ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Gear > Vendors
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-27-2006, 10:12 PM   #61
WickedChicken
just don't tell Mom...
 
WickedChicken's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Behind you with a lead pipe
Oddometer: 158
I fall into the pro-motoport camp, but I really have to disagree with these reasons for not using the vest. Having used mine for about a month, including a 400 day mile trip over the weekend, I wanted to respond:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne at Motoport


Following are my opinions why the Tipperary Air Vest is not recommended for Motorcycle use:

1. The foam is too thick and soft. Has anyone here ever seen armor used in motorcycle apparel that is as thick and soft as the Tipperary Vest? When falling at speed this thick foam can cause the rider to flip and tumble instead of sliding.
******This simply is false. The foam is neither thick nor soft. It markedly tougher and firmer than dual-density foam. The photos that ldbandit posted above show its composition. It is approx 1/2 - 5/8" thick, well in line with other types of armor. Also, the vest is meant to be worn near the skin, under a jacket. Worn this way, it would not cause a tumble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne at Motoport
2. No protection in the shoulders/arms.
*******No, but the vest synchs up with my existing shoulder and elbow protection just fine. And it is far, far burlier than any CE approved armor I've owned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne at Motoport
3. Not stiff enough to prevent broken bones, damage to joints.
*******I disagree. I also think that no other armor on the market can match this vest for chest and rib protection while at the same time being comfortable and low-profile. To me, this is a key combination--a very high level of torso coverage + not a lot of bulk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne at Motoport
4. The manufacturer of the Tipperary Vest states: "Not To BE USED ON MOTORCYCLES!!!!
*****This is for liability and that's all. Let's keep this empirical and scientific...no need to drag the lawyers into it.

Wayne--have you examined this particular vest in person? It's worth a look! I think you had a different vest in mind, b/c the tipperary is not soft, puffy, overly thick, etc.

LDB and l2i did an awesome job at researching this product and the tests/levels of protection that relate to it. I learned a lot from their posts (and all L2i's armor rants). I'm a big fan of the vest, I love it... I'm all ears if there's something wrong w/ it that falls within the realm of scientific testing. But all the complaints above sound like cookiecutter gripes--not researched arguments.
WickedChicken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2006, 11:28 PM   #62
elgreen
Crotchety Contrarian
 
elgreen's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: Northern California
Oddometer: 436
FWIW: I personally found the Tipperary vest to be too bulky, but the main culprit was the back of the vest. However: That foam insert can be removed. The result is basically a chest protector which, worn under the jacket, is also protected from abrasion, and which while bulky is still far less cumbersome than a motocross chest protector worn on the outside of the jacket while providing significantly more impact absorption. I doubled up the memory foam in the stock back protector of my riding jacket for additional back protection, but chest protection is far more important for the kind of riding we are talking about (dual-sport adventure riding at relatively slow speeds on unimproved roads where typical accidents result in being launched at or over the handlebars superman-style and landing on chest on rough ground).

Wayne's padding looks decent for the kind of riding that he designed it for -- street and paved track race riding. The name of this site, however, isn't "pavement rider". The name of this site is ADVENTURE rider. Which tends to imply a different sort of impact, impacts which are at slower speeds (speeds more similar to equestrian than street racing speeds) and involve a different set of dynamics than street crashes. Significant chest impacts are far more likely for us than for street riders. Street riders typically crash by low siding or high siding then sliding along the pavement or tumbling until encountering an obstacle, not by going over the bars. It is a different dynamic entirely from that which an adventure rider might encounter when his front wheel discovers some unseen rocks on a water crossing and the bike stops but the rider doesn't -- well, not until coming down on his chest on another set of rocks a dozen feet later, anyhow.
__________________
2002 KLR650, 2005 Concours (sold), 2008 Suzuki V-Strom 650 ABS
elgreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2006, 10:56 AM   #63
ldbandit76 OP
Life is good.
 
ldbandit76's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Oddometer: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne at Motoport

This graph is showing the best T-Pro Back Protector, CE approved armor as "A". Cycleport/Motoport's Tri-Armor is "B". A is showing the Peak Acceleration at 30 G's and Static Stress in PSI on initial impact. Cycleport's Tri-Armor is absorbing the impact better at around 25 G's.
Fan-freakin-tastic. Thanks for posting. Now we can get down to brass tacks.

However, we first note that we're speaking different languages.

The CE and BETA standards measure impact performance by measuring the maximum force on the body (measured in pounds or Newtons) after a given energy (measured in Joules or foot-pounds) of impact. The energy term includes the mass and speed of the anvil that strikes the pad, so it includes all factors going in. Force is the thing that breaks bones, so that's an appropriate output.

Wayne's data (which I'm sure is terrifcally accurate), is measuring acceleration in G's. But acceleration alone doesn't cause damage; it's the mass that's being acclerated that produces an injuring force, via F=m*a.

Wayne: let me know what was being accelerated in your test apparatus. Specifically, tell me how much it weighed. I can then convert that number to a force, and we can compare apples and apples.

But before we go there, let's all take a look at the T-Pro stuff. It meets CE 1621-2, I think at level 2 (the better one). That permits 9 kN at 50 J impact energy. Scaled to 45 J impact energy, that's 8.1 kN force in a BETA 2000 test. That's the best CE motorcyclist standard out there.

The Tipperary vest transmits 4 kN at 45 J. That's TWICE as good as the best CE standard (half the force transmitted), and TWICE as good as the T-Pro pad. Wayne's armor is better than the T-Pro stuff, but is it twice as good? A look at the chart tells us no. But the Tippereary vest is. Which makes it a better pad than Tri-Armor. QED.

Dave

EDIT: L2I's stuff below indicates that the very best, most recent T-Pro product delivers 6.5 kN at 50 J. That would be roughly 5.8 kN at 45 J (the BETA standard), which is still higher than the Tipperary at 4. If Wayne was testing one of those pieces (and it doesn't seem like it, but I could be wrong) and the Tri-Armor is sufficiently better than said T-pro stuff (and it's impossible to tell since we don't have a kN output) then it seems, at best, that the Tri-Armor would be as good as the Tipperary vest. But there are a couple big "ifs" that need to be met first. Note also that the Tipperary might exceed the 4 kN standard, but we don't have actual test data on it.

EDIT No. 2: If that 8 pound weight falling 12 inches is Wayne's test, we're really in a quandary. I feel comfortable extrapolating from 45 J to 50 J, but the step from 9 to 50 J is a big one. Materials do not behave linearly at all impact energies, which is why we don't wear feather pillows as riding pads (those work very well at very low impact energies, but obviously not so much at high ones). Pad materials need to be designed according to the level of energy they're meant to absorb. That's not to say Tri-Armor isn't designed well or that it doesn't work, but if it's only been tested at 9 Joules, we can't say anything meaningful about how it'll behave at higher, more realistic loads. As a note, the very-advanced Cambridge pad studies use a 100 J impact energy, so even the 50 J of the CE tests may be a little low for good data, but it's what we have.

ldbandit76 screwed with this post 11-29-2006 at 10:39 AM
ldbandit76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2006, 01:20 PM   #64
Effervescent
Sexiest ADVrider '14
 
Effervescent's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Gotham
Oddometer: 1,801
I think I am on everyone's team here

Allow me to elucidate:

I ride with the Tipperary vest. For adequate arm protection, I used a Bohn tri-armor under jacket, under my armored Vanson/or double-armored JR Ballistics jacket. The Bohn's chest armor pieces are not needed (IMHO) after the Tipperary's awesome torso protection (peerless, IMHO).

I plan to see if the Bohn chest armor pieces will fit into my motoport codura pants to double reinforce their armor.

My next plan is to buy a day-glo kevlar motoport jacket and ditch the JR's plastic stuff. I've already sold my Aerostich 1-piece after I was so impressed with the motoport pants. That money pays for 2/3rds the jacket already.

I realize that a lot of the visibility of the bright motoport jacket is lost once the Tipperary vest is placed over it. I am hoping it has enough stretch to allow the Tipperary to be placed under. If it can't go under, I will still wear it over. I'm THAT convinced of it's protection.

-Eff
__________________
"OH F*CK!!! Where the f*ck? Where the f*ck is the bike? Oh, ya gotta be shittin' me! Where the f*ck is the road?" -JoefromSF

Effervescent screwed with this post 11-28-2006 at 04:36 PM
Effervescent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2006, 02:10 PM   #65
license2ill
Banned
 
license2ill's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Oddometer: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldbandit76
Fan-freakin-tastic. Thanks for posting. Now we can get down to brass tacks.

However, we first note that we're speaking different languages.

The CE and BETA standards measure impact performance by measuring the maximum force on the body (measured in pounds or Newtons) after a given energy (measured in Joules or foot-pounds) of impact. The energy term includes the mass and speed of the anvil that strikes the pad, so it includes all factors going in. Force is the thing that breaks bones, so that's an appropriate output.

Wayne's data (which I'm sure is terrifcally accurate), is measuring acceleration in G's. But acceleration alone doesn't cause damage; it's the mass that's being acclerated that produces an injuring force, via F=m*a.

Wayne: let me know what was being accelerated in your test apparatus. Specifically, tell me how much it weighed. I can then convert that number to a force, and we can compare apples and apples.

But before we go there, let's all take a look at the T-Pro stuff. It meets CE 1621-2, I think at level 2 (the better one). That permits 9 kN at 50 J impact energy. Scaled to 45 J impact energy, that's 8.1 kN force in a BETA 2000 test. That's the best CE motorcyclist standard out there.

The Tipperary vest transmits 4 kN at 45 J. That's TWICE as good as the best CE standard (half the force transmitted), and TWICE as good as the T-Pro pad. Wayne's armor is better than the T-Pro stuff, but is it twice as good? A look at the chart tells us no. But the Tippereary vest is. Which makes it a better pad than Tri-Armor. QED.

Dave

It's just the same out of context, irrelevant, and inaccurate info as always. No date of testing, no citation, and no context for the numbers discussed. CE EN1621-2 has been around since 2002, and the T-Pro Forcefield, T-pro's current "best" protector meets that standard to the highest performance level(at a reported 6.5kn pass at 50J). You won't find any 3/8" EVA midsoles passing even the basic requirements of that current standard.

Which model of Tipperary vest is in question? The Esprit is the only Phoenix Performance(manufacturer) vest that meets the latest EN13158 or BETA Level 3 standard(horse rider torso protection). Will that standard prevent injuries? Yes, vests conforiming to that standard have a greater range of protective value in all aspects than any motorcycling apparel or any other horse riding vests and previous standards, on both ends of the equation(impact energy and force transmission). Can you still be injured? Of course, because impact energies can be much more severe(certainly much more than a 12" drop of any given mass, and even a 11kg pointed rock from 1 meter.) The data and measurements for injury are known in kN, and that is that is used by the CE standard. The injuries that occur at those levels of force are also known, and are minimal, broken ribs and bruising. The BETA and EN13158 standard is the most stringent rerquirement for any piece in keeping those forces below the threshold of 4kN where those injuries will occur, and they are capable of doing that at a level of impact severity that is comparable to the CE approved pieces made for motorycling. G's are used in crash helmets because the brain is sensitive to acceleration loads, but bones break according to force. If you are talking ribs, tibias, ulnas, or scapula, the measurements of their thresholds for fracture will be shown with kN or lbs of force, not in G's, and the threshold of those fractures is key when discussing that aspect of protective value. The other aspect is the severity of the impact. Once under a known threshold for injury, the severity of the hit is the issue. Both of those data points are missing within any info regarding any Motoport product here, and it's certainly well out of context wihtin any discussion of current CE standards for motorcyclist impact protectors, motoryclist back protectors, or horse riders torso protectors. In other words, it still shows us absolutely nothing in terms of meaningful statements that are accurate or relevant. Extrapolating the values from the poreviously noted 8lb weight dropped from 12" shows an impact energy of less than 9J, vs the 50J used for CE testing of mc protectors, or the 35-45J for horse riders protectors. It was also said to be a flat bar, not a load-concentrated anvil, as used for the CE tests. The horse rider standard uses a flat that creates 35J and a hemi-shaped anvil for the 45J hit. The mc back protector standard(1621-2) uses a hemi at 50J. The difference between the 45J hit and 50J is approx 1" less drop height for a 5kg mass.

A simple look at the materials tells the story. Youv'e got fairly thick high-tech, newer foams in use in the BETA approved horse rider vests that are thicker and stiffer than those pieces made for motoyclist impact standards. Those motorcyclist impact portector standards aren't as stingent as the horse rider tros protection standards, so it requires thicker forms of better materials. Or you've got 3/8 thick EVA midsole materials in the Motoport stuff with some sort of supposed testing data from 1990 that apparently shows slightly lower values for the EVA product vs some unknown example of a T-Pro back protector from the era. You won't find too many examples of EVA-based pieces passing even the limb armor requirments for CE EN1621-1, which allows 9 times the amount of force(appropriate for limb joints, not torso needs) at 50J(11lb, 1m). There is simply no implication or any data that shows the Motoport as being anywhere close to better, as good, or even at all approriate for motorcycling use in any of the examples Wayne has shown here.

There is certainly nothing to be confused about here.

license2ill screwed with this post 11-28-2006 at 03:37 PM
license2ill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2006, 10:17 PM   #66
Effervescent
Sexiest ADVrider '14
 
Effervescent's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Gotham
Oddometer: 1,801
"ago I removed the Tipperary's back insert"

Got a pic? I am not home right now and can't really picture what you did. Was cutting involved?

-Eff
__________________
"OH F*CK!!! Where the f*ck? Where the f*ck is the bike? Oh, ya gotta be shittin' me! Where the f*ck is the road?" -JoefromSF
Effervescent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2006, 11:48 PM   #67
elgreen
Crotchety Contrarian
 
elgreen's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: Northern California
Oddometer: 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Effervescent
"ago I removed the Tipperary's back insert"

Got a pic? I am not home right now and can't really picture what you did. Was cutting involved?
Nope. The back of the vest is a mesh sleeve with an overlapping slit holding a large foam insert. With enough scrunching of the back insert, you can just slide the insert through that slit. It looks like it won't go, because the slit is maybe 2/3rds the width of the back insert, but you can scrunch the back insert enough to make it through the slit. Once you've done that, the back is just mesh, and you basically have a rib protector.

If I ever want to put the foam back in, it'll slide right back into that slit. No cutting involved.

-E
__________________
2002 KLR650, 2005 Concours (sold), 2008 Suzuki V-Strom 650 ABS
elgreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2006, 06:26 AM   #68
Effervescent
Sexiest ADVrider '14
 
Effervescent's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Gotham
Oddometer: 1,801
Gotcha. Interesting. I might play around with it. That increases the chance of it fitting under my jacket and me using my hit air vest.

Though in a big street crash, I would really want the back/side protection.

-Eff
__________________
"OH F*CK!!! Where the f*ck? Where the f*ck is the bike? Oh, ya gotta be shittin' me! Where the f*ck is the road?" -JoefromSF
Effervescent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2006, 12:57 PM   #69
Wayne at Motoport
Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Oddometer: 96
More Details

Quote:
Originally Posted by WickedChicken
I fall into the pro-motoport camp, but I really have to disagree with these reasons for not using the vest. Having used mine for about a month, including a 400 day mile trip over the weekend, I wanted to respond:



******This simply is false. The foam is neither thick nor soft. It markedly tougher and firmer than dual-density foam. The photos that ldbandit posted above show its composition. It is approx 1/2 - 5/8" thick, well in line with other types of armor. Also, the vest is meant to be worn near the skin, under a jacket. Worn this way, it would not cause a tumble.
(I'll try to explain in more detail. The foam is not hard enough on the outside surface. The foam is not flat and smooth. This again will work fine in the dirt at low speed. As long as the shoulder, elbow forearm armor is added. It is designed for horse riders. If you take the weight of a rider, add the speed of motion in a crash, having a bumpy foam surface, directly under the jacket, can cause the rider to tumble, not slide. This is not my opinion. This is fact.
Take your jacket with the Tipperary vest underneath, push down hard on an abrasive surface. Now imagine adding 150lbs of pressure at 30mph.. "The average riders weight in a 30mph crash.")

*******No, but the vest synchs up with my existing shoulder and elbow protection just fine. And it is far, far burlier than any CE approved armor I've owned. (Adding the shoulder and elbow forearm armor is great. Now you have much better protection. The vest is not sold complete.)

*******I disagree. I also think that no other armor on the market can match this vest for chest and rib protection while at the same time being comfortable and low-profile. To me, this is a key combination--a very high level of torso coverage + not a lot of bulk.
(I think it's great that you can wear this vest. I know from many years of experience that the following will apply:
1. Vest is too hot over 80f for the majority of riders.
2. Has great coverage for the chest and back but nothing for the shoulders, neck and elbow/forearm.
3. Most riders want the armor to be inside the jacket. Too much of a hassel to put on a vest separate.
4. Majority of riders will feel the vest is too thick and bulky.

As mentioned in the past: "When something is thicker it doesn't mean that it will absorb impact better".



*****This is for liability and that's all. Let's keep this empirical and scientific...no need to drag the lawyers into it.
(I'm not dragging any lawyers into this at all. Sadly, I've been involved with far too much litigation over the past 30 years. It is a major part of the motorcycle apparel business. Your correct, "Not Made for Use On a Motorcycle" is for liability. It is also a fact that if this vest worked for use on a motorycle the manufacturer would not make the above statement.)

Wayne--have you examined this particular vest in person? It's worth a look! I think you had a different vest in mind, b/c the tipperary is not soft, puffy, overly thick, etc.
(Yes, I have looked at this vest in person. As mentioned I'm currently working on building a much more protective jacket for horse riders.)

LDB and l2i did an awesome job at researching this product and the tests/levels of protection that relate to it. I learned a lot from their posts (and all L2i's armor rants). I'm a big fan of the vest, I love it... I'm all ears if there's something wrong w/ it that falls within the realm of scientific testing. But all the complaints above sound like cookiecutter gripes--not researched arguments.
(It is great when both LDB and L2Ill post data from other sources. More information about products is always better. The main problem is when L2ILL slanders and creates lies about other products. L2ILL has no credibility. He mixes his opinions and creates lies, he then adds it with the data he gets off other products. The majority of riders can have a hard time separating the lies and misinformation he creates. I've never experienced a character like L2ILL. We don't know if he rides, what he rides, his experience, what he wears and to top it all off he never admits when he is wrong. "He has no character what so ever." 2ILL has been creating lies and has been wrong in every single instance when he says bad things about Cycleport's products.
It would be impossible for the testers at the CE labs to tell you that bumpy armor will cause the rider to tumble. It can cause the rider to tumble even worse if the armor is bumpy and firm. This is something I can tell you from many years of experience. As mentioned before: " You'll never see bumpy armor in any good road racing suits.")
Wayne at Motoport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2006, 01:18 PM   #70
Wayne at Motoport
Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Oddometer: 96
Photo For Confirmation of Valid Testing



The CE Armor Impact Test Machine is good. I've never said that it was bad. This machine is better at testing impact with a higher rate of accuracy.
Do you think 2ILL will stop creating lies and misinformaton about Cycleport's gear? Do you think 2ILL will admit that he was wrong about the impact testing we did on the Tri-Armor? I don't think so.
Wayne at Motoport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2006, 01:41 PM   #71
Wayne at Motoport
Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Oddometer: 96
Impact Data Capture



I'm not going to waste time going over the lies and misinformation in all of L2ILL threads here in the Tipperary Vest topic. Most of my replies would be a repeat. See: Dear Motoport in the Vendor Section, where many of my replies can be found, that apply to armor.

I'm going to go back in history, to the present date and explain how we developed our apparel. This will leave no doubt to the reader the fact that Cycleport/Motoport has by far the most versatile/protective motorcycle apparel on the planet. Again go to Dear Motoport in the vendor section.
Wayne at Motoport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2006, 02:16 PM   #72
license2ill
Banned
 
license2ill's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Oddometer: 715
Great. Now we know they used a machine to show us when the foam inserts break. The only way this relates to motorcylist impact protector tests and standards, CE approval, or torso protection is that it is a drop test machine.

Bumpy?

There is no doubt that the Motoport products should come with a liability disclaimer, and that is what CE approval is all about in Europe. The horse riders standard goes further than the motorcyclist clothing for torso impact protection, and in the US, there is no requirement for any such disclaimer. A horse riders vest is made with specific ergonomic considerations for horse riding use according to the standard, and not submitted for approval to any motoryclist standard in Europe. That is why it will carry that label. You can, however, bet that if any Motoport gear was to be questioned in a US court, the first defense would be that it is not made to be used as crash protection for motorcyclists.

license2ill screwed with this post 12-04-2006 at 02:24 PM
license2ill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2006, 05:44 PM   #73
ldbandit76 OP
Life is good.
 
ldbandit76's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Oddometer: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne at Motoport
It would be impossible for the testers at the CE labs to tell you that bumpy armor will cause the rider to tumble. It can cause the rider to tumble even worse if the armor is bumpy and firm. This is something I can tell you from many years of experience. As mentioned before: " You'll never see bumpy armor in any good road racing suits.")
Yet plenty of moto-specific pads ARE bumpy, such as the CE ones I compare the Tipperary vest to in the beginning of this thread. On top of that, the vest's bumps are one the inside; the outside is smooth. I have trouble believing that a smooth outer surface would contribute to tumbling any more than any other garment.

Yep, it's a vest. It has no sleeves. That much should be obvious. Can we move on?

Regarding the pictures of your machine, those are great, but they don't supply the data from your tests (impact energy) we need to do a apples-to-apples comparison of Tri-Armor and every single other tested product out there. Unless Tri-Armor has been hit at something near 50 J, we have no way of making judgement based on your tests. Sorry Wayne, that's just the way it is.

Speaking of "the way it is," how about letting folks make a personal call about what they want to wear, rather than insisting that your products are the be-all and end-all of riders' clothing, to say nothing of insulting someone who, sad to say, has obviously done a bit more homework than yourself?

No, the Tipperary vest is not a complete, perfect or optimally designed piece of protective equipment. But it does fill a niche that is often left out of other options (wrap-around rib cage protection) and it does so at impressive certified performance values and a reasonable price.

Let it go, Wayne. Everyone who has read this thread this far is reasonably well informed of the pros and cons of both the vest and your products. Your ranting has already cost you at least one potential customer, and it's unlikely you'll sell more suits if you keep it up.

Dave
ldbandit76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2006, 05:34 PM   #74
ndmiller
Gnarly Adventurer
 
ndmiller's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Oddometer: 114
Question % People Wearing Gear

Hate to add to this discussion, but what % of riders even wear the protective gear they may already own and/or are looking to purchase.

I don't know the answer, so noone shoot me, but in terms of percentages I bet it's in the 50s. Keep in mind Harley riders probably don't own the multiple sets of gear ADVRIDERS do (see flea market if you disagree) and may wear what they do have more often as they are always in leather. So they may help bring this number up right?

For me the only protective gear that ever mattered is what I would wear 100% of the time. At this point it's 'Stich sweaty and all in the summer and a little stiff in the winter. Occasionally people I ride with think I am crazy with all that gear on (jeans, t-shirts, gloved types), which prompts me to find other riders.

Both the vest and motoport gear are pretty cool as technology has steady increased potential protection consistently year over year. Since I probably wouldn't wear either 100% they are out sorry.

Noah
ndmiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2006, 06:32 PM   #75
license2ill
Banned
 
license2ill's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Oddometer: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndmiller
Hate to add to this discussion, but what % of riders even wear the protective gear they may already own and/or are looking to purchase.

I don't know the answer, so noone shoot me, but in terms of percentages I bet it's in the 50s. Keep in mind Harley riders probably don't own the multiple sets of gear ADVRIDERS do (see flea market if you disagree) and may wear what they do have more often as they are always in leather. So they may help bring this number up right?

For me the only protective gear that ever mattered is what I would wear 100% of the time. At this point it's 'Stich sweaty and all in the summer and a little stiff in the winter. Occasionally people I ride with think I am crazy with all that gear on (jeans, t-shirts, gloved types), which prompts me to find other riders.

Both the vest and motoport gear are pretty cool as technology has steady increased potential protection consistently year over year. Since I probably wouldn't wear either 100% they are out sorry.

Noah

One of the excuses that many cruiser riders will say about not wearing protective gear is that it isn't nearly effective enough or it doesn't provide enough range of use to be worth the hassle, discomfort, and fashion faux pas.

If it's not effective, it's not a real solution. There are clear limitations and ranges of capability with standardized crash protection equipment. Unfortuantely, for motoryclist use, much of it falls short of any reasonable hopes, especially the stuff that isn't certified to the European standards, regardless of what we think about Euros or bureacracies here, or the denial and justifications some go through to feel comfortable riding and purchasing inferior products with false implications and promises.

There are injury thresholds and ranges of forces that need to be dealt with in order for a piece to be effective. There is no such thing as "better than nothing" with armor. It has an effective range and provides an effect on injuries or it doesn't when met with crash energies. A hard hat will not be effective as a crash helmet, no matter what, it will have no effect at all. Same goes for body impact protectors, once past their capacities for energy management, or transmission above tolerance levels, the effect is nil.

Same goes for Aeroostich or any other products with limitations. It's simply a matter of providing an effect, and providing it through a useful range of scenarios. If it cna't do that, you are fooling yourself and wasting money on something that truly isn't better than nothing, even up to 100% of the time, whether you are willing to wear it or not.
license2ill is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 04:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014