Chris Hurren's MotoCAP lab visit

[The Spin Doctor]

Here are two of my Elevenses videos that cover my recent visit to Prof Chris Hurren's MotoCAP testing facility at Deakin University in Geelong.

Last Sunday I covered waterproofing and abrasion resistance. Today I'm looking at the other testing Chris performs including how well clothing handles humidity (generally not too well, in my experience), burst strength of seams as well as testing impact protectors - in particular I’ll be talking about the big strides that have been made with body armour and why you should be thinking of upgrading if your armour is more than a couple of years old, particularly if you're female.

Part one

[media]https://youtube.com/live/FP7YRlAh-lI[/media]

Part two

[media]https://youtube.com/live/a3FhnWlrxqM[/media]


If you've any questions I'll try to answer, or pass them to the experts!

[Hot_Air]

testing impact protectors - in particular I’ll be talking about the big strides that have been made with body armour and why you should be thinking of upgrading if your armour is more than a couple of years old, particularly if you're female.

Could you elaborate? And how does being make or female matter?

I wonder how much the current impact absorption standards help. All the evidence I’ve seen is that armour doesn’t reduce fracture risk. That’s any fracture risk, including merely falling from the saddle onto the road at low speeds. (Boots are the exception, as there’s evidence armoured boots are associated with fewer fractures.)

Also, there’s peer-reviewed evidence that the standard for CE level 1 is too low to make any difference.

Cambridge University’s Roderick Woods had proposed Level 3 armour, but Dainese and Alpinestars vetoed it becoming a CE standard.

[The Spin Doctor]

Chris pointed out that ladies clothing tends to sit on the shelf for longer, and with big strides being made in improving armour recently, your kit is likely to be fitted with protectors from the previous generation. The latest protectors seem to be exceeding Level 2 by a considerable margin.

I'm glad someone else has finally noticed that body armour doesn't prevent fractures resulting from bike crashes, though I'm pretty sure it works for low speed topples. I managed to fall sideways off the bike at a standstill last October (forgot the disc lock doh) and landed on my knee and didn't feel a thing.

[Horse]

I'm glad someone else has finally noticed that body armour doesn't prevent fractures

Wasn't that a finding from Liz DeRome's work, couple of years ago?

Re age of kit, didn't some of the older stuff gradually degrade, especially if ever damp?

[Horse]

Nope, Rebecca Ivers

https://www.georgeinstitute.org/project ... gear-study

[Hot_Air]

I'm glad someone else has finally noticed that body armour doesn't prevent fractures resulting from bike crashes, though I'm pretty sure it works for low speed topples.

Several studies — from France to Australia — show that motorcyclists’ body armour doesn’t reduce the risk of fracture, dislocation, or sprains.*

Liz de Rome found no evidence of reducing the risk of fractures associated with body armour.

Another study showed the CE level 1 standard is too low to make any difference; the CE standard’s allowable transmitted force is too high. It went on to say the CE standard could be fixed: reducing the standard’s maximum force limit would improve rider protection and appears feasible.

And another study found the transmitted force varies by body part, presumably because our shoulders and elbows have different levels of pointiness or are subject to different crash forces. CE-standard body armour reduced transmitted force to the shoulder by just 8 per cent!

And so on.

* Except for armoured boots of reasonable height: they lower the risk of ankle/foot fracture.

[Horse]

presumably because our shoulders and elbows have different levels of pointiness or are subject to different crash forces.

But what armour may do is help reduce that 'point' loading to reduce abrasion by spreading the load over a bigger area.

Abrade a lot a little bit rather than a little bit a lot.

[The Spin Doctor]

And another study found the transmitted force varies by body part, presumably because our shoulders and elbows have different levels of pointiness or are subject to different crash forces. CE-standard body armour reduced transmitted force to the shoulder by just 8 per cent!

And so on.

* Except for armoured boots of reasonable height: they lower the risk of ankle/foot fracture.

But it's the pointiness that means that's where we're likely to land in the first place, so that's why those areas - elbows, shoulders, hips, knees - have impact armour specified in the original CE standard.

Speaking to Paul Varnsverry and Chris Hurren recently, they both said that some the latest body armour significantly exceeds the Level 2 standard. D3O was one brand mentioned. There are others which they also rated highly. But they are NOT a forcefield.

Ladies kit sits on shelves longer, are often fitted with the smaller protectors too.

Older body armour does degrade too, even sitting on the shelf. My guess would be that the foam armours are probably worse affected than the polymer types, though I could be wrong on that.

In use, the foam armour used in my Aerostich (which THEY rate highly even if it's not been CE tested) simply disintegrated where it flexed. I had to replace that with some Hiprotec (remember that?) just a couple of years after buying the suit.

[The Spin Doctor]

presumably because our shoulders and elbows have different levels of pointiness or are subject to different crash forces.

But what armour may do is help reduce that 'point' loading to reduce abrasion by spreading the load over a bigger area.

Abrade a lot a little bit rather than a little bit a lot.

Armour certainly helps as a secondary sacrificial layer behind the outer abrasion resistant layer in less abrasion resistant clothing.

[Horse]

presumably because our shoulders and elbows have different levels of pointiness or are subject to different crash forces.

But what armour may do is help reduce that 'point' loading to reduce abrasion by spreading the load over a bigger area.

Abrade a lot a little bit rather than a little bit a lot.

Armour certainly helps as a secondary sacrificial layer behind the outer abrasion resistant layer in less abrasion resistant clothing.

My point was more about smoothing/rounding potential 'point' wear sites.

[The Spin Doctor]

But what armour may do is help reduce that 'point' loading to reduce abrasion by spreading the load over a bigger area.

Abrade a lot a little bit rather than a little bit a lot.

Armour certainly helps as a secondary sacrificial layer behind the outer abrasion resistant layer in less abrasion resistant clothing.

My point was more about smoothing/rounding potential 'point' wear sites.

OIC... by rounding out that clothing itself.