy of back protectors which, when struck with the same impact energy as limb protectors, transmitted only 9 or 18 kN compared to 35 kN. The consumer would be unaware that subtle differences in the impactor and anvil were responsible, and still less aware that 9 kN was still more than double the safe limit supported by medical experts. Furthermore, during the late 1990s, some companies had used the wholly inappropriate EN 1621-1 to CE mark their back protectors. Commercial objectives were given priority over consumer safety.
Despite these concerns, EN1621-2 represents a starting point from wholly unsafe products should be rendered obsolete and unsellable. It will be important, however, for consumers to ensure back protectors are marked with the correct standard number, if they are not to mistakenly purchase an old stock.
Finally, there are a small number of back protectors on the market which have been dual-tested against the requirements of EN1621-2 and also against a 4 kN transmitted force requirement. Reading the manufacturer’s technical information will disclose which are the superior products.(--HaHa, don't we wish that was true.)"
So the EN1621-2 standard contains two levels that are considered passing. One transmits no more than 18kN of force(LEVEL 1), and the other transmits no more than 9kN(LEVEL 2), but both of these levels fall within that 1621-2 back protector standard. For example: Alpinestars states that the Tech Protector is 1621-2 approved but makes no claim of LEVEL 2 compliance, however T-Pro states that their protectors are 1621-2 LEVEL 2 approved.
http://www.alpinestars.com/_lp/moto_protection.htm
Knox doesn't specify the level that any of there back protectors comply with, just that they are approved to the 1621-2 standard.
Knox makes reference to improper use of CE claims by other companies. They don't name names, but it appears to be in response to Bohn's non-certified CE labeling practice. Bohn uses a CE label without actually being certified. Bohn also does not specify which standard they are referring to in their marketing statements of "exceeding CE specs". An article on the Knox site implies that unnamed companies are being sued for improperly using the CE mark and not complying with the proper specs for back protectors. I cannot find any actual information that directly refers to Bohn or the standards that Bohn allegedly meets or exceeds.
On Bohn's own website there is no specific information regarding which CE specs are being met and how it is being proven. I find this claim to be blatantly deceptive and deceitful. Such claims should be backed-up. Any company that tries to tag-on to safety standards and markings without actually providing open evidence or paying for the right to market its products using the standard is not selling in good faith.
http://www.planet-knox.com/Knox/index.asp
http://www.actionstation.com/
***BKS actually offers back protectors that meet the medically established 4kN energy transmission level, as well as limb armor that meets the CE 1621-1 standard's "extreme performance" of energy absorption for limb/joint armor. BKS seems to have the right attitude and the highest quality merchandise available, but they are also THE most expensive producer of leather motorcycle apparel on the planet. Should we really have to pay $2500.00 for the kind of better overall protection we need, and only have one choice in leathers that meet the baseline testing requirements? Nobody else claims suits that are 100% CE approved in each area, or as a whole.
http://www.bksleather.co.uk/techno.htm
The most interesting piece of info from the T-Pro Body Armor site:
"Back Protection for Motorcyclists--Only a few motorcyclists receive a direct blow to the spine causing serious injury; more spine injuries are probably due to direct blows to the shoulders and hips. The products commonly known as motorcyclists back protectors, if correctly designed and constructed may alleviate some minor direct impacts on the back, but will not prevent skeletal or neurological injuries to the spine in motorcycle accidents."
T-Pro appears to have a similar attitude to BKS, their products appear to be similar, their site is full of good info.
http://www.tprobodyarmour.co.uk/ff_back.html
Spidi offers two families of CE approved back protector options the Airback and Warrior. I noticed a difference in information and the photos of the Spidi Warrior protectors on the Spidi US website vs. the Italian(English version). The mid and lower back versions of the new Warrior protectors are listed only on the Italian site, and are CE 1621-2 LEVEL 1 approved. The full-coverage version of the Warrior keeps disappearing from the Italian site, but the original literature stated that it was LEVEL 2 compliant, a much better option.
The US Spidi website shows a Warrior protector that looks different than the Warrior protectors on the Italian site, and the literature about these protectors is very different as well. The US site does not state that the Warrior protectors are compliant with the CE back protector standard 1621-2, just that the they are compliant with the CE Directives for PPE(Personal Protective Equipment), which have nothing to do with the actual standards and testing performance of the equipment. The Directives are simply an ethics code and basis for testing procedures and standards operations. Fishy? It certainly appears that way, and the price of the US version leads to that assumption as well.
http://www.spidi.it/spidi-jsp/index.jsp?lang=en
http://www.spidiusa.com/Category.ph...gory=protection
http://www.ce-marking.org/directive-89686eec-PPE.html
Dainese doesn't tout or even mention CE approval anywhere on their website that I could find, but I did manage to find some info on the Dainese protectors at www.motoliberty.com They stated: Folding Back Protector Paraaschiena Ripegabile---The new Dainese folding back protector is made with a hard plastic tortoise shell type construction. It has an optimum shock absorption capacity which easily superceded the tough test at the highest level (level 2) of the prEN 1621.2 standard.
http://www.dainese.it
http://www.motoliberty.com/prod_detail.asp?ProdID=34
Impact Armor protectors make no claims of protection. They offer testimonials from unpaid professional racers, but nothing in the way of proven results of crash worthiness or protective levels.
I also had email correspondence with Michael Braxton, owner of Impact Armor. He seemed friendly, but unwilling to divulge any real information about how his Impact Armor protectors have performed in tests. In fact I got the gist that they haven’t been tested at all. He focuses on theory, which is fine, but the theory varies from the final product in practical terms. I inferred that his theories were tested in the early '90s while working with T-Pro. I don't know the complete history of T-Pro or Impact Armor and Michael Braxton, but I am leery of his evasiveness and lip service to safety and standards in our correspondence though his intentions did sound sincere. However when it comes to my safety, somebody's sincere intentions won't buy a cup of coffee.
www.impactarmor.com
Fieldsheer claims their X20 back protector exceeds all CE standards leaving the specifics to the imagination, and leaving you to hope they mean the back protector level 2 standards, but do not refer to the actual certification or standard that their protector has passed.
"The X20 back protector provides protection internally using a new "honey comb" plastic core, proved to exceed all European CE standards."
Maybe I'm over-analyzing, but if you read it carefully, what is that really saying? Has it been certified? Has it been tested as a whole? Is the design or the final product proven? All CE standards? It would make more sense to state that they were proven to exceed 1621-2 Level 2 standards, the highest level of certification if that is actually the case.
http://www.fieldsheer.com/products....-back-protector
Kobe back protectors claim CE approval as well, but no mention of which standard is being referred to.
http://www.1888fastlap.com/kobe_fas...ack_protect.htm
Joe Rocket's website says their GPX back protector is made of the same material that BKS uses, "Astrosorb" the highest-rated foam used in body armor, but makes no reference to the thickness used or performance results. The BKS back protector uses 20mm of two specs of Astrosorb, which has been certified to reach the medically recommended amount of energy dissipation(4kn@50J).
Helimot and Teknic(though they also sell Knox protectors)are other brands that I have seen on the web, but make no specific claims of protective levels, performance results, or much if any, theory.
http://www.helimot.com/catalog/othe.../tlv_data.shtml
http://www.teknicgear.com/pages/col...s/4_7_link.html
There are plenty more out there, the important thing is to know what to look for before you spend any more money thinking you have the safest possible piece of equipment.
Trying to figure-out these differences, which are the only ones that truly matter in the end, is WAY too complicated. You and I should not have to go to great lengths to find or understand the safety differences in any piece of so-called "protective equipment", whether that title is explicit or implied. The need for a Snell-type standard in the US that is clear, comprehensive, and concise is the only solution and we need to make it happen now. We have no US standards for motorcycle gear in the United States, which means somebody can slap a piece of cardboard together, and call it the world's best protection system ever, and it may even look the part. I'm also sure that you could find some racers or average Joe's to swear by it as well. Perpetuation of incomplete information leaves too much to speculation as the basis of our protective measures.
Sorry for the length. Hope this can help in your decisions though. I also hope the entire motorcycling community can make it a point to be more thorough in the buying process when it comes to so-called protective gear. All of these questions, and any misinformation, marketing hype, and rumors can be avoided with a simple testing procedure. Snell labeling for helmets has been successful and we need to demand something similar for the rest of our body.
Reply With Quote
Back Protectors, Testing and CE Standards
