Why I stopped wearing motorcycle body armour

[mangocrazy]

Fort Nine have just dropped a YT video - 'Why I stopped wearing motorcycle body armour'. As with most of their stuff, it's a thought provoking watch:

[ChrisW]

It's a bit of an odd take - I've never really thought that shoulder/elbow/knee/hip armour was going to save me from a fracture in extreme circumstances but I know it will protect against lots of other injuries.

And wearing it isn't really any particular inconvenience to me.

[mangocrazy]

It's a bit of an odd take - I've never really thought that shoulder/elbow/knee/hip armour was going to save me from a fracture in extreme circumstances but I know it will protect against lots of other injuries.

And wearing it isn't really any particular inconvenience to me.

Yes, quite. I think he's really railing against the basic stuff that's fitted to cheap jackets etc. Because the bar has been set low (following industry pressure) there's not a lot of incentive to do better.

[Horse]

Spin can probably give details, IIRC crash & injury evidence is a reduction in soft tissue injury rather than reducing broken bones.

Technically: rounding off the pointy bits. Probably

But you still need a strong suit material, construction and good fit to hold the armour in place.

[Skub]

Back in the late 70s I dumped my Z1 at 120mph wearing regulation leather jacket (no armour) jeans and boots of some kind. I just slid without impacting anything,otherwise I probably wouldn't be typing this. I'd have walked away relatively uninjured,except for abrasion damage to my left knee.
I buffed through the kneecap and the main tendon connecting important stuff and was out of action for the best part of a year. Anecdotal I know,but I wear armour for light impact and mostly abrasion reasons,I'm under no illusion if I hit a car or any road furniture even at modest speeds,armour will not save my old bones. I never believed it would.

It's great for keeping the chill off my knees on a cold day too.

[Rockburner]

Having had a few offs, with and without body armour, I won't ride without it.

[Yorick]

What a stupid article. I raced in 80s when there was none. All my old racing pals have knackered limbs a joints cos of shit protection.

When I'm riding enduro, I'm wearing the best kit I can. I've probably fell off 100 times onto rock hard terrain.
All my pal's are fully kitted up

[Noggin]

It's a bit of an odd take - I've never really thought that shoulder/elbow/knee/hip armour was going to save me from a fracture in extreme circumstances but I know it will protect against lots of other injuries.

And wearing it isn't really any particular inconvenience to me.

Yes, quite. I think he's really railing against the basic stuff that's fitted to cheap jackets etc. Because the bar has been set low (following industry pressure) there's not a lot of incentive to do better.

I totally do not disagree with good armour. But I know I’ve said this before, I do 100% blame the severity of my injury on shitty cheap hard plastic shoulder armour along with it not actually staying over my shoulder

A few years ago I was given some really heavy armour (think squash ball material but heavy!) and I have that in my jacket now. If I could remember the make I’d get some for the other jacket and the knee pockets on my jeans.

Armour is great - cheap shitty armour is a liability

[Supermofo]

I think the armour does do a job, it's just not the job most people think it is. I think most people relate impact with broken bones and that's very unlikely as hitting something at 30mph + is much more force than a bit of armour is gonna stop. However, it'll help some impacts like hitting the floor in a slide and help with abrasion. On that basis I'm all for it as any little helps. In my one proper off no armour would have helped as I hit a car boot slap bang in the middle of my upper arm where there isn't any armour.

Not watched the video yet ( I will as like FortNine) but it sounds a bit click bait as removing the armour would probably significantly reduce abrasion resistance.

[Flux]

I don't consider myself an equipment/ protection nazi, wear what you want, but I've learnt the hard way over the years that protection definitely helps.
The pic is my mtb armour but still a very similar principle imo, took a tumble at Dyfi and landed on a rock, elbow hurt all day and when I took my armour off there was some damage, but without the armour I think I'd have shattered my elbow...

[Rockburner]

Fort Nine have just dropped a YT video - 'Why I stopped wearing motorcycle body armour'. As with most of their stuff, it's a thought provoking watch:

(now I've watched it)...


He's basically saying: "The standard is crap, because it's a manufacturer lobbied, protectionist standard, rather than a standard that's actually meaningful and can provide genuine impact protection". (something I think Varnsverry (?) has been saying for a while)

It's aimed more at shaming the manufacturers, and he does point out that there IS better protection on the market than what is provided as "oe" by the garment manufacturers.

[Rockburner]

I think the armour does do a job, it's just not the job most people think it is. I think most people relate impact with broken bones and that's very unlikely as hitting something at 30mph + is much more force than a bit of armour is gonna stop. However, it'll help some impacts like hitting the floor in a slide and help with abrasion. On that basis I'm all for it as any little helps. In my one proper off no armour would have helped as I hit a car boot slap bang in the middle of my upper arm where there isn't any armour.

Not watched the video yet ( I will as like FortNine) but it sounds a bit click bait as removing the armour would probably significantly reduce abrasion resistance.

I've had at least 1 off at 80mph where the armour in my jeans saved my knee from being damaged (the armour and denim was torn asunder, but my knee suffered nothing more than a graze), and an accident at less than 30 mph wearing Levi's jeans that nearly ripped my leg off at the knee.

I'm sticking with the armour thanks.

[Supermofo]

I'm sticking with the armour thanks.

Me too.

[mangocrazy]

He's basically saying: "The standard is crap, because it's a manufacturer lobbied, protectionist standard, rather than a standard that's actually meaningful and can provide genuine impact protection". (something I think Varnsverry (?) has been saying for a while)

It's aimed more at shaming the manufacturers, and he does point out that there IS better protection on the market than what is provided as "oe" by the garment manufacturers.

Exactly this ^^^

He's saying that cheap, crap armour is scarcely better than no armour, but good armour is definitely worth having. It's also a none too subtle dig at the regulators, who've basically been hoodwinked. 'Regulatory capture' was the takeaway phrase for me.

[Horse]

There is a fundamental flaw at the basis of FortNine’s assertions. Mention of the 4kN transmitted force value for equestrian body protectors, which applies to constructions that cover the ribs, which FortNine suggests should also be applied to motorcyclists’ impact protectors, has been conflated by Ryan and by many respondents in the comments to apply to limb joint impact protectors, where the actual transmitted force requirement in the equestrian standard is < 25kN, albeit from an impact energy 10J higher than that specified in the motorcycle limb joint impact protector standard.

Few respondents are supporting his suggestion to abandon limb joint impact protectors - and they are right to do so! There is currently a CEN ballot to determine if several of the motorcycle clothing and equipment standards should be revised (including the limb and back protector standards). The opportunity exists to make suitable improvements, particularly in the area of protective coverage for taller and larger riders (what purpose is there in adding higher impact performance requirements if the standard permits sizes of protectors that do not provide sufficient coverage?), and I’d like to see more involvement in this on the part of riders’ groups.

[MrLongbeard]

There is a fundamental flaw at the basis of FortNine’s assertions. Mention of the 4kN transmitted force value for equestrian body protectors, which applies to constructions that cover the ribs, which FortNine suggests should also be applied to motorcyclists’ impact protectors, has been conflated by Ryan and by many respondents in the comments to apply to limb joint impact protectors, where the actual transmitted force requirement in the equestrian standard is < 25kN, albeit from an impact energy 10J higher than that specified in the motorcycle limb joint impact protector standard.

Few respondents are supporting his suggestion to abandon limb joint impact protectors - and they are right to do so! There is currently a CEN ballot to determine if several of the motorcycle clothing and equipment standards should be revised (including the limb and back protector standards). The opportunity exists to make suitable improvements, particularly in the area of protective coverage for taller and larger riders (what purpose is there in adding higher impact performance requirements if the standard permits sizes of protectors that do not provide sufficient coverage?), and I’d like to see more involvement in this on the part of riders’ groups.

Not as long as industry think it'll cost them money.

[Horse]

A disappointing approach from an influencer who could have taken the story in many more productive directions. Was this a way of increasing hits and traffic to the Fortnine YouTube page? It definitely increased discussions in forums that would drive traffic in the F9 direction.

I was concerned that Ryan only partially quoted the de Rome et al 2011 paper. He highlighted the lack of significant risk reduction for fractures but failed to mention the 60-70% risk reduction for other injuries when impact protectors were worn. I made sure that I commented on it on YouTube.

This is not the only video of Ryans that I have not been happy about. He also incorrectly described the grip/slip phenomenon for stretchy materials in his previous video a few weeks earlier. He used a lot of graphs to back up his claims but the nub of it was that he described and used it incorrectly.

[Hot_Air]

I’ll praise the video: Ryan put his head above the parapet by highlighting regulatory capture with manufacturers setting the CE standards. (Manufacturers outnumber everyone else on the CE and BSI standards committees. And Dainese chaired the CE standards committee.)

@Horse While armour provides abrasion resistance, it’s neither tested nor certified for it. Instead, our armour is certified and marketed for impact protection — inferring reduced fracture risk.

Roderick Woods developed a Level 3 armour standard, and Paul Varnsverry argued for more appropriately-sized armour; both were blocked by regulatory capture.

[Horse]

@Horse While armour provides abrasion resistance, it’s neither tested nor certified for it. Instead, our armour is certified and marketed for impact protection — inferring reduced fracture risk.

If I gave the impression that armour itself is intended to, or does, provide substantial abrasion resistance, that was unintentional.

Coincidental that impact absorbing armour aids abrasion resistance!

What I meant (as in the 'pointy bits') is that the armour made create a larger surface / contact area.

As the old saying:

"Scuff a lot of leather a little bit, not a little bit a lot"

[MrLongbeard]

Coincidental that impact absorbing armour aids abrasion resistance!

Here's a thought.....

Is the trend towards lighter, thinner, more flexible armour materials (D3O etc.) having a negative trend with regards to abrasion resistance? Are we sacrificing unintentional abrasion resistance in chasing a questionable higher impact resistance when we ditch the bulky hard OEM CE1 armour?