ADVrider

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-20-2012, 08:38 PM   #46
ranmafan OP
Gnarly Adventurer
 
ranmafan's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Cowtown, Canada
Oddometer: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by MZ5 View Post
I understand your point. OTOH, you and I are in North America (assuming we both are honest and current in our profile info), which means that there is zero legal responsibility either way.
Actually, this does need clarification. That is, what happens if a rogue manufacturer outside of EU (well, China aside...) slaps a fake CE tag on their clothing or armour?

My gut feeling is that you could go after them in a variety of ways, possibly trademark infringement or breach of contract (from the EU side) or false advertising (from the home country's side), although it may not be financially worthwhile for the EU side to bother. I'll try to find an answer...
ranmafan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 11:13 AM   #47
genka
SUV hater
 
genka's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD
Oddometer: 1,471
I noticed that TCX boots are in the list. I checked mu Airtech Gore Tex, and they have CE label. Not surprising because these boots sacrifice protection for comfort. TCX web site doesn't tell which models are certified.
__________________
.

Форум мотоциклистов в США http://www.xytopok.net/mvnforum/listthreads?forum=31
genka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 11:54 PM   #48
ranmafan OP
Gnarly Adventurer
 
ranmafan's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Cowtown, Canada
Oddometer: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by genka View Post
I noticed that TCX boots are in the list. I checked mu Airtech Gore Tex, and they have CE label. Not surprising because these boots sacrifice protection for comfort. TCX web site doesn't tell which models are certified.
They do, actually. Last line of the specs, "CE certification". They don't specify which standard or level, though, so it's probably 2002. Seems like quite a few of their boots have it, too.

(I have... TCS Evo-something, I think? From back before the A-stars dispute. Mine don't actually have a tag, the CE mark is printed alongside the zipper. Love them, by the way - they're not waterproof, but very breathable in any weather - and I *really* hate sweaty feet.)

ranmafan screwed with this post 04-22-2012 at 12:03 AM
ranmafan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2012, 07:49 PM   #49
ranmafan OP
Gnarly Adventurer
 
ranmafan's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Cowtown, Canada
Oddometer: 141
So I've made a bit of progress finding answers to the issues raised above...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MZ5 View Post
OTOH, you and I are in North America (assuming we both are honest and current in our profile info), which means that there is zero legal responsibility either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranmafan View Post
That is, what happens if a rogue manufacturer outside of EU (well, China aside...) slaps a fake CE tag on their clothing or armour?
First of all, it does look like the "CE mark" is either a trademark already, or will become one soon: "... the CE marking is to be protected as a trade mark, which will give authorities and competitors additional means to take legal action against abuse... ". IANAL, but I doubt they'll take very kindly to just sticking it on your product's ads for no good reason, either.

Furthermore, EU has a number of "Agreements on Mutual Recognition of Conformity Assessment" with various countries, Canada/US included. I'm not entirely sure whether that applies to CE marking in general, or just specific standards mentioned in the agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ranmafan View Post
With regards to info about the actual process of certification, it would indeed be very nice to put together a more detailed explanation (okay, I'm sure that'll take more than a few posts), including some general idea of the cost. That is, one that a small manufacturer outside of Europe could use as a guide for their own products.
Turns out NIST (in the US) has published a brochure on this topic. The interesting bit is the term "competent body". Most of the explanations I could find only refer to the Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive, where CBs play a special role; but it sounds like - in theory - the testing could actually be done by a lab in the US, instead of sending samples to a "Notified body" in the EU.
ranmafan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2012, 10:23 PM   #50
ranmafan OP
Gnarly Adventurer
 
ranmafan's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Cowtown, Canada
Oddometer: 141
It just occurred to me that most people coming across this thread likely have absolutely no idea what it is about or why it is needed.

Added a brief intro.
ranmafan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2012, 10:45 PM   #51
keiji
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Oddometer: 969
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranmafan View Post
It just occurred to me that most people coming across this thread likely have absolutely no idea what it is about or why it is needed.

Added a brief intro.
It probably would be good to mention the naming conventions as I see people get it wrong all the time.
IE:
EN-13595-1 is the GENERAL requirements for motorcyclist PPE
EN-13595-2 is the TEST METHOD for abrasion
EN-13595-3 is the TEST METHOD for burst strength of seams
EN-13595-4 is the TEST METHOD for cut resistance

Meeting Level 1 or Level 2 is outlined IN EN 13595-1

Similarly,

EN 1621-1 are the requirements and test methods for LIMB impact protectors. Up until the beginning of this year, only one level of performance existed-a "level 2" was only in draft form.

EN 1621-2 are the requirements for BACK protectors which possesses two levels of performance.
keiji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2012, 11:01 PM   #52
ranmafan OP
Gnarly Adventurer
 
ranmafan's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Cowtown, Canada
Oddometer: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by keiji View Post
It probably would be good to mention the naming conventions as I see people get it wrong all the time.
IE:
EN-13595-1 is the GENERAL requirements for motorcyclist PPE
EN-13595-2 is the TEST METHOD for abrasion
Ugh, good point, it does cause a lot of confusion.

I might have to dedicate a separate page/wiki (offsite) to all the detailed explanations, though. I don't want to scare everybody off with walls of text in the main post...
ranmafan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 08:00 AM   #53
MZ5
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Location: Arizona, USA
Oddometer: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranmafan View Post
...but it sounds like - in theory - the testing could actually be done by a lab in the US, instead of sending samples to a "Notified body" in the EU.
Sure; quite easily. They'd just have to pay the money for licensing (or whatever they choose to call it), and most likely be subject to testing of their testing, so to speak, which I expect isn't no-charge. All for a certification mark that means zip-o in N. America, and (as is obvious in the marketplace in general) nobody here cares about. Well, clearly a few of us do, but generally speaking the market is looking for fashion, not performance.

Anyway, I do appreciate the intent/effort of the thread.
MZ5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 12:00 PM   #54
ranmafan OP
Gnarly Adventurer
 
ranmafan's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Cowtown, Canada
Oddometer: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by MZ5 View Post
Well, clearly a few of us do, but generally speaking the market is looking for fashion, not performance.
Sadly, this is true.

Email replied to.
ranmafan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 02:19 PM   #55
velocitygear
safety =~SPEED
 
velocitygear's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Spokane, WA
Oddometer: 621
another "Business"

Part of my issues with CE certification is the value that Satra and other applicable testing facilities place on their given certifications. That is; they have no problem testing products in exchange for good money but beyond that, they have zero desire to make CE Certification a "legitimate" label.

I speak from specific experience in regard to SATRA and back protectors they have tested and certified in Pakistan. Their desire to enforce their certifications or at least pretend to is non-existent. They also have no problem being quiet when it comes to the "reality" of Pakistan and the certifications they have given there.

Look on Ebay and Amazon.com and you'll find plenty of CE claims that can even be backed up by a Certificate but are assuredly sub-par products. These products exist, so blatantly because the certifying bodies do nothing to enforce their certifications. I had to literally wrestle SATRA UK into sending a Pakistani manufacturer an email in regard to a back protector that had tested horribly. This was a long time ago and I was just starting to understand the CE process but quickly learned it's just another business.

They freely admit no ongoing compliance testing, that in itself makes the CE label worthless imo...

As I said previously, it's the "test's" that I care about. Not the "certification". I would only certify my gloves if I had a European Distributor, otherwise there's no point...
__________________
Motorcycle Gear Built for Progression
safety -> = ~SPEED.....

Motorcycle Gloves
www.highvelocitygear.com

velocitygear screwed with this post 04-23-2012 at 06:10 PM
velocitygear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 10:29 PM   #56
ranmafan OP
Gnarly Adventurer
 
ranmafan's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Cowtown, Canada
Oddometer: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by velocitygear View Post
As I said previously, it's the "test's" that I care about. Not the "certification".
As I have attempted to explain above, from a consumer's point of view, both are quite important (and - IMNSHO - almost equally so).

Issues with compliance/enforcement aren't news - they've been around as long as the CE mark itself (especially with products that are "self-certified"). I'd wager that the wording and source of the complaint make a big difference, ahem. However, none of this means that a honest manufacturer shouldn't respect it the same way as a trademark, at least.
ranmafan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 11:09 PM   #57
ranmafan OP
Gnarly Adventurer
 
ranmafan's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Cowtown, Canada
Oddometer: 141
Had a look at the XPD XP-7 tag, courtesy MZ5.

Both the tag and the CE mark are looking rather fishy. Will need to email them for clarification.

EDIT: The "EN3886 (cutting)" is likely "EN388, Part 6.2 - cutting resistance" - a glove standard, of all things! In which case, "Level 2" would mean that these boots have twice the cutting resistance of cotton fabric... not terribly impressive.

EDIT2: Figured most of this out. The tag itself is correct, the levels in EN13634:2002 do exist - defined by the EN13595 abrasion and cut tests.

ranmafan screwed with this post 04-24-2012 at 12:45 AM
ranmafan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2012, 05:42 AM   #58
Happycamper
Have bikes, will travel
 
Happycamper's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Peoples Republic of Cambridge MA
Oddometer: 551
I've got to disagree with you here.It is how the gear performs when call upon that matters, not the formal certification. All the certification does is inform you that the gear met the certification requirements. However, there are always going to be products w/o certification that can perform just as well/better and have passed the same tests to prove it.

And the tests themselves matter. Any testing that drives certification needs to reflect real-world usage in crashes. Remember Snell being exposed for having an impractical standard that resulted Snell cetified helmets not performing as well as DOT only helmets? http://lic.abateflorida.com/Library/...gTheLidOff.pdf

I assume the testing regime does reflect how gear is subjected to stress in crashes, but thought I'd throw that out there as well to remind people not to be too complacent about certifications. They are not the end all be all.


[QUOTE=ranmafan;18529504]As I have attempted to explain above, from a consumer's point of view, both are quite important (and - IMNSHO - almost equally so).

[QUOTE]
__________________
Happycamper

2007 G650 Xchallenge
2009 F800GS

Happycamper screwed with this post 04-24-2012 at 09:29 AM
Happycamper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2012, 09:18 AM   #59
genka
SUV hater
 
genka's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD
Oddometer: 1,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranmafan View Post
They do, actually. Last line of the specs, "CE certification". They don't specify which standard or level, though, so it's probably 2002. Seems like quite a few of their boots have it, too.

(I have... TCS Evo-something, I think? From back before the A-stars dispute. Mine don't actually have a tag, the CE mark is printed alongside the zipper. Love them, by the way - they're not waterproof, but very breathable in any weather - and I *really* hate sweaty feet.)
I rechecked mine-no CE mark anywhere. They were made back in 2008, maybe they got certified later.
I admittedly didn't read the EN- publications, but looking at my boots I'd say CE certifications aren't worth crap. The boots are very soft and flexible, ankles are protected by thin soft rubber disks. The only inflexible part is the rear half of the sole. I don't think I had less protection in any motorcycle boots I owned. But they are very comfortable in hot weather and waterproof.
__________________
.

Форум мотоциклистов в США http://www.xytopok.net/mvnforum/listthreads?forum=31
genka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2012, 10:19 AM   #60
ranmafan OP
Gnarly Adventurer
 
ranmafan's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Cowtown, Canada
Oddometer: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happycamper View Post
I've got to disagree with you here.It is how the gear performs when call upon that matters, not the formal certification. All the certification does is inform you that the gear met the certification requirements.
And I agree with that, of course. But the point I was trying to make, in a few words, is that without the certification itself, there's no way to tell if the gear you buy is the same as the gear that was tested.
ranmafan 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 01:34 AM.


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