Airbags expanding

[Horse]

Airbags don't solve everything. They don't purport to.

Dainese say:

Experience the highest level of safety for use in any situation on the road.​

A* say:
Offering instantaneous, high-pressure inflatable protection Tech-Air® gives the rider comprehensive protection in a crash

A tad naughty chopping off the qualification from the end of the A* sentence
I do agree it's marketing speak etc but they don't claim it covers arms, legs, etc

"Offering instantaneous, high-pressure inflatable protection Tech-Air® gives the rider comprehensive protection in a crash by covering the full back, shoulders, kidney areas and chest."

Not really. 'What' protection? Research quoted by both me and HA has shown that it is only likely to be given at low speeds - and the advertising notably fails to give any detail of what injury reduction might be provided. Hardly 'comprehensive' information.

[Horse]

I was wrong: there's a CE standard for motorcycle airbags (EN 1621-4). It may have been written in days of yore - when tethered airbags were trendsetting - but it specifies minimum requirements for deployment speed, protection and coverage. It contains the requirements for the performance of the system during an accident and details of the test methods, etc. I bet it's a thrilling read

But according to the sacred writings of Motorcycle News, airbags don't need to be homologated to it. I wonder why

MCN: Exploding the myths: Everything you need to know about motorbike airbag vests

I was bored Which led to this train of web pages and 'spot the difference' quotes:

SPIDI Air DPS: the latest evolution of the DPS system, the airbag vest certified according to En 1624-2: 2013 FB, the only European standard that guarantees the performance of a motorcycle airbag.

EQUAIRBAG has the double CERTIFICATION
PROTECTIVE AIRBAG SYSTEM (EN1621/4)
APPROVAL FOR EQUESTRIAN USE
Airbag system are divided in 2 categories: EN1621/4 certificated (and protective) and not certificated.
Since 2013, the only European Standard to test airbag system is EN1621/4:2013 (for motorcyclist use). EN1621/4 certificated airbag system shall be labelled with the relevant pictogram which grant the safety features to the customers. In case of Equestrian use the APPROVED FOR EQUESTRIAN USE shall be indicated.
In order to avoid that each airbag system manufacturers test in independent way, there is a new unique European standard called EN1621/4:2013 “Motorcyclists' protective clothing against mechanical impact-Part 4: Inflatable Motorcyclists' protectors-Requirements and test methods”.

DIN EN 1624
Textiles and textile products - Burning behaviour of industrial and technical textiles - Procedure to determine the flame spread of vertically oriented specimens;

[Hot_Air]

Airbags don't solve everything. They don't purport to. If they help a bit then its surely just down to the individual on whether that extra bit of help is worth the expense.

I agree. And nobody's claiming that D-Air or Tech-Air will prevent a broken leg . I've never heard anyone talk about airbags as magical protection (unlike traction control, which I have heard people say "lets them push harder").

Not really. 'What' protection? Research quoted by both me and HA has shown that it is only likely to be given at low speeds - and the advertising notably fails to give any detail of what injury reduction might be provided. Hardly 'comprehensive' information.

Considering it's marketing-speak, I think Alpinestars has been clear: it provides the equivalent impact absorption to eighteen (CE1) back protectors. And Astars makes it plain that "comprehensive" refers to torso coverage.

Which bike gear details its injury reduction? None that I can think of. Even the very best leathers, like BKS and Hideout, state their CE level but nothing about injury reduction.

[The Spin Doctor]

Considering it's marketing-speak, I think Alpinestars has been clear: it provides the equivalent impact absorption to eighteen (CE1) back protectors.

Eighteen times better...

...than what?

As you have no idea have much impact absorption ONE back protector offers, telling you the airbag is 18x better is meaningless.

You need a referent.

[Horse]

Even the very best leathers, like BKS and Hideout, state their CE level but nothing about injury reduction.

That's a good point, although there's plenty of supporting evidence that well constructed gear can substantially affect abrasion injury. Which is why, years ago, it was made illegal to advertise as providing protection if the gear isn't CE'd for construction.

Airbag gear is being advertised as protective (albeit with, apparently, no equivalent CE requirement). Like this, showing all the bits covered:



Why show that if not suggesting (without any detail) of the jacket providing protection/ injury reduction? Supported by text:
HELITE Airbag Protection:
In case of a fall, the Turtle 2 vest inflates a significant volume that distributes the energy of impacts very effectively.

Dainese state:
seriously effective protection

As you say: advertising.

[Hot_Air]

Correctly, the D-Air, Tech-Air and E-Turtle are all CE-certified as motorcycle airbags (EN 1621-4). What’s more, the Dainese certified its D-Air Street to the higher CE standard (Airbag Level 2).

But In&Motion isn’t CE-marked (yet it’s sold as personal protective equipment). The MCN article said that motorcycle airbags don’t have to be CE-marked: how can this be?

[Horse]

https://www.hsimagazine.com/article/ce- ... f-ppe-494/

For some years now it has been illegal to place an item of PPE on the market in a European state unless it carries the CE mark. However, many manufacturers are only vaguely aware of the requirements and their obligations.

Published: 10th Oct 2006! When did the 'protection' = CE requirement come in for bike clothing?

[Hot_Air]

You need a referent.

Well, I've read (in full) the evidence published to date. And I reckon airbags give valuable protection to the torso for impacts <30 mph.

In contrast, there's growing evidence that regular armour is ineffective because the CE-standards need beefing up (or, in the case of back protectors, the standard needs a rethink). It consigns armour's value to abrasion resistance for when, all-too-often, textiles have inadequate abrasion resistance.

Obviously: airbags aren't a forcefield, can't protect from the most common injuries (lower leg), and it' s better not to crash (advanced training may be a better investment).

Focusing on seriously injured victims (AIS3+), the thorax was the most frequently injured body region and the abdomen also sustained an important number of injuries. These results were in agreement with the work of Moskal et al. (2007), which focused on severely injured victims(AIS4+), and the MAIDS project (MAIDS, 2009). The multiple injuries reported at the trunk level have important implications as far as supporting the implementation of safety devices is concerned. Based on their frequency, severity and locations, airbag technology, by offering extended protective areas, appears as a promising alternative to prevent PTW trunk injuries.

The French government (Sécurité Routière) seems to agree, and ran an advertising campaign to persuade riders to wear an airbag. Can you imagine the Department of Transport doing the same?

[The Spin Doctor]

Define "valuable".

It's like saying a bike is "fast".

20 mph is fast if you are a pedestrian moving at 3 mph.

[Horse]

Can you imagine the Department of Transport doing the same?

Highways England near enough?

[Horse]

You need a referent.

And I reckon airbags give valuable protection to the torso for impacts <30 mph.

In contrast, there's growing evidence that regular armour is ineffective because the CE-standards need beefing up

If airbags are better than just armour, but still only protect at slow speeds, that is pretty much what Spin has been saying about armour for years.

[Hot_Air]

He has, and I agree: a few millimetres of viscoelastic ain't gonna win against a high-speed impact with a truck. But I'd add that (for lesser-but-all-too-common crashes) a small change in the CE-standard could make a big difference.

Bianca Albanese et al's work (2017) is hugely significant because it found: maximum force transmitted is associated with the chance of impact injury, and the CE-standard sets this bar too low for injury reduction:

• "as maximum force transmitted increased, the odds of impact injury increased (95% CI: 1.01–1.2). These results indicate a high probability of impact injury at 50 kN, the limit of maximum transmitted force specified in EN 1621-1."

• They also found no association between the average transmitted force, but a significant association between the maximum transmitted force and impact injury. The CE standard tests both. But Bianca Albanese's work suggests that - when testing armour - maximum transmitted force matters more.

In short, the CE-standard for body armour could be revised to reduce the odds of impact injury significantly (by merely changing one criterion: the maximum transmitted force).

[Horse]

... a few millimetres of viscoelastic ...

And that could be an issue. Higher impact absorption will (presumably, until someone invents a new wonder material) require much thicker pads. Amongst other things, achieving both the 'Incredible Hulk' and 'sought after child-bearing hips' appearances.

On the subject of manufacturers knowing, and so selling, what's best for road riders: no-one on-road needs an aerodynamic 'hump' at the back of their neck - in fact, post-crash, it can be harmful (see Dr John Hinds video).

[Hot_Air]

Thanks, I haven't seen John Hinds' video; have you got a link?

And that could be an issue.

Not necessarily. Existing armour could already be up to scratch: some SAS-Tec armour already exceeds CE2 by 40-50% and I think the best of D30's range also exceeds CE2 by a considerable margin. For example, Klim's Badlands Pro jacket uses this D30 and its impact protection score in MotoCAP testing is massively better than, say, the CE1 stuff tested in Dainese jackets. All armour is not created equal.

Maximum transmitted force (MotoCAP test results):

• Klim Badlands Pro jacket (Aero Pro D30 elbow armour): 12 kN force transmitted to your elbow

• Dainese Air-Frame jacket (Dainese elbow armour): 52 kN force transmitted to your poor elbow (ouch!)

For protectors that are similar in size, thickness and comfort, it's a helluva difference in protection!

[Horse]

Fair enough. I'd presumed (never do this, it makes 'pres' out of you and me. What? ) that the suggested 3rd level would be above what is already available.

[And another indictment of manufacturers having their customers survival at the heart of what they do .... ]

[The Spin Doctor]

But what do 12 and 52 kilonewtons actually MEAN?

Assuming (with all the pitfalls) we're talking about an impact in line with body > tarmac from the height of a highside...

Is it the difference between an oops and an ouch?

Is it the difference between a bruise and a fracture?

Is it the difference between a fracture and a shattered bone?

Simply quoting numbers is meaningless, however impressive the manufacturer tells you they are, if you don't have any frame of reference in which to hang them... as I said several posts ago.

[Hot_Air]

It's meaningful. The odds ratio figures out if a particular exposure (in this case, maximum transmitted force) is a risk factor for a particular outcome (impact injury).

In summary:

1. Bianca Albanese et al found the lower the armour's maximum transmitted force, the lower the risk of impact injury.
2. But – and I believe this finding is a critical – there's a threshold. The maximum transmitted force allowed by the CE standard isn't good enough to make a difference. In short, the current CE standard sets the bar so low that it makes no difference to the odds ratio (i.e. it doesn't reduce your risk of impact injury). By the way, this finding may explain Liz de Rome's result.

Hence the CE standard needs updating by reducing the maximum transmitted force allowed. And as individual riders, we can buy the best CE2 armour we can afford (e.g. checking the info given by manufacturers like SAS-TEC or, better yet, any test results from MotoCAP).

Simply quoting numbers is meaningless, however impressive the manufacturer tells you they are

Incidentally, I used numbers from MotoCAP (not manufacturers). And I'm gobsmacked at the huge difference between armour of similar thickness: both Aero Pro D30 and SAS-TEC's snappily named SC-1/Evo armour are over 400% better than Dainese's regular armour!

[Horse]

1. Bianca Albanese et al found the lower the armour's maximum transmitted force, the lower the risk of impact injury.
2. But – and I believe this is a critical finding – there's a threshold. The maximum transmitted force allowed by the CE standard isn't good enough to make a difference. In short, the current CE standard sets the bar so low that it makes no difference to the odds ratio (i.e. it doesn't reduce your risk of impact injury). By the way, this finding may explain Liz de Rome's result.

Although the bolded bit is slightly 'no shit, Sherlock', I can see what you're getting at. Presumably, the values in the current standard were pragmatic based on what the materials then available?

[Noggin]

But what do 12 and 52 kilonewtons actually MEAN?

Assuming (with all the pitfalls) we're talking about an impact in line with body > tarmac from the height of a highside...

Is it the difference between an oops and an ouch?

Is it the difference between a bruise and a fracture?

Is it the difference between a fracture and a shattered bone? manufacturer tells you they are, if you don't have any frame of reference in which to hang them... as I said several posts ago.

I'm still pretty convinced that badly fitting hard armour was the difference in my case!! Jacket big enough to do up so was too loose over the shoulders.

I've been given some softer armour but also bought a mesh top with armour that will stay in place and everything goes under my jacket


Everything to do with armour/airbags depends on what type of crash/landing the person has. For the damage I sustained, I've been amazed that it wasn't worse, I didn't hit my head, there was no other damage!!

So you can only go with what makes you feel that it will work, but there are no guaranteed, IMO

Simply quoting numbers is meaningless, however impressive the manufacturer tells you they are, if you don't have any frame of reference in which to hang them... as I said several posts ago.

Abso-blooming-lutely!!!

[The Spin Doctor]

It's meaningful.

It isn't.

All you know is that one is better than the other by some margin.

You still have no scale on which to hang 'better' on.

It's like saying "my mug of tea is x degrees hotter than yours". You're not going to want to drink EITHER cup of tea if they are closer to absolute zero than tepid!