What you should know about Body Armor

MarinaFazer

Wonderbread
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
2,259
Reaction score
19
Points
0
Location
Santa Monica, California
www.jwci.org
Hey guys: I'm going to look at a back protector after work today and having perused all the options out there I came to my decision. What it is, I'll let you know once I buy it and review it; HOWEVER:

I came across this when seeing what I should look for and noticed there isn't a good guideline on the forum for what to look for so here we go:
(I am not affiliated, advocating brands, etc etc...just trying to be helpful for those looking for that extra spinal protection and want something that won't suck)

source: What You Should Know about Motorcycle Body Armor

As Motorcyclists we believe in performance, it's a fundamental part of what we do. We believe Motorcyclist Protection is more than wearing extra plastic and "gear"; it's about wearing products that are tested to a higher standard. If you ride motorcycles and you know the difference between DOT/SNELL certifications, you owe it to yourself to read on. If you prefer to be a testing dummy, then by all means, STOP reading now.

The following excerpt was written by an unknown independent third party not affiliated with Velocity Gear (just a heads up that this isn't the brand choice I've decided to try on after work). The information contained herein is currently out of date; however it should be considered an excellent example of what consumers should know before purchasing so called "protective" gear.

Research is the key to purchasing properly CE tested and Approved Motorcycling Apparel.

It is ridiculous to buy "protective" 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 gear, always.

Testing is the only real way to know how crash worthy a product is. Arbitrary crashes are all similar in one way; they involve forces in direction acting on the equipment. It is simple rudimentary physics that decides how you come out of an accident and simple impact testing that is 100% repeatable is the only practical way to determine actual differences in products that may save you in a fall.

I have found six companies that offer actual CE approved back protectors and specify compliance with the proper back protector CE standard.

Alpinestars
Dainese
Knox
Spidi
T-pro

Before addressing each of these companies it is important to understand how CE standards are determined.

Draft standard prEN 1621-2 covers back protectors. The impact energy is the same as for limb protectors, 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.

Back Protectors that aren't certified to the EN1621-2 standard (Level 1 or Level 2) are unsafe and should be considered inferior products by current CE Motorcyclist Protection Guidelines. Current Motorcyclist Jackets typically incorporate EN1621-1 compliant padding for the back, shoulders and elbows. However, it should noted that EN1621-1 compliant products DO NOT meet current Motorcyclist
Back Protection Standards.

It is important that consumers verify each product with the correct standard designations; otherwise, consumers may be confused regarding what certification level the product is that they are purchasing, or may be purchasing outdated or obsolete items.

The EN1621-2 standard contains two levels that are considered passable. One transmits no more than 18 kN of force (LEVEL 1), and the other transmits no more than 9 kN (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 1 or Level 2 compliance.

To reinforce the previous explanation: What the consumer needs to know is that there are several different CE certification standards. There is the EN1621-1 standard that applies to shoulder,elbow and knee protection. There is, also, the EN1621-2 standard that comes in two levels, Level 1 and Level 2. EN1621-2 Level 1 transmits 18 kN of force through the product, from an initial impact force of 50kN, while EN1621-2 Level 2 transmits 9 kN of force through the product from an initial impact force of 50kN. The Level 2 certification literally transmits half the force through the product in comparison to Level 1.

The back protector standard (EN1621-2) can be either 18 kN for LEVEL 1 compliance or 9 kN for LEVEL 2 "high performance" compliance.


Dainese Backspace is made of an exclusive and innovative aluminum honeycomb construction, and has breathable polyurethane padding, and patented transversal joints on the waist. Its innovative structure, Backspace is extremely light, anatomical, and comfortable. It has undergone rigorous CE approval tests, which it surpassed with an average transmitted force of 15 kN or LEVEL 1 certification.

Unfortunately, using aluminum as an inner core makes this armor a one time use armor. That is, once it has sustained an impact it must be replaced in order to offer the consumer the same absorption qualities as new.

Knox doesn't specify the level that any of their back protectors comply with, just that they are approved to the appropriate EN1621-2 standard.

Knox refers 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" or "built to European CE standards." 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.

Bohn's website offers 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 dishonest. Such claims should be backed-up. Companies that attempt to join the bandwagon of certifications without providing evidence for such certifications is on the verge of false advertising, saying nothing of poor business practices and deception of the public.

Spidi offers two families of CE approved back protectors, 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 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 EN1621-2, 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. Suspicious? It certainly appears that way, and the price of the US version leads to that assumption as well.

Impact Armor protectors make no claims of CE certification. They offer testimonials from unpaid professional racers, but nothing in the way of proven results of crash worthiness or protective levels.

Fieldsheer claims their X20 back protector exceeds all CE standards leaving the specifics to the imagination, and leaving you to hope they meet the back protector Level 2 standards, but do not refer to the actual certification or standard that their protector has passed.

Kobe back protectors claim CE approval as well, but no mention of which standard is being referred to.

Joe Rocket's website says very little about their GPX back protector. It is not shown to be CE certified.

Helimot and Teknic (though they also sell Knox) are other brands that I have seen on the web, but make no specific claims of protective levels or performance results.

There are 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. In the end you have to ask yourself how much limited personal experience, limited arbitrary crash experience, limited knowledge of the actual forces at work in any crash story, and the beliefs of others in what they have heard through the grapevine. Is any of this speculation going to satisfy your motivation to part with your money? What information will provide you with the safety expectations you have decided are appropriate. The problem with decisions made with this kind of information is that it is never complete or accurate, no matter how well intentioned it may be.

We have no 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 poor information and marketing hype leaves too much to our own speculation as the basis for our protective measures.

source: What You Should Know about Motorcycle Body Armor
 

Roadstergal

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
260
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Location
San Bruno, CA
Visit site
The most important thing to keep in mind, IMO, is that "CE" means nothing. I've seen foam that would be hard-put to keep a package in place during shipping referred to as "CE," and Bohn is far from the only company. The only standards that mean anything for body armor are, as Marina said, EN1621-1 and EN1621-2.

The first thing I do when I buy a suit or jacket is throw out the piece of foam in the back. I have an EN1621-2 level 2 back protector that goes under any suit or jacket I wear. If the armor in a bit of gear you buy isn't up to snuff, consider some TPro Forcefield. I'm hardly a TPro pimp, but I appreciate that they offer a variety of sizes of armor-containing underwear to fit a variety of bodies, as well as slip-in EN1621-1-compliant body armor.
 

DefyInertia

Former '04 FZ6 Rider
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
3,701
Reaction score
66
Points
0
Location
San Francisco, CA
Visit site
+2 on T-pro....I use their back and chest protector after reading a lot about it in the mags and online. It conforms to my body and is super comfortable. Supposedly top notch protection.
 
R

rock.w105

Hello friends this website is very nice
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top